The Controversy Over Lefebvrism


 
PUBLISHED on the Internet: Sept. 24, 2005. Consolidated from documents published April 12, 2002; April 2003; Sept. 2004. Text partially revised, corrected and improved.
 

Dramatis Personae: Marcel Lefebvre

Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa Marcel Lefebvre was a Frenchman, and a missionary of the Society of the Holy Ghost in Africa. During the Vatican II "Council", he became one of the founder-leaders of the Conservatives — the Coitus Patri Internationale. Later, when in retirement, he was requested by some seminarians to take them under his wings, as they were disillusioned by the Roncallite Reformation. Thus was born the Society of Saint Pius the 10th., (See the organization's website: SSPX: The Sacerdotal Society of St. Pius the Xmo.).

The SSPX has always baffled the Catholic Resistance: are they with us or are they not?

The Lefebvrists accept the apostate Roman Liberal Protestant Modernist sect’s Antipopes as their popes, but do not obey them, so much so that they have been ‘ex-communicated’ by that sect's Antipope Karol Wojtyla (‘John-Paul II’). Nevertheless, while they freely expose his heresies and schism from the Christian religion, they continue in accepting him as the true pope and reject all those who reject him.

In Catholic law, when a person follows a schismatic, even if he does not assent to his heresies, he also becomes a schismatic. Therefore, in Catholic law, the Lefebvrists, in accepting the schismatic Karol Wojtyla as their pope, thereby constitute themselves schismatics.

But this is not all. Catholicism teaches that all men, including the pope, have free will and so can defect from the faith, becoming heretics. The Lefebvrists, while themselves exposing Karol Wojtyla’s heresies and therefore schism, nevertheless adhere to him, thereby implicitly confessing (what I consider to be) the heresy of Papal Indefectibility — that a man who is pope cannot defect from the faith.

[Those who are interested may view his biography here.]


Adversus Hæreses:
Against The Heresy Of Lefebvrism

This text was written in response to two apologies tendered in favour of Lefebvrism in reply to my posts denouncing Lefebvrism as a Schism and as being heretical, on the Traditionalist Catholics' Club Discussion List. In this article, I merely intend to refute the arguments made in defence of Lefebvrism in these two apologias. No offense is intended to any particular person; any offensiveness is purely incidental and not intended personally.

In reading the two apologies, one notices that, for people who are vaunted as lovers of the Church and her tradition, they are remarkably ingnorant and poorly informed of Church Teachings, history, precedents, etc. That is something that always makes me suspicious, for the first thing I did was to seek information on Church teaching on these topics, and I found it. I read a considerable quantity of Lefevrist and Sedevacantist literature on the subject, I ransacked my parish library and went atleast once a week to the Diocesan Pastoral Center at Kane Road, Bandra, Bombay, to read books in the library — both pre-Vatican II and post. The late Fr. William Astbury, S.J., at St. Peter's Church, Bandra, helped me much and allowed me access to the Catholic Encyclopedia volumes there. I purchased pre- and post- "Vatican II" books at the St. Paul's Press, Bandra and at the Examiner Press, Fort, Bombay. I found a wealth of information. And it should be obvious that Bombay is not exactly integrated with the rest of the world, this being one of those 'Third World Countries' that always are whining about being undeveloped, but which sedulously shirk actual development.

The second thing that one notices about these defences is their recourse to emotionalism over cold reason. Not something that speaks well of the apologist or of his cause, does it?

OBJECTION:
"The culpability of the person occupying St. Peter's Chair is for God to decide and is not for us.

"According to the Church-Laws, only a Pope can judge another Pope.

"Also the School of Cardinals are authorised to appeal to the Pope to correct his actions.

"But today we see this will not happen."

My Reply:
As Catholics, we are bound by Church Teachings. And that teaches us that in the External Forum, we can and must discern the actions and culpabilities of persons and their acts of commission and omission, and act accordingly. We are forbidden from judging in the internal forum, where only God can and does.

