The dehabilitation of Archbishop Lefebvre by the Neo-resistance priests

Sooner or later it was bound to happen. There are too many inconvenient truths concerning the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's sometimes conflicting words and actions. It has been difficult, if not impossible, for the neo-resistance priests, and their moral authority, Bishop Richard Williamson, to use Archbishop Lefebvre as a standard bearer and yet explain away some of his actions. In the same way, Thuc-line sedevacantists have a problem justifying the soundness of mind of Archbishop Thuc while avoiding the fact that at times, he appeared willing to make a bishop of anyone with a pulse. Here are the inconvenient truths that the neo-resistance group have so far swept under the rug, so it speak.

1. The Archbishop signed all but two of the Council documents. Very awkward.

 2. In February of 1966, the Archbishop informed his colleagues in the Coetus that he proposed to publish a “combative, multilingual interepiscopal bulletin of information and analysis which will help the bishops to take practical measures against progressivism and in favor of a sound interpretation of the Council”. This must certainly be a very embarrasing piece of history for the neo-resistance and their moral authoritarian. The Archbishop apparently felt, a year after the conclusion of the council, that it was possible to interpret it in the light of Tradition!!

3. It is tantamount to heresy to even meet with the conciliar Cardinals and Pope, yet the Archbishop met with Paul VI and John Paul II. Actually, all four of the SSPX Bishops met with Cardinal Castrillon, but apparently, that was just for tea and nuts, so no harm done.

4. After penning "I accuse the Council" in 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre found his way clear to collaborate with Cardinal Ratzinger over several weeks to produce an agreement that would recognize the SSPX and give it a canonical structure within the church with the SSPX Superior General answering to some loosely defined council. This became known as the 1988 Protocol. The lynchpin of this agreement was the replacement of Archbishop Lefebvre with a new bishop to be chosen from within the SSPX. The day after signing the Protocol, the Archbishop contacted Cardinal Ratzinger and told him that he changed his mind. By his account, he did not trust that the promised and oft-postponed consecration of an SSPX bishop would ever be honored by the Vatican. According to Bishop Tissier’s book, even on the day of the episcopal consecrations, the Archbishop confided that he was willing to postpone them until the following August if Rome agreed to this condition. Apparently, this was the archbishop's criterion for the “conversion of Rome”. He reiterated this when challenged about his criticism of the FSSP and the Benedictines for accepting the same Protocol. His answer was emphatic: “No, they have NOT signed the same Protocol, for they have not been granted a Bishop.” This, along with the fact that Archbishop told Ratzinger that he signed the Protocol with "enthusiasm", must really cause some hand-wringing among the neo-resistance.

What to do? Well, one certainly cannot take the Archbishop's life and events in the church in chronological order and build a case to use him as support for rejecting a canonical recognition of the SSPX by the Pope. Therefore, they do the only thing they can do which is to take a line from the last priestly retreat Archbishop Lefebvre preached that was subsequently turned into a book "Spiritual Journey" to justify the rejection of the Pope until he converts, which is not specifically what the Archbishop said. With the prospect of any near-term developments between the SSPX and the Pope close to nil, and the SSPX not yet celebrating the Novus Ordo or holding hands during the Pater Noster, it appears that it now is necessary to begin to marginalize Archbishop Lefebvre and expose some of the chinks in his armor. The moral authoritarian of the neo-resistance has begun, in his recent English language writings, to recall liberalism, in definition and origin. Fine, you might think, as all Popes prior to the council have also done. What has not received much notice in the English press is a conference given by His Excellency in French last month. Here is what he said: (from http://lefebvristes.forum-box.com)  

Je pense que chez Mgr Lefebvre la pastorale minait sa doctrine, une pastorale qui correspondait à une doctrine qui n'était pas la sienne. Je crois qu'il a été moulé par l'Eglise des années 30, 40, 50 et on se souvient que déjà le vers était dans le fruit aux années 20: Action française et toute la décadence qui a suivi! Donc le mal était déjà bien installé dans l’Église dés les années 20. Mgr Lefebvre était très loyal, il a su apprendre du père Le Floch au séminaire français, il a su assimiler la bonne doctrine. La bonne doctrine des encycliques anti-libérales qu'il a apprises auprès du père Le Floch, mais il nous disait lui-même que quand il est arrivé au séminaire, il croyait encore à la séparation de l'Eglise et de l’État. Ses idées libérales étaient tout-à-fait courantes depuis depuis un siècle à ce moment-là. Autrement dit, quand j'analyse la chose maintenant, je pense qu'il y a eu un aspect "cinquantiste" même chez Mgr Lefebvre. Et je crois que c'est cela qui a mis la pagaille, parce que la moindre faille dans un fondateur se montre inéluctablement par la suite. Il y a un dicton, très amusant, pas très élégant en espagnol: "Ce n'est que quand le singe monte dans l'arbre qu'on voit son derrière!" C'est graphique mais ça dit une grande vérité! A savoir, plus on est supérieur, plus ses déficiences sont dangereuses. C'est pour ça qu'il faut que les supérieurs soient les plus parfaits possibles.

Bishop Williamson often offers an analogy of the conciliar faith with even a slight bit of error like a cake with a slight bit of poison that a mother would never serve to her children. Here, he is using the same analogy with Archbishop Lefebvre saying that because modernism was already rooted in the church as early as the 1920's, the Archbishop was already tainted with this "flaw" (faille) which has apparently now come to roost in the SSPX. Sins of our fathers equals Flaws of Our Founders (faille dans un fondateur). Luckily, the neo-resistance priests and their moral authoritarian have benefited by an Immaculate Formation whereby they were preserved from the original flaw of modernism, unlike the unfortunate Archbishop and the whole of the SSPX, save for those in Kentucky and Wimbledon. Now I will expect that little by little, in the future neo-resistance YouTube sermons, we will begin to hear about the flaws and non-infallibility of the Archbishop. It is the next logical step in the side-stepping of the inexplicable episodes in the life of the Archbishop who appeared to be ever interested in a (now taboo, regardless of conditions) canonical status for the Society of St. Pius X.

