As the Society of St. Pius X continues to seek a working accommodation with the modernists in the Vatican, more and more voices are expressing concern that the leadership of the SSPX is departing from Archbishop Lefebvre’s own program and disregarding his warnings. The following statements by the Archbishop clearly express his conviction that the doctrinal differences with the Modernists must be resolved before any “practical arrangement” can be acceptable. Further statements also show that, the current leaders of the SSPX have now rejected Archbishop Lefebvre’s warnings and are pursuing first a “practical arrangement” with the modern Vatican and leaving the matter of doctrinal deviations to be worked out later.

The problem with making a practical agreement in order to be recognized and accepted as belonging to any religious organization with different doctrinal teachings is that it pretends that doctrinal differences (and thus differences in faith) can legitimately co-exist in the same church. But the idea that there can be multiple different faiths in one and the same church is a bedrock principle of modernism. It is east to understand why Archbishop Lefebvre would categorically reject that notion, but it is difficult to see why the SSPX leaders would now embrace the fundamental principle of ecumenism to win the approval of the Modernists of the new order. Please read the statements below and judge for yourself. 

--Father William Jenkins

"Recently, there has been much talk and insistence upon Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state” to conduct negotiations with Modernist Rome, as though that grace is an infallible grace that cannot possibly “get things wrong.” Let it be said that ALL CATHOLICS have the grace of state available to fulfill their role in life—popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, husbands, wives, parents, teachers, etc.—yet look at the mess the world is in despite the available “graces of state.” 

 All this reminds me of Vatican II with its endless talk of the “rights of man” while ignoring the “rights of God.” Let us not focus so much on Bishop Fellay’s “grace of state” as a mere superior general of the SSPX, but let us go higher, and let us look at the “grace of state” of the 1970  FOUNDER of the organization, that Bishop Fellay now leads. The “grace of the founder” is what the future leaders of the organization should follow, if they are going to be true to their “grace of state.” Most, if not all, religious orders, sooner or later, stray from the initial spirit of their founders. Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (the priest chosen by Archbishop Lefebvre to be the spiritual director of his seminary in Ecône) once said that the time it takes for a religious order to start to drift from its founder’s moorings is around 40 years. Today, 40 or so years after the founding of the SSPX, we see serious problems and divisions facing the SSPX (or the NOVUS–SSPX ). When religious orders thus drift away, a reform is usually carried out by some, in order to recapture the original ideals, attitudes and spirit of their founders.

Perhaps the time has come for the SSPX to do the same. But to recapture the Archbishop’s spirit, we must carefully, frequently and zealously read the books in which Archbishop Lefebvre’s words are printed. I remember a traditional priest, a professor of dogmatic theology, once saying: “There are many commentaries and explanations written on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, but many, if not most of them, merely complicate the simple thought of St. Thomas. Go to the source! Read St. Thomas first, and then, if you cannot understand him, then read the commentary.” Similarly, in these days, when we are being told how to interpret Archbishop Lefebvre by this or that priest, who professes to know the Archbishop’s thought— go first to the source, the Archbishop! What was bad in his day, has become much worse today. What applied then, applies even more today. If he spoke strongly then, he would speak more strongly today! He spoke simply while alive, and he still speaks simply from beyond the grave!

1974:

“We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome .... We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Declaration of November 21, 1974)

1976:

“We are not of this new religion! We do not accept this new religion! We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this “universal religion” as they call it today—this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own “ecumenical Bible. We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our faith. It is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! We are in a truly dramatic situation. We have to choose an appearance of disobedience—for the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith; it is impossible, impossible! We choose not to abandon our faith, for in that we cannot go wrong.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Ordination Sermon, June 29.1976; cf. http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles& (http://www.angelusonline.org/index.php?section=articles) subsection=show_article&article_id=72)

In the days following his ordination sermon Archbishop Lefebvre was informed by Rome that he was suspended “a divinis.” The Archbishop’s reaction to this was:

1976:

“It deprives me of the right inherent... of celebrating Holy Mass, and of conferring the Sacraments, and of preaching in consecrated places: namely, I am forbidden to celebrate the New Mass, to confer the new sacraments, to preach the new doctrine.”