Imagine if St. Paul had thought along these lines: "Oh, I can see that brother Peter is doing wrong, alright, when he stopped dining with Gentile Christians. But since only God can judge and since I do not know what is actually going on in Peter's mind, I cannot do anything about it." History, and the Bible would probably be different today!

That 'only a Pope can judge a Pope' is true only of formal judgement in the external forum.

But let us take this extraordinary argument to its logical conclusions.

At one time, there were even three men claiming to be the true pope. Now since we cannot judge the pope, we must necessarily accept and acknowledge all three of them as popes, for only a pope can judge a pope, and we cannot.

If we could, we could judge who is true pope and who is not — precisely what we are told we cannot do in this day and time, arbitarily, with regards to Roncalli, Montini, Luciani and Wojtyla.

And going further on this road: Today, there are something like twenty five or more men claiming to be the true pope, including some half a dozen 'Pope Peters II'. And since we cannot judge who is and who is not, we must necessarily accept each and every one of them as being legitimate pope. Have I got that right?

Remember, some of them have got a better moral standing in the eyes of the Catholic Church than Karol Wojtyla. So, if we must follow this idea, we must necessarily accept not just this Clownarch Wojtyla, but this whole bunch of papal claimants!
OBJECTION:
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa "How can there be no Visible Head for the Church?

"Where will the New Pope come from in the future?

"Which Cardinals will elect him?

"Which Bishops will become Cardinals?

"Who will appoint them as Cardinals?

"What authority will such a group have?

"Does Our Lord want us to tinker about like this?

"Will such a tinkered outfit have any APOSTOLIC Succession or Traditional Legitimacy?

"Sede Vacantism will End up as a SCHISM, putting people OUTSIDE the Arc of Salvation.

It has already done so!"

My Reply:
When I first realized in 1993 that the 'crisis' in the Church was no crisis at all, but stagemanaged, created, cultivated and sedulously maintained by Roncalli and company, continuing under Karol Wojtyla, I faced this same dilemma. So I studied.

Now one of the most remarkable and easily accessible sources of Catholic teaching is the multi-volume Catholic Encyclopedia, and I literally went through the books one by one.

Today, I am aware that it is also on the net, at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen.

In this, I found articles, principally, on the Election of the Popes, Papal Elections, the Council of Constance; the three articles which give the relevant information on Church Teaching.

Now this is in itself a large topic which I cannot cover here and in short. Therefore I refer readers to access these articles for themselves, or at my website.

However, as an relevant subject, I would suggest that readers look up the subject of Conclavism, a movement thrown up by Catholics in response to these Church Teachings. And one Conclavist site that I could refer to is St. Gabriel: Towards Sedevacantist Unity.

Conclavism follows the logical course that makes one, first of all, a Sedevacantist. It follows the logical course to seek the election of a pope by the ALTERNATIVE means taught by the Church, its theologians, doctors, confessors, popes, etc. over the ages.

The ignorance that exists in Lefebvrist circles is extraordinary and surprising.

And the insulting insinuation of 'tinkering' is totally uncalled for.
OBJECTION:
Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa "It is good to remember that Our Lord appointed St. Peter as Pope before His Passion.

"Our Lord JESUS knew that St. Peter will disown Him in the future and still ordained him as the first Pope.

"Then our Lord prayed for the Pope:
"Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Lk. xxii:32)
"Our Lord asks St. Peter to confirm his brethren inspite of his impending fall, for St. Peter was the Pope.

"St. John who witnessed the fall of the first Pope also didn't disown St. Peter!!"

My Reply:
I would like to see Church pronouncement on this claim that Peter was constituted Pope at the time when our Lord made His promise to him, at Matt. 16:18.

I, for myself, going merely by the grammatical understanding of the text believe otherwise.

Our Lord said, "I will," or "I shall" and it is distorting to pretend that by this He actually did it at the very moment He pronounced these words of promise.

But my understanding — and I think that it is Church Teaching — is that Peter actually received his office only at the moment of his formal restoration to Divine Favour, when our Lord, post-Resurrection, after asking him, "Peter, lovest thou me?" and procuring the response, "Thou knowest that I lovest Thee," said, "Feed my sheep," "Feed my lambs," "Feed my sheep."
OBJECTION:
"At Fatima our Holy Mother repeatedly asked us to "Pray for the Pope."

