Also, does your priest at the SSPX chapel fly through the Mass? The one here says Mass as if he is late for an appointment. It is unsettling, and there is no reason to even follow the missal sometimes. Have you experienced this with the neo-SSPX?

 God bless you.

Thank you for your input Rosarytrad. No they don't fly through the mass and we are very fortunate with our priests. In private conversations amongst the faithful, we kind of know which priests are liberal and which ones aren't. And we know which parishoners are liberal and those who aren't. 

The problem is that even the conservative priests, say nothing at the pulpit about dress code, the indult, the jews, the jab and the rest of it. Our children are perfectly aware of the dilemmas and we live with it without any major problems.

As to the person above who said I had a cultish mentality. It's possible. I tolerate and talk with everyone, but once I know their position on the issues I hold close to my heart, I no longer discuss religion with them. It's perfectly possible to get on with people without being friends with them. 

Godefroy, I am in complete agreement with you on this.
 [...] Have you experienced this with the neo-SSPX?

Agree with you and Godefroy in general, except for the caveat that I'm thankful for the experience with an admittedly narrow sample of priests who are either adamantly pre-2012 in their formation or who were raised up by those who are. As for chapels, it's one thing when the location has a longtime resident priest who knows well and deals with his flock regularly. It's harder when a mission priest travels hundreds of miles to multiple Masses every weekend, and the flock chooses to govern itself in ways we wish they wouldn't. When we see what goes on, it can be best to avert our eyes and say a quick prayer for them.

Well, because the SSPX has now formally endorsed the theological position that canonical recognition under the right circuмstances is good and desirable. The SSPX right from its founding was established with canonical Church approval. Even in 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre was still open to canonical recognition provided he got bishops for Tradition. But in 1988, Summorum Pontificuм had not yet been promulgated and the injustices of the past (attempts to "ban the TLM") not yet corrected. Starting in 2007, they began to be, and if only we'd fought for Pope Benedict XVI more, the Church would be incredibly stronger off right now imo. But, leaving that, by 2012, the SSPX bishops and priests, after this sign of good will of Rome (after SP) felt the situation had changed sufficiently that they could now consider a canonical recognition.

So the General Chapter of 2012 laid out the conditions for the same, e.g. exclusive use of the 1962 Missal, the guarantee of bishops, the freedom to criticize some of the post-Conciliar errors etc. SSPX priests don't have to leave to join an indult group, because the SSPX itself is now officially an indult group itself (in its official positions). Could it be that all of the 700 priests do not agree? Maybe, but the vast majority do, and the others are fine with their confreres agreeing with it, as for e.g. Bishop Tissier (may His Excellency rest in peace) was fine with Bishop Fellay's actions, as many posters have docuмented. Bp. Huonder (may h.e. also rest in peace) also shows the SSPX is fine with working with Bishops from the mainstream Church and inviting them to Tradition and to use the traditional rites (which confer more grace) in confirmations, consecrations, ordinations etc. God Bless.

Taken out of context. I can produce other quotes that say otherwise. I'll try to find one which I know I've read before where +Lefebvre says the difficulty was precisely in granting a traditionalist bishop. I think it was in 1990. Therefore, now in 2012, with Rome having accepted all 4 of the Society's bishops, and I think in 2020 or so granting them official jurisdiction and recognizing the validity of confessions/marriages, etc, the difficulty was no longer there. And thus the SSPX bishops were justified in saying, "when we look at the arguments used by our venerated founder at the time, we conclude he would have accepted what is being proposed to us" (especially in light of the huge triumph/victory) of Summorum Pontificuм a few years earlier.

Don't forget what +ABL said in 1983 when sede priests were fighting with Archbishop Lefebvre (and in some cases, stealing from him) and trying to say "no to all discussions with Rome. +ABL said this, from the link I gave earlier: "So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable."

Quote from: MarkM 2024-11-07, 10:22:04 AM
Taken out of context. I can produce other quotes that say otherwise. I'll try to find one which I know I've read before where +Lefebvre says the difficulty was precisely in granting a traditionalist bishop. I think it was in 1990. Therefore, now in 2012, with Rome having accepted all 4 of the Society's bishops, and I think in 2020 or so granting them official jurisdiction and recognizing the validity of confessions/marriages, etc, the difficulty was no longer there. And thus the SSPX bishops were justified in saying, "when we look at the arguments used by our venerated founder at the time, we conclude he would have accepted what is being proposed to us" (especially in light of the huge triumph/victory) of Summorum Pontificuм a few years earlier.

