As a note of Introduction, it is interest to keep in mind that Matt 16 who has provided a forum for the anti SSPX articles himself has not only refused to publish our response but also along with Mr. John Loughnan (who has not been able to respond to our article) continue to publish there errors regardless of the truth of the matter, since truth is not there motive but simply some sort of superficial obedience to an ecumenical hierarchy which has abandoned all for the sake of false unity. In the end it comes down to being in union with truth and errors as the SSPX is simply a secondary issue which must be understood in order refute those who seek to use it as a means of rejecting the faith of 2000 years.

Dear Mr. John Loughnan

We apologies for the late reply,

We appreciate your concern with regards to the issue of the Society of St. Pius X and so we have taken the time to answer your letter in order to clarify your misconception of the matter.

Re: Section 1 - Examples of "Traditionalist Flat Earthisms?

Note in all sections only a response will be given to your points assuming you have a copy of the original.

1. The Latin Mass is The Mass of the Latin rite which "goes back without essential change, to the age when it developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world. The final result of our enquirey is that in spite of unresolved problems, in spite of later changes there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours" Fortescue, Adrian; The Mass, London, 1917, p213. Thus "no one has ventured to touch except in unimportant details" (Ibid. p.213) the Roman rite. Further it must be stated that "it is evident that the Novus ordo has no intention of representing the faith as taught by the council of Trent, to which, nonetheless, the Catholic conscience is bound forever" (Cardian Ottaviani & Bacchi in the Ottaviani intervention). It is an undeniable fact that the "new liturgy reflects a new ecclesiology, whereas the old reflects another ecclesiology" (Cardinal Benelli, Christian order, Oct. 1978) quite foreign to the Catholic Church. This "liturgical revolution is a mistake touching millions of Catholics at the very core of their religious belief. Let me only mention the sudden abolition and indeed, prohibition of the Latin Mass, the transposition of the officiating priest from the front to the back of the alter and the massive assault on a wide variety of forms of popular piety. If a thoroughly malicious sociologist, bent on injuring the Catholic community as much as possible had been able to be advisor to the Church, he could hardly have done a better Job" (Dr. Berger, The Lutheran sociologist, Homiletic and Pastoral review, Feb, 1979). The very fact that New Mass is acceptable to Protestants should make Catholics wonder if it is expectable to God?

2. These words of Apostolic Tradition are not for anyone to change. Whether or not it invalidates the Mass is questionable. This has been questioned by Many theologians not belonging to the sspx i.e. Rama P. Coomaraswamy, M.D. (who is also the author of "The destruction of Christian Traidtion" and " The Problems with the New Mass" published by Tan Press) and Patrick Henry Omlor. This issue of "pro multis" was long ago settled by the council of Trent Which states in it's Catechism that :

"WITH REASON, therefore, WERE THE WORDS "FOR ALL" NOT USED, AS IN THIS PLACE THE FRUITS OF THE PASSION ARE ALONE SPOKEN OF, AND TO THE ELECT ONLY DID HIS PASSION BRING THE FRUIT OF SALVATION. And this is the purpore of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" (Heb. IX, 28); and also of the words of our Lord in John: "I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine". (Jn. XVII, 9)." Catechism of the Council of Trent", Marian Publications, U.S.A., reprint 1972, pp. 227-8. (see also The Holy Eucharist by St. Alphonsus de Liguori p.44).

Note that in the Latin Typical Edition of the Novus Ordo Missal, the words "pro multis" are used, however in the vernacular translations they have translated the words "pro multis" as "for all". It only goes to show that the Novus Ordo, which demands of people blind obedience, is not even obedient to Paul VI who issued the Novus Ordo Missal.

3. Sedevacantist may believe there is no Pope but the Novus Order acts like there is no such things as the Roman Catholic Papacy (this is clearly confirmed by the not only the actions of the Novus Order clergy but also by the Pope himself who wishes to "share" his papacy with the Anglican). The official position of the SSPX with regards to those who are sedevacantists is as follows taken from the July/August Bulletin of the SSPX, pg31:

Catholics can associate with those sedevacantists who hold it only as a theological opinion (as many saints have held it to be a theological opinion). Catholics can associate with sedevacantists who hold it to be a theological certitude if it can be done without having to comprise the faith. But they should not associate with those who hold it to be certitude of faith or those who set up their own Pope.

