Here are the letters as sent to us in regard to the soon reconciliation of the SSPX by Fellay with the Conciliar Church and Vatican II.

Reverend Superior General, Reverend First Assistant, Reverend Second Assistant,

For several months, as many people know, the General Council of the FSSPX is seriously considering Roman proposals for a practical agreement, after the doctrinal discussions of 2009 to 2011 proved that a doctrinal agreement is impossible with current Rome. By this letter the three bishops of the FSSPX who do not form part of the General Council wish to let him know, with all due respect, of the unanimity of their formal opposition to any such agreement.

Of course, on the two sides of current division between the Counciliar Church and the FSSPX much wish that the Catholic unity be restored. Honor to those on both sides. But since reality governs everything, and to the reality all these sincere desires must yield, namely that since Vatican II the official authorities of the Church have deviated from the Catholic truth, and today they are shown to be quite given to always remaining faithful to the Counciliar doctrines and practices. The Roman discussions, the “doctrinal preamble” and Assisi III are bright examples of this.

The problems arising to the Catholics by the Second Vatican Council are profound. In a conference, which seems like the last doctrinal will of Mgr Lefebvre, which was given to priests of the Society at Ecône a half year before his death, after having briefly summarized the history of the liberal Catholicism resulting from the French Revolution, he recalled how the Popes have always fought this attempt at a reconciliation between the Church and the modern world, and he declared that the combat of Society of St. Pius X against the Vatican II was exactly the same combat. He concluded:

“The more one analyzes the documents of the Vatican II and their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, and the more one realizes that they are neither superficial errors nor a few particular errors such as ecumenism, religious freedom, collegial structure, but rather a total perversion of the spirit, a whole new philosophy founded upon Subjectivism… It is very serious! A total perversion! … That is really alarming.”

But, is the thinking of Benedict XVI is better in this respect than that of John Paul II? It is enough to read the study made by one of us three, The Faith in Peril from Reason, to realize that the thought of the current Pope is also impregnated of subjectivism. It is all the subjective imagination of the man in the place of the objective reality of God. It is all the Catholic religion subjected to the modern world. How can one believe that a practical agreement can arrange such a problem?

But, some will say to us, Benedict XVI is really well disposed towards the Society and its teaching. As a subjectivist this can easily be the case, because liberals subjectivists can tolerate even the truth, but not if one refuses to tolerate error. He would accept us within the framework of relativistic and dialectical pluralism, with the proviso that we would remain in “full communion,” in relation to the authority and to other “ecclesiastical entities .” For this reason the Roman authorities can tolerate that the Society continue to teach Catholic doctrine, but they will absolutely not permit that it condemn Counciliar teachings. That is why an even purely practical agreement would necessarily silence little by little the Society, a full critique of the Council or the New Mass. By ceasing to attack the most important of all the victories of the Revolution, the poor Society would necessarily cease being opposed to the universal apostasy of our sad times and would get bogged down. Ultimately, what will guarantee that we will remain protected from the Roman curia and the bishops? Pope Benoit XVI?

One denies it in vain, this slip is inevitable. Doesn’t one see already in the Fraternity symptoms of a lessening in its confession of the Faith? Today, alas, the contrary has become “abnormal”. Just before the consecration of the bishops in 1988 when many good people insisted to Mgr Lefebvre so that he reach a practical agreement with Rome that would open a large field of apostolate, he said his thoughts to the four new bishops: “A large field of apostolate perhaps, but in ambiguity, and while following two directions opposed at the same time, and this would finish by us rotting.” How to obey and continue to preach all the truth? How to reach an agreement without Society “having rotted” on the contrary?

And when one year later, Rome seemed to make true gestures of benevolence towards Tradition, Archbishop Lefebvre was always wary. He feared that they are only “maneuvers to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuvers, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” According to Archbishop Lefebvre the characteristic of the Society is, more than to just denounce the errors by their name, but rather to effectively and publicly oppose the Roman authorities which has spread them. How will one be able to make an agreement and make this public resistance to the authorities, including the Pope? And after having fought during more than forty years, will the Society now have to be put into the hands of the modernists and liberals whose pertinacity we have just come to observe?

Your Excellency, Fathers, take care! You want to lead the Society to a point where it will no longer be able to turn back, to a profound division of no return and, if you end up to such an agreement, it will be with powerful destroying influences who will not keep it. If up until now the bishops of the Society have protected it, it is precisely because Mgr Lefebvre refused a practical agreement. Since the situation has not changed substantially, since the condition prescribed by the Chapter of 2006 was by no means carried out (a doctrinal change in Rome which would permit a practical agreement), at least listen to your Founder. It was right 25 years ago. It is right still today. On his behalf, we entreat you: do not engage the Society in a purely practical agreement.

With our most cordial and fraternal greetings,

In Christo and Maria,

Mgr. Alfonso de Galarreta

Mgr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Mgr. Richard Williamson

Menzingen 14 April 2012

To their Excellencies Tissier de Mallerais, Williamson and de Galarreta.

Your Excellencies,

To your collective letter addressed to the members of the General Council we have given our full attention. We thank you for your concern and for your charity.

Allow us in turn with the same concern for charity and justice to make the following observations.

Firstly, the letter gives a good account of the gravity of the crisis shaking the Church and analyses with precision the nature of the errors flying all around. However, the description suffers from two faults with regard to the reality of the Church: it is lacking both in supernatural spirit and in realism.