Jesuit says confusion over Vatican II is normal, even 50 years later

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- A 91-year-old Jesuit who served as an expert at the Second Vatican Council said, "I'm just beginning to understand the depth and breadth of the council" and its teachings.

Jesuit Father Ladislas Orsy, a visiting professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, told an audience in Rome Jan. 24 that while every ecumenical council in church history led to debate -- and sometimes even schism -- it always has taken more than 50 years for a council's teachings and reforms to take root in the Christian community.

"Granted we may see a great deal of confusion today; granted we may even see a denial of the council or we may even hear a way of explaining away the council," Father Orsy said during a speech that was part of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity celebrations at Rome's Centro Pro Unione.

Vatican II can be examined as a historical event, and theologians can use a variety of scholarly tools to propose different interpretations of its teachings, but one thing Catholics cannot deny is the church's teaching that the Holy Spirit is active in its ecumenical councils, he said.

Father Orsy asked his audience, "Are you surprised that there is a bit of disarray today in the Roman Catholic Church when this happened in the case of Nicea, dealing with the very foundation of our faith?" The Council of Nicea in 325 affirmed the divinity of Christ.

Nicea's deliberations led to debate and division, he said, but over the centuries "this wave of energy" of the Holy Spirit "quietly took possession of the church and the confusion sorted itself out." Today, he said, mainline Christians, while divided on a variety of issues, profess the basic tenets of their faith using the Nicean creed.

"Just looking at what happened after Nicea," he said, "it is not farfetched" to think that the work the Holy Spirit began at the Second Vatican Council continues in the church and "maybe, shall we say, 100 years from now," people will recognize how deeply it impacted the church.

The Jesuit said he hoped to live a "few more years" so he could try to understand more about where the Holy Spirit is leading the church through the teachings of Vatican II and the continuing process of that teaching taking root in the lives of Catholics.

In his talk, Father Orsy looked particularly at "Dignitatis Humanae," Vatican II's declaration on human dignity and religious freedom.

The Jesuit canon lawyer said the document, approved on the last day of the council, takes the visions of the church, the world and the human person expressed in the other Vatican II documents and applies them to "real-life situations."

It reaffirmed traditional church teaching that all human beings have an obligation to seek the truth and to strive for the perfection to which God calls all people, but it insisted the truth could be imposed on no one.

The document insists on "respect for the truth, but asserts that charity has its own priority, sometimes even above truth," urging the church to model itself more closely after Christ, "who never imposed with any kind of violence the truth that he proclaimed."

The council, he said, articulated a "fresh view of the human person" and affirmed that "by acknowledging the freedom of the human person, we honor a divine quality in the human person," who was created in God's image and likeness.

The declaration, Father Orsy said, represented a transition from "the realm where the highest criteria for judging the person were abstract, general and impersonal truths to the realm of charity and love, where the normative rule is to honor the dignity of the person."

"The ultimate conclusion is not to enforce the truth, but to embrace the person," he said.

_____________________________________________________________________

The sad thing about this is that this Jesuit, at 91 years was formed with a pre-Conciliar Jesuit formation and has been subsequently converted over the last 50 years.  Specifically where he states:

“.. one thing Catholics cannot deny is the church’s teaching that the Holy Spirit is active in its ecumenical councils ..”

I believe this typically misguided Jesuit is correct on this point. After several decades of increasingly intrusive modernism growing in the bowels of the church, it would take the Second Vatican Council to shock the church to such an extreme as the initiation of the Novus Ordo sacraments and religion and the strangling of the flow of graces, to bring her back to a traditional love of the Pius V Mass, sacraments, and devotions. Consider that perhaps without the Council and the severe wounding of the Mystical Body, we might have slipped into a more profound state of apathy. The adage “you don’t know what you have until you’ve lost it” applies here, IMHO.

“Father Orsy asked his audience, “Are you surprised that there is a bit of disarray today in the Roman Catholic Church when this happened in the case of Nicea, dealing with the very foundation of our faith?” The Council of Nicea in 325 affirmed the divinity of Christ.”

This is typical Jesuit-speak (as a graduate of a Jesuit education I can easily recognize it) which is to turn an obvious truth into the justification of error. The divinity of Christ is the core tenet of our faith and Nicea affirmed that, which is the job of a council. Anyone who thought that a controversial issue was a heretic. V2′s major duplicitous intent, subject to the hijacking of the schema that Archbishop Lefebvre worked to create, was the reorientation of the faith to be man-centered.

“Just looking at what happened after Nicea,” he said, “it is not farfetched” to think that the work the Holy Spirit began at the Second Vatican Council continues in the church and “maybe, shall we say, 100 years from now,” people will recognize how deeply it impacted the church.

We don’t have to wait 100 years, the impact is evident today.

It reaffirmed traditional church teaching that all human beings have an obligation to seek the truth and to strive for the perfection to which God calls all people, but it insisted the truth could be imposed on no one.

Of course, what is implied here is the Protestant version of “the truth” which is whatever suits one as truthful. If the Council would have succinctly defined “The Truth” as faith in Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and His Mystical Body as the only means of salvation, then V2 might have been more Catholic.

The document insists on “respect for the truth, but asserts that charity has its own priority, sometimes even above truth,”

Wow, putting charity before truth is again a Jesuit translation of a new non-Catholic heretical religion that would have gotten his old gray whiskers burned at the stake in the good ol’ days.

The council, he said, articulated a “fresh view of the human person” and affirmed that “by acknowledging the freedom of the human person, we honor a divine quality in the human person,” who was created in God’s image and likeness.

This divinity of man was one of the boldest heresies of V2, taking the concept of the immortality of the soul and our creation in God’s image and likeness, and synthesizing it into a teaching that man is divine. The Blessed Trinity is divine and V2 sought to create a sub-species of divinity that man belonged to.

The declaration, Father Orsy said, represented a transition from “the realm where the highest criteria for judging the person were abstract, general and impersonal truths to the realm of charity and love, where the normative rule is to honor the dignity of the person.”

As a seven year old making my First Communion and First Confession prior to V2, I knew exactly what the criteria was for judging my soul. I also knew what was expected of me in relation to my fellow man. That any of that could be considered as abstract is ridiculous.