4. Yes, all Catholics must be in communion with Eternal Rome and all the Popes others wise you would be implying that we have a new religion with each new Pope!

5. The SSPX hold's to Ordinary Magisterium (The Deposit of Faith) and the extraordinary Magersterium when they do not contradict "that which has always held to always, everywhere and by all for this is truly and appropriately Catholic"(St.Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium C.2).

6. Archbishop Lefebvre has repeatedly declared that he signed neither this document nor Gaudium et Spes, regardless of what is claimed one only need consult fidelier no.79, p.7. The Archbishop makes it clear saying that "God is my witness that we (Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop Castro de Mayer, Bishop Sigaud) refused to sign these two decrees. If anyone can remember this, it is certainly myself and not these young men who were scarcely born at the time of the council! (20, April 1990). This is confirmed by the fact that at the time of the audience granted to Archbishop Lefebvre in 1976, Pope Paul VI reproached him for not having given this signature. The Pope had research done in the archive's before the audience! It must also be noted that if a Father wanted to mark his reprobation of or another text promulgated, says Fr. De Blignieres, it was necessary for him to indicate this at the side of his signature: but one finds no trace of this mark beside the thousands of the signatures of the Fathers of the Council. The form of promulgation provided in article 49 of the initial rules of the Council (Acta, periodus II, p.40) mentions those who refused to give that signature: The Pope promulgates the decrees which have been read to the Fathers and approved by them "tot numero exceptis" (with the exception of such a number). This is done to indicate that those who refuse to sign are not associated with the promulgation by the Pope. Finally it seems more natural to have confidence on this point in Archbishop Lefebvre, who was present at the Council and who has always been know for his honesty and sanctity of Life. "I shall retain forever, a profound admiration for the Man of God, the Man of the Church, the man of prayer, the giant missionary which is Monsignor Lefebvre" - Cardinal Benelli, 1976, an interview with Br. Eric de Saventhem (Founder of Una Voce International Federation).

7) This is a name given to them by many of the Modernist to claim that the SSPX is not "up to date" they are simply Roman Catholics who hold to the Churches constant teaching which is contained in the both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition and only in this sense are they "traditional" Catholics. St. Athanasius answered the same objection long ago saying, " Catholics who remain faithful to Tradition, even if they are reduced to a handful, are the true Church of Jesus Christ." (Ca. 296-373) Apud Caillau and Guillou, Coll. Selecta Ss. Eccl. Patrum, vol. 32, pp. 411-412. This was further affirmed by the words of Pope St. Pius X who made it clear saying " "The true friends of the people are neither innovators, nor revolutionaries, but traditionalists" - Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910.

8. I think you need to check your reference on this point, as even your reference has nothing to do with the SSPX. They in no way hold to this but rather affirm that the new Mass which was put together after Vatican II and was composed with the help of six Protestant ministers (a fact for which Rome doesn't deny) and the photographic evidence of this is contained on the well know pamphlet "Why the Latin Mass why not the new".

9. This point is subjective as you seem to make a big issue of Fr. Murry's quote on the brochure, I can have it removed however I chose to keep it there is it was not taken from a sspx source if those sources are wrong you will have to take it up with the editors of those periodical not me or the SSPX. Not also that you seem to jump to some conclusion that we or the sspx for that matter are saying that Rome agrees with their position. This is a false assertion all the quotes prove are the theological issue's that are being questioned i.e. Is disobedience schism? What is schism? What are some thoughts on this from some men who may have some knowledge in this field.

10. Your attack on Fr. Morrison is unwarranted as you make rash judgements as to whether or not he is a Catholic priest as the fact he refuses to reveal himself may be for numerous reasons. You base your findings on hearsay again. Further you choose to reject Fr.'s Rosari and Fr. Morrison simply because they are not priests but this sort of reasoning is false. Our interest is only whether they preach the truth or not. And being on their list our apostolate has never heard them ever send an email containing heresy, something which is openly preached by Novus Ordo Priests. You also falsely claim that Fr. Morrison removes people from his list if they question his credentials as priest, this is far from true, for our Web Master has questioned him on this point and is still a long standing member on his list. I have personally come across many Novus Order priest who have publicly taught heresy and have refuse to except the truth when it is presented to them. We understand your concern but you must be realistic we are not living in normal times. The things that our priests get away with under the Novus Ordo would never have been imagined 20years ago! I can only thank God for people (lay men or priests) who still dedicate their lives to the service of the Truth which is so much despised by the Modern Hierarchy and many of the clergy under them.