It lacks supernatural spirit. Reading your letter one seriously wonders if you still believe that the visible Church with its seat in Rome is truly the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a Church horribly disfigured for sure from head to foot, but a Church which nevertheless still has for its head Our Lord Jesus Christ. One has the impression that you are so scandalised that you no longer accept that that could still be true. It Benedict XVI still the legitimate pope for you? If he is, can Jesus Christ still speak through his mouth? If the pope expresses a legitimate desire concerning ourselves which is a good desire and gives no command contrary to the commandments of God, has one the right to pay no attention and to simply dismiss his desire? If not, on what principle do you base your acting in this way? Do you not think that, if Our Lord gives a command, He will also give us the means to continue our work? Well, the Pope has let us know that his concern to settle our affair for the good of the Church was at the very heart of his pontificate, and that he also knew that it would be easier both for him and for ourselves to leave things as they presently stand. Hence it is a firm and just desire to which he is giving expression. Given the attitude that you put forward there is no further place for Gideons or for Davids or for anyone counting on the help of the Lord. You blame us for being naïve or fearful, but it is your vision of the Church that is too human and even fatalistic; you see dangers, plots, difficulties, you now longer see the help of grace and the Holy Ghost. If one is ready to grant that divine providence conducts the affairs of men, while leaving them their liberty, then one must also accept that the gestures in our favour of the last few years come from Providence. Now, these gestures indicate a line – not always a straight line – but a line clearly in favour of Tradition. Why should this line suddenly come to an end when we are doing all we can to remain faithful and when our efforts are being accompanied by no few prayers on our part? Would the Good Lord drop us at the most decisive moment? That makes no sense. Especially if we are not trying to impose on Him any will of our own but we are trying to discern amidst events what God wants and we are ready to act as He wishes.

At the same time your attitude lacks realism both as to the depth and the breadth of the errors.

Depth: within the Society, we are in the process of making the Council’s errors into super-heresies, as though it is becoming absolute evil, worse than anything, in the same way that Liberals have dogmatised this pastoral council. The evils are already dramatic enough so that one not need to exaggerate them any further. (Cf. Roberto de Mattei, A History never written, p. 22; Msgr. Gherardini, A Debate to be begun, p. 53, etc.) No more distinctions are being made. Whereas Archbishop Lefebvre more than once made the necessary distinctions concerning Liberals. This failure to distinguish leads one or the other of you three to an “absolute hardening”. This is serious because such a caricature no longer corresponds to reality and logically it will in the future finish up in a true schism. And it may well be that this fact is one of the arguments pushing me to delay no longer in responding to the pressure from Rome.

Breadth: on the one hand the present authorities are blamed for all the errors and evils to be found in the Church leaving out the fact that they are trying at least partly to free themselves from the worst of them (the pope’s condemning of the “hermeneutic of rupture” denounces very real errors). On the other hand it is claimed that everybody is firmly rooted in this pertinacity (“all modernists”, “all rotten”). Now that is obviously false. A great majority may still be carried away by the movement, but not everybody.

So that as for the most crucial question of all, that of whether we can survive in the case of the Society being recognised by Rome, we do not arrive at the same conclusion as you do.

Let it be noted in passing that we did not look for a practical agreement. That is false. All we have done is not refuse a priori, as you ask us to do, to consider the Popes offer. For the common good of the Society, we would far prefer the present solution of the intermediary status quo but it is clear that Rome will put up with it no longer.

In itself, the proposed solution of a personal Prelature is not a trap. That is clear firstly from the fact that the present situation in April of 2012 is very different from that of 1988. To claim that nothing has changed is a historic error. The same evils are making the Church suffer, the consequences are even more serious and obvious than ever; but at the same time one may observe a change of attitude in the Church, helped by the gestures and acts of Benedict XVI towards Tradition. This new movement which started about ten years ago is growing stronger. It includes a good number (still a minority) of young priests, seminarians and even a small number now of young bishops who are clearly to be distinguished from their predecessors, who tell us of their sympathy and support, but who are still somewhat stifled by the dominant line in the hierarchy in favour of Vatican II. This hierarchy is loosing speed. That is an objective fact and shows that it is no longer an illusion to think of a fight arising within the Church, even if we are well aware of how long and difficult it will be. I have been able to observe in Rome that even if the glories of Vatican II are still in the mouths of many, and are pushed down our throats, is nevertheless not in all the heads. Fewer and fewer Romans believe in Vatican II.

This concrete situation, together with the canonical solution being proposed, is very different from that of 1988 and when we compare the arguments given by Archbishop Lefebvre at that time we draw the conclusion that he would not have hesitated to accept what is being proposed to us. Let us not loose that sense of the Church, which was so strong in our venerated founder.

Church history shows that the curing of evils afflicting it normally happens gradually and slowly. And when one problem is over, there is another that begins… oportet haereses esse. It is not realistic to require that everything be settled to arrive at what you call a practical agreement. When one watches how events are unfolding it is highly likely that the end of this crisis will take tens of years yet. But to refuse to work in the vineyard because there are still many weeds that risk stifling and obstructing the vine runs up against a notable lesson from the Bible: it Our Lord himself who gives us to understand with His parable of the chaff that there will always be in one form or another weeds to be pulled up and fought against in His Church.

You cannot know how much your attitude over the last few months – quite different for each of you – has been hard for us. It has prevented the Superior General from sharing with you these great concerns, which he would gladly have brought you in to, had he not found himself faced with such a strong and passionate lack of understanding. How much he would have loved to be able to count on you, on your advice to undergo this so delicate moment in our history. It is a great trial, perhaps the greatest of all 18 years of his being superior. Our venerable founder gave to the Society bishops a task and precise duties. He made clear that the principle of unity in our Society is the Superior General. But for a certain time now, you have been trying – each one of you in his own way – to impose on him your point of view, even in the form of threats, and even in public. This dialectic between the truth and the faith on the one side and authority on the other is contrary to the spirit of the priesthood. He might at least have hoped that you were trying to understand the arguments driving him to act as he has acted these last few years in accordance with the will of divine Providence.

We are praying hard for each of you that we may find ourselves all together once again in this fight which is far from over, for the greater glory of God and for love of dear Society.

