by the Fathers of Holy Cross Seminary

























Many Catholics realize more or less acutely that the Church is passing through a period of confusion, and they wonder if there aren’t any simple guidelines for seeing them through it. This booklet tries to present principles, hopefully of solution but at least of sanity, to be these simple guidelines. They may not yet be the complete answer; but Our Lord God does not ask us to solve what He has not given eminent theologians or His chosen friends to solve - He asks us to save our souls, which we do, with His grace, by living as well as we can as Catholics, true sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

When speaking of a period of confusion, allusion is being made, of course, to the whole “face-lift” of the Church since the Second Vatican Council. The Church has a “new look”:

        new catechisms

        a new liturgy - in new churches, around a table, with communion in the

hand, from lay ministers, aided by altar-girls,

        new Bibles & Canon Law

        involvement with non-Catholics

        new orientations: world “justice”, “peace”,

        laymen doing what priests did

        etc. etc.


And what happened to:

        Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament

        regular individual confessions

        the Way of the Cross

        fast & abstinence

        prayers for the Holy Souls,

        Marian devotions, 

        And all those religious in their habits? - etc.


What has not changed in Catholic life?  Is this truly just a “face-lift? Or is it an “about-face?

The latter, answers forthrightly the Society of St. Pius X. (And “schismatic” and “excommunication” have been revived to meet the case.)  It is a turning away from God and a turning to the world, to man. The world is not converting to the Church; the “Church” has converted to the world. In what are modern Catholics very different from non-Catholics these days?

To judge rightly these goings-on in the Church, let us look firstly at some general principles that all Catholics accept (Part I), and then we can evaluate better the Society of St. Pius X’s reaction to this “crisis” (Part II).   True to our aim at simplicity, we shall try to present clear and brief answers, in note form rather than in explanatory prose, so that the Handbook can be consulted for a ready reply rather than read for a full discussion.  For fuller answers, further reading and study will be necessary (Appendix II); but may this present little work already fulfill its purpose of providing, to those who have not the time or means for a longer study, the essence of the replies of the Society of St Pius X to these important and most asked questions.

NB   -The General Principles will be referred to throughout this booklet by their number given in Part I (so the twentieth, for example, will be referred to as P.20). In like manner, the Questions in Part II will be referred to by their question N (so the fifth question will be called Q.5, etc.)

        The abbreviation “Dz” refers to Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”, being a translation by Roy J. Deferrari from the thirtieth edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum” (except for #1792, poorly translated in the work referred to.)



“Moreover, in order that we may satisfactorily perform the duty of embracing the true faith and of continuously persevering in it, God, through His only-begotten Son, has instituted the Church, and provided it with clear signs of His institution, so that it can be recognised by all as the guardian and teacher of the revealed word.” - Vatican I (20th Ecumenical) Dz 1793


“It (the Church) firmly believes, professes and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics can not become participants in eternal life, but will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ [Matt 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock...” - Florence (17th Ecumenical) Dz 714


“Moreover, what the Chief of pastors and the Great Pastor of sheep, the Lord Jesus, established in the blessed Apostle Peter for the perpetual salvation and perennial good of the Church, this by the same Author must endure always in the Church which was founded upon a rock and will endure firm until the end of the ages.”

Vatican I Dz 1824

“The one Church of Christ is visible to all, and will remain, according to the Will of its Author, exactly the same as He instituted it.”

Pius XI - Mortalium Animos :§15


“If anyone says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right, that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church...let him be anathema. ...If anyone thus speaks, that the same Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world...let him be anathema.” - Vat I, Dz 1825,1831

”But it is opposed to the truth, and in evident contradiction with the divine constitution of the Church, to hold that while each bishop is individually bound to obey the authority of the Roman Pontiffs, taken collectively the bishops are not so bound.” - Leo XIII - Satis Cognitum

P5  THE POPE HAS POWER ONLY “unto edification and not unto destruction”  (2 Cor 13,10) OF CHRIST’S CHURCH

“For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelat­ion they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” - Vatican I - Dz 1836

“And for these sacraments instituted by Christ the Lord, in the course of the ages the Church has not and could not substitute other sacraments, since, as the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the ‘substance of the sacraments’, that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign...”

Pius XII - Sacramentum Ordinis - Dz 2301

“It is well known unto all men...with what great care and pastoral vigilance our predecessors the Roman Pontiffs have discharged the office entrusted by Christ our Lord to them in the person of the most blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles; have unremittingly discharged the duty of feeding the lambs and the sheep; and have diligently nourished the Lord’s entire flock with the words of faith, imbued it with salutary doctrine, and guarded it from poisoned pastures. And those our predecessors, who were the assertors and champions of the August Catholic religion, of truth and justice, being as they were chiefly solicitous for the salvation of souls, held nothing to be of so great importance as the duty of exposing and condemning, in their most wise Letters and Constitutions, all heresies and errors which are hostile to moral honesty and to the eternal salvation of mankind...”

Pius IX - Quanta Cura 51


“Revelation, constituting the object of Catholic Faith, was not completed with the apostles.” - Condemned by St. Pius X - Lamentabili - Dz 2021

”Further, by divine and Catholic faith, all those things must be believed which are contained in the written word of God and in tradition, and which are proposed by the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her ordinary and universal magisterium, to be believed as divinely revealed... Hence also that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding... ; ...definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”

Vatican I - Dz 1792, 1800 & 1839

P7  PROTESTANTS (& other non-Catholics) DO NOT HAVE THE FAITH

“Now it is manifest that he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will... Therefore it is clear that such a heretic with regard to one article has no faith in the other articles, but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.” - St. Thomas Aquinas - II II q.5 a.3


“Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects... but the binding force of human law is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law.”

Leo XIII - Libertas :§10


“If, then, by any one in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society... But where the power to command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of God, obedience is unlawful, lest, while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.” - Leo XIII - Libertas :§§10,13


a)   WHEN DOUBTFUL - “When there is a doubt of law, laws do not bind even if they be nullifying and disqualifying ones...” CIC (1917) can. 15;  (1983) can. 14

b)   WHEN RETROACTIVE - “A law comes into existence when it is promulgated.” - CIC (1917) can. 8 :§ 1 (cf can. 17 :§ 2);  (1983) can. 7 (cf can. 16 :§2)

c)   WHEN CAN’T (physically or morally) - “No positive law obliges where there is grave

inconvenience” is a principle of moral theology. Cf  CIC (1917) can. 2205 :§2; (1983) can. 1323 4.   And there certainly is such a grave inconvenience when observance would be detrimental to souls, for the salvation of souls “must always be the supreme law of the Church.” CIC (1983) can. 1752


“If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God, or that the act of offering is nothing else than Christ being given to us to eat: let him be anathema.”