Don't forget what +ABL said in 1983 when sede priests were fighting with Archbishop Lefebvre (and in some cases, stealing from him) and trying to say "no to all discussions with Rome. +ABL said this, from the link I gave earlier: "So, I trust you will remain faithful and that we will be able to continue working together for the greater good of the Church, because there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out.

Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable."

The SSPX Formally Compromised with the Conciliar Church in 2012 Through Bishop Bernard Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration.

Quote from: MarkM 2024-11-07, 11:41:40 AM
Are you a sedevacantist? Archbishop Lefebvre said, as shown above, in both 1983 and 1988, that canonical recognition from Rome was fine if some conditions like guarantees for bishops from Tradition were met. Thus, the General Chapter of 2012 was justified in concluding, "when we read the arguments and words of our venerated founder at the time, we conclude he would accept what is being proposed to us". Here is another quote from +Lefebvre to demonstrate this: http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/december-24-1978.html

"Holy Father, for the honor of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beg you to say a single word as Successor of Peter and Pastor of the Universal Church to the bishops of the whole world: "Let them carry on - We authorize the free use of what multisecular Tradition has used for the sanctification of souls.”

What difficulty is there in such an attitude? None. The bishops would decide the places and the times reserved for that Tradition. Unity would be discovered again at once at the level of the bishop of the place. On the other hand, what advantages for the Church: the renewal of seminaries and monasteries, great fervor in the parishes. The bishops would be stupefied to find in a few years an outburst of devotion and sanctification which they thought had disappeared forever.

For Ecône, its seminaries and its priories, everything would become normal, as it is for the Congregations of Lazarists, Redemptorists…the priories would serve the dioceses by preaching parish missions, giving Ignatian Retreats, and supplying in parishes, in full submission to the Ordinary of the place.

How the state of the Church would be improved by that simple means, so like the maternal spirit of the Church, which does not reject what comes to the help of souls, and does not extinguish the smoking wick, but rejoices that the sap of Tradition is still full of life and hope!"

I am not an sedevacantist.

I appreciate your engagement in this crucial discussion.

However, your assertion that internal opposition within the SSPX negates the claim of a formal compromise through Bishop Bernard Fellay’s Doctrinal Declaration in 2012 is fundamentally flawed. Allow me to present comprehensive evidence that unequivocally demonstrates that the SSPX did, in fact, compromise with Rome in 2012.

1. The 2012 Doctrinal Declaration: A Formal Compromise

On April 15, 2012, Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, composed and signed the Doctrinal Declaration, which was formally delivered to Rome. This docuмent is a cornerstone in understanding the SSPX’s doctrinal stance post-2012. Key excerpts include:

• Paragraph I: A pledge to remain faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, indicating an acceptance of papal authority.
• Paragraph II: An explicit acceptance of the teachings of the Magisterium in Faith and Morals, referencing Lumen Gentium of Vatican II.
• Paragraph III: Acknowledgment of the authority of the Magisterium to interpret the Word of God, aligning with Conciliar teachings on Tradition and revelation.

This declaration signifies a clear departure from the SSPX’s previous strict traditionalist stance, marking a willingness to align doctrinally with Rome’s positions.

2. Internal Communications Indicate Leadership Consensus

Contrary to your claim, the internal letters from SSPX bishops in April 2012 reveal a leadership deeply engaged in reconciling with Rome:

• April 7, 2012 – Letter from Three SSPX Bishops: These bishops expressed formal opposition to any practical agreement with Rome, fearing doctrinal dilution and potential schism. Their concerns highlight the significance of the Doctrinal Declaration as a move away from traditionalist isolation.
• April 14, 2012 – Response from Superior General Fellay: Fellay rebutted the opposition, asserting that the Doctrinal Declaration was not a mere proposal but a definitive stance towards reconciliation. This response underscores that the leadership, despite internal dissent, proceeded with a formal declaration indicating compromise.

These communications collectively demonstrate that the leadership consensus favored engagement with Rome, even in the face of internal resistance.