May Our risen Lord and Our Lady deign to protect and bless you,

+Bernard Fellay

Niklaus Pfluger+

Alain-Marc Nély+

If Joseph Ratzinger Is Truly Pope Benedict XVI

When one accepts a man as Pope, they also accept his public teachings on behalf of the Church as well as his regulations. Pope Bonface the VIII infallibly declared in Unam Sanctam: “Indeed we declare, say, pronounce, and define that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” It is not enough to say Benedict XVI is Pope, one must also be in visible union with him and in full obedience. Let us consider then what it means to be in full communion with Benedict XVI:

• John Paul II is a saint. Since Benedict XVI has beatified John Paul II, it is only a matter of time that he or his successor will canonize him, which canonizes his actions during his papacy and even before.
• Vatican II is a Catholic Council and teaches pure Catholic doctrine.
• Lumen Gentium #8. Here it is: “The one Church of Christ…constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by Peter and the bishops in communion with him.” What this implies is that the Church of Christ includes more than just the Catholic Church. Unitatis Redintegratio #3: “Very many of the significant elements and endowments which together go to build up and give life to the Church itself, can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church. … The churches and communities separated (from the Catholic Church) have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation…”
• What Pope Pius IX condemned as erroneous in the nineteenth century becomes the truth in the twentieth century. “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [of the Vatican II document, Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter syllabus… As a result, the one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution, was, to a large extent, corrected…” (Principles of Catholic Theology, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, 1982, p. 381) Pope Gelasius I taught that once the Church condemns an error, it can never be taught.
• The Novus Ordo Missae is certainly valid and pleasing to Almighty God, since Benedict XVI celebrates it in many languages, including German, Italian and English. The form for all in the Consecration of the wine is also valid and pleasing to God, since Benedict XVI has used it in all three of the languages named. Therefore we must be ready to assist at the Novus Ordo celebrated in union with Benedict XVI.
• The New Rite of Episcopal Consecration is valid and pleasing to Almighty God. Since Joseph Ratzinger was consecrated in 1977 with the New Rite of Episcopal Consecration, if it is doubtful, then he is not a true Bishop. According to the law under which he was elected, a man does not become Pope until he is validly consecrated a Bishop.  Universi Dominici Gregis is the law he was elected under, which requires a man to be a valid Bishop to become Pope.
• Indeed all of the New Rites of the Sacraments must be valid, for a Pope cannot give an invalid Rite of the Sacraments, and if Benedict XVI is Pope, then Paul VI was Pope, when he instituted New Rites of the Sacraments.
• If one looks at all of this logically, there is no way that Paul VI and his successors could be truly Popes. Therefore there was a vacancy. We have seen that it is a matter of Catholic Faith that vacancies in the Papacy end.

But David Bawden Is Not Pope Michael

Let us now consider the objections to the election of David Bawden as Pope Michael on July 16, 1990.

• Cardinal Siri was actually Pope Gregory XVII in exile. This proposition rests on dubious information, but even if it is true, as Pope, Siri never publicly appointed Cardinals to preserve the succession. Since secret Cardinals lose all right to elect a Pope when the Pope that appointed them dies, their rights if they existed died with Siri, who died on May 2, 1989.
• Such a small number of electors cannot bind the Universal Church. Several Papal Elections consisted of six Cardinals and five consisted of a single elector in the person of an Emperor or Empress, who appointed the Pope. Jesus Christ was a single person, who appointed Simon Peter as the first Pope. With the law of conclave, the electors usually numbered less than fifty. The law of compromise allows the conclave to select a small group from their number and turn the election over to them.
• Bawden was not a Bishop at the time of his election. The tradition of the Church is that any Catholic man can be elected Pope. Pope Pius XII in a speech on the Lay Apostolate stated: “Even if a layman were elected pope, he could accept the election only if he were ready for ordination and willing to be ordained But the power to teach and govern, as well as the divine gift of infallibility, would be granted to him from the very moment of his acceptance, even before his ordination.” It was 800 years before the man elected Pope was already a Bishop. All were priests, deacons and sometimes even laymen.
• No one is following Pope Michael. If we use this reasoning, then in the contest between Elias and the priests of Baal, we must side with the priests of Baal, who were 450 in number. (III Kings 18:19) However in that contest, God blessed Elias, who was alone, against the priests of Baal and the people who were following them. 4 Saint Augustine states that several times in history, the Church was reduced to a single person. 5 And Isaias (10:19) prophesied: “And they that remain of the trees of his forest shall be so few, that they shall easily be numbered, and a child shall write them down.”
• There are a number of claimants to the Papacy, how can we sort them all out? Actually it is easy to sort. First of all, we can discount all of those who claim mystical appointment as Pope. This includes two Gregory XVII and a host of others claiming visions. Also these visionaries have had visions to change the constitution of the Church. For instance, one has women priests and bishops. This leaves us with four elections between 1990 and the present. According to the principle of first in time, first in right, Bawden is Pope, because his election was first. The second was in 1994, the third in 1998 and the last was in 2006. The 1994 and 1998 elections worked from the same basis as the 1990 Papal Election and the participants in both elections were well aware of the 1990 election, yet took no account of it. Victor Von Pentz was elected as Linus II in 1994. He has virtually resigned his papacy and no longer puts his claim forward. Fr. Earl Lucian Pulvermacher was elected in 1998 and died recently and no one has been elected to succeed him, so his claim has ended. Finally the South American group, which elected a series of men from 2006 to 2008 is now without a Pope, for the last in the line has resigned and no effort was made to elect a successor.
• Prophecy provides that Almighty God will intervene to appoint a successor. Several prophecies indicate some form of divine intervention. One states that Saint Peter and Paul will appoint a Pope. However, Almighty God has bound Himself to have the Church herself elect a Pope in some manner.
• No Cardinals participated in Pope Michael’s election. By this reasoning, a Papal Election has now become impossible, because there are no Cardinals left to elect a Pope. However, such a claim is a heretical denial of the doctrine that there will be Popes until the end of time. It is merely ecclesiastical law that Cardinals must elect a Pope. Many Papal Elections throughout history have been irregular in that the ordinary electors did not actually elect the Pope. The Catholic Church as a perfect society always has the ability to supply herself with a Pope here and now, when the Papacy is vacant.
• The group that elected Pope Michael did not wait until the Traditionalist Bishops joined. The matter of electing a Pope was discussed from the early 1970′s until now. Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc consecrated bishops for the specific purpose of preserving the Apostolic Succession of Holy Orders until a Pope could be elected. These bishops consecrated others for this same purpose. In January of 1983 Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc held a meeting in Louisiana with these Bishops and some priests to discuss the election of a Pope and at the end of the 1983 Bishop George Musey published an article on the same subject. Then dissension entered the ranks of these bishops and no election was ever held. The group that organized the 1990 Papal election contacted every bishop descending from Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc as well as many sedevacantist priests and lay people throughout the world to ask them to participate. By not participating they gave up any right they had to participate or to object to the election.