“The ultimate conclusion is not to enforce the truth, but to embrace the person,” he said.

Here, the good Jesuit made my final point and I could not say it any better.

Various Churches

Link to Original
by Fr. Francois Laisney

This response is a rebuttal to some statements made by Bishop Williamson on his blog, Eleison Comments of which we offer the pertinent extracts below.

Eleison Comments (CCLXXXI (281)) December 1, 2012 [NB: these are no longer available online] Much confusion reigns today over the identity of Our Lord’s true Church here on earth, and the variety of names by which it can be called. Easily most of the present confusion comes from the Church’s biggest problem of today, which is the diabolical Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Let us attempt to disentangle some of the confusion... “Conciliar Church” means the God-centred Catholic Church as fallen and still falling under the sway of the man-centred Second Vatican Council. Conciliarism (the distilled error of Vatican II) bears the same relation to the true Church of Christ as the rot of a rotten apple bears to the apple which it is rotting. Just as rot occupies the apple, depends on the apple, cannot exist without the apple, yet is quite different from the apple (as uneatable is different from eatable), so man-centred Conciliarism so occupies Christ’s Church that little of the Church is not more or less rotten, yet Conciliarism is so different from Catholicism that one can truly say that the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church. But the Catholic Church is visible. Isn’t the Conciliar Church also visible? “Visible Church” means all the buildings, officials and people of the Church that we can see with our eyes. But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.

Fr. Laisney's rebuttal Truly much confusion reigns on the subject of the Church, and dangerous notions are put forward, even among Catholics attached to Tradition. One can read: “That part alone of the visible Church is Catholic which is one, holy, universal and apostolic. The rest is various sorts of rot.” Immediately the question is raised: is the Catholic Church merely “a part of the visible Church”? And this leads to another more fundamental question: is it legitimate to distinguish between the Catholic Church, Christ’s Church and the visible Church? On the contrary, does not the Catholic Faith oblige us to profess the identity between Christ’s Church, the Catholic Church and the visible Church? Yes! Christ’s Church is the Catholic Church, and this Church is visible! It was because he was attached to this dogma of Faith that Archbishop Lefebvre has always rejected the sedevacantist position which practically leads to an invisible Church, having lost all hierarchical bond, having no more hierarchy. True, the author of the above quoted passage affirms that the Catholic Church is recognizable by its four notes; but he lets the reader understand that these four notes belong only to “a part of the visible Church.” So he puts in question not the first, but the second equality. And the great danger of such an affirmation is that the limit of the Catholic Church becomes practically invisible. The author thinks he sufficiently affirms the visibility of the Catholic Church by writing: But to say that the Catholic Church is visible, therefore the visible Church is the Catholic Church, is as foolish as to say that all lions are animals so all animals are lions. The error of such a phrase is to fail to grasp the true meaning of the affirmation “the Catholic Church is visible.” When the Church teaches this truth - e.g., Pius XII in Mystici Corporis - it does not consider the Catholic Church as a species within a genus (which is the relation between lions and animals) as if he were saying nothing else than anyone could see people called Catholics as they could see people called Anglicans, Orthodox, Episcopalians, etc, as if visible Church was a genus within which one species would be the Catholic Church.

No! The affirmation “the Catholic Church is visible” means: “the Church of Christ is visible, and the Catholic Church is this Church.” Nowhere Pius XII, neither any other Catholic authority, has ever taught that the Catholic Church would be merely a “part of the visible Church”. No! The whole Church of Christ is visible, and the whole is the Catholic Church. And it is WITHIN the Catholic Church that one finds a mixture of good and bad fishes (Mt 13:48), of good grain and cockle (Mt 133:25), of wheat and chaff (Mt 3:12), of good Apostles and Judases. Never did the Catholic Church teach that it only comprised the eleven good Apostles (the part that had the note of holiness), and that Judas was the rot, outside of that faithful part. Yes, Judas was rotten, but within the Catholic Church, the only Church of Christ. Pope Pius XII

Then what is the Conciliar Church? This expressed was coined by Cardinal Benelli: it manifested clearly the novelty of the reforms introduced by Vatican II. But did it designate a separate Church, with its own structure, its own faithful separated from the Catholic Church? Not really. It signified a new spirit, new principles, but not a new structure, nor a separate hierarchy and separate faithful. This new spirit causes the members infected by it in the Church to rot in as much as they are infected by it; it is like a virus in the Mystical Body of Christ: some cells are entirely corrupted, others only partially infected, some more some less, and few are exempt from it. It is true to say that this spirit is not Catholic; it is a spirit of rupture, a revolutionary spirit, it is 1789 in the Church. But this spirit does not constitute a separate Church; it infects more or less the members of the Catholic Church. The separation between the sound members and the infected members is not visible, from the very fact that some members are only partially infected. It is like the separation between good and evil within the Church: the limit is within each member himself, since nobody is perfect here below! It is only at the end of the world that the separation shall be achieved, not by human judgment, but by the Judgment of Christ Himself, the Sovereign Judge, true God and true man. This does not mean that the infection is not visible: as evil members are visible in the Church (and scandals have not lacked after Vatican II), so also this conciliar infection is visible, especially in those who are fully infected: modernist theologians, modernist priests’ petitions in Austria… One sees these false principles at work in the practical ecumenical meetings (Assisi, concelebrations, visits to Synagogues, kissing of the Koran…) These false principles do not constitute a separate Church, not even a distinct part of a whole which the visible Church would be. To say that “the Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church”, if one means by this that the conciliar principles, the conciliar spirit are not Catholic principles, not a Catholic spirit, this is true: this is the meaning of certain words of Archbishop Lefebvre. But if one implies such a separation as that between a rotten part and sound part of an apple, it is not conform to reality, it is false; it is totally opposed to the teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre. To separate within the visible Church, a Conciliar part, rotten, which “is not the Catholic Church”, and a Catholic part which would only comprise that “which is one, holy, universal and apostolic”, that takes away from the Catholic Church her structure (indeed the author does not hesitate to write: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”), the part that would remain Catholic would then be deprived of the structure which Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church! It would no longer be recognizable as the Church of Christ. Such affirmations are therefore very dangerous to the Faith. It is true that, due to the Conciliar crisis, the four notes have been somehow darkened, less visible in the whole of the Church - e.g., so many priests and religious abandoning their most sacred vows has put a stain of the visibility of the note of holiness - thus Archbishop Lefebvre has not hesitated to say that these notes are more visible among the faithful and priests attached to Tradition. But never did he say that the Catholic Church was only that sound “part of the visible Church”! On the contrary, he applied to the Church, to the whole of the Church, what was true of Christ during his Passion: He was hardly recognizable as the Messiah at that moment, as was prophesized by Isaiah: Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not (Is. 53:3). Because of the modernist crisis, the Church passes as through her Passion, and is hardly recognizable. Thus it is very clear that for Archbishop Lefebvre the Catholic Church is the whole, not a mere part. One sees in this false understanding of the distinction between Conciliar and Catholic, the doctrinal error which is in some at the root of their opposition to Bishop Fellay in this year 2012. Indeed, the author concludes: “the official Church is largely Conciliar and not Catholic”, which logically leads to the refusal of any regularization. One no longer sees that those who hold office in the Church have received the authority that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given to His Church, and thus have received a good thing - indeed what Our Lord Jesus Christ has established is evidently excellent - the abuses of that authority do not take away from the goodness of that authority in itself, of that hierarchical order; and thus if the Pope wants to regularize the place of the Society of St. Pius X within that order, he wants something good (order is good) – therefore against which one has not the right to resist, in as much as he gives it with no evil conditions and with the sufficient guarantees so that this order be solid. At the root of this doctrinal error, there is the ignorance of the great principle of St. Augustine against the Donatists: in the Catholic Church communion with the wicked does not harm the good so long as they do not consent with their wickedness. Such an error leads to a “Catharist” notion of the Church, a Church of the pure, not infected by the Conciliar rot: such notion is simply not Catholic. Kyrie eleison! May the Lord have mercy on those who could be tempted by such notions, and give them the grace to correct themselves, to return to the traditional notion of the Church, as the Church herself taught from the beginning, especially St. Cyprian against the Novatians and St. Augustine against the Donatists, both being authors of a book On the unity of the Church.