3. Subsequent Actions Reflect Compromise

Post-2012 developments within the SSPX further substantiate the claim of compromise:

• Rebranding Efforts: The SSPX undertook rebranding initiatives, signaling an adaptation to Conciliar norms and a shift from purely traditionalist identity.
• Formal Recognition in Argentina: The SSPX’s formal recognition by the Conciliar Church in Argentina exemplifies official acknowledgment and acceptance of SSPX’s doctrinal positions, a direct outcome of the Doctrinal Declaration.
• Liturgical Adjustments: Acceptance and promotion of the Novus Ordo Mass and participation in public sacraments, such as marriage vows, indicate a doctrinal alignment with Conciliar liturgical practices previously rejected by the SSPX.

These actions collectively demonstrate a tangible shift towards reconciliation and compromise with Rome.

4. Statements from Key SSPX Figures Affirming the Declaration

Statements from influential SSPX leaders reinforce the legitimacy and seriousness of the Doctrinal Declaration:

• February 15, 2012 – Doctrinal Declaration: This docuмent was not a private letter but an official doctrinal statement representing the SSPX’s position, affirming fidelity to Tradition while accepting key aspects of Vatican II.
• Letters from Archbishop Lefebvre: While Archbishop Lefebvre maintained his traditionalist stance, the leadership under Bishop Fellay proceeded with the Doctrinal Declaration, indicating a strategic shift despite Lefebvre’s original directives.

These endorsements from key figures within the SSPX affirm that the Doctrinal Declaration was a deliberate and formal step towards doctrinal compromise.

5. Analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration’s Content

A meticulous analysis of the Doctrinal Declaration reveals inherent acceptance of Conciliar doctrines:

• Acceptance of Lumen Gentium: By endorsing Lumen Gentium Chapter 3, the SSPX implicitly accepts doctrines on collegiality and ecuмenism, which were previously vehemently opposed.
• Recognition of the Novus Ordo Mass and New Code of Canon Law: The declaration’s acknowledgment of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass and the New Code of Canon Law signifies doctrinal alignment with post-Vatican II liturgical and legal reforms.

These doctrinal inclusions are incompatible with an uncompromising traditionalist stance, thereby substantiating the claim of formal compromise.

The comprehensive evidence presented unequivocally demonstrates that the SSPX’s 2012 Doctrinal Declaration constitutes a formal compromise with the Conciliar Church. Internal leadership communications, subsequent organizational actions, and the doctrinal content of the declaration itself collectively affirm that the SSPX moved towards reconciliation with Rome, contrary to the notion of maintaining an uncompromised traditionalist position.

Hi PapalTiara, sure let's discuss it then. First, you said you are not a sedevacantis. Can I clarify, you profess to be a follower of Archbishop Lefebvre, correct? I imagine you align with the Resistance's theology.

Before we discuss post 2012 specifics, can you address the 3 quotes from +Lefebvre earlier in this thread. To recap:

1. First, in 1978, +ABL said: ""Holy Father, for the honor of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beg you to say a single word as Successor of Peter and Pastor of the Universal Church to the bishops of the whole world: "Let them carry on - We authorize the free use of what multisecular Tradition has used for the sanctification of souls.” ... For Ecône, its seminaries and its priories, everything would become normal, as it is for the Congregations of Lazarists, Redemptorists…the priories would serve the dioceses by preaching parish missions, giving Ignatian Retreats, and supplying in parishes, in full submission to the Ordinary of the place." (source given earlier)

Would you call this "a compromise with Rome" on +ABL's part. If not, please explain the difference.

2. Second, in 1983, +ABL said, in the face of the Nine: "there is nothing more disastrous, even in the face of Rome, than these divisions, because these divisions weaken us and weaken our fight for Tradition. So, let us pray that everything will be sorted out. Personally, I am not seeking to harm these priests may God be their judge! And I ask you not to get into polemics, but simply to follow us. You now have here a magnificent chapel. Come and attend Mass in this chapel with the priests of the Society, and, in the various centers, bring about a regrouping of the faithful staying with the Society, so that they keep their bond with Rome and with the Church. It is very important that there should always be the bond with Rome if we wish to remain Catholic; even if we do not agree with everything being done in Rome, I think the bond is absolutely indispensable."