How long shall you remain between two sides. Either Joseph Ratzinger is Pope, and we are obliged to follow him COMPLETELY, or David Bawden is Pope, and we are obliged to follow him. It is time to make the decision! As Jesus said: “You are either for Me or against Me, you either gather with Me or you scatter.”

What All Can Do

Anyone can validly baptize as we learn in the Catechism. Not only can a bishop, priest or deacon validly baptize, but even a little Catholic girl can. In fact, one does not have to be baptized in order to validly baptize. All one must do is pronounce the word: “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and Holy Ghost,” while pouring water with the intention to do what the Catholic Church does.

What Can a Sacramental Priest Do?

In addition to having the ability to validly baptize, a priest can validly celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. He can also validly confer the Sacrament of Extreme Unction. Also he can validly perform those blessings which are not reserved in any manner in the Roman Ritual.

What Can a Sacramental Bishop Do?

In addition to all a sacramental priest can do, a sacramental bishop can validly confirm and ordain. He can also consecrate the Holy Oils and perform many reserved blessings and consecrations in the Roman Ritual and Roman Pontifical.

What About Marriage?

The ability to validly witness a marriage does not require the power of Holy Orders, but an office in the Catholic Church. Marriage law is quite complicated, but a few simple points can be laid out. All baptized Catholics are bound toe the canonical form of marriage under penalty of invalidity. This requires them to present themselves before their own diocesan Bishop or their own pastor and exchange their consent before their bishop or pastor or a priest delegated by other and two witnesses. If this is impossible and such impossibility will continue for a month, then they may exchange their consent validly in the presence of two witnesses without any need for a priest to be present. In marriage it is the couple themselves who actually confer the Sacrament upon each other, the priest merely acts as an official witness of the Church. Sacramental priests, since they have no authority in the Church cannot act as such a witness, until such authority is delegated to them by a bishop or priest who possesses such authority.

What About Confession?

The Council of Trent infallibly teaches the doctrine of the Church that for the valid absolution of sins in the Sacrament of Confession a man requires two things, the power of the priesthood and jurisdiction (or authority) over the penitent. As Bishop Dolan said: “We don’t claim to possess any ordination jurisdiction.” A sacramental priest has no jurisdiction or authority over anyone, therefore he cannot validly absolve from sins int eh Sacrament of Confession. The Church grants one exception. In the case of danger of death, whether intrinsic from disease or extrinsic from some danger such as going into battle, all priests can validly absolve from sins in the Sacrament of Confession.

Here is Bishop Dolan’s quote: Some claim I left the Society of St. Pius V simply because I wanted to become a bishop at any price, but this is preposterous. The main reason I left was because of personal conflicts with Fr. Kelly. He exercised a strong cult-like leadership. He was a bit of a Francis Schuckardt type-very charismatic and manipulative. And not having a bishop in the Society made the situation especially taxing. But I certainly wasn’t looking to better myself by becoming a bishop. Bishop Pivarunas approached me first with the idea, and at first I had serious reservations about the Archbishop Thuc and Old Catholic background of the Mount St. Michael’s community. I don’t deny that there have been problems here, but we’re not living today under normal circumstances. We’re faced with a vacuum of authority; the papacy has been vacant for more than twenty years now, and desperate times call for desperate measures. Our people need to receive the sacraments, and for this they need priests, and it takes bishops to make priests. And this is precisely the role that Bishop Pivarunas and myself play. We don’t claim to possess any ordination jurisdiction or the power of excommunication. We have moral authority, but we don’t boss people around. We’re sacramental bishops, and traditionalist communities simply can’t survive for very long without sacramental bishops. (From The Smoke of Satan, pages 101-2)

SSPX Media Brochure after Antipope Benedict XVI remitted excommunication: 3. Consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate would be a schismatic act if jurisdiction (e.g., a territory to govern) was given to the newly consecrated bishops. But Archbishop Lefebvre never did this, and made it clear that he was only consecrating “sacramental bishops” to perform such episcopal duties as administering confirmations and ordaining priests.

O Jesus, Eternal High Priest, who didst deign to raise Thy faithful servant Marcel Lefebvre to the Episcopal dignity and to grant him the grace of being a fearless defender of the Holy Mass, of the Catholic Priesthood, of Thy Holy Church, and of the Holy See, of being a courageous apostle of Thy Kingdom on earth, of being a devoted servant of Thy holy Mother, and of being a shining example of charity, of humility and of all virtues; bestow upon us now, by his merits, the graces we beseech of Thee, so that, assured of his efficacious intercession with Thee, we may one day see him raised to the honours of our altars. Amen.