Some texts of Archbishop Lefebvre will illustrate this teaching Therefore we count on the support of your prayers and on your generosity, to continue in spite of the trials this priestly formation, indispensable for the life of the Church. It is not the Church nor the successor of Peter who strikes us, but rather men of the Church imbued with liberal errors, occupying high positions in the Church and profiting of their power to obliterate the past of the Church and to establish a new Church which has nothing of Catholic. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors of September 9, 1975) Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

In other words, those striking Archbishop Lefebvre were truly “men of the Church” truly “occupying high position in the Church”, but were acting against the Society of St. Pius X, not as “successor of Peter”, but rather as “imbued with liberal errors.” The Church is not ecumenical, much less liberal ecumenical, the Church is missionary. That is what I never ceased to repeat in my letter to Cardinal Seper, because he was asking some small precisions on facts, on our obedience, on our submission to the Holy Father, and such matters. I think that it was necessary to address the matter from much higher, because these are profound and very elevated reasons that prevent us from being fully obedient to the Pope and the Roman congregations. These are excessively important reasons. It is the whole new orientation of the Church, which is no longer a Catholic orientation, which is not the orientation of the Catholic Church. There is a very great difference between the missionary Church and the ecumenical Church. The missionary Church is that one truth-bearer, knowing that she possesses the truth in herself and bringing it to others to convert them. Her goal is conversion. On the other hand, ecumenism’s goal is to find the truth in the errors and practically putting oneself on the level of the errors, putting the whole truth on level with error, and thus embracing errors. And this is absolutely inconceivable. It is the destruction of the truth of the Church. We cannot admit this. Now all the reforms, all what they want us to accept, by the suppression of the seminary, the suppression of the Fraternity, by the penalties imposed on us, the goal, the intention is always to make us accept all that the Council has done and all what was done after the Council, that is this new Conciliar Church, which is not the Catholic Church. This new Conciliar Church is not the Catholic Church because of its ecumenism. It considers error with the same respect as truth: you are in error, you are as worthy as those who are in the truth. (Spiritual conference at Econe, 13 March 1978) The two italicized passages here show very well that what Archbishop Lefebvre understood by “this new Conciliar Church” was precisely “the whole new orientation of the Church”, not a separate structure. This Conciliar Church… [is] following roads which are not Catholic roads: they simply lead to apostasy… It is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world! … That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority… in the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible… This is why I sent a letter to the pope, saying to him very clearly: We simply cannot accept this spirit and proposals, despite all the desires which we have to be in full union with you. Given this new spirit which now rules in Rome and which you wish to communicate to us, we prefer to continue in Tradition; to keep Tradition while waiting for Tradition to regain its place at Rome, while waiting for Tradition to reassume its place in the Roman authorities, in their minds.” (Sermon of the Episcopal Consecrations, 30 June 1988) One sees clearly that, in the most solemn moment of his opposition to this conciliar Church, Archbishop Lefebvre meant by this expression the spirit of the council, spirit of Assisi… which reigns in Rome… [i.e.,] in the minds of the Roman authorities, i.e., in the mind of the men of the hierarchy of the Roman Church, which is the Catholic Church. Archbishop Lefebvre was always absolutely opposed to this new spirit, which is not a Catholic spirit; but never did he consider the Church as split between a rotten part and a Catholic part, reducing the Catholic Church to a mere “part of the visible Church”.

Archbishop Lefebvre's 1988 Protocol

Since there is much discussion these days about talks with Rome and those who use the Archbishop as their example of what must be accepted or rejected, it is always worthwhile to review what the Archbishop himself felt he could in good conscience sign in May of 1988. Remember that this document was signed after the suppression of Econe, after the Archbishop penned “I Accuse The Council”, and after the scandal of Assisi in 1986.

He subsequently withdrew his signature and gave one precise reason for changing his mind – He did not trust that the Vatican would follow through and allow him to consecrate a bishop from within the Society. This was his litmus test as to whether there was a viable opportunity to convert Rome. According to Bp Tissier’s book, even on the day of the episcopal consecrations, he was willing to postpone them if Rome agreed to this condition. This, in fact, was the “conversion of Rome” that the archbishop awaited.