Humurously, he saw the suspension as a ‘gift’ to prevent him from following all the Modernist changes. He then speaks of Rome’s demand, through Msgr. Benelli’s letter of June 25th, 1976, which required the SSPX’s fidelity to the Church of Vatican II. 

Msgr. Benelli writes ... “If they have good will and are seriously prepared for a priestly ministry in true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, finding the best solution for them will then be undertaken, but let them also make a beginning through this act of obedience to the Church.” Archbishop Lefebvre continues: “What could be clearer? We must [according to Rome] henceforth obey and be faithful to the Conciliar Church, no longer to the Catholic Church. Right there is our whole problem: We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church, the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong! That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship ...The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension “a Divinis ,” July 29.1976; cf. http://www.angelusonline.org/index (http://www.angelusonline.org/index). phpsection=articles&subsection=show_article&article_id=72)

1976:

“...our attitude in the face of the upheaval brought about by Vatican II—either we conform to the official directives of those holding positions of authority within the Church ... or we integrally preserve the Church’s treasure.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Members of the Society, Letter N° 2, Christmas.1976)

1977:

“We are incriminated because we have chosen the so-called way of disobedience. But we must understand clearly what this way of disobedience consists of. We may truthfully say that, if we have chosen the way of apparent disobedience, we have chosen the way of true obedience...those who follow the new way...they are the ones who have chosen the way of disobedience. Following Tradition is precisely the sign of our obedience.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Poitiers, September 3, 1977) 

1978:

“We now know with whom we have to deal.  We know perfectly well that we are dealing with a “diabolical hand” which is located at Rome, and which is demanding, by obedience, the destruction of the Church!  And this is why we have the right and the duty to refuse this obedience…I believe that I have the right to ask these gentlemen who present themselves in offices which were occupied by Cardinals….. “Are you with the Catholic Church?”  “Are you the Catholic Church?” “With whom am I dealing?” If I am dealing with someone who has a pact with Masonry, have I the right to speak with such a person?  Have I the duty to listen to them and to obey them?”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1978, Ordination Sermon, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre , Vol. 2, p. 209, Michael Davies)

1980:

“I have never changed. I have preached and done what the Church has always taught. I have never changed what the Church said in the Council of Trent and at the First Vatican Council. So who has changed?...It is the enemy, as St. Pius X said, the enemy who is working within the Church because he wants the Church to be finished with her tradition.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily, Venice, 7 April 1980)

1984:

“We are convinced of this, it is they who are wrong, who have changed course, who have broken with the Tradition of the Church, who have rushed into novelties, we are convinced of this. That is why we do not rejoin them and why we cannot work with them; we cannot collaborate with the people who depart from the spirit of the Church, from the Tradition of the Church. I think that it is that outlook that should guide us in our present situation. Let us not deceive ourselves by believing that by these little braking actions that are given on the right and on the left, in the excesses of the present situation, that we are seeing a complete return to Tradition. That is not true, that is not true! They remain always liberal minds. It is always the liberals who rule Rome, and they remain liberal. There is no rallying to these people. From the moment when we rally ourselves, this rallying will be the acceptance of the liberal principles. We cannot do this, even if certain appeasements are given us, certain satisfactions, certain recognitions, certain incardinations, which could even be offered to you eventually. But as long as one is dealing with people who have made this agreement with the Devil, with liberal ideas, we cannot have any confidence. They will string us along little by little; they will try to catch us in their traps, as long as they have not let go of these false ideas. So, from my point of view, it is not a question of doing whatever one can. Those who would have a tendency to want to accept that will end up being recycled.” 

(Archbishop Lefebvre, December 13, 1984, Address to the priests of the French District)

1986:

“In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith... If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.... It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church ... I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion....

Christians are divided ... Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith, or they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope...Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, 1986, Open Letter to Confused Catholics , chapter 18, “True & False Obedience”)

These quotes take us from the beginnings of the SSPX’s 1976 division with Rome, up to 1986 and the preparation for the episcopal consecrations in 1988. In Part Two, we will look at the words of Archbishop Lefebvre in the last 5 years of his life. We recommend that you take time to purchase and read the many sermons, writings and  accounts of Archbishop Lefebvre’s life—so as to learn, understand and absorb the spirit of the man, chosen by God, to be the FOUNDER, not just leader, of the SSPX.