I would like to testify in the matter of the canonization of Marcel Lefebvre and ask that this idea be tabled for many reasons. Many of the more public reasons why I believe Lefebvre is not worthy of canonization are listed elsewhere on this website. I would like to now testify to things I am an eye-witness to. I will also testify to those things, which I have talked with the eye-witnesses.

I first met Archbishop Lefebvre on Saturday, May 22, 1976 in Stafford, Texas at Saint Jude’s Shrine. I was there for Confirmation. Three priests from Mexico came to Stafford to meet personally with Archbishop Lefebvre. I know the rumor that circulated is that they were there to discuss the election of a Pope. On Monday Mary 24 Archbishop Lefebvre and the board of directors of the Traditional Catholics of Greater Houston had a meeting to discuss some distressing information the board members had discovered about a priest of the SSPX. This included the priest’s possession of hard core pornography. The board received no satisfaction and immediately separated from the SSPX. The priest was retained in the SSPX for about eight more years after this meeting.

My next meeting with Archbishop Lefebvre was a little over a year later, when I obtained a copy of my Confirmation certificate to send in to the seminary, Saint Joseph’s House, at Armada, Michigan as part of my application to the seminary. Archbishop Lefebvre signed my Confirmation certificate.

I entered the Seminaire International Saint Pie X on September 28, 1977. During that time I saw Archbishop Lefebvre as he went about his day to day tasks at the seminary. He also had a personal interview with each new seminarian with the aid of a translator, although he did speak English. I believe he wished a translator to make sure he was clearly understood, due to his age. He recalled our meeting the previous summer. He also discussed my transfer to Saint Joseph’s House in his weekly conference in December. I transferred in January of 1978.

While in Econe I noticed the use of the non-traditional one hour Communion fast by the seminary in general and by Lefebvre specifically. I was wary of this at the time, but at age eighteen, who am I to question a supposedly Traditional Bishop, who is defending the Faith. I would believe, though, that a traditional seminary would observe a fast from midnight before Holy Communion.

My next meeting with Archbishop Lefebvre was August 17, 1979 at Saint Marys, Kansas to discuss the appeal for my dismissal from Saint Joseph’s House without cause on December 15, 1978. He accepted my appeal after discussing the many problems I had personally noticed and were also sent to him in a report drawn up by another seminarian and sent to Lefebvre in March of 1979. He stated that I would be admitted to the SSPX seminary of my choice, totally disregarding my dismissal. I was promised the reason for my dismissal and a chance to respond directly to him on the matter. He closed the discussion, which was conducted by way of translator, in English: “The United States is my cross.”

I applied to Econe and was denied admittance, because of my dismissal, in spite of Lefebvre’s promise. I wrote to the rector of Saint Joseph’s House by registered letter, requesting the reason, but never received a reply. In May of 1980 and again January of 1981 I hand delivered letters to Archbishop Lefebvre, regarding my dismissal. I never received any reply. I again contacted Archbishop Lefebvre by having a letter hand delivered to him at Econe in March of 1981. It was about the same time I resigned from the SSPX and my position at Saint Marys in the brother program I had entered in order to show my good faith. My reasons are discussed elsewhere on this website.

Public Positions of Archbishop Lefebvre compared to Bishop Fellay, who entered Econe the same time I did.

Conneections between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc

This picture of taken in May of 1981, when Archbishop Lefebvre was subpoenaed in connection with a child custody case.  This was in Kansas City after the ordination of subdeacons at Saint Vincent’s.  The case occurred in Kansas City with a man who had been at Saint Marys the previous summer and left immediately after the men’s retreat and kidnapped his children from his wife,who he was divorcing.  The wife had legal custody.

A comparison of Bishop Fellay’s position with that of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Canonization of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Links between Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc.

Traditionalists have Sacramental priests and Bishops, not jurisdictional pastors and bishops

Bishops Tissier de Mallerias, Williamson and de Galaretta write a letter to Bishop Fellay concerning Fellay’s reconciliation with Modernist Rome, soon to occur.

Father Anthony Cekada says: “His interest in the traditional movement appears to have begun in early 1975 when he visited Abp. Lefebvre’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland. The event would turn out to be a mixed blessing. There Abp. Thuc struck up an acquaintance with Father M. Revaz, former Chancellor of the Swiss Diocese of Sion and professor of Canon Law at the Ecône seminary. Later in 1975, Father Revaz convinced Abp. Thuc that the solution to the Church’s problems were to be found in alleged “Marian apparitions” at Palmar de Troya, Spain, and he urged the Archbishop to consecrate bishops for the Palmar supporters, who wished to preserve the traditional Mass. Abp. Thuc agreed and performed the consecrations in December. The next year, however, Abp. Thuc repudiated his connections with the Palmar group.”

The fact that Bishop Thuc was in Econe is confirmed here: “Fr. Philippe Guépin. Fr. Guépin is a traditional priest who says Mass for a large group in Nantes. He was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977, and was asked to leave the Society of St. Pius X in 1980 because he refused to recognize John Paul II as pope. He knew Archbishop Thuc at Ecône, and had prolonged conversations with him. He has attested that Archbishop Thuc was in his right mind.”

Bishop Thuc talks about the affair of the Palmar consecrations in his autobiography Corona Spinarum: “At that time a priest came to me who I had formerly known in Econe, Switzerland. He said to me point-blank: “Your Excellency, the Holy Virgin has sent me to bring you at once to Spain in order to render her a service. My car is waiting for you at the door of the presbytery and we will leave immediately so as to reach there by Christmas.”