11. A note on Mary's Disciples. Raymond Taouk is simply the web master and assisting friend of Mary's disciples for Jesus. As to the Material which you seem to criticize you will have to direct your complain to the President of the MDJ's. Also it is not A Maronite apostolate, but rather a Catholic Apostolate with members from all rites of the Church for this reason they favor the position of the SSPX as they have been helpful in defending the faith in these times of crisis which has effected every rite in the Catholic Church. Mr. Taouk has been happy to lend his services to the Maronite Church of Australia whenever they have been required for the glory of God and his Church.

12.You state the following as being sspx propaganda "Archbishop Lefebvre, trained priests in exactly the same way he, and many more before and after, were trained for nearly two thousand years." Note that nowhere is the word seminary contained in the sentence contrary to your assumption or that is clearly implied is that Lefebvre simply passed on the faith the way it has always been taught. Further your interpretation would have no proper meaning as even the Novus Ordinarians have seminaries.

1, 2,3, 6 & 8) This point (1) mentions that the SSPX establishes seminaries, chapels, priories etc throughout the world without any reference to any local ordinaries. In order to understand this one only needs to first open his eyes to the fact that we are living in a time of crisis without precedence. Popes Paul VI and John Paul II confirm both this fact in the following: " We have the impression that through some cracks in the wall, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: it is doubt, uncertainty, questioning, dissatisfaction, and confrontation.... We thought that after the Council a day of sunshine would have dawned for the history of the Church. What dawned, instead, was a day of clouds and storms, of darkness, of searching and uncertainties. -- Pope Paul VI, June 29, 1972,

"There is need to admit realistically and with a deep and sober sensibility that Christians today, for the most part, are dismayed, confused, perplexed and even frustrated; ideas conflicting with revealed and constantly taught Truth have been scattered by handfuls; true and real heresies in the sphere of dogma and morals have been spread, creating doubts, confusions, rebellions; the liturgy has been violated; immersed in intellectual and moral "relativism" and therefore in permissiveness, Christians have been allured by atheism, by agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic enlightenment, by socialistic Christianity, without defined dogma and without objective morals" - Pope John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Feb.7,1981.

Thus there can be no doubt (or denial) that we are living in a time of unprecedented crisis as "present day Catholicism is prey to a generalized apostasy; there no longer subsist within it any other than scattered groups of healthy supernatural cells, which in their turn, risk undergoing corruption if they are not warned of the peril in time (Preface to "Teilhard the Apostate" by Manuel de Corte the Proffessor & Philospher at the university of liege in Belgium, 1971).

Furthermore in the History of the Church there are any numerous cases of Bishops who, in extraordinary circumstance, when they found themselves in some of the same difficulties as those of the early centuries and, consequently, the necessity arose of using the Episcopal powers in all their fullness, consecrated Bishops without adhering to the disciplinary norms of the time; they did so by virtue of this "Law of supplying (Ecclesia supplet)" which exists in the Church, as it does in all organizations, when the functioning of necessary and indispensable organs become endangered. Thus in the 4th Century, "St. Eusebius of Samosata and other bishops, not only consecrated but even established other bishops in Episcopal sees" (V.Manlio Simonetti, la Crisi ariana nel IV Secolo, Institutum Patristicum Augustinainum, Via S., Uffizio 25, Roma), 1975) even while having no particular jurisdiction over them, (Theod. Hist.eccl'bookII, Chap XI, Action du college episcopal) and yet the Church has not hesitated to proclaim his sanctity. Further St. Melilus of Antioch incurred an excommunication for the consecration of a bishop in order to maintain the faith. Further it is well known that both St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius consecrated priest without the "official" approval of Rome. This like wise was the case with St. Jerome who was excommunicated by Bishop John of Jerusalem for partaking in a so-called "illegal" ordination however such an excommunication was later vindicated! Such historical facts only serve to confirm the courageous actions of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Cardinal Billot writes that Our Lord instituted the primacy, but left in some way the limits of episcopal power undefined, precisely because "it would not have been fitting that those things that are subject to change would be unchangeably fixed by divine law. Some things are indeed subject to change because of the variety of circumstances and of the times and because of greater or lesser facility of recourse to the Apostolic See among other such like things (De Ecclesia Christi, Q.XV, §2, p.713).