Here are the conditions of the PROTOCOL that were acceptable to Archbishop Lefebvre.  The underlines are my own to emphasize what the Archbishop was willing to agree to without conferring with Bishops-elect Williamson, Fellay, DeGalaretta, or Tissier, and without getting the approval of a senior council of SSPX priests or independent priests, nuns, brothers or prominent laity.

THE PROTOCOL AGREEMENT OF THE VATICAN AND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE

Signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre on May 5, 1988

I, Marcel Lefebvre, archbishop-bishop emeritus of Tulle, along with the members of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, which I founded:
1. We promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff, its supreme pastor, the vicar of Christ, successor of blessed Peter in his primacy and head of the body of bishops.
2. We declare that we will accept the doctrine contained in No. 25 of the Second Vatican Council’s dogmatic constitution, “Lumen Gentium” on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence owed it.
3. Regarding certain points taught by the Second Vatican Council or concerning subsequent reforms of the liturgy and law which appear difficult to reconcile with tradition, we commit ourselves to a positive attitude of study and of communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4. We declare moreover that we will recognize the validity of the sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does and according to the rites in the typical editions of the missal and rituals of the sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5. Last, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, particularly those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, except for the special discipline conceded to the fraternity by particular law.

II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Taking into consideration the fact that the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has been formed for 18 years as a society of common life – and based on a study of suggestions by Archbishop Lefebvre and the conclusions of the visit made by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon – the most suitable canonical model is that of a society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life.
It is a canonically possible solution, with the advantage of the possibility of bringing laity into the clerical society of apostolic life (for example, coadjutor brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this society has full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate priests and assures the common life of all its members.
In its own statutes, with flexibility and creative possibility in the light of the known models of these societies of apostolic life, one anticipates a certain exemption in regard to diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) in what concerns public worship, the ‘cura animarum’ and other apostolic activities, taking into consideration Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction regarding the faithful who seek out the priests of the society, it will be conferred on them by the local ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission.
A commission to coordinate relations among the diverse dicasteries and the diocesan bishops as well as to resolve eventual problems and contentions will be established by the Holy See and given the necessary faculties to treat the above-indicated questions (for example, the establishment at the request of the faithful of a place of worship in a place where there is no house of the society, ‘ad mentem,’ Canon 383.2).
3. Condition of People Linked to the Society.
3.1 The members of the clerical society of apostolic life (priests and coadjutor lay brothers): They are governed by the statutes of the society of pontifical right.
3.2 Men and women oblates, with or without private vows, and members of the Third Order linked to the society: They belong to an association of the faithful linked to the society in terms of Canon 303, and they collaborate with it.
3.3 The sisters (that is, the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: They will constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and autonomy, even if one foresees a certain link for the unity of spirituality with the superior of the society. This congregation – at least at the beginning – will be responsible to the Roman Commission instead of the Congregation for Religious.
3.4 Members of communities living by the rule of diverse religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and morally linked with the society: It is fitting to accord them, case by case, a particular status regulating their relations with their respective order.
3.5 Priests who as individuals are morally linked with the fraternity will receive a personal status, taking into account their aspirations, and, at the same time, the obligations resulting from their incardination. Other particular cases of this kind will be examined and resolved by the Roman commission.
In what concerns lay people who seek the pastoral help of the society’s communities: They remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops but – notably for the liturgical rites of the society’s communities – can look to these communities for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and marriage, notification of their own parish remains necessary; canons 878, 896, 1122).
NOTE: There is reason to consider the particular complexity:
1. Of the question of the reception by the laity of the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, marriage, in the communities of the society.
2. Of the question of communities practicing – without being connected to them – the rule of this or that religious institute.
It is for the Roman commission to resolve these items.
4. Ordinations.
For ordinations, it is necessary to distinguish two phases:
4.1 Immediately: For the ordinations planned shortly, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he couldn’t, another bishop agreed to by him.
4.2 Once established, the society of apostolic life:
4.2.1 When possible, in the judgment of the Superior General, follows the normal procedure: remitting the dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the society.
4.2.2 Because of the particular situation of the fraternity (cf. infra): ordination by a bishop of the society who, among other tasks, would have that of proceeding with ordinations.
5. Problem of a Bishop.
5.1 At the doctrinal level (ecclesiological), the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the society is assured by its erection as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right and approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.
5.2 But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a bishop member of the society appears useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the reconciliation, we will suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen in the society, proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. As a consequence of the principle indicated above (5.1), this bishop is not normally superior general of the society. But it would be good that he be a member of the Roman commission.
6. Particular Problems to Resolve by Decree or Declaration.
— Lifting the ‘suspensio a divinis’ of Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensing the irregularities incurred through ordinations.
Anticipation of an “amnesty” and an agreement for the society’s houses and places of worship erected — or used — until now without authorization by bishops.

When challenged about his criticism of the FSSP and the Benedictines for accepting the same Protocol, his answer was emphatic: “No, they have NOT signed the same Protocol, for they have not been granted a Bishop.” This was and always remained his key point.

Lefebvre - Coward or Idiot?

Now that Bishop Williamson has been excluded from the SSPX, it appears as most had anticipated, that he will become the DE-facto Bishop of the independent priests who at least claim to not hold the sedevacantist viewpoint.  That is, of course, merely a matter of semantics since to say that one should not accept recognition by the Vicar of Christ until he repents, nullifies the Council and its documents, and perhaps is conditionally re-consecrated a Bishop using the Traditional books by at least two Bishops who have also been so consecrated is, in my view, a very convenient albeit stealth version of sedevacantism.  For if the Pope is only the Pope by virtue of the apartment he occupies in the Vatican then he is indeed not the Vicar of Christ.  The argument against a recognition, under any conditions, is that His Excellency is afraid that he will be forced to become a Protestant (again) as will be the same with all priests and traditional bishops.  Apparently, within months of a recognition by Rome, the SSPX will be fraught with liturgical dancing, a new hybrid Mass, luminous mysteries, and lay Eucharistic ministers. By some accounts, this has apparently already happened.