Father William Daly, who was running a Traditionalist chapel in northern Chicago. In 1974 he hosted Clemente. IN 1975 he went to live with Clemente, eventually becoming a Palmar Bishop. The last that was heard was that he was living in Sion, Switzerland, which is ten miles from Econe. Fr. Daly introduced all of his people to the Society of Saint Pius X in 1974, and after his departure all three chapels he had in Oklahoma and Texas joined with the SSPX.

Father Noel Barbara relates these events: “Archbishop Lefebvre knew Archbishop Ngo Dinh Thuc quite well from the Second Vatican Council. He considered him to be a bishop with good doctrinal views. Like himself, this bishop belonged to the conservative group. It was because he considered him to be a Catholic bishop, committed to the faith, devoted to Mary, and having nothing to do, that he encouraged him to work with the emissaries of Palmar de Troya who had come to Econe in order to solicit his episcopal services. I heard these facts directly from Archbishop Lefebvre.
“One day a canon of Saint Maurice named Father Revaz arrived at the seminary in Econe. He was accompanied by a priest who spoke English. A lover of the extraordinary, both had come from the location of the Apparitions. They came straight from Palmar to beg Archbishop Lefebvre to come to this location immediately because the Blessed Virgin was waiting for him. She was insisting that a Catholic bishop come in order to confer the episcopacy on those she planned to designate.
“The Archbishop excused himself and advised them to “approach Archbishop Thuc. He is orthodox and he is not at present occupied. Go and seek him out. He will most certainly agree with your request.” The two messengers immediately left and had no difficulty in convincing the elderly Vietnamese Archbishop to respond to the Virgin’s request.”
What this means is that Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc consecrated Clemnete and four others at Palmar de Troya, Spain at Archbishop Lefebvre’s request!

In 1977 eleven of us traveled from Econe to Rome after Christmas to visit the Eternal City. Several were purchasing cassocks. The tailor mentioned that ‘our bishops’ (SSPX) had been in ordering miters. Upon inquiry it was found out that these were bishops from Palmar de Troya, who considered themselves affiliated with the Society of Saint Pius X.

Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc’s first bishop for the Traditionalists was Bishop Guerard des Lauriers, who was in Econe from 1970 until the summer of 1977. In fact, it was Bishop des Lauriers, who convinced Archbishop Lefebvre to stop celebrating the Novus Ordo Missae at Econe on Christmas Eve, 1971.

Monsgr (Lefebrve),
I have heard that you are in this moment in bad health. This is why I have taken the audacity to tell you the following: You have been consecrated a bishop by Cardinal Lienart, (who) never believed in our religion, so your consecration by him has been nulled. I am ready to consecrate you a bishop or you can find a bishop to consecrate you secretly. As regards the ecclesiastics that you made priests, find a bishop, for example myself, to consecrate them. All this, is in strict secrecy, known only between you and I.
Pierre Martin Ngo-dihn-Thuc, Archbishop (The source for this is no longer available on the internet.)

Three men ordained priests by Lefebvre have been consecrated Bishops in thr Thus line. Bishop des Lauriers consecrated Franco Munari, who is no longer functioning as a priest or bishop. Bishop McKenna consecrated Donald Sanborn and Bishop Pivarunas consecrated Daniel Dolan.

Let us consider that The Enemy, that is Satan, orchestrated Vatican II in order to destroy souls. Satan used the Secret Societies to usurp the papacy in the persons of Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII-II) and John the Baptist Montini (Paul VI). It is reasonable to assume that the Secret Societies knew that there would be opposition to the changes of Vatican II. Isn’t it logical that they wished also to subvert the opposition and when this opposition came to the fore, they sent in Archbishop Lefebvre. Lefebvre has been linked to a Secret Society, the Priory of Sion. Lefebvre has also been linked to Communism. In the late 1970′s many were becoming concerned about the SSPX and their association with Antipope Paul VI. Again opposition was forming and discussing electing a Pope. Isn’t it logical that the Secret Societies would send in men to lead this opposition away from the truth. Des Lauriers departs from Econe and is received by the opposition, then invents his theory that somehow John Paul II is, but is not Pope, being materially but not formally pope. Most of the opposition remained strict sede vacantists, rejecting Wojtyla’s claim to the Papacy totally. Thuc consecrates des Lauriers and then Carmona and Zamora and thus the opposition had sacramental bishops. It is Our opinion that both bishops, Lefebvre and Thuc were set up by The Enemy in order to deceive the elect and lead people away from the solution, the election of a Pope. Thus they can be considered do-founders along with Schuckardt of the Traditionalist movement to deceive the elect.

More information on the Traditionalist Catholic Church founded by Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop Ngo-Dihn Thuc

How many Catholics have recited the Holy Rosary more than a thousand times, but have not made any progress in the spiritual life? Rather they have gone backwards. The reason why they go backwards is because they do not pray the Holy Rosary. King David writes, “when he is judged, may he go out condemned; and may his prayer be turned to sin.” (Psalms 108:7) Why is his prayer turned into sin? Sacred Scripture tells us, “He that turneth away his ears from hearing the law, his prayer shall be as [an] abomination.” (Proverbs 28:9)