Trent (19th Ecumenical) - Dz 948

P12  THE MASS IS THE RE-ENACTMENT OF CALVARY (& NOT JUST A NARRATIVE OF THE LAST SUPPER - itself being  a Pre-enactment of        Calvary)

“He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross...nevertheless, that His sacerdotal office might not come to an end with His death, at the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented, and the memory of it remain even to the end of the world...offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine...”

Trent Dz 938


“If anyone says that Masses in which the priest alone communicates sacramentally are illicit and are therefore to be abrogated: let him be anathema.”

Trent Dz 955 cf P.14

P14 - P19: Further definitions of Trent on the Mass (through condemnations)

P14  “If anyone says that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned or that the Mass ought to be celebrated in the vernacular only...: let him be anathema.”

Trent - Dz 956

P15  “If anyone denies that the whole Christ is contained in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist under each species and under every part of each species, when the separation has been made: let him be anathema.”

Trent - Dz 885 


P16  “If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist the only-begotten Son of God is not to be adored even outwardly with the worship of latria...: let him be anathema.”

Trent - Dz 888

P17  “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really and substantially contained the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by a sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema.” - Dz 883

P18  “If anyone says that by these words: ‘Do this for a commemoration of Me’ Christ did not make the Apostles priests or did not ordain that they and other priests might offer His own body and blood: let him be anathema.”

Trent - Dz 949

P19  “If anyone says that the holy Catholic Church has not been influenced by just causes and reasons to give communion under the form of bread only to laymen and even to clerics when not consecrating, or that she has erred in this: let him be anathema.”

Trent - Dz 935


a)   in virtue of Quo Primum: “By these present (ordinances) and by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used... We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and that this present constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law...”

St. Pius V - Quo Primum

b)   as an immemorial custom: “...unless it makes express mention of centenary or immemorial customs, a law does not revoke them...”  CIC (1917) can. 30;  (1983) can. 28.   This is the case of the Traditional Latin Mass, a custom at least 1500 years old.

c)   because the “New Mass” is not a Catholic alternative (Q.5); and the Church cannot leave priests without a Mass - cf Pius XII in P.5 above.




Brief History

Nov. 29 1905         Birth of Marcel Lefebvre into a good Catholic family  (five of the   eight children would become priests or nuns).

 Sept 21 1929          Marcel Lefebvre is ordained a priest.

 1932 - 1946            Joins the Holy Ghost Father as a missionary in Gabon Africa.

Sept 18 1947          Is consecrated a Bishop and appointed Apostolic Vicar of Dakar,                             Senegal.

 1948 - 1959          Named by Pius XII Apostolic Delegate for eighteen African countries.

  Sept 14 1955          He becomes the first Archbishop of Dakar.

  1962                        Returns to France named Bishop of Tulle.

  1962                       After 6 months at Tulle he is elected and acts as Superior General of  the Holy Ghost Fathers.  

1968                        Resigns rather than implement the changes to  his Congregation that are forced upon him, and goes into “retirement”.  

1969                        The Archbishop founds the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.  

1970 - 1982          First Superior General of the SSPX.  

1970 -    1988 To be faithful to the grace of his episcopacy he travels the world to encourage Catholics to hold firmly to the faith and Traditions of their fathers, confirming their young, and ordaining for them priests.  

June 30 1988          Providing for the future he consecrates bishops to ordain priests and give confirmation.  

Mar. 25 1991          Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre passes before his Eternal Judge.  


A Testimony

“Concerning the Archbishop personally, a journalist asked recently what was my outstanding memory of the man. I gave maybe a surprising answer: his objectivity. He had, of course, a uniquely attractive personality because he was a saint - gentle, kind, simple, humble, humorous and so on, without a trace of sentimentality, but that was not the point. Underneath all that lay a great intelligence and faith and firmness of character, but that was still not the print. Essentially he was a man empty of self and full of God. To meet him, to talk to him, was to see - through him - the Truth’ Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church. He was like a window on the interests of God. Not he, but Christ, lived within him, and yet that was Marcel Lefebvre and nobody else. And what a marvellous man he was! [1]

Q2  WHAT IS THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X [3] directly into it.

During the same years the French Episcopal Conference was   manoeuvring to have the Society and its seminary suppressed (Q.3).  

Nov. 1 1980           By its tenth anniversary, the Society of St. Pius X has 40 houses on  two continents.  

Nov. 1 1995           By its Silver Jubilee, the SSPX numbers 4 bishops, 332 priests, 50 brothers, 120 sisters & 53 oblate sisters, all living in 140 houses in 27 countries. Together they seek the goal of the priesthood: the glorification of God, the continuation of Our Lord’s redemptive work, the salvation of souls; and this by fidelity to Christ’s testament - the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.  


Nov. 1 1970   The Society is lawfully and canonically founded (Q2).

1971 -    1974      Nevertheless, the French bishops, balking at Ecône’s pre-Vatican II       ways, and notably at its non-acceptance of the New Mass (Q5),  calumniate it as “sauvage” (an outlaw, “wildcat”). One of them, Pope    Paul VI’s Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, lied to make His Holiness believe Archbishop Lefebvre had his priests sign a declaration against    the Pope.[4]

Nov 11-13 1974     An Apostolic Visitation of the seminary at Ecône takes place.   This is in itself normal procedure; its conclusions, though never published, were “very favourable”, according to Cardinal Garonne, “except that you do not use the new liturgy, and there is a somewhat anti-Conciliar spirit there.”[5] The Visitors, how­ever, scandalised all by their unorthodox views, prompting the Archbishop’s so-called DECLARATION (Appendix I).

Feb 13 & Mar 3 1975            Archbishop Lefebvre meets with an improvised Commission    of three Cardinals, nominally to discuss the Apostolic Visitation but   in fact as a lone defendant before a tribunal attacking his Declaration.    He had been given no warning as to the nature of these “trials”, had no    lawyer and was never allowed a copy of the recorded meetings,   though that at least had been promised him.  