Certainly the small group of priests and the laity that are providing financial support need a Bishop for certain sacraments, Chrism, etc.  His Excellency will fill that role and will probably settle down in the Washington, DC area and will once again be on the road rallying against the Superior General and showing his Twin Towers Conspiracy video.  Hopefully, His Excellency will forget the latter and focus on the faith for he is so good and clear when he does that. Much to the dismay of His Excellency and his new followers, one would imagine, is the admonition by the other two SSPX Bishops who have now both publicly declared their support for the Superior General’s judgment while still declaring that the defunct or at least seriously delayed recognition of the SSPX by the Pope was not something that they favored, at least in the form that it took in the Spring of 2012.  From the perspective of Bishop Fellay, what began as a no-strings-attached agreement became an unpalatable compromise of the faith.

And so, in His Excellency’s latest Eleison Comments, he harkens once again back to how the good Archbishop felt about the Council which is apparent in most of his writings.  His Excellency’s followers have created a “Traditio”-styled website (even copying the Traditio moniker ‘from the fathers’) complete with articles and rantings in 26pt font and videos on who really blew up the twin towers.  Now, more important than preaching on the nature of sin and the disorder of the Pauline Mass, they preach on sinfulness of Bishop Fellay purportedly retaining a Jewish attorney.  You will not see articles on the fact that the Archbishop, in the company of then Father Williamson, expelled four of the top ranking priests in the United States for merely disobeying a request to celebrate the Mass according to the 1962 Book.  Nor will you find any discussion of the fact that after years of ministry and just two years before he died, the Archbishop signed an agreement with Rome.  Nor will you find mention of the fact that the Archbishop said, on the day of Bishop Williamson’s consecration, that were the Pope to send him a document that agreed to the Archbishop’s demand for the consecration of the four bishops, he would postpone the consecrations until August 15^th as originally discussed with Cardinal Ratzinger.  What you will find are articles on how the documents of the Second Vatican Council are heretical and how Bishop Fellay is the illegitimate leader of the SSPX.

So here is the dilemma that none of the members of ‘la resistance’ will touch with a ten foot pole.  Why did Archbishop Lefebvre, De Castro Mayer, Cdls Siri, and Ottaviani and the balance of the Coetus not, on the day following the close of the council in 1965 and then everyday for the rest of their lives proclaim that they had just taken part in the most sinful undertaking against the church in modern times? Why did they not from every pulpit and in every means at their disposal condemn what they had just participated in and urge the faithful to ignore it?  Why did they not rue the fact from day one that they signed the freshly inked documents? They clearly knew every last word of every document.  There are only a few possible answers. The first is that for all of their bluster, they were all cowards.  Perhaps they feared retribution?  The other possibility is that they were spiritual idiots compared to the modernist who penned the documents.  In other words, they would not know a heresy if it bit them on their red buttons.  It has to be one of these.  Either they did not recognize a heresy when they saw it or they recognized it and decided to let the church flounder under it.  Which was it, do you think?

The answer is clearly presented in the Tissier biography of the Archbishop.  His Excellency Bishop Williamson and all those opposed to the judgments of Bishop Fellay would do well to (re-)read  it.  In February of 1966, the Archbishop informed his colleagues in the Coetus that he proposed to publish a “combative, multilingual interepiscopal bulletin of information and analysis which will help the bishops to take practical measures against progressivism and in favor of a sound interpretation of the Council”.  He was encouraged in this effort by Cardinals Ottaviani and Siri and supported by the generous gift of a lay benefactor.  There was no talk or professed opinion by any of these that the conciliar documents contained heresy.  They reserved that charge against the newly published (Dutch) Catholic catechism.  In the Archbishop’s own words, the Council that he was a Father of and of whose documents he signed, was flawed in many ways and the Archbishop documents his objections concerning these flaws in his many recorded interventions during the various sessions.

If the Archbishop and the Coetus had a fault, it was that they were at least too naive to understand the ingrained nature of modernism in the Catholic hierarchy of 1965 and the destruction of the priestly formation which was well underway by that time.  The Archbishop felt that Pope Paul VI was surrounded by modernists and that he would eventually be rid of them and replace them with more orthodox priests.

The Archbishop and his conservative conspirators were neither heretics nor idiots.  They were Princes of the Church who knew a heresy when they saw it and would not be part of a promulgation of it.  They knew heresy and they did not see it in the documents but all condemned the heresy that has resulted in the New Mass, the new catechism, and in the faith as a result of the post-conciliar liberal mindset.

On The Separation Of Church and Faith

The word “church” is described in the Catholic Doctrinal Guide of the Catholic Action edition of the Holy Bible (Imprimatur, 1953, Abbot Vincent Taylor) as the “kingdom of God on earth governed by the apostolic authority.” It states further that “Our Lord … chose St. Peter to be the head of the Apostles and gave him the power to rule the whole church … with subjects and superiors, and visible to the eyes of all ..”, hence the “visible” church. And finally “The church is, therefore, the union of man with Christ in a social form.”

The Council of Florence (1438-1443) stated “We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold the primacy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of Blessed Peter, truly the Vicar of Christ, head of the entire church …”

Here we have a definition of the Visible Church, the Pope, and of the relationship of the Pope to the Church. So is it possible to separate the church from the faith? The fact that the Society of St. Pius X is estranged from the hierarchy of the Catholic Church via an illicit suppression is the result of an action initiated and accomplished through the local Ordinary in 1974, aided by or perhaps even at the behest of a Vatican Cardinal. It was not an action sought by Archbishop Lefebvre, nor did he welcome nor celebrate it. On the contrary, he fought to correct it, for to be estranged from the hierarchy did not appeal to him. I dare say it much too readily appeals to many of us.

In this discussion, I am assuming that the doctrinal preamble eventually reaches a point where it is acceptable. I admit that it is not the case today and that an acceptable prelature arrangement is of little value without an understanding of how the SSPX will practice the faith and proselytize the faithless, including the hierarchy. I also believe that the current Superior General is not capable of agreeing to a compromise of the Catholic faith. If a regularization was all he sought, he could have joined the Fraternity years ago and would probably be the Cardinal in charge of Ecclesia Dei by now.