Many people do not know the spirit of prayer. They are slaves to devotion by reciting many prayers. They recite the 15 decades of the Holy Rosary every day, but they are in a continual state of mortal sin and eternal damnation. Christ tells us, “This people honoureth Me with their lips: but their heart is far from Me.” (Matthew 15:8) In essence, damned Catholics have given the flesh, the world, and the devil their heart and soul, but to God they give just their lips. This is what the pharisees had done to Christ Himself. Yet Catholics have more malice than the Pharisees two thousand years ago. Catholics today are the worst brood of vipers known to God. Catholics today are the most spiritually dead creatures God has on Earth. Christ talks about these Catholics in Apocalypse: “I know thy works, that thou hast the name of being alive: and thou art dead.” (Apocalypse 3:1) We live in the body, but our soul is dead to God. Our souls are dead to God because we love all types of pleasures more than we love Him. And quite frankly God is really angry. God is so angry at Catholics that He wants to wipe them off the face of the Earth, as St. Matthew writes, “no flesh should be saved.” How do I know He wants to wipe Catholics off the face of the Earth? St. John writes in the Apocalypse “But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of My mouth.” (Apocalypse 3:16) To vomit something out of our body is to have it completely be rejected and never to be taken back in again. And justly should God vomit us from His very mouth. St. Bernadette of Lourdes once said, “I am only afraid of bad Catholics.” It is bad Catholics like us who have caused the great apostasy. It is bad Catholics like us who by our sins, our neglect, our extreme lukewarmness and indifference has cause the loss of so many souls to the fires of eternal damnation. If God will demand of us a strict account over the idle words we speak, what about the souls that are lost by our negligence? How many thousands of souls have been lost by our mistakes already? The further we progress in the spiritual life the more souls can be saved. A single prayer of St. Teresa of Avila’s converted 10,000 heretics. Yet, have we even begun to fight our sinful inclinations? Nope. Have we been living up to our baptismal vows? Nope. St. Bernadette would not call us Catholics today. Rather she would call us devils. And I agree. We are devils. For devils are terrified by prayer and mortification. Our Lord said that these kinds of devils can only be cast out “by prayer and by fasting” (Matthew 17:20). Fasting is not just with food, but we need to abstain and deny ourselves from indulging in sin. We are terrified like devils at the very tools that should save our souls.

You know that a Catholic is truly praying by seeing the fruits of detachment and self denial. The more they are detached from the vanity of the world, the more they will give themselves to prayer, not out of habit, but out of love. We know then the seed of grace has truly penetrated into this type of soul. This is what the Catechism of the Council of Trent calls a spiritual resurrection. The Catechism tells us, “the principal signs of this resurrection from sin which should be noted are taught by the Apostle. “If you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God.” He distinctly tells us that they who desire to posses life, honor, repose, and riches, there chiefly where Christ dwells, have truly risen with Christ. The Apostle adds: “Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth.”

The Apostle tells us that we should seek only the things that are above. The only way to seek what is in Heaven is through contemplation. Contemplation is the sole purpose of our existence. We were created to contemplate the attributes of God. And through acquiring holy knowledge of God, our love comes forth from our soul and gets lost in the divine essence of God. And God uniting to our love, returns His love into our soul. For contemplation began in love and ends in love just as God is the Alpha and the Omega. This is the Christian life. A life of loving continual prayer. This is the happiness of the Saints while on earth. Just like a Bride to her Bridegroom. A faithful wife to her husband. “Love attracts love,” as a Catholic priest comments about prayer.

If we do not love prayer, then God will never give us His grace to truly amend our lives. For the first grace we solely depend on God. The rest must be acquired by us through prayer. That is why so many are lost. They scorn the first grace which calls them to the heights of perfection. After the first grace, God waits for us to ask for His mercy. Even when we do not ask for it, He gives it to us. But prayer disposes us to receive His graces properly and promptly. Instead we scorn His graces. And this is how we sin. We will never know the depths of His love. We will never taste His love. In fact, we will instead love our sinful way of life, if we do not love prayer. And if we love our way of life, then we will love the world, the flesh, and the devil. But should we pray with improper dispositions, we will progress in the wrong direction as St. Augustine writes. “You run well, but the wrong direction.” When we pray with poor and impure intentions we are not progressing toward Heaven, but rather toward Hell. Many Catholics will foretaste this bitter truth while they are living. God will give these poor Catholics a false peace. A false peace is when a soul in the state of mortal sin and is not bothered whatsoever at the miserable state he is in. He thinks he is fine and at peace with God. But rather it is a sign of God abandoning the soul to the devil because he did not love the true spirit of prayer, but rather only the false spirit. St. Paul writes about these poor souls, “And in all seduction of iniquity to them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying.” (II Thessalonians 2:10)

Yet how many times do people pray with poor and impure intentions. They seek money, honor, glory, youth, all the foolish things that shall be passed away in this life. Will God hear your prayer? No, He will put it in the spam box or garbage bin. Worse yet, you are sinning when you pray like that. Sacred Scripture tells us, “Before prayer prepare thy soul: and be not as a man that tempteth God.” (Ecclesiasticus 18:23) Here is the reason why we tempt God and subsequently fall into sin. When you pray to God, using the most holy of prayers, the Our Father and the Hail Mary to obtain earthly goods, what happens when you receive those goods? If you acquire riches, you forget God and commit sin. If you acquire any earthly goods, the majority of adults misuse these goods given to them by God and that is why they are lost. St. John of the Cross writes, “Do not rejoice in temporal prosperity, since you do not know if it gives you assurance of eternal life.” Christ said: “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Heaven.” For the rich man turns his money into god and idolizes it. How many of us today idolize objects and we do not even realize it. How many electronics in the United States are being idolized. TV is treated like a religion. On television, the sports in particular, has a “liturgical season”. TV has a sacrilegious liturgical season. Instead of praying, you can watch TV. You know whats in season and whats out. People follow this sacrilegiously. And they will not give 5 minutes to God in prayer, silence, and solitude. That is all that it is needed to begin ones conversion to God. 5 minutes and thats it.