"Did we listen to Her?

"Have we obeyed Her atleast now?

"Did She not know that all these Calamities will befall the Church in our times? Yes.

"SHE knew everything and predicted every thing for us and still She said, "Pray for the Pope" (SSPX prays for Pope in every Holy Mass).

"She did not ask us to fabricate a Pope!"

My Reply:
I do not know from where this thing about our Lady 'predicting everything for us' comes from. And I, from a purely Catholic viewpoint, give prominence and supremacy to Holy Public Revelation, subordinating any and all Private Revelation to it.

But, now, if we accept this argument, we must posit that at Fatima, our Lady promulgated a New Revelation that abrogated and superceded that given previously and which ended with the last Apostle. Echoes of Vatican II, which also pretends to be a NEW PENTECOST, instituting a NEW DOCTRINE?

The remark, 'She did not ask us to fabricate a Pope' is purely an insult and has its basis in nothing more than sheer ignorance of Catholic Teachings down the ages. It is not those who choose to be faithful to the declared and unobfuscated teachings of the Church and her theologians and doctors and confessors and popes down the ages who are fabricating themselves a pope, but the Lefebvrists, who desperately seek to portray a spiritual vampire as a legitimate pope.
OBJECTION:
"A Pope is needed to fulfill Her order of Collegial Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, so that today's abominations could be thrown out."

My Reply:
See my answers as above.
OBJECTION:
"The Pope is needed to obey our Lady so that the 'HOLY MASS of All Times' is unfettered to facilitate our salvation."

My Reply:
I have already answered this in bulk. However, it remains that Divine Revelation prophecies that the Holy Mass will be for a time unavailable. So, how does this jell with that prophecy?
OBJECTION:
"It is the manifestation of the Divine guidance, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre avoided the Sede-vacantist pit-fall. The poor souls who unwittingly left the fold on this point must return immediately to this Firm ground.

"SSPX, following in the foot-steps of Archbishop Lefebvre will not do another Campos, for the SSPX has been selected by Providence to preserve the 'HOLY MASS of All Times' and provide for the 'Continuance of the Apostolic Tradition'."

My Reply:
It is bad enough that Lefebvrists should think in this way about their founder, Marcel Lefebvre, it is much worse that they should parrot the same thing in public. This smacks of a cult member's brainwashed mind.

I ask, Taking purely Catholic Teaching for our starting point, what is the basis of such a claim being made Marcel Lefebvre or Thuc or des Lauriers or Shuckhardt or Vezelis or any particular person, for that matter? This transgresses all limits of Catholic thought!

The cultist might rue that some choose to stop playing these mind-charades and start awakening to reality and leave, and they may petulantly demand as much as they desire that all come and join them, but that should not bother us at all, should it?

But the Lefebvrist is so much infected with this cultitis, that he sincerely believes this Lefebvrist bit of presumption and arrogance that the 'SSPX will not do another Campos' and that it has been selected by Providence to preserve the Holy Mass and provide for the perpetuation of Apostolic Tradition.

What can be the basis of this presumptive and arrogant self-conceit, if not presumption and arrogance purely in itself?

As for the Campos Lefebvrists, certainly like the SSSP (Sacerdotal Society of St. Peter) which pioneered this rapprochement with the Antichurch and its clownarch, they too had, prior to their rapprochement, mightily affirmed that they would not do precisely what they have now gone and done.

The Lefebvrists may delude themselves that they are some divine cult with a hotline to God and some fantastic property of absolute INDEFECTIBILITY (When God evidently did NOT vouchsafe the same INDEFECTIBILITY to the Universal Church-at-large, given "Vatican II" & the Modernist Apostasy!), but they are on the same path of self-destruction. And, as is commonsense, it is this cult's arrogance, self-conceit and presumption that will pave the way for its fall!
OBJECTION:
"In a family if the Head, the elderly Father contracts a sinful, a wasteful habit and become a slave of that habit how should his responsible children react?