Can we separate the church from the faith ~ in other words, can we profess to desire to belong to the Roman Catholic faith and refuse to be part of the Visible Church, due to its propensity to modernism and the accompanying ills and heresies it engenders? The opinion of this humble blogger is “no”. If one accepts the definitions of the church as previously presented, one cannot adhere to the faith and reject the visible church , rife as it may be with corruptions. Mind you, it will always be required that the Society, and all faithful Catholics, call out the hierarchy, even up to the Vicar of Christ himself in matters of the corruption of the faith.

Unfortunately, what is happening is what we have denied for the past 40 years. That is, that we have developed a schismatic attitude. Those who will leave the SSPX over this, clergy and layman alike, will continue to swear that Benedict is the Pope. But the reality is that it is now sinful to be affiliated with the Pope. Let’s face it, we have not had a “boss” for 40 years to answer to. Life is so much easier just living in our chapels and practicing our faith as best we can. But there is and will always be something missing, as virtuous as those intentions are, and that is that we are separated from the ‘visible’ church. When that separation was the only way to practice the faith, then maintaining the faith was paramount. If one can practice his Roman Catholic faith and be joined to the visible church, it is imperative that this course be pursued.

I listened to an internet sermon commenting on the conditions that would have to be met for the SSPX to accept a regularization. The homilist centered on the unacceptability of the SSPX asking for “permission” to speak out against the error of the Council. How can one ignore the fact the entire Code of Canon Law (1917 and 1983) is predicated on granting permission to preach and offer the sacraments. The control of such faculties has been the object of Canon Law since the time of Pope St. Pius X. To the heart of the “permission” issue, though, I wonder what would present a more profound witness to the aim and goal of the SSPX in refuting the Conciliar errors: that Rome would agree to ‘tolerate’ criticism of the errors, or that the Pope gave his permission for the SSPX to be critical of the errors?

He also spoke of Archbishop Lefebvre’s famous speech on neo-modernist Rome, which was cited in the summary of the 2006 General Chapter of the SSPX. So many appear to know what the Archbishop would do today. It is easy to take snippets of sermons and make them into what serves us. What can we discern from his actions in regards to a regularization? The Archbishop attended the council and was aligned with a group of 200 traditional bishops who attempted to sway the discussions in favor of the traditional faith. To the best of our knowledge, none refused to sign the council documents. In 1984, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote “I Accuse the Council”. On May 5, 1988, he signed a Protocol which would have regularized the SSPX. At the time, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger “Eminence, Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days.” He did not, according to his own published correspondences, lament that the Rome of the 1986 Assisi scandal had not converted. He did not cite the heresy of many Bishops and the kissing of the Koran. There was no “Roman Conversion” demanded by the Archbishop. He did not put it up for a committee vote. Indeed, there were few protections for the Society against modernist Bishops. In fact, that is the reason, in the Archbishop’s own words why he changed his mind on the Protocol.

Subsequently, Archbishop Lefebvre recalled to a reporter “During the night between May 5 (when he signed the Protocol) and May 6 (1988), I said to myself:’ All this is impossible. I cannot accept (Cardinal) Ratzinger’s answer, which avoids fixing the date of the (Episcopal) ordination.’ “

Weighing into the fray, the senior SSPX bishop who was recently excluded from the General Chapter echoed similar remarks of those who apparently oppose an agreement with the Pope at any cost. His Excellency remarks that the fact that the conditions were leaked was ‘not unreasonable’ given how many souls are presently entrusting their faith and their salvation to the guidance of the SSPX. His Excellency surely understands that one of the most prominent anti-agreement YouTube homilists used the same reasoning last month in a fiery sermon to leak the ‘conditions’ which he was told by some priest who “really knew” were the final conditions of the agreement, which turned out to be untrue. So the danger in leaking anything that is not published is that it still has the potential to change or be an important point of counter-negotiation which can certainly be undone to the detriment of those same souls mentioned above.

His Excellency then wonders what has happened to the Society as he compares the Declaration of 2012 to Archbishop Lefebvre’s Declaration of 1974. I continue to wonder why His Excellency and all those of the same mindset in this regard hasten to hark all the way back to 1974 when they can much more easily compare it to the signing of the 1988 Protocol? The Archbishop’s opinion on Roman relations had an extra decade to ‘cure’ since the illegal suppression, through the sedevacantist ouster, his publication of “I Accuse The Council” in 1984, and finally the Assisi fiasco of 1986. This very same Archbishop Lefebvre, after the tumultuous times from the early 70’s to the late 80’s had at last decided that a Roman accord was going to be beneficial. The Archbishop tells us in his own words why he changed his mind and it was not about Rome repenting of and burning the Council documents.

‘Does the SSPX now think that the Conciliar Popes represent no serious problem?’, His Excellency now asks. One wonders at his agility to leap from here to there!

He closes by observing, somehow, that the demand made by the SSPX’s 2006 General Chapter for a doctrinal agreement prior to any practical agreement seems to have gone completely by the board. Once again, a bit puzzling since this lack of a doctrinal agreement was the very thing that caused the latest round to fall apart.

The sedevacantists seem very gleeful at all this and are licking their chops at the prospect of some potential “new Episcopal blood” in their ranks. The sedevacantist site that a while ago distanced itself from all things SSPX seems to have kissed and made up with His Excellency and now, once again, happily promotes his books and recorded conferences. There are even hints of a meeting this week in the Washington, D.C. area between His Excellency, some disaffected priests, and sponsoring laity. However, I don’t believe that His Excellency aspires to become a modern-day Pierre Thuc.

It would finally appear that the only acceptable situation for an SSPX-Rome agreement would be subsequent to a papal repudiation of the documents of Vatican II, abrogation of the Novus Ordo Missae, signing of the Oath Against Modernism by the Pope, Cardinals, and Bishops, the Consecration of Russia, The revealing of the Third and Fourth Secret, and the re-formation of all priests. If my analysis is too far-fetched, I would wonder what, if any of these items, the anti-agreement camp would be willing to omit as a condition. I personally would love to see this entire list enacted tomorrow. His Excellency and those in his camp are certainly most practical men, and as such, certainly understand that these conditions will not be met by the current hierarchy. And assuming that the successors of the current church leaders will come from the same hierarchy, it is unlikely that any of these conditions will happen within a generation (unless of course there were SSPX bishops and priests in the mix). So the underlying position of the “anti-“ camp must be that the SSPX will ever in the lifetime of the current priests and Bishops, be separated from the “visible church” and be excluded, at least, from that avenue of evangelization of it.