May 6 1975            The irregular Commission of Cardinals condemns His Grace, find­ing        his Declaration “unacceptable on all points” (sic). They write to     Bishop Mamie (successor of Bishop Charriere at Fribourg) telling him   to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the Society of St. Pius X -   something quite beyond his power. (Once a bishop has approved a  Society, only the Pope can suppress it - CIC can.493)

 June 5 1975   Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre submits an appeal to the Apostolic Signature in Rome - in substance: It would be for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to determine whether my Declaration were at fault. Please provide evidence that this Commission of Cardinals had been expressly mandated by the Pope (who by his own authority can bypass the Congregations) to decide as has been done.[6] And if I be at fault, of  course I can be censured, but not the Society founded in due canonical form!

 Cardinal Villot saw that the appeal was not even accepted; and indeed Cardinal Staffa was threatened with dismissal if he were to accept an appeal from Archbishop Lefebvre.[7]

 June 29 1975          They get Paul VI to write to the Archbishop that he approved all the Commission of Cardinals had done. Yet an approbation in June cannot empower a Commission meeting in the previous February (P.10b).

 On the whole process, Archbishop Lefebvre observes: “...we have been condemned without trial, without opportunity to defend ourselves, without due warning or written process and without appeal.”[8]

Over and above the canonical question, there remains that of natural law. Must one observe a censure when no crime can be pointed out, or when the very authority of the judge is unsure?


Oct 27 1975            Cardinal Villot writes to the hierarchies of the world to tell them not to incardinate[9] any longer priests from the Society of St. Pius X, as it has been suppressed.[10]

 June 12 1976          Mgr. Benelli writes His Grace, telling him not to ordain priests without their local Bishop’s permission.

 June 29 1976          The Archbishop goes ahead with the foreseen ordinations.

 July 1 1976             The suspensions of the Archbishop and the newly ordained priests are declared.


The Church, by approving the SSPX, approved also that it have the means to live i.e. that it have all the ordinary means to lead its religious life and fulfill its aim. This is fundamental when taking into consideration the nullity of its suppression (Q.3).


        The Society of St. Pius X not being suppressed (Q3) it was unjust to try to stop candidates from joining it.

        Because of: - Cardinal Wright’s letter of praise,  the Congregation for the Clergy allowing religious priests transferring to the Society to be directly incardinated into it,   and the judgment of Bishop Adam (of Sion where Ecône is located) that the SSPX, being inter-diocesan, could generalize this procedure,   Archbishop Lefebvre could reasonably presume this right of  incardination.   



In the three weeks before the ordinations to be held on June 29 1976, His Grace was approached by Rome as many as six times with the request that he establish normal relations with the Vatican, and that he give proof of this by saying a Mass according to the new rite. He was told that if the ordination Mass on the 29th would be with the Missal of Paul VI, then all opposition would be smoothed over. This offer was brought to the Archbishop on the Vigil of the Feast. One New Mass and all will be well. Herein we see most clearly the ONE FUNDAMENTAL REASON FOR THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND HIS SOCIETY: EXCLUSIVE ADHERENCE TO THE OLD MASS AND REFUSAL TO SAY THE NEW.

But:      - the New Mass cannot be said (cf Q 5).

        and the Old Mass always can (P 20).  

Therefore, the suspensions are null; canonically:  because unjust, fundamentally:  because engineered to do away with the traditional Latin Mass. [Mgr. Lefebvre used to say, tongue in cheek, that he had been lawfully suspended from saying the new liturgy]. But even if unjust, shouldn’t censures be observed? If only the one incurring them were to suffer, then yes, that is the more perfect way to act,     but if there is a question of depriving innumerable souls of the graces they need for salvation, then no, one cannot.  

Faced with such a botched up campaign of suppression, the Society of Saint Pius X could only continue.  


“Q5  WHY SHOULD CATHOLICS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEW ORDER OF MASS?[1][1]Also known as the “Novus Ordo Missae”, “NOM”, “New Mass”, “Mass of Paul VI”... the Mass of 1969[1]


i) A criticism of the “new rite” cannot be a criticism of the Mass in itself, for this is the very sacrifice of Our Lord bequeathed to His Church, but it is an examination whether it is a fit rite, or order of ceremonies, for embodying and enacting this August Sacrifice.  

[Note that the validity of a Mass and the acceptability of its rite are two different questions, as is evident in the case of a Black Mass]

ii)     It is difficult for those who have known nothing other than the NOM to understand of what they have been deprived - and attending a “Latin Mass” often just seems so alien. To see clearly what it is all about, it is necessary to have a clear understanding of the defined truths of our Faith on the Mass (P.ll - P.l9 are some of them). Only in the light of these can a Rite of Mass be evaluated.

  [1]b)   WHAT IS THE NEW MASS? Let us answer this by looking at its four causes, as the philosophers would say:

(material: what are its element? (iii)

(intrinsic  (

(                 (formal: what is its nature? (iv)

Cause     (

(                 (final: what is its purpose? (v)

(extrinsic  (

(efficient: who is its author? (vi)

(iii)   WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS THAT MAKE UP THE N O M?  Some are Catholic: a priest, bread & wine, genuflections & signs of the Cross, etc.   But some are Protestant: a table, common-place utensils, communion under both kinds & in the hand etc.

(iv)    WHAT IS THE NATURE OF THE NEW MASS?   Now, the Novus Ordo Missae so assumes these heterogeneous elements as to form a liturgy for a modernist religion which would marry the Church & the world, Catholicism & Protestantism, light & darkness. [13]


“When I began work on this trilogy I was concerned at the extent to which the Catholic liturgy was being Protestantized. The more detailed my study of the Revolution, the more evident it has become that it has by-passed Protestantism and its final goal is humanism. [14]

This latter is a fair evaluation if one were to consider the changes implemented, the results achieved and the tendency of modern theology, even papal (cf Q.7).

(vi) WHO MADE UP THE NEW MASS?  It is the invention of a liturgical commission, the Consilium, whose guiding light was Fr. Annibale Bugnini (made an Archbishop in 1972 for his services), and which also included six Protestant experts. Fr. Bugnini (principal author of Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium) had his own ideas on popular involvement in the liturgy [15] , and the Protestant advisors had their own (heretical) ideas on the essence of the Mass.  

But the one on whose authority the NOM was enforced is Paul VI, who promulgated it by his constitution “Missale Romanum” (April 3, 1969).