"Is the matter settled if they all say, "You are no more my Father"?

"Does his Paternity roll-back? Just because they said it, will he cease to be their Father?

"Can he cease to be one even if he wishes?

"We almost have a similar situation with our Holy Father.

"We must accept him to be in the Catholic Church."

My Reply:
Sad, sad. It is very sad that this old, hackneyed and foolish argument, long refuted and consigned to the garbage can, keeps on being pulled out and forced to walk the streets and to seek to deceive souls even now!

But since it is, here goes once again!

We have had bad popes. Some of them really, really bad. Some of them just foolish once in awhile. Like Peter, who dissembled at Antioch when Jewish Christians came from James of Jerusalem. Like numerous popes who had liasions and mistresses, or even worse, committed adultery. Foisted their illegitimate sons on the Church and its patrimony. Or the numerous popes who foisted their nephews on the Church. And so on and on.

Now bad enough as these were, they never did constitute heresy and schism, but only moral wrongs. And so, Catholics were only obliged to refuse to accept these actions and to rebuke bad popes, but had no moral justification for withdrawing allegiance on the ground that the particular pope had committed schism and so was no longer pope.

However, it is a fact that popes did come perilously close at times, were rebuked and corrected themselves.

In the clownarchs of the Antichurch, on the contrary, what we have are not immoral Catholics, but incontrovertible public and manifest heretics. And Church law is clear on the point that none of these four clownarchs had ever legitimately become pope, or could, for that matter.

Certainly, it is opposite and contrary to Catholic doctrine, teaching and law to force ourselves to accept such a public and manifest heretic as being 'within the Church.' Such is nothing more than a grievous — and deliberate — act of mortal sin and also an act of contumacious schism!
OBJECTION:
"It's a relief to know that one of us finally has it ALL figured out.

"Tell me, though... by what authority or insight do you judge the state of souls that attend the Lefebvrist Churches, or even the N.O.?

"Where does the accountability lie with those that go to those places? How do you define that?"

My Reply:
The above was stated by the second apologist for Lefebvrism. Now, in reading this second apology, one notices immediately that while the first made emotionalist demands only once or twice, this second apology is shot-through with it...

But to answer: We judge, or rather discern, as commanded by the Church, and according to its criteria, in the External Forum. Our Authority is the Authority of the Church itself, in so far as we keep within the safe boundaries set by the Church.

But it is interesting that the same argument is being made here that the New Church makes for itself. That is, 'on what basis do we judge?' Of course, this is only asked when we challenge it for permitting a woman to preside, or woman priests, or a homosexual to attend, or an infamous heretic openly teaching without any rebuke from his superiors. And so on and on.

Interesting that the thinking of the Antichurch and of its faction, Lefebvrism, is so alike...! Interesting that both bawl out that their 'liberty' is being encroached upon when we challenge their wrongdoing!
OBJECTION:
"I don't know if there are any NO or perhaps fence sitting people viewing this site who may be considering the Trad. Mass as the way to go... but I'm reasonably sure that your sharp and arbitrary classifcations of people will do nothing to build the Traditional movement or appeal to people's hearts, which is ultimately where the true faith must be firmly rooted. Perhaps Saint Paul said it best "...but if I have not charity, I have nothing." "

My Reply:
We all call ourselves Traditionalists and we flatter ourselves as being better than the New Church and its Ecumenist sewage. And yet we are zealous, not for the truth, but that we should be ecumenical among our own varying schools of thought, rather than insisting upon full and complete adherence to the incontrovertible teachings of the Church over the ages.

Well, here's news: Catholicism was never about Populism!

We do not seek to appeal to the heart as much as to the mind, and to the soul. And, more than anything else, the truth is not up for compromise!

Charity is not about countenancing prostitution, whether physical or spiritual! It is not about conniving at evil. It is not about refusing to rebuke one's brother when he is doing wrong.

Lúcio Mascarenhas


Date: April 11, 2003. Page URL: Lefebvristapologias.html

Lefebvrist Apologia — No. 1

The following was a Defense of the Lefebvrist Position by an adherent: Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa
Dear Friends,

When Lent started a priest said, "It's time to go into the desert with our Lord."