Archbishop Lefebvre died less than three years after tentatively signing an agreement with Rome with significantly less favorable conditions and protections than those being currently considered. If he was as totally against a regularization as some would have us believe, why must we always be reminded of what the Archbishop did and said prior to 1988? Surely, his most adamant criticisms against an agreement with Rome should come after he signed the Protocol, not before, since he clearly was ready to accept an agreement long after 1974, 1975, and 1986. If one were to continue to use the Archbishop as the posthumous anti-agreement standard-bearer, one should certainly rely primarily on his reasons for rejecting the penultimate agreement negotiated by the Archbishop and Rome in May of 1988. Those reasons are plainly documented in his published works.

Quo Vadis SSPX?

The Vatican continues to expose its intentions concerning the SSPX in an unabashed and frank manner.  Archbishop Di Noia and Bishop Muller have made no bones about their monumental task of converting the SSPX to conciliarism.

  

Archbishop Di Noia states “Nobody can deny that Karol Wojtyla’s pontificate marked a major shift in the theological understanding of Judaism within the Catholic Church.”  

I would counter that there is nothing about the theology of Judaism that has escaped the Catholic Church for the past 2000 years.  What the Wojtyla pontificate exposed was how that particular pope (mis)understood Judaism and the Old Covenant in contrast to how the church, as early as the Florentine Council taught.  Somehow, that misunderstanding has become de fide in the oxymoronic “living tradition” which modernists have created to justify conciliar clashes with the Deposit of Faith.

The Archbishop goes to state “Our difficulty with the SSPX is that they isolate passages of Vatican II documents from the context and main message of the Council. In Jewish terms, the error is similar to trying to interpret a Biblical passage without referring to the centuries of oral and written rabbinical commentaries on its meaning. The message becomes distorted and problematic … This is a new concept which we know the Traditionalists will not be able to accept .. convincing them will take time”

Apparently Roman Catholic terms are inadequate to describe how Vatican II documents support the traditional faith or the unspoken main message of the Council to the extent that it has now become necessary to explain it in Jewish terms.  I guess the analogy is lost on me since I am not a Jew.  I would ask my attorney but I just don’t know if I can trust his answer.  Most important here is that arduous job of “convincing” the SSPX.

Bishop Muller easily raises the small hairs on the back of one’s neck. He states “The Congregation (CDF) has the task of supporting the pope in his Magisterium. We must guide ourselves based on the emphases he makes in his pronouncements.”The obvious intent is that this pope owns a different Magisterium from his predecessors.  We should all be grateful for his candor – it is a great gift to us, so to speak.  Apparently, according to CathCon, the SSPX German District today called on Bishop Muller to make a statement on his controversial (read heretical) statements and correct his positions.  Torpedoes away!

He goes on to say “[The] Second Vatican Council was a wonderful event, albeit from a somewhat different type than some previous councils. It was its legitimate intention to respond not only to certain errors and correct them, but to provide an overall view of the Catholic faith. It was not so much concerned with individual elements, but with the big picture..”This is from the man now in charge of the congregation protecting the faith and bringing the SSPX into regularity.

So day by day it appears that we get more discouraging news both internally from SSPX via sermons that equate ANY attempt at reconciliation as a doomsday deal with Satan or externally from those who will take new positions in the Vatican hierarchy and are challenged with bringing this obstinate problem child into compliance.

The prelature is apparently a done deal and even has an official title.  Aside from the requirement to get diocesan permission to open new missions, it apparently contains none of the other alleged bogeymen of closing three year old chapels or turning over deeds to properties.  The former requirement, if true, is not insignificant.  But it is also not insurmountable.  The SSPX, in my experience, has been the opposite of weak-kneed lukewarm prelates.  If they were to call me up (which they have never done to date) and ask my opinion on what to do about a non-cooperative bishop, I would say, do it anyway.  The bishop would have to take the Society to (Roman) court.  That might take a few years and expose some troublesome bishops.  I would bet they wouldn’t much like the publicity.  Can you conceive of a creditable response to “Excellency, why would you deny a chapel to a stable group of faithful “attached” to the E.F. when you do not have to pay for the chapel nor provide a priest to support it?”

So, if the prelature is not an insurmountable problem, that would leave the preamble which apparently has some old language reinserted, most likely concerning the SSPX ‘treatment’ of the Novus Ordo.  The SSPX has held that the Mass of Paul VI contains a valid Consecration assuming the matter, form, and intent are in tact.  Since it has been promulgated by a valid Pope, we usually do not argue whether it is licit as it does not conflict with canon law and the sole arbiter of canon law is the pope.  What about its legitimacy? There are those that will argue this point but this term does not enjoy the precise definition that ‘valid’ and ‘licit’ do.  Is the Novus Ordo intrinsically evil?  The confection of the Blessed Sacrament is not evil although it may certainly be abused for evil purposes.  The intent behind the construction of the Novus Ordo may be intrinsically evil if it was intended and designed to conform or deform the Catholic belief in the True Presence to the heretical views of Luther and Calvin.  If it is allowed to continue with the intent of achieving the same goals, then its toleration is intrinsically evil.

Then, Quo Vadis, SSPX?  What shall we do?  Do we shun the pope and the visible church in fear that we will not be able to withstand the conversion they are planning?

Will we likely draw more adherents to the True Faith as a regularized and militant defender of the faith both from within and from without the church?  Are we more effective challenging the likes of Bishop Muller as part of the Visible Church or as an outsider looking in?

Conversely, if we avoid regularity at any cost and are declared “schismatic” by the pope, will more non-traditional Catholics or converts be attracted to us?  In essence, what path benefits our missionary charism assuming we would never compromise on an article of the faith?