Or did he not?   - In the original version of Missale Romanum, signed by Paul VI, no mention is made of obliging the NOM nor when it is to be done;

        so translations of the constitution mistranslate “cogere et efficere” (to sum up & draw a conclusion) as “to give force of law”;  and then the version in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis has an added      paragraph, “enjoining” the New Missal -but it is in the wrong tense, the past, and reads “which we have ordered (praescripsimus)” thereby referring to a past     obligation (not promulgated...); and nothing moreover in “Missale Romanum”     prescribes but at most permits! [16]


It is true that Paul VI wanted this Missal, but it is hardly regularly imposed. Looking at the New Mass in itself, with only its official Latin form before their eyes, Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci could write to Paul VI: “...the Novus Ordo    represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent.” (25/9/69)




Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre definitely agreed with them when he wrote: “The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules,... is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism.  It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.”[18]


The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants that are evident in the New Mass do render it a danger to our faith and, as such, evil in itself. [19]


viii)     BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM:   We were promised the NOM would renew Catholic fervour, inspire the young, draw back the lapsed and attract non-Catholics. Who today can pretend that these are its fruits? Together with the NOM did there not rather come a dramatic fall in Mass attendance and vocations, an “identity crisis” amongst priests, a slowing in the rate of conversions and an acceleration in that of apostasies?

So from the point of view of its final cause too, the New Mass is not Catholic.


The indefectibility of the Church guarantees that a Pope cannot force upon the whole Church what is impious.

But the NOM: - is impious (vii & viii);  is not forced upon the Church because it only permits (vi)  & because the Old Mass can always be said (P.20);

- is not regularly promulgated (vi) and does not engage the Church’s  infallibility.[20]

Therefore, perhaps we can agree to call it only the official liturgy of the Conciliar Church.

d) THIS BEING SO, SHOULDN’T WE SAY THE NOM IS INVALID?  This has not been proven, but it can be argued:

(x)  The Novus Ordo does not qualify as a Catholic Rite (iv, vii, viii, ix).   The celebrant must intend to do what the Church does.  The NOM will no longer guarantee of itself that he has this intention - that will depend on his personal faithh (generally unknown to those present, but more and more doubtful as the crisis in the Church goes on and on.)  Therefore, these Masses can be presumed of doubtful validity, and more so with time.

(xi) The words of consecration, especially of the wine, have been tampered with. Has the “substance of the sacrament” (cf Pius XII quoted in P 5) been  ATTENDANCE

(xii)     The New Mass is hardly a Catholic Mass and so it cannot oblige nor suffice for one’s Sunday obligation. We must treat the question of attending it as we would any non-Catholic liturgy (with the important exception that the NOM has not been authoritatively declared non-Catholic  which means that many who do attend it are unaware of its toxicity and are exempt from guilt): a Catholic may not attend it except with a mere physical presence, without positively taking part in it, and only because of major family reasons (weddings, funerals).


The Second Vatican Council was a meeting of the world’s two and a half thousand bishops for four sessions between October 1962 and December 1965. Pope John XXIII, in his opening speech to the Council (Oct. 11, 1962), declared its aim to be:  that the Catholic faith should be kept and taught but taught in the language of modern man by a magisterium “which is pre-dominantly pastoral in character” and this without resorting to any condemnations  thus appealing to all peoples.

Pope Paul VI agrees with his predecessor: “(Vatican II) was the most important (event) because...above all it sought to meet pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.” (Closing Brief - Dec. 8, 1965)

With such ideals, it is little wonder to find Catholic teaching presented:  weakly (no definitions or condemnations) confusedly (no technical, scholastic terminology)  & one-sidedly (so as to attract non-Catholics)

  All such vague and ambiguous teaching, already liberal in its method, would be interpreted in its true liberal sense after the Council.  Consider:







[23] §9 The liturgy of the word is stressed

        §10 and the banquet aspect

        §11, 14 as well as active participation

        §36,54 and therefore the vernacular



SC §72 Rite & formulae of Penance  are to be revised


Face to face confessions & General Absolution[25]

§73,75 Extreme Unction should be an Anointing of the Sick New matter[26], form and subject[27] (the non dying sick).
LG[1][28] §8 The Church of Christ subsists in (and not is) the Catholic Church


It is also in “separated Churches” - Ut  Unum Sint :§11 [29]

CONCILIAR TEACHING R  §3 which has separated brethren in separated “Churches” (sic)


All the baptised are in Christ’s Church

Ut Unum Sint §42  

And so there is no need to convert the Orthodox for example.

UR §14 which ought to be as sisters.[30]




OT[1][31] §15 Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy and progress in science

      §20 and psychology and sociology

Studies in secular universities are encouraged but not the study of Thomism “open” spiritualities, & subjective morality...

        §82 Wish for a World Authority

The Catholic religion is no longer to be a religion of State anywhere

  Full support for the United Nations



[1]More gravely, the Council was hijacked by the liberal elements within the Church who from the very beginning got the pre-conciliar preparatory schemes for discussion rejected and replaced by progressive ones prepared by their own “experts”. (The liberals were able too to get their members onto the Commissions.) The new schemes, passed as the Council’s decrees, constitutions and declarations, contain more or less explicitly DOCTRINAL ERRORS for which liberals in the past had been condemned.


Let us take by way of example the following passages:







GS[33] §24 “Man is the only creature on earth that God has wanted for its own sake”

     [§12 and “all things on earth should be ordained to man”

“The Lord hath made all things for Himself” Prov. 16,4  

...to help him to save his soul]


         §22 Moreover, “by his incarnation the Son of God has in a certain way united himself with each man”


         §22  so “Human nature...has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare”



God assumed an individual human nature.   (E.g. Dz 114)

  ...a little less than the angels...” Ps 8,6

  §26 and because of “the sublime dignity of the human person”

 §26 his “rights and duties are universal  and inviolate”; including:


[1] Only he who lives well is worthy. Apoc. 3,4  

He who buries his talent will be stripped of it. Lk 19,24

DH[1][34] §2 “The Vatican Council declares                that the human person has a      right to religious freedoom...  (i.e.)

         ...all men should be immune from coercion on the part of... every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be     restrained from acting ­in accordance with his convictions...


Liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man.                                         Condemned by Pius IX.

...the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledge- ment by the government of the duty of restraining... offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands.

                   Condemned by Pius IX.



      This right of the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognition in the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.”

Liberty of conscience and of worship... should be proclaimed and asserted by  law in every correctly established society...”  Condemned by Pius IX in Quanta Cura

UR §3 “...the Spirit of Christ has not                    refrained from using (separated churches) as a means of salvation”, and so...