"I.e. — It is the time to far remove our souls from the din of daily life and examine it. It is the time to re-read our Catechism several times and get a deeper understanding of the Faith. It is the time to meditate frequently on the Passions of our Lord."

We are Catholics; Christians because, we beleive in our Lord JESUS CHRIST and the Holy Apostolic Traditional Church instituted by Him.

I also, share your agony and indignation regarding the actions of the present Pope. But, in these dark-days we must not lose sight of some facts.

Our Lord has said that He built the Church on St. Peter and that the gates of hell would never prevail over it.

The Catholic Church cannot be without a Pope. Because the Pope is the Vicar of Christ (despite the state of his soul) and is an outward symbol of God's care for His Church — This should be easy to understand like the validity of the Holy Mass said by a priest having personal sins. The priest's sin doesn't intervene in the Holy Mass and the Pope's sin will not throw him out of office.

It is true that a heretic cannot be a Catholic.

The culpability of the person occupying St. Peter's Chair is for God to decide and is not for us. According to the Church-Laws, only a Pope can judge another Pope. Also the School of Cardinals are authorised to appeal to the Pope to correct his actions. But today we see this will not happen.

Burdened by these facts if one says "The Seat of St. Peter is vacant" then where does this " Sede vacantist" position lead one to: Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa
  1. How can there be no Visible Head for the Church?


  2. Where will the New Pope come from in the future?


  3. Which Cardinals will elect him? Which Bishops will become Cardinals?


  4. Who will appoint them as Cardinals? What authority will such a group have?


  5. Does Our Lord want us to tinker about like this?


  6. Will such a tinkered outfit have any APOSTOLIC Succession or Traditional Legitimacy? Sede Vacantism will End up as a SCHISM, putting people OUTSIDE the Arc of Salvation. It has already done so!

    WHAT MUST WE DO? — We must look up to our LORD and our HOLY MOTHER.


  7. Our Lord JESUS knew that St.Peter will disown Him in the future and still ordained him as the first Pope. Then our Lord prayed for the Pope, "Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted ,confirm thy brethren."(Lk.22:32)


  8. Our Lord asks St. Peter to confirm his brethren inspite of his impending fall, for St. Peter was the Pope. St. John who witnessed the fall of the first Pope also didn't disown St. Peter!!


  9. At Fatima our Holy Mother repeatedly asked us to "Pray for the Pope." Did we listen to Her? Have we obeyed Her atleast now? Did She not know that all these Calamities will befall the Church in our times? Yes. SHE knew everything and predicted every thing for us and still She said, "Pray for the Pope." (SSPX prays for Pope in every Holy Mass) She did not ask us to fabricate a Pope!

    What do these mean?


  10. Today there IS a Pope John-Paul II, whom we have to pray for obeying Her — The Seat of St. Peter is NOT vacant...


  11. A Pope is needed to fulfill Her order of Collegial Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, so that today's abominations could be thrown out.


  12. The Pope is needed to obey our Lady so that the 'HOLY MASS of All Times' is unfettered to facilitate our salvation.


  13. The Pope is needed for the "Triumph of the Immaculate Heart" and for the 'Period of Peace to the world.'


  14. The Pope is needed to herald the "Social Reign of our Lord JESUS CHRIST"


  15. This does not mean we go by John-Paul II's Non-Infallible Magisterium, which largely break-up from Tradition.
We resist at the face such teachings and follow only the Tradition.

It is the manifestation of the Divine guidance, that ArchBishop Marcel Lefebvre avoided the Sede-vacantist pit-fall. The poor souls who unwittingly left the fold on this point must return immediately to this Firm ground.

SSPX, following in the foot-steps of Archbishop Lefebvre will not do another Campos, for the SSPX has been selected by Providence to preserve the 'HOLY MASS of All Times' and provide for the 'Continuance of the Apostolic Tradition'.