From the above it is thus undeniable that the state of necessity extends not only to the duties of bishops, but also to their power of jurisdiction.

As for jurisdiction, the priests of the SSPX do not deny that they do not have ordinary jurisdiction. Nevertheless the New Code of Canon Law as promulgated by Pope John Paul II provides for the jurisdiction needed for the valid administration of the sacraments of confession, marriage and confirmation in Canon 144. This Canon explains how the law itself gives the necessary faculties when it says "In common error about fact or about law and also in positive and probable doubt law or fact, the Church supplies executive power of governance (jurisdiction) both for the external and internal forum. #2: "This same norm applies to the faculties mentioned in canon.883 (confirmation) canon 966 (confession) and canon 1111#1 (marriage). So Church Law itself can and does give a validly ordained priest the power to hear confessions, bless marriages and administer confirmations even without the permission of the local bishop "since necessity knows no law, in cases of necessity the ordinance of the Church does not hinder him from being able to absolve, since he has the keys sacramentaly" (St. Thomas, S.T. Suppl.,Q.8, A.6). This conforms to the law of "Epikeia" that allows one to follow the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law in a given circumstance.

4 & 5) More hearsay accusations from Mr. John Beaumont, typical of the Novus Ordinaries who only parrot off what they hear. This applies both to points 4 & 5. Further this illegal suppression of the seminary of Econe is all well documented by Michael Davies in his book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. It must be said that those who concede it to be an act of disobedience not to close the seminary, either know next to nothing about the situation or blindly deny the crisis in Church. This is because it is only too evident that the early success of the sspx could not continue long without an eventual Modernist counter-attack. What had really taken place is not even known by the Novus ordinarians who except such a suppression without even looking into the matter like one who believes everything he reads in the papers to be Gospel. Following the Apostolic visitation (November 1974), a special Commission of Cardinals was named by Pope Paul VI to "interview" Archbishop Lefebvre. Two long sessions occurred, on 13th of February and 3rd of March 1975. Lefebvre was given no transcript nor was he advised he was on trial (cfr. canons 1585:1,2142). Thus on the 6th of May 1975, Bishop Mamie wrote to Archbishop saying "I retire the acts and concessions granted by my predecessor in that which concerns the Priestly Society of St. Pius X Particularly the decree of Erection of 1 November 1970." This action was completely illegal. The SSPX according to its statutes approved by Bishop Chariere, is a priestly society "of common life without vows," coming under the provisions of canons 673-674 and 488, As the Holy See could only suppress the SSPX, which alone has the power to suppress such an institute erected under diocesan Law (c.493). It must be also noted that once a Bishop has approved a religious order it can only be suppressed by the Holy See (can. 493 in 1917 code applicable at the time. See also can. 584 in the code of 1983). It was precisely on the illegality of the procedure followed that Archbishop Lefebvre's first appeal on June the 5th 1975 was based, on the violation of norms, which are prescribed to prevent unjust measures. Regardless of the truth of the matter the bishops of Rome refused to hear his appeal which was clearly "illicit in its violation of natural Justice" as "morally, such an attempt to deny a man's right's and frustrate his life's work, while refusing him any legal recourse is appalling" (The Cambridge review, 23/10/1976).

7) Canon Law is there only to reflect and put into effect the Church's teachings and not the Popes personal belief's. For this reason Catholics are bound in conscience to reject that which does not conform with that which has always been taught everywhere and always and by all and not simply whatever the current pontiff wants them to believe. In order to show just how badly the new Canon Law was put together is expressed by Bishop Edward Egan, an ardent Papal loyalist, who served on the roman rota and was one of the Pope's advisers on the new code of Canon Law. He has said that he believed it "is so flawed he told a mutual priest friend in New York that it won't last 20 years" (Latin Mass Magazine, Chronicle of a Catholic reform, Pg. 9. Volume 7, No. 1, 1998). Note that even though some parts of the New Code of Canon Law must be rejected nevertheless the sspx in no way denies the Pope John Paul II has "the Capacity as supreme legislator" to put into effect his canon Law.