AG[1][35] §15 “ecumenical action should be                  encouraged so that...Catholics might cooperate with their separated brethren... by a common profession before the nations of faith in God and in Jesus Christ...”< P7


NA[1][36] §2 Why, even concerning non-                Christian religions: “The Catholic Church   rejects nothing of what is good and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct...”

“All the gods of the Gentiles are devils.” - Ps 95,5  “...beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations.”  Dt 18,9

LG §22 “Together with their head, the Supreme Pontiff, and never apart from him, they (the Bishops) have supreme and full authority over the Universal Church...”


       §21 “Now, episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, the duty also of teaching




:  “This (episcopal) dignity, in fact, depends immediately on God as to

the power of orders, and on the Apostolic See as to the power of                 jurisdiction...”  Pius VI, Deessemus Nos




The Council itself both encourages liberal trends (and its encouragement would become post-Conciliar Vatican policy) and departs from traditional Catholic teaching. But it has no authority for either (P5f).  Therefore our position must be:

“We...refuse to follow the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.” [37]

And it is neo-Modernist tendencies that the Council is all about. [38]


- not by reason of the extraordinary magisterium, for it refused to define. Pope Paul VI himself, in an audience on Jan. 12, 1966, said it “had avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner dogmas affected by the mark of infallibility.” [39]

        nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this:

        is the marvellous uniformity of the teaching of the bishops when dispersed

throughout the world (& not when assembled, when they may be subject to pressure groups.) [40]

* is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. [41]

The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but of time too (always). Cf Vatican I - (P6.)

- nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium [43] of his pontificate, Pope John-Paul II declared that his first aim would be to promote and implement the decrees of Vatican II, and to bring to light all it contained implicitly. He says the new Code of Canon Law is an effort to put this conciliar doctrine, and especially its new ecclesiology, into canonical language. [44]  The Catechism of the Catholic Church is likewise an effort to renew the life of the Church as desired and begun by Vatican II. [45]   Look at the references in any of his encyclicals: see the preponderance of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings. The specific teachings of this Council favouring heresy (Q6), the Pope’s insistence [46] on them would be bad enough.

But with the prolongation of his reign and the prolificacy of his writings and discourses, however, it has become ever more clear that John Paul II is preaching a new religion, a humanism, a gospel of the intrinsic goodness of man, thanks to God’s becoming man, with the implied consequence of the salvation of all men. His starting point is Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes §22): “Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him, has been raised in us also to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man.” The Pope is constantly [47] basing his teachings on these lines of Vatican II using them to illustrate this novel doctrine of universal salvation. Times New Roman; : EN-AUgogue of Rome (April 13, 1986) and then invites Catholics and Jews to prepare together the coming of the Messiah (June 24, 1986), dialogues with the high priests/witch doctors of Voodoo (Feb 4 1993); takes part in Animist rites in the “Sacred Forest” in Togo (Aug 8 1985); has the sacred Tilac put on his forehead by a priestess of Shiva in Bombay (Feb, 2, l986); et cetera; while inviting representatives of all the “main religions” (and about 130 came) to Assisi to pray for peace (Oct. 27, 1986). And everywhere and with all he praises their “values” but fails to tell them that they and their people must convert if they want to be saved.


And so we cannot follow this Pope’s doctrine but must hold fast to the doctrine constantly taught by the Church of all time.


        It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church, more devastating now than in any previous pontificate (with the probable exception of Paul VI’s); in this only God can so judge him.

        Nor is it for us to judge him juridically - the Pope has no superior on earth - nor to declare unquestionably null all his acts.

        But we must judge him as our Saviour would have us: “Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them.”  We are not to cooperate blindly in the destruction of the Church by tolerating the implementation of a new religion, or by not doing what we can to defend our Catholic faith. Archbishop Lefebvre was surely our model here.


[The Church is in crisis: if the Pope really wants the aid of heaven, he has only to do what God wants - and a good first step would be to take seriously all three parts of the Secret of Our Lady of Fatima, and consecrate Russia as She has requested. But how can he, when he pretends that the “fall of Communism” in the USSR is the fulfilment of Our Lady’s promises and the hope of world peace? [49] ]

BUT ISN’T HE INFALLIBLE WHEN IMPOSING TEACHING ON THE CHURCH? e.g. the teach­ing understood by the new Code of Canon Law? The Pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations etc.) to the extent that these imply faith and morals (cf P 4), if imposing for all time definitive teaching.

But the infallible implies the immutable and irreformable (P 6).

Now, the hallmark of the Conciliar Popes, like the modernists, [50] is a spirit of evolution .[51] To what extent can such minds want irreformably to define or absolutely to impose? “They cannot” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Econe, June 12 1984). Cf n 73.

For Pope John-Paul II, this is evident:

i) by his understanding of his own authority as presented in Ut Unum Sint (25/5/95): after summarising the traditional teaching on the Petrine Office (§§90-94) he goes on (§95) to wonder how to exercise the primacy in the new situation of recognition of other Christians as in partial communion with the Catholic Church; how it may “accomplish a service of love recognised by all” (ibid.); and whether we couldn’t get together with non-Catholics to learn from them on this score (§96). 

ii)     by his own understanding of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (22/5/94): here, on a matter of faith & not just discipline, the Pope condemns solemnly the error of “women priests”. His letter has all the qualities of an ex cathedra definition.

But he won’t recognise it himself as such! - See the on-going controversy and the reply of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (28/10/95) that we are dealing only with the ordinary magisterium (“in itself not infallible” comments the Observatore Romano (22/11/95 - English Ed. p.2))

iii)    even by his acceptance of the new collegial understanding of authority (New Code cc. 331, 336).  


A Code is a collection of laws, each one being an order of the competent authority: each canon in the code of 1917 was a law of Benedict XV, and each canon in the code of 1983 (commonly now called “the new code”) is a law of John-Paul II.

Now, for Pope John-Paul II, the purpose of the New Code is to give expression to the Second Vatican Council’s new ecclesiology (i.e. the new understanding that the Church has of her nature and mission) in canonical language, and must be understood always in the light of Conciliar teaching. [53] but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals.

[For the most part, we may regret the loss of clarity, precision & integrity the Old Code had, but that is insufficient reason to reject altogether these canons.]


a) can. 844§4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick and even holy  communion to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” (vs P7) 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”(P2).