It is good to remember that Our Lord appointed St. Peter as Pope before His Passion. Even after the Pentecostal Feast the First Pope, had to be "resisted at face" by St. Paul, etc. It is good to remember that a pope doesn't become infallible by his appointment. One has much to learn about the Pope's Infallibility and Magisterium.

A Pope can go wrong and many had gone wrong in the past. Most of John-Paul II's actions are ruptures from Tradition which we must reject and resist at face. But we have no authority to remove him from the Chair of St. Peter.

In a family if the Head, the elderly Father contracts a sinful, a wasteful habit and become a slave of that habit how should his responsible children react?

Is the matter settled if they all say, "You are no more my Father"? Does his Paternity roll-back? Just because they said it, will he cease to be their Father? Can he cease to be one even if he wishes?

We almost have a similar situation with our Holy Father. We must accept him to be in the Catholic Church. We must pray fervently for him to obey Our MOTHER of GOD. Resist him at the face when he deviates from Tradition, emulating St. Paul, St. Athnasius et al, as recommended by St. Cardinal ROBERT BELLARMINO and other Saints.

There has to be a Pope for the Catholic Church. "Where the Pope is there the Church is."

Sedevacantism is about, "throwing the baby away with the wash water." It is fatal for our souls as it throws them outside the Church... you know where...!

One cannot appoint himself as Pope. One cannot become the "Vicar of Christ" simply by claiming to be one. The Catholic Church has a Traditional method for selecting the Pope and one has to undergo that.

Today's situation resembles the storm-rocked boat in which our LORD was sleeping. Let us pray, "Lord, save us; for we are drowning" and not jump-out of the Boat because her crew are not performing. The LORD will silence the storm.

R.A.G.R.




Lefebvrist Apologia — No. 2

And here is the second 'apologia':
Rob...

Where to begin...

Well, it's a relief to know that one of us finally has it ALL figured out.

Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa Tell me, though... by what authority or insight do you judge the state of souls that attend the Lefebvrist Churches, or even the N.O.? Where does the accountability lie with those that go to those places? How do you define that?

Crimony, Rob, I'm not real enthused about the New Ordo either, but don't be so pharasaical as to assume that you're claim to heaven when you die somehow has more weight than any of those you mention.

God willing, Rob, we'll all get there... but I can promise you this. When your eyes adjust to the light up there and the faces come into focus, you will be just as surprised by the ones that are there as perhaps by the ones that are not.

It is a good thing, I suspect, that our merciful Lord does not use the same yardstick to measure as you do.

As a professional salesman, I know the importance of knowing my audience, and the importance of educating people and enabling them to make an informed decision.

I don't know if there are any NO or perhaps fence sitting people viewing this site who may be considering the Trad. Mass as the way to go... but I'm reasonably sure that your sharp and arbitrary classifcations of people will do nothing to build the Traditional movement or appeal to people's hearts, which is ultimately where the true faith must be firmly rooted.

Perhaps Saint Paul said it best ".......but if I have not charity, I have nothing."

God Bless

+RT





Why Catholics MUST NOT Attend SSPX Services

Or Commit The MORTAL SIN Of "Communicatio In Sacris"

By Lúcio Mascarenhas

From: Lúcio Mascarenhas
Date: March 24, 2003
Subject: The Validity of SSPX Masses

The following query was received in response to my post on the Traditional Catholics' Club D-List on the subject of the validity of attending SSPX services. The post on the SSPX, and my post in response, are reproduced at the bottom. I keep my correspondent's name secret as he desires so.

Problems With the SSPX

As Traditional Catholics, if we take your position not to attend the SSPX's masses, where are we to go to mass besides a Sedevacantist church? There aren't many of these around.

My Reply:
Dear Friend,

I understand that this is your proposition:
"There Is No Alternative" (TINA) to Attendance at SSPX Mass — If we avoid it, we cannot have other masses, because the other are more rare.
I take things from the Catholic viewpoint.

It was in 1993 that I became a Sedevacantist. I did so by going directly from the New Church, without going through the intermediatory phase of being a 'Conservative', such as a Lefebvrist.