Many people are afraid to start praying because then they will realize they will have to do more. They will have to replace the old habits in with the new. And quite frankly they would prefer to keep the old one. Most people are too afraid to approach God and love Him with their whole hearts. St. John of the Cross comments, “Although you perform many works, if you do not deny your will and submit yourself, losing all solicitude about yourself and your affairs, you will not make progress.” He continues on by saying, “What does it profit you to give God one thing if He asks of you another? Consider what it is God wants, and then do it. You will as a result better satisfy your heart than with that toward which you yourself are inclined.” They are too afraid to tell Him in the most intimate loving prayer that they are solely for Him. That is why He never gives Himself wholly to us. If He does not give Himself wholly to us on Earth, He will never give Himself wholly to us after death. That is why He hides Himself from the world. St. Mark writes, “And then if any man shall say to you, Lo, here is Christ; lo, He is here: do not believe.” (Mark 13:21) Look at any Saint, and I will guarantee you they were in silence for the majority of their lives. More importantly, the Saints were in the midst of the world, but God was always with them. For they were internally silent. They possessed God and God possessed them. The Book of Wisdom tells us, “but the souls of the just are in the hand of God, and the torment of death shall not touch them.” (Wisdom 3:1) You are not in the hands of God if you love the noise of the world. The thought of death will torment such a soul. Nor can they hear the voice of God because the noise of the world is so great God’s voice cannot be heard. St. John of the Cross comments, “consider that God reigns only in the peaceful and disinterested soul.” A peaceful soul is one that is a completely pure soul. Because a pure soul is a silent soul. You cannot have peace if you have sins on your soul. Your conscience will continually rebuke your sinful way of life. This internal battle, internal struggle, internal restlessness is your conscience rebuking your sinful life. This can either be a grace of great mercy or a punishment of divine justice depending if you will repent of your sins or you will harden your heart.

We waste our time in prayer because we are never resolved to give up sin. We join the noise of the world thinking this is happiness. We think God is fine with me listening to such and such a worldly song or show. But we do not think every moment is a fight for our eternal salvation or damnation. And many will never care. Many give excuses. Many simply say it is just too much. This is why St. Louis De Montfort writes: “Predesinate souls, you who are of God, cut yourselves adrift from those who are damning themselves by their impious lives.”

We must cut ourselves off from the world if we wish to hear the voice of God as Sacred Scripture tells us. Otherwise we will never love contemplation. And if we do not love contemplation, we will never love to contemplate infinite beauty and love which is God Himself. If we refuse to contemplate God here on earth, then we will contemplate the joys of the Saints while we are burning in Hell for all eternity. As St. Thomas Aquinas tells us in his Summa (Supplement Q. 94, A. 3), that the Saints in Heaven will contemplate and will be filled with joy at those who are lost in Hell. St. Thomas Aquinas quotes King David from Psalms, “The just shall rejoice when he shall see the revenge.” (Psalm 57:11)

Here are the problems why people do not progress in the spiritual life:

• Firstly, they do not hunger and thirst after God. Those who truly hunger and thirst obtain all they want as Sacred Scripture tells us.

• Secondly, they do not give themselves all to God. So that the rigor of His divine justice may be satisfied here on Earth. That is why many are lost. This is why few make it into purgatory and even fewer go straight to Heaven.

• Thirdly, they do not love God while they are praying. The heart symbolizes love. We must yearn with our hearts. We must say I love you to Jesus and really mean it. And we must do this thousands of times a day, if we wish to foretaste the heavenly delights of divine love here on Earth.

Many of you watching will be receiving spiritual communion. Use spiritual communions to make yourself yearn for God’s love. How stupid can we be if we do not love God now at this moment. For this moment will never be replaced. This moment can never be substituted. This moment is lost forever for all eternity. And at judgment it will be shown to us that this moment we chose to either hate God or love Him. In the eyes of God it is simple. You will either love Him or love yourself. And St. John of the Cross writes, that at judgment we are judged at how much we have loved God. He continues on by saying: “Reflect that many are called but few are chosen and that, if you are not careful, your perdition is more certain than your salvation.”

Unlike Bishop Fellay, Archbishop Lefebvre celebrated the Novus Ordo Missae until Christmas of 1971. One can presume that young Bernard Fellay assisted at these liturgies of Lefebvre until Lefebvre decided to begin the Rite of Econe as Bishop Dolan calls it. We have also reported this in 54 Years that Changed the Catholic Church.

Bishop Bernard Fellay, who entered Econe the same time We did, has completed Archbishop Lefebvre’s task of taking the Traditionalists back into the Conciliar Church. We noticed immediately that on Sundays we would assist at Mass, go to breakfast, then assist at the High Mass at 10am and then receive Holy Communion. Most of the English speaking students would merely have a cup of coffee, which is permitted under Pope Pius XII’s fast laws, but not eat. We personally witnessed Archbishop Lefebvre come and eat breakfast prior to celebrating Pontifical Mass on several occasions.

More information on the Traditionalist Catholic Church founded by Archbishop Lefebvre.

We have begun the designs and framework of setting up a monastery. We are starting a monastery first because the Church was founded on the contemplative life. Although these initial monks cannot enjoy the true fruits of the contemplative life, they will have to come from the clouds of Heaven and become a beast of burden. But as time progresses, we hope to have a true contemplative monastery. We are going to accept men to the seminary. It will not be an easy path. But if you wish to wear the crown of thorns like our Savior you are more than welcomed.

Humble, fearless, docile, cheerful, prayerful, silent, and God loving saintly monks is what we are praying for. Very few people wish to assist us in any manner. We are indeed grateful, but most people simply give us a greeting. They well wish us and as we know “that is not going to fix the broken plumbing,” as the saying goes.

If you are impatient at our slow progress, there are only two people who are continually working in the Church the pope and one other person. These two people have put many hours and hard labor into acquiring the necessities so others may benefit from them. But we alone cannot bear this burden forever. We alone cannot do everything. We alone cannot convert the world in one moment. It takes time, frustration, tears, and endless agony.

This is the Christian life. This is the narrow road which Sacred Scripture tells us in the end that few find salvation. “How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it!” (Matthew 7:14)

Contemplation is our end. For contemplation begins in love and ends in love. Just as God is the beginning (alpha) and the end (omega).