1) Can. 844§4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick and even Holy Communion to non-Catholics who manifest "Catholic faith" in these sacraments. This used to be considered a Mortal sin and was gravely forbidden [CIC (1917) c731§2] because it implicitly denies the dogma "Outside the Church, no salvation."

2) Can. 1055§1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of Children, (Gen. 1:28) but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. Whence today's annulments fiasco: in the USA, for example, there were 338 annulments accorded in 1968; but there were 59,030 annulments accorded in 1992.

3) Can. 336 codifies the collegiality of Vatican II: the "College of Bishops," a twentieth-century invention, is now made a permanent subject, together with the Pope, of supreme and full power over the Universal Church. A bishop, moreover, participates in this universal jurisdiction by the mere fact of his consecration (cf c375 §2). This collegiality tampers with the divine constitution of the Church, derogates from the Pope's powers and hampers his government of the Church (as well, indeed, as that of the Bishops in their dioceses.) "Episcopal Conferences" now assume authority, which thus becomes impersonal and unanswerable. Dom Grea, whose attachment to the pope is above all suspicion testifies (De L'Eglise et de sa divine consitution, vol. I) that not only at the beginning of Christianity did the "necessity of the Church and the Gospel" demand that the power of the episcopal order be exercised in all its fullness without jurisdictional limitations, but that in successive ages extraordinary circumstances required "even more exceptional and more extraordinary manifestations" of episcopal power (ibid, P.218) in order "to apply a remedy to the current necessity of the Christian people" for whom there was no hope of aid on the part of the legitimate pastors nor from the Pope. In such circumstances, in which the common good of the Church is at stake, the jurisdictional limitations vanish and "that which is universal" in epicopal power" comes directly to the aid of souls" (ibid, p.218). It must be understood that in the exercise of the power of the keys, Christ remains always the "principle agent" and "no other man can exercise (the power of the keys) as principle agent" (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q.19, A.4).

Dom Grea further writes that the extraordinary manifestations of episcopal power do not call into question the doctrine on the primacy, because necessity, without hope of help from the legitimate pastors takes the "extraordinary action" of the episcopate back to "the essential laws of the hierarchy" which are not at all weakened by the ordinary jurisdictional Laws (see Catholic Encyclopedia, necessity, state of).

The keys of peter are also the "keys of ministry," and therefore not even Peter can use the power of the keys arbitrarily, but must be attentive to the divine order of things. The divine order is that jurisdiction flows to others by means of Peter, yes, but salvation of the faith" (St.Thomas, Contra Gentiles, Bk.4, c.72). Therefore, if peter prevented it from being supplied sufficiently for the need of souls, he would act against the divine order and would commit a most grave fault (St. Thomas, Supplement, Q.8, AA. 4-9).

It seems that Mr. John Beaumont underlying error is based on his vague notion of the Catholic Magisterium. The Magisterium is simply "the authority of the Church, by divine appointment, to teach the truths of religious belief; the commissions of the Church to teach; the teaching office of the Church; the teaching and interpreting of the doctrines of the faith carried on by the Church through the Pope and bishops and those commissioned by them. It may be ordinary when a doctrine is proclaimed throughout the Church as part of divine revelation; or extraordinary when a general council defines a doctrine ratified by the Pope or when the Pope speaks as the official teacher of the Church (ex Cathedra) proclaiming or defining a matter of faith or morals" (Fallon, Op.Cit, p.209).

A, B &C) The consecration of Bishops in no way creates a schism and no canon lawyer with any knowledge of canon law would say it does. For this reason Fr. Patrick Valdini , Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law at the Catholic Institute of Paris said that Archbishop Lefebvre did not commit a schismatic act by the consecrations, for he didn't deny the Pope's primacy. "It is not the consecration of a bishop which creates the schism. What makes the schism is to give the bishop an apostolic mission." Which is something Archbishop Lefebvre never did (Question de Droit ou de confiance, L'Homme Nouveau, Feb.17, 1988).