  This is an inadmissible surrender to modernist ecumenism.

b) can. 1055§1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of children, but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. And this latter, as we can see in the light of the annulments now given, has become the ESSENCE [54] of marriage: the partners give each other their whole selves (and not just “the exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards acts capable in themselves of generating offspring” CIC(1917) c1081 §2) for their self­fulfillment in wedlock (c1057 §2). There is considered to be no marriage where one spouse cannot provide the other with this help (c1095 2 : is provided for in c1116 §1: if the couple can not approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience” - and they may consider such his insistiing on having the New Mass for the wedding, let alone their apprehensions

Even if one were to consider the above argument as only probable, then jurisdiction would still certainly be supplied by the Church - c144.  And so we answer affirmatively: traditional priests do have jurisdiction that is neither territorial nor personal, but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.

Q10  CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS? [60]“Q10   CAN WE ATTEND THE INDULT MASS?[1]The Old Mass as allowed by “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” (1984) & “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta” (1988)[1]

The SSPX could never profit by Rome’s Indult:

1)    becasue of the conditions attached to it; in particular that of acknowledging the “doctrinal and juridical value” of the New Mass, which is impossible. (Q5)
2)    more fundamentally because such acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully supressed the Old Mass which is certainly not the case. (P20)

But other priests have profited by it, some jumping at the chance to say the traditional Latin Mass, others only because requested by their Bishop, and the odd one or two who would always say the Old Mass anyway but have accepted to do so under the auspices of the Indult “for pastoral reasons”.

Can we attend their Masses?

If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Mass then  NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.

[But beware this condition may not presented explicitly, but by implication such as:

        by a priest using Novus Ordo ways e.g.

        using a ciborium consecrated at the NOM,

        or communion in the hand,

        or the new lectionaries, r Mass facing the people (and for that matter, with what rite was he ordained)

        by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant                   habitually says the NOM).

        by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments  e.g. penance]

  This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass:

It is     - a ploy to keep people away from the Society of St. Pius X (many Bishops allow it only where there is a SSPX Mass centre);

        for those who feel attached to the Latin Mass, but accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the NOM, Vatican II & all corresponding official post-Conciliar orientations.  

Therefore, attending it, because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass­goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local Bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e. it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the Church. This one cannot do. (cf also Q 13)

The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics. [with the exception of the case of those priests who happen to be saying the Old                 Mass under the Indult or with a Roman “celebret”,


What happened?

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, feeling that his days were fast drawing to a close and seeing no other way of assuring the continued ordination of truly Catholic priests, decides to consecrate Bishops

19/4/87   and announces that he will do so even without the Pope’s permission.  

17/6/88   Cardinal Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, officially warned the  Archbishop that, in virtue of canon 1382, he and the bishops consecrated by     him would be excommunicated (because proceeding without pontifical mandate and thereby infringing the laws of sacred discipline.)  

30/6/88   Archbishop Lefebvre, together with Bishop de Castro Mayer, consecrated four bishops.  

1/7/88     Cardinal Gantin declared the exconmunication threatened according

to canon 1382.  [He also calls the consecrations a schismatical act and declares " the corresponding excommunication (c.1364 §1), as well as threatening anyone supporting the consecrations with excommunication because of schism. " 2/7/88   

  In Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, the Pope repeats Cardinal Gantin’s accusation of schism and threats of generalised excommunications.  see Q12.]  

Now, the exconmunication warned of on 17th June for abuse of episcopal powers (c.1382) was not incurred because:

1)   A person who violates a law out of necessity [63] - if one inculpably thought there was, hhe would not incur the penalty  (c1323 7 :ş) , and even if one culpably thought there was, he would still incur no automatic penalties [64] (c1324 §3 & §1 8)

2)   No penalty is ever incurred without committing a subjectively imputable mortal sin (c1321 §1, c1323 7), Now, Archbishop Lefebvre made it amply clear that he thought 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. [65]

3)   Most importantly, positive law is at the service of the natural and eternal law, ecclesiastical law at that of the divine law (P8).  No “authority” (P9) can force a bishop to compromise in his teaching of Catholic faith or administering of Catholic sacraments; no “law” (P9) can force him to cooperate in the destruction of the Church. Rome giving no guarantee of preserving Catholic tradition (i.e. “Catholicism”), the Archbishop had to do what he could with his God-given episcopal powers to guarantee its preservation.

4)   The Church, by approving the SSPX (Q2), approved what it needs for its own survival. This includes firstly, as indeed for the whole Church, the service of bishops who will certainly maintain Catholic tradition.



Was Archbishop Lefebvre (along with his co-consecrator and the four bishops consecrated) excommunicated also [66] for having done a “schismatic act”?

NO.  A first argument is that already given (Q 11 1).

Moreover, what constitutes a schismatic act?

       Not the mere deed of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate - the Code itself lists this offence under Title 3 (abuse of ecclesiastical powers) and not under     Title 1 (offences against religion and the unity of the Church) of its penal   section   (Book 6).

-Nor to consecrate against the express wish of the Holy Father - that could amount at         most to disobedience.[1][67]   But disobedience does not amount to schism, which    requires not recognising the authority itself commanding, whereas           disobedience consists in not obeying a command, while still acknowledging                the authority of the one commanding. “The child who says ‘I won’t!’ to his 1">          mother does not deny that she is his mother.”[68] 

Now, Archbishop Lefebvre always recognised the Pope’s authority (proved by    his consultations with Rome for a solution to current problems) and so does the Society of St. Pius X (see, for example, its support for John-Paul’s “Ordinatio  Sacerdotalis” against women priests).  

Consecrating a bishop without pontifical mandate would be a schismatic act if one pretended to confer not just the fulness of the priesthood but also jurisdiction ie. a governing power over a particular flock. Only the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction over the whole Church (P4), can appoint a pastor to a flock and empower him to govern it. But Archbishop Lefebvre never presumed to confer anything but the full priestly powers of Orders, and in no way did he grant any jurisdiction (which he himself didn’t even have personally - cf Q9).

[But with the new COLLEGIALITY, however, Rome now understands jurisdiction to be conferred with episcopal consecration and no longer by pontifical mission (c375 :§2) - cf Q8.>  This innovation, contradicting the Church’s 2000 year understanding of what Christ wanted for His Church, is at the root of calling the consecrations of 30th June “schismatic”.  It is rather breaking with the Church’s understanding of her own constitution that must be called schismatic, and not the consecrations.]