When I did, I was persuaded to make a trip to the SSPX centre in India, in the far south at St. Thomas' Town, Thailapuram in the district of Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.

Here too, I asked, as I have always been asking ever since I became aware of the facts and was exposed to Lefebvrist literature:
Since the SSPX literature itself demonstrates that the New Church and its 'Popes' are heretics, how did they justify themselves remaining in union with him?
Fr. Eric Simonot was the in-charge of India at the time, and he told me that he refused to answer that query.

Now, his refusal to answer did not absolve me from asking it and seeking an answer to it.

And so I conclude, taking Catholic theology, that
  1. The Lefebvrists themselves conclusively prove that the present church run out of the Vatican is in schism and apostasy from Catholicism, and that its 'popes' are relentless heretics and apostates;
  2. Nevertheless, the Lefebvrists insist that these heretics and apostates remain lawful popes, include them in the canon of the mass and insist on excluding all who refuse to do so;
  3. That this is evidence that they accept as their lawful superior one about whom they themselves bear conclusive witness to his being a heretic and apostate, and therefore, it being impossible that he either could have validly become Pope or that he could have remained Pope if he had been validly elected;
  4. Therefore, the Lefebvrists incontrovertibly are schismatic in that they confess a heretic and apostate as their lawful superior, and in doing so, they repudiate the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and constitute themselves schismatics at the very least!
[Moreover, they are also implicitly culpable of Papal Indefectibility — which I classify as a heresy, which implicitly denies that Popes, following their election as popes, retain their free will, and implicitly teaching that they are incapable of doing anything whatsoever that would constitute themselves as heretics and thus outside the Church.]

Now, taking this logic further, since the Lefebvrists are, at the least, schismatics, one who would wish to be a Catholic is under the grave obligation to avoid at all costs participation and complicity in any act of liturgy conducted by any schismatic, for such participation would constitute "Communicatio in Sacris".

[Catholic Theology defines the participation of a Catholic in the liturgies of any sect whatsoever as constituting the crime and Mortal Sin of "Communicatio in Sacris" — which is a violation of the First Commandment — and which a Catholic is strictly prohibited from committing.]

But what if there is no other mass available?

The Church has already spoken on this issue a long time before the present situation came about: And it insists that disregarding all factors, no Catholic may, for any reason, commit the Mortal Sin of "Communicatio in Sacris". The prohibition is total and final.

Those who persist in attending such services are considered to have incurred schism under Catholic law.

Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop of Dakar, Africa But let us look at things in a logical manner. If the Lefebvrist services are valid, then certainly also those of the Nestorians, Jacobites and Byzantine schismatics and heretics, besides those of the 'Old Catholics' — Jansenists, Dollingerites, etc.. The same is also true of many 'High Church' or 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans, or as they are styled in the US, Episcopalian services (Following Pope Leo XIII's ruling that Anglican Orders according to the Edwardine Ordinal are invalid, some Anglicans have procured valid orders from the Greeks and other schismatics).

And, if the Lefebvrist service is not available, these are usually well accessible, whether in India or in America (I believe, at least in the major cities?): A Jacobite church is within five minutes walk from my home, just about as much as the New Church's church. So should I not attend the Jacobite Mass?

That is, if it is justifiable to attend Lefebvrist services, is it not also justifiable to attend these services?

But, from the Catholic viewpoint, the answer to both is no: No to Lefebvre as much as to any other heretical and or schismatic sect.

That leaves us with the further question: What if we have then nothing else?

The Church has answered this also from long before this situation arose. Certainly, throughout history such situations have existed, largely in the missions, where priests were unable to attend to every community in their parishes on every Sunday.

To cater to such a situation, the Church instructed the faithful to gather at the chapel or church, even if only a makeshift one, or otherwise in a private home or oratory, and conduct the service under the leadership of a trusted church elder or catechist, always and necessarily a male of good standing.

The congregation is to be led by a male of good standing in following the Spiritual Mass, or the Mass of St. John. There is and can be no real consecration in such a service, nor was it claimed or pretended that there was one. Instead, the congregation was led to conduct a spiritual communion.