It is also true to say that there are some in Rome, wanting Lefebvre to break with the Pope, desiring that the traditionalist theology Lefebvre preached to be irredeemably stigmatized as schismatic, even heretical (Inside the Vatican October 1998, p.13,). For this reason "one could make an astonishing list for propositions taught yesterday, and the day before in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated by the Conciliar Fathers" - Cardinal Suenens, interview I.C.I 15/5/69

Cardinal Ratzinger freely acknowledged that Abp. Lefebvre was fighting against ideological Liberalism and the making of truth relative (AD 2000 Sept. 1988). In other words there are those in Rome (priest, Bishops, Cardinals etc) who seek to destroy the Church and her teachings (the Mass, Catholic dogma, Catholic belief etc.) and have them all done away with in order to destroy the Church instituted by Christ and introduce their own theology. This however in itself is like taking on God, and thus impossible. In every age God raises up faithful men and woman to defend the Church in order prevent the destruction of our Holy faith.

Schism means secession from the pope, separation for the Church, which is something Marcel Lefebvre & the SSPX have never done, as they continue to profess their Loyalty to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ. The Society of St Puis X has remained faithful in the constant teaching of the Church, for it is the apostle St Paul himself who strongly commands us to "Stand firm in the teachings and traditions" of the Church (2 Thess 2:14).

The Code recognizes necessity as a circumstance, which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (New Code of 1983. Canon 1323, sec.4), provided that the action is not intrinsically evil or harmful to souls; in this latter case necessity would only mitigate the penalty. But no "latæ sententiæ" penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circumstance (CCL 1983 Canon 1324, para.3). Canon 1323 clearly states that those acting "out of necessity" are "not subject to penalties. Canon 1324l section 3 further states "that one is not bound by an automatic penalty "by one who erroneously yet culpably thought that he was acting out of necessity or out of grave inconvenience". Therefore the Law of the Church makes it indisputably clear that right or wrong, Archbishop Lefebvre and the four bishops consecrated by him did not incur any automatic penalty.

The law of necessity in the Church is the sum total of juridical rules which apply in case of a menace to the perpetuity or activity of the Church. This law of necessity can be resorted to only when one has used all possibilities of re-establishing a normal situation, relying on positive law. The Archbishop did all this. The law of necessity uniquely justifies the measures, which are necessary for a restoration of functions in the Church. The principle of proportionality is to be observed. In the History of the Church there are numerous cases of Bishops who, in extraordinary circumstance, when they found themselves in some of the same difficulties as those of the early centuries and, consequently, the necessity arose of using the episcopal powers in all their fullness. However the case of wether or not many saints in the past acted directly or indirectly against the express will of the Pope is something that the adversaries of the sspx have to prove, for in time of necessity when this is minor compared to the greater evil which is at stake. A state of necessity thus justifies using the law of necessity. This is because the preservation of the faith and the salvation of souls are the supreme law of the Church (Pope Pius XII, 2/10/1944 in an address to the Roman Rota, See also Can. 1752). Being the supreme law, all the others are subject to it.

In spite of the declaration made by Lefebvre explaining why he (and many other Catholic priests and bishops) believed it necessary to perform the Episcopal consecrations, the 1988 decree of Cardinal Gantin failed to take into account the above mentioned provisions of canon 1323 and 1324. Further if the Holy See really wanted to excommunicate Archbishop Lefebvre, it would have been necessary to proceed against him by imposing the penalty "senentia ferenda" after due process. The charge of schism would certainly have never have required the imposition of a lesser penalty at most, or possibly no penalty at all (Canon 1323 n.4) for the violation of canon 1382, if due process had been followed. It was obvious that the secretary of state did not want to run the risk of due process, and therefore the fraudulent procedure of issuing the incompetent decree of Cardinal Gantin was chosen instead.