As for the FAITHFUL, threatened by Pope John-Paul II himself with excommunication if they adhere formally to the schism (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta - 2nd July, 1988), do they indeed incur any excommunications for going to SSPX priests for the sacraments?


Not at all.

The Society of St. Pius X priests are neither excommunicated nor schismatics[1] [72] is the Catholic Church (whereas it is so only to the extent that it is the same Church as the pre-Conciliar Church)monitions [81] to the delinquent which he spurns (c.2314 §1)monitions


Q: But could pertinacity not be presumed from the insistence of these Popes on the new ways, and this in the face of all tradition and its present day witnesses?

A: Perhaps; but not socially i.e. as regards loss of office, etc., which, if societies are not to collapse, must not be only presumed but also proven.

The argument does not prove its point, and becomes less probable when you consider that it is not the only explanation for the “material heretic & still Pope” question (a); and it becames quite improbable when you consider its dangers (b) or consequences (c).

(a)  The LIBERAL MIND-SET of a Paul VI or a John-Paul II can explain their wanting to be Catholics and simultaneous betrayal in practice of Catholicism.  They accept contradictions; with a subjective and evolutive mentality, this is to be expected.PPENDIX II - FURTHER READING \ “APPENDIX II - FURTHER READING

Catholic Dogma in General

Ludwigg Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Tan 1974

Trent - The Catechism of the Council of Trent - Tan 1982

St. Pius X - The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X - Instauratio Press 1993

Denzinger - The Sources of Catholic Dogma - Marian House, Powers Lake

(= translation of 30th edition of Denzinger’s “Enchiridion Symbolorum”)


The Crisis in the Church

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - A Bishop Speaks - Angelus 1987

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - Open Letter to Confused Catholics - Angelus 1986

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - They have Uncrowned Him - Angelus 1988

Romano Amerio - Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the CCatholic Church in the 20th Century  - Sarto House 1996


Mgr. Lefebvre & SSPX

Jose Hanu - Vatican Encounter - Sheed Andrews and McMeel 1978

Michael Davies - Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Part Onee - Angelus 1979

(Various) - Is Tradition Excommunicated? - Angelus 1993

Francois Pivert - Schism or Not? The 1988 Episcopal Conssecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre - Angelus 1995

Francois Laisney - Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican - Angelus 1988


The Second Vatican Council

Ralph Wiltgen - The Rhine Flows into the Tiber - Hawthhorn Books 1967

Archbishop Lefebvre - I Accuse the Council - Angelus 1982

E. Schillebeeckx (sic) - Vatican II: The Real Achievement - Sheed & Ward 1967

Michael Davies - Pope John’s Council - Angelus 1980

Michael Davies - The Second Vatican Council and Religioous Liberty - Neumann Press 1992

Fr. Pierre-Marie - Religious Liberty: Is Dignitatis Humannae Compatible with Tradition? - Pace Print 1994

Franz Schmidberger - The Catholic Church and Vatican II - Angelus


The New Order of Mass

Michael Davies - Pope Paul’s New Mass - Angelus 1980

Rama P. Coomaraswamy - The Problems with the New Mass - Tan 11990

Anthony Cekada - The Problems with the Prayers of the MModern Mass - Tan 1991

(Ottaviani etc)- Roman Theologians take a look at the New Order of Mass: A Sharp Critique - David Macdonald Ltd. 1970  

Pope John-Paul II

Daniel Le Roux - Peter, Lovest Thou Me? - Instauratio PPress 1989

Johannes Dormann - Pope John-Paul II’s Theological Journeey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi: Part One (From the Second Vatican Council to the Papal Elections) - Angelus 1994,


[1]Bishop Williamson, The Angelus, May-June 1991, p.2

[2]Also called in this handbook: “SSPX” or “The Society”

[3]Incardinated = accepted by the Church as being a cleric of either a diocese or religious institute.  Without incardination a cleric is a “vagabond” having no right to exercise his orders or ministry.

[4]Mgr. Lefebvre, Fideliter #59 pp. 68-70

[5]Ibid. p. 67

[6]This evidence was never produced.  A doubt about the validity of a law excuses from observing it (P.10a).  How much the more does doubt about the authority of the legislator!

[7]Jose Hanu - Vatican Encounter - Sheed Andrews & McMeel (1978) p. 185 & 191.

[8]Mgr. Lefebvre’s Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 145

[9] cf. n.3


[12]Hence Archbishop’s Lefebvre’s expression: “messe bâtarde” “illegitimate Mass”

[13]Jean Guitton (19/12/93) Apropos (17) p. 8f [Christian Order Oct 1994]. Jean Guitton was an intimate friend of Paul VI who had 116 of his books and had made marginal study notes in 17 of them.

[14]Michael Davies Pope Paul’s New Mass (Angelus Press 1980) p.137 (cf p.149)

[15]A. Bugnini La Riforma Liturgica (Centro Liturgico Vincenziano 1983)

[16]cf. Fr. Laisney, Angelus 1997, p.35

[17] It is known, moreover, that Paul VI signed the Institutio Generalis without reading it and without ensuring that it had been checked out by the Holy Office.

[18]Open Letter to Confused Catholics (Mgr Lefebvre) p. 36

[19]Archbishop Lefebvre himself preferred to avoid the term “intrinsically evil” because it does lend itself to misrepresentation. Cf.. CATHOLIC Nov. 1996. p.6

[20] Let us remember that a pope, unless just repeating what has been taught "always, everywhere and by all", engages his infallibility when teaching on faith or morals (or legislating on what is necessarily connected with them) with full pontifical authority and definitively (cf Vatican I, Dz 1839). But as regards the New Order of Mass, Pope Paul VI has stated (19/11/69): "...the rite and its related rubric are not in themselves a dogmatic definition. They are capable of various theological qualifications, depending on the liturgical context to which they relate.  They are gestures and terms relating to a lived and living religious action which involves the ineffable mystery of God's presence; it is an action that is not always carried out in the exact same form, an action that only theological analysis can examine and express in doctrinal formulas that are logically satisfying."

[21] The Vatican II documents are referred to by their initial Latin words as are papal encyclicals.