As Fr. Ludovic Barrielle (the priest chosen to be the chief spiritual director of Ecône said, a religious order risks losing its way after a period of around 40 years. We have seen groups split from the SSPX over the years, only to lose their “traditionalism” in the years that followed—despite an insistence that they would always remain staunchly traditional! These “splits” or “break-aways” always constituted a minority. Today, in the words of Bishop Fellay (“I cannot exclude that there might be a split.”—CNS interview, May 11, 2012) it seems as though a majority, not a minority, would split from the SSPX and align itself with Rome. Previously, only branches fell from the solid SSPX tree, today the trunk itself risks splitting away and taking many branches with along with it. The SSPX risks becoming the NOVUS-SSPX before finally being absorbed fully into the NOVUS-ORDO—as the philosophical axiom says, “the greater absorbs the lesser,” or as Archbishop Lefebvre once said: “To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church... I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing!” The problem of Eve was that she let herself be drawn into a discussion with the serpent (devil). The serpent did not look like the devil, but he was the devil. The danger of all prolonged negotiations is compromise. A “quid pro quo” or give and take! We see that in the temptation of Christ by the devil. Satan offers Jesus all kinds of things. But as Scripture says: “What concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part hath the faithful with the unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15). Archbishop Lefebvre visited Rome many times, he spoke with popes, cardinals and bishops, he was almost fooled on a few occasions— but he learnt many a thing about wily Rome and tried to communicate that experience to those who would listen. These quotes show his resoluteness and avoidance of all compromise. Let us learn from his supernatural wisdom! 1986 “We have allays refused to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. Since we refused this, it is obvious that we placed ourselves in opposition to those who appear to be the legal Church. We were the outlaws of the Church and they appeared to respect the law ... In fact it is they who have distanced themselves from the legality of the Church and we, on the contrary, have remained within the legality and validity. ”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Sept. 1986, Priests Retreat Ecône) 

1986:

“Rome has asked us if we have the intention of proclaiming our rupture with the Vatican on the occasion of the Congress of Assisi. We think that the question should rather be: “Do you believe and do you have the intention of proclaiming that the Congress of Assisi consummates the rupture of the Roman authorities with the Catholic Church?”...The present acts of John Paul II and the national episcopates illustrates, year by year, this radical change in the conception of the Faith, the Church, the priesthood, the world, and salvation by grace. The high point of this rupture with the previous Magisterium of the Church took place at Assisi, after the visit to the synagogue. The rupture does not come from us, but from Paul VI and John Paul II, who break with their predecessors. ”

(Archbishop Lefebvre & Bishop de Castro Mayer, Declaration Against Assisi, December 2, 1986)

1987:

“The magisterium of today is not sufficient by itself to be called Catholic unless it is the transmission of the Deposit of Faith, that is, of Tradition. A new magisterium without roots in the past, and all the more if it is opposed to the magisterium of all times, can only be schismatic and heretical. ”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, July 8, 1987, Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger)

1987:

“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord is being rapidly carried out even in His Mystical Body here below....This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. This Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove...”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to future bishops Aug. 29, 1987)

1987:

“I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger— who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we doing right now —we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’ Rome has lost the Faith, my dear friends! Rome is in apostasy! I am not speaking empty words! That is the truth! Rome is in apostasy! One can no longer have any confidence in these people! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! They have left the Church! It is certain! Certain! Certain! Certain!”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference, October 4, 1987, Marcel Lefebvre by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, pp. 547-548; also http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature= (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature)endscreen&NR=1&v=jjlWYp1qQLA)

1988:

“One is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, “They prefer to be mistaken with the pope, than to be with the truth against the pope.” That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church... St. Thomas says...”if there was question of a danger for the faith, the superiors would have to be rebuked, by their inferiors, even in public.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, March 29, 1988)

1988:

“And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?” ... 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!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, June 30th 1988, Episcopal Consecration Sermon)

1988:

“We must not be under any illusions. We are in the thick of a great fight, a great fight. We are fighting a fight guaranteed by a whole line of Popes. Hence, we should have no hesitation or fear—hesitation such as, “Why should we be going on our own? After all, why not join Rome, why not join the Pope?” Yes, if Rome and the Pope were in line with Tradition .... But they themselves admit that they have set out on a new path. They themselves admit that a new era began with Vatican II. They admit that it is a new stage in the Church’s life, wholly new, based on new principles. We need not argue the point. They say it themselves! It is clear! I think that we must drive this point home with our people.”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Sept. 9, 1988, Ecône; Conference to Seminarians; Fideliter N° 66, Nov.-Dec., 1988)

1989:

“We would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but the superiors who make the subjects...Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world’s bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able to do nothing... [As for the Pope appointing conservative bishops] I don’t think it is a true return to Tradition. Just as in a fight when the troops are going a little too far ahead one holds them back, so they are slightly putting the brakes on the impulse of Vatican II because the supporters of the Council are going too far... the supposedly conservative bishops are wholly supportive of the Council and of the post-Conciliar reforms... No, all of that is tactics, which you have to use in any fight. You have to avoid excesses... [Asked about signs of benevolence to Tradition] There are plenty of signs showing us that what you are talking about is simply exceptional and temporary...So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome. I think we must still wait. Wait, unfortunately, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize the fact....That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver 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 maneuver, 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. ”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview, Fideliter, July-August 1989)

1990:

“Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field...they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. They are now saying: “So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.” But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible. Now, stay in touch with them to bring them back, to convert them to Tradition, yes, if you like, that’s the right kind of ecumenism! But give the impression that after all one almost regrets any break, that one likes talking to them? No way!...Unbelievable! Unimaginable! What kind of relations can you have with people like that? This is what causes us a problem with certain layfolk, who...have a kind of deep-down regret that they are no longer with the people they used to be with. “It’s a pity we are divided”, they say, “why not meet up with them? Let’s go and have a drink together, reach out a hand to them”—that’s a betrayal! Those saying this give the impression that at the drop of a hat they would cross over and join those who left us. They must make up their minds. ”

(Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Ecône, September 6, 1990—just over 6 months before his death) 

So we must make up our minds! We cannot serve God and mammon—Tradition and Modernism! We cannot love the SSPX and the NOVUS-SSPX. We will love one and hate the other, or vice-versa. The former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers sends his spirit to teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever he shall have said to you (John 14:26). His words will not pass away. Read him. Know him. Love him. Follow him—and you will be on the safe path!

Since the death of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1991, there has certainly been a slow, but sure, shift in the principles of the SSPX vis-à-vis Rome. As J.R.R. Tolkien once wrote, “Little by little one travels far!” Others may prefer the saying: “Make haste slowly!” Others perhaps like the phrase “Rome wasn’t built in a day!” The whole idea behind these words of wisdom is that some things take time to achieve. When the ancient Romans laid siege to a city in Gaul, they were informed by the Gauls that their city had enough supplies to last ten years! The Romans replied that they would then invade the city in the eleventh year! The devil, too, works the same way and advances by small degrees. He is in no rush and advances slowly and imperceptibly forwards, inch by inch, toward his goal The enemies of the Church do not lay battle plans for only a month, a year, or a decade, but for centuries. Slowly, but surely, they try achieve their goals. Vatican II’s gradual changes are a perfect example of that!

Most things grow slowly and imperceptibly. You can try to watch a child or a tree grow each hour or each day, but you will notice nothing. However, if you measure the child or tree every year or two, then you will clearly observe the difference in size. Some people may steal a large sum of money all at one time and the missing sum is noticed, others steal a little each week for many years and nobody notices. In religion, we see the gradual cancerous growths of Humanism, Liberalism and Modernism grow throughout the Church over many hundreds of years. It is 50 years since Vatican II, and that cancer is also still growing!

For over 40 years the SSPX has been fighting against Modernist Rome, the tactics vary, new soldiers enter the fight who, perhaps, do not have the ideals and experience of the pioneer of this resistance to Modernist Rome — Archbishop Lefebvre. So they grow tired of the fight, they no longer clearly see the reasons for the struggle, they even make friends among the enemies. All of this can gradually change the out