D) This point needs to be considered in light of the current crisis and in respect to what Pope Pius XII was actually commenting. Pius XII in taking up the common opinion of theologians held that an Episcopal consecration does not, in itself, confer any automatic Jurisdiction but only the fullness of power of order; as through Episcopal consecration, the bishops are potential recipients of jurisdiction and have the passive power to receive jurisdiction (Pius XII, Ad Sinarum Gentem, 7/101954). Episcopal dignity comes directly from God but as regard to jurisdiction it comes from the Apostolic See (Pius VI, The Letter Deesemus). The sspx bishops do not claim jurisdiction and thus Archbishop Lefebvre's Episcopal consecrations in no way call into question the primacy of jurisdiction of the Holy See and so it does not constitute a schismatic act contrary to what is asserted by "ecclesia Dei Adflica" and so it does not apply.

The power, while wielded by Peter, is owned by Christ. It is to benefit souls, not its possessor. It is to save souls, not damn them. As for the machinery of Peter's control of the consecration of bishops, Christ left it flexible, so that Peter could, down the ages, tighten or loosen that machinery according as different historical circumstances would require for the good of the Church. Medieval popes tightened it, as did Pius XII because of a recurring problem in China, but the Church has approved of Eusebius of Samosate consecrating bishops without the Pope's permission in the 4th century. Therefore if a Pope were to tighten that control to the grave harm of souls, the Church would supply jurisdiction for a bishop to take that consecration into his own hands, as did Archbishop Lefebvre. For the manner of Episcopal consecrations is a matter not of divine law, but of human Church law, allowing for the exceptions possible in all human Church law.

Further the New Code of Canon Law asserts that a person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity:

if one inculpably thought there was, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70), and if one culpably thought there were, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjective mortal sin (canons 1321 §1, 1323 70). Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he was bound in conscience to do what he could do to continue the Catholic priesthood and that he was obeying God in going ahead with the consecrations. Hence, even if he had been wrong, there would be no subjective sin.

No "authority," can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments. No "law," can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. With Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre had to do what he could with his God-given Episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation. It was his duty as a bishop.

E,F, G & H) This Canon alone does not settle the matter. To determine whether or not the excommunication has been incurred, one must consider the factors which, according to law, remove or diminish imputability. Canon 1324 par. Three states that, "an accused is not bound by an automatic penalty in the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated in section one".

The Church does not consider all refusals of submission to be schismatic "" Disobedience is not schism, no matter how obstinate it is, for as long as it does not contain a rebellion against the authority of the Pope or of the Church" (Summa Theologica, IIa IIae, Q.39, A.1 ad.8). A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority. The real schism is with those who try and impose the false notion of "collegiality", as this challenge's the Pope's authority as Pope.

Obedience can be good or bad, depending on whom or what you obey. Obedience to manifest error is sinful and the obligation to obey ceases once you are commanded to do some evil. St. Thomas Aquinas confirms this saying that "sometimes the things commanded by a superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in all things." (Summa, II-II, Q. 104, Art 5)

This principle here was ably stated dogmatically by Vatican I, which taught that the pope must submit to Sacred Tradition and the Deposit of Faith. The pope cannot innovate upon that Faith; if he does so he MUST be disobeyed. This is the constant teaching of the theologians, popes, and Doctors of the Church. This is because the head of the Church is Christ. The pope is only his vicar. As long as the vicar (substitute) represents his principal, he is to be obeyed. If he does not, he is to be disobeyed.

Fr. Le Floc, Seminary Rector of the French seminary in Rome (in 1926) had long ago forseen "This heresy which is now being born, (and which) will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility".

Church history teaches us that numerous saints had to resist the Roman Pontiff and other Church authorities that were wrong. Thus for example St. Godefrey of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II ) wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would - God forbid - refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity , you would force us away from obeying you." (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, T. II, p. 650).

Those who claim there is no limit to obeying the Pope only need look at the case of Pope Honorius I (625-638). Honorius was accused of favoring heresy, and was subsequently condemned by Pope St. Leo II and by subsequent Popes and anathematized (Dz 563) to be cast forth from the holy Church of God. If Honorius did not really favor heresy, then Leo II erred in condemning him. But if Leo II did not err in his condemnation, then Honorius was guilty of favoring heresy. Yet who would argue that it was better to obey Honorius than to defend the faith at any cost?

Thus helping to destroy the Church in the name of "obedience" is also sinful. Saint Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that "the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality." Furthermore blind obedience is not, and has never been Catholic. This is confirmed by many saints, namely St. Catherine of Siena who said in her day: " There are times when those who obey . . .. are heading for Hell." (St. Catherine to Pope Gregory XI, 1376.)