Now, for Catholics in such a position, because they have not culpably failed to assist at Holy Mass, they are positively incapable of incurring the penalties that come with failure to attend and assist at Holy Mass.

And, while not a true Mass, strictly speaking, nevertheless these services do convey grace, unite the participants to the Universal Church, and also bind together the community of the faithful of that district.

This is the only legitimate means available today, just as it always was.

Moreover, this is also the ONLY legitimate means open to those who genuinely doubt the validity of the orders of Sedevacantist priests and bishops, and the HOME ALONE position is positively excluded as being sinful and as being destructive of the Catholic community....

I hope that I have answered your queries adequately.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,
Lúcio Mascarenhas

Lúcio Mascarenhas wrote:
Message 1011 TraditionalCatholicsClub
From: Lúcio Mascarenhas
Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:25 am
Subject: The Validity of SSPX Masses

Dear Friends, — As a Catholic, I work from Catholic teaching, theology, etc., that Karol Wojtyla is not the pope. Therefore, I consider it sinful, excepting invincible ignorance, to celebrate and participate in a service "una cum" Wojie, as much as a service "una cum" the Dalai Lama would be.

What I want to know is: Is there justification for attributing Invincible Ignorance to Lefebvrists? I seriously doubt it, given the furious controversy and their vicious anti-sedevacantism: Remembering that Bishop Dolan, Frs. Sanborn, Cekada, etc., broke off on precisely this point.

The Lefebvrist position is a house built on sand — and it is precisely for this reason that it is comparatively easy for the rise of the Fraternity of St. Peter or for the apostacy of Campos, etc.

The Lefebvrist whom I know personally, quakes in his boots that one day sooner than latter, the SSPX is going to do a Campos.

I too believe that given its ideological position, it will do this, barring a small minority who will in probability be forced to become Sedevacantists. What I regret and what pains me is the loss of so many more souls to the Modernist apostacy!

Lúcio Mascarenhas, Bombay.

presgerard <[email protected]> wrote:
You will deny me three times by Jacob Michael, Catholic Apologetics International
Posted March 18, 2003.

Comment by RGPII:

Wojtyla is a thoroughly public heretic, a monster and not pope — and never was a pope. Peter's actions were allowed BEFORE he was pope, were not actions (therefore) under ecclesial / papal charism and (as oft stated) meant to humble him / to show him his own fallibility so soon after Our Lord had proferred the Primacy (which could have ONLY taken place with the Saviour's death and Resurrection — the Pentecost being the PUBLIC birth of the Church).

The writer and relayer continue to show impossible cause that the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity somehow sanctioned these last four claimants in the "auto-destruction" of the Bride of Christ. It is grievous error. The sophistication of Wojtyla's apostacy is wooing many well-meaning men into great error in even addressing this usurper as "Holy Father."

"Let no one at that day say in his heart 'unless God willed it, He would not have permitted' No, The Apostle forewarns you, saying not that they may be excused, but condemned." (St. Cyr. Catech. X V 16, 1 7)

God did NOT will these "elections."

In J.M.& J.


Robert/Chip Prescott
"shootist17" <[email protected]> wrote:
Message 1005 TraditionalCatholicsClub
From: "shootist17" <[email protected]>
Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:04 pm
Subject: The Validity of SSPX Masses

I read the letter from Msgr. Perl of the Pontifical Ecclesia Dei Commission concerning Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) Masses, which was posted on the unavoce.org website.

From what I can gather from the letter (with direct quotes from the Letter):
  1. The Masses of SSPX are valid, but not licit (which would actually be the case with any Novus Ordo Mass that was not celebrated in strict accordance with the General Instruction on the Roman Missal).


  2. "In the strict sense you may fulfill your Sunday obligation by attending a Mass celebrated by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X."


  3. "If your primary reason for attending were to manifest your desire to separate yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff and those in communion with him, it would be a sin. If your intention is simply to participate in a Mass according to the 1962 Missal for the sake of devotion, this would not be a sin."
Are any others of you familiar with this letter? Does anyone have any comments about it?

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1