[22] How Rome's guidelines are further interpreted as seen in the parishes is an entirely different story

[23] Sacrosanctum Concilium

[24]Unitatis Redintegratio

[25] Does this affect the "substance of the sacraments" over which the Church has no power (cf Pius XII quoted in P5 above)

[26] Ibid


[28]Lumen Gentium

[29] Ut Unum Sint: Pope John-Paul II - 25/5/1995

[30] Cf The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church (sic) - Balamand, Lebanon - June 17-24, '93

[31]Optatam Totius

[32]Gaudium et Spes

[33]Gaudium et Spes

[34]Dignitatis Humanae

[35]Ad Gentes

[36]Nostra Ćtate

[37]Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration Appendix I

[38] "...Pope John-Paul II makes not Holy Scripture, but rather Assisi, the shibboleth for the correct 'understanding of the Council"' Dormann, Part I, p 46 (Appendix II)

[39] Cf the declaration of the Theological commission of March 6 1964 & repeated by the Council's General Secretary on Nov 16 1964: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters on faith or morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so”.  And it never did.

[40]Eglise et Contre-Eglise pp. 255-285 Courrier de Rome, 1996

[41]ibid. pp. 287-325

[42]ibid. pp. 287-325

[43]Acta Apostolicae Sedis (LXX) p. 920f

[44]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges (25/1/83)

[45]Fidei Depositum (11/10/92

[46]Certain theologians (de Lubac, Von Baltasar, Congar,...) have been named cardinals by John Paul II for the very teachings that saw them admonished by the pre-conciliar magisterium.

[47]By way of example: Redemptor Hominis §§8, 13, 18; Evangelium Vitae §§2, 104; Tertio Millennio Adveniente §4; Sign of contradiction, p. 101f, Karol Wojtyla (Geoffrey Chapman Australia 1979)

[48] Pope John-Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi: Part 1, pp.78-95 (Angelus Press 1994)

[49] Fatima: Tragedy & Triumph, pp.209-217 - Fr. Francois de Marie des Anges Immaculate Heart Press

[50]Pascendi §26

[52]Sacrae Disciplinae Leges (25/1/83)

[53]cf P.9

[54] vs P5 & P6

[55] This becomes all the more disconcerting when you consider the recognit­ion now given by the Vatican to the Orthodox Bishops. Cf Paul VI: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligat­ion rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to full communion again. They ought to do this by recognising and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them..." (Quoted at Balamand, by the Joint International Commission for the meological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, Final Statement §18. Cf §14; Ut Unum Sint §§50-63.)

[56]Angelus March 1997, p.34

[57] Fr. Ramon Angles - "The Validity of Confessions & Marriages in the Chapels of the Society of Saint Pius X" p.7 (Angelus 1997)

[58]c = canon of the Code of 1983 (used by those who answer Q.9 negatively).

[59]Fr Angles op. cit. (Q.8 n.3) pp. 9-18

[60]The Old Mass as allowed by “Quattuor Abhinc Annos” (1984) & “Ecclesia Dei Afflicta” (1988)

[61] Permissions given for the 1962 Missal to priests applying to the Ecclesia Dei Conmission, in the wake of the 1988 consecration of Bishops by Archbishop Lefebvre (Qll).


[62] "The state of necessity, as it is explained by jurists, is a state in which the necessary goods for natural or supernatural life are so threatened that one is morally compelled to break the law in order to save them." Is Tradition Excommunicated? p.26 (Appendix II)

[63] And yet objectively there is. Ibid. pp. 27-36

[64] Excommunications for unlawful consecrations (c1382) or for schism (c1364) are of this kind

[65] Cf the sermon of 30/6/88 - Archbishop Lefebvre & the Vatican p.136 (Appendix II)  

[66] As well as consecrating without a pontifical mandate - Q11

[67] But there is not even disobedience - cf An Open Letter to Confused Catholics p 129-136. Cf "The act of consecrating a bishop (without the Pope's permission) is not in itself a schismatic act." Cardinal Lara, President of the Pontifical Commission for the Authentic Interpretation of Canon Law - in La Repubblica, Oct. 7, 1988

[68] Fr. Glover, in Is Tradition Excommunicated - p99 (Appendix II

[69] Is Tradition Excommunicated? ppl-39 (Appendix II)

[70] Fr. Glover, ibid. p. 100

[71] Ecclesia Dei Afflicta - 2/July/88

[72] A phrase of Mgr. Benelli's (in a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre - 25/6/76)

[73] Cf the Declaration - Appendix I

[74] NB the Society of St. Peter still do not have a bishop of their own

[75] An interpretation of: "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism (of Mgr. Lefebvre) is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." - Ecclesia Dei Afflicta

[76] Vatican II - e.g. LG §15, UR §3

[77] Unless perhaps it it a question of a diocese where they've no hopes of starting up

[78]ie. as well as the new Code of Canon Law

[79] John-Paul II, "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" p.l64, Johnathan Cape, London 1994


[80] e.g. the communities at Palmar de Troya, Spain, or St Jovite, Canada.

[81]To have canonical force, they must come from one's superior cf c.2233. [The point is that not only the crime but also its imputability must be notorious - cc2195, 2197]

[82] c =  canon of the 1917 Code (Sedevacantists, of course, not recognising that of 1983)

[83] A little example: "At the Second Vatican Council, the Catholic Church committed herself irrevocably to following the path of the ecumenical venture, thus heeding the Spirit of the Lord, who teaches people to interpret carefully the 'signs of the times'." John-Paul II, Ut Unum Sint §3. If it is because of the "signs of the times" that the Conciliar Church has launched herself into ecumenism, how are we to know that the venture will be irrevocable? What does a John-Paul II mean by such absolute terms?

[84] Consider the argument from Bishop Vezelis, the Schuckardt movement, etc.: It is said that Cardinal Liénart, who ordained Archbishop Lefebvre a priest and consecrated him a bishop, was a Freemason, and so all ordinations of His Grace were invalid; and so we must consider invalid all the sacraments of those he ordained, & of those they ordained...

WHEREAS: that Liénart was a Freemason is only the unproven allegation of one writer;

and Church teaching is that we must accept as valid his sacraments anyway, if he used the correct external rite (the exception being if he had revealed a contrary internal intention - which he didn't); and he did;

Marcel Lefebvre, moreover, was consecrated by three Bishops in 1947, which sacrament was surely therefore valid (and note that that would still probably be true even if one were not yet a priest - the fulness of the priesthood including the lower degrees.)

[85]i .e. administer sacraments to them or receive them from them.

[86] A reference to Paul VI's "Credo of the People of God"