The conclusion of the Holy Father that Lefebvre has become schismatic because of his mere apparent act of disobedience would then if logically taken at face value imply that Pope John Paul II has also declared the whole Church schismatic. This is because the far great majority of Bishops in the world disobey the Pope on numerous issues does this not mean that they are not also schismatic or does it just apply to faithful Catholics who wish to hold on to sound doctrine? Michael Davies put this better saying that "while such prelates as Weakland are still in good standing with Rome it would be ludicrous to so much as think about the society as being Schismatic" (Michael Davies, The Remnant, Jan 31, 1989,P.5).

Pope John Paul II has never explicitly excommunicated Lefebvre, On July 2, the Pope merely declared that an "ipso facto" excommunication had taken place when It did not, according to Can. 1323 (1983 Code). It clearly seems that this false assumption of the pope was the result of a "Large and unjustified Mental leap" (Rev. Fr. T. C. G. Glover , an Oratorain Canonist, who worked for the Vatican).

It appears that there can be no question of a separation with Rome since Lefebvre acted according to the directives of Catholic theology where "it is legitimate to disobey a popes command and hinder the carrying out of his orders if he jeopardizes souls" (St. Robert Bellarmine, de Romane Pontife, 2,29). Thus the Archbishops decision to consecrate four bishops is in direct line with the saintly bishop and confessor Athanasius who at a time of similar general blindness when heresy prevailed was one of the few bishops who openly resisted it at the cost of even being excommunicated which was a measure understood to be just as invalid as the supposed excommunication of June 30, 1988.

It ought to be noted that popes in the past have also wrongly excommunicated faithful bishops. This is because "a Pope is not infallible in his laws, nor in his commands, nor in his acts of state, nor in his administration, nor in his public policy" (Cardinal Newman, Difficulties of Anglicans, London, 1876, p.256). Such was the case with Pope Liberius when he excommunicated St. Athanasius when he firmly resisted the Arian heretics of his day (Sarto Books, 1982, Originally Published 1844, P.180). The Catholic dictionary of Theology (1971) states that the excommunication of St. Athanasius was unjust. It must be asked who would now try and argue that St. Athanasius was actually separated from the Church by this unjust condemnation, or that God was bound by it?

Further during this same period St. Jerome tells us that 80% of the bishops were heretics and while at the same time "The entire world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian" (Dialogus contra Luciferianos 19:ML 23,181). Thus during this period (the 4th Century) "In order to be safe from this contagious plague, the true faithful and disciples of Christ had to prefer the ancient beliefs rather than all these false novelties." (St.Vincent of Lerins Commonitorium). Pope Liberius even later signed the Sirmium creed of the Arians (New Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1967, VIII, 715,col.1) which was "a document reprehensible from the point of view of faith" (ibid. VIII, 715,col.1).

From the above it seems clear that Archbishop Lefebvre (like St. Athanasius) was not condemned for being a heretic or schismatic of any sort but rather because he threatened the false "unity" among the modernists who like the Arians of the 4th Century were able to occupy high place and exert much influence on the Popes decision. However it must be maintained that have no one in the Church has the right to require a unity of communion and / or of government which disregards the unity of Faith for "their is not in the Church a "unity of Communion" without a "unity of Faith." - Dz. 1821; Leo XIII, Satis cognitium (Dz.1969).

The fact that the Church would betray the cause of Lord Jesus Christ was spelled out in clear and simple language by Our Lady of La Salette (1846 , An approved apparition) saying that " Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist ". For this reason today "only, one offense is vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers traditions" (St. Basil, Ep.243). Nevertheless Archbishop Lefebvre expressly signifies his loyalty to the Holy See saying that "As for us, they say that we have distanced ourselves from the See of Peter and from the Church. Yet it is we who are the best defenders of both, we who are the most ready to defend the Holy See and the bishops in so far as they the successors of the apostles and the representatives of the church; but not the liberalism they profess." (Against the Heresies Pg. 120)

We trust the above will help you in your endeavors in trying to understand the position of the SSPX in light of Church teaching and History if there are any facts you would like to dispute we would appreciate your response.

Yours truly,

Mr. Raymond Taouk