Did Archbishop Lefebvre "fatally compromise with Rome" when he said "the bond with Rome is absolutely indispensable"? The sedes like Fr. Cekada (rest in peace) etc of the Nine thought that H.E did, but they were objectively mistaken.

3. Third, even post 1988, in 1990 at that, near the end of Archbishop Lefebvre's life, he expressed openness to canonical normalization with Rome if the right offer was made, and the guarantee of bishops was given, saying: ""Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! But I do not think they are anywhere near doing so. For what has been up till now the difficulty has been precisely their giving to us a Traditionalist bishop. They did not want to." I trust you don't see this as a compromise either. And if not, pls explain why the Society's post 2012 statements that you docuмented above (I'm aware of them) substantially differs from +ABL's in 1978, 83 and 90.

In Jesus and Mary,
God Bless.

Are you an AI Chat bot, programmed to make everything read the opposite from what the obvious conclusion is? The previous poster demolished you game, set and match. Just leave it at that. 

PapalTiara can speak for himself. I could say "I demolished you" with those 3 irrefutable +ABL quotes, but I'm not interested in winning arguments, only in the Truth. He who has ears to hear, let him hear, as the Lord said. Archbishop Lefebvre is very clear in what he consistently taught from 1978 to 1990 and it refutes the views of defeatists and naysayers who claim we should run away from Rome. That's what those Cardinals who are heterodox (unlike the good Cardinals who are TLM-friendly) want, for trads to run away from Rome so they can then say they are schismatic and don't want to remain in communion with Rome, and so that wins for Tradition from working within the Church like Summorum Pontificuм won't be delivered. If you want to address the +ABL quotes, do that. Otherwise, let's see if Papal Tiara can.

It seems you are acting out of bad will, but I’ll share this regardless:

Archbishop Lefebvre: Absolutely Against Agreement with a 'Modernist' Rome





“[…] Betting on an agreement with the Pope is an illusion. The Pope will grant us everything we want on the disciplinary and liturgical level, but on the condition of admitting his modernist ideas about religious freedom and ecuмenism, that is, of our Catholic faith.

No hope must be seen on that side. Rome is occupied by modernism and liberalism! When will Our Lord decide to stop this scandal? He is the teacher! We wait patiently and have confidence in the Lord and His holy Mother who know better than us this tragic situation[...] ”



Ecône, January 10, 1989

“After being absent for 15 days, I take care to answer your good letter, accompanied by numerous interesting docuмents.
But I must tell you that it is the letter of Bishop Perl that has held my attention. He doesn't flatter you by saying that your community is a "sister" of Chémeré!

Do not rediscover it, I beg you, you will raise doubts among your friends. The only answer to give is that they initiate the Council Reform to remove the errors. It is only then that we can trust them.

Whatever the canonical privileges they may give, their acceptance means for them communion with the Holy See, with the Pope and with the Council, therefore an implicit acceptance of all that modernism that we fight following St. Pius X and all [Fathers] before the Council. 

They want to neutralize Tradition, so that it is no longer an obstacle for their ecuмenist companies and for the Revolution in the Church […]

Do not have a point of contact with the one who is in charge of destroying Tradition. They don't know what to do to divide us and are surprised at so much resistance. They seem not to understand that it is a problem of Faith from the beginning. ”


February 20, 1989

“[…]Roman modernists are bandits, revolutionaries under sheep skins. They have no supernatural spirit. It is about this that we must take our effort: relearning to live on faith like the Apostles, the Martyrs, the Fathers of the Church and Saint Thomas Aquinas, who has achieved the tour de force of using all the sciences for the queen of the sciences; the theology that is worked in Heaven by the grace of the Holy Spirit. The Summa is the great catechism of Saint Thomas Aquinas and that of the Church even more than that of Trent. I try to explain this to the seminarians so that they have the worry of living from the best catechism that exists and that they are taught. It is very important that in our seminarians we keep a safe and approved line by the Church, that of Saint Thomas, which should give us pastoral principles that give the faithful true spirituality away from Jansenism and charismatism. The morality that is limited to the commandments is disposable. The moral of grace, of the virtues, of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, which does not forget the commandments, that which Saint Thomas advocates is more in line with the spirit of Our Lord, of the Gospel, and even more urgent for the fervent souls. It is time to return the Catholic faith exciting, generous, missionary, as it was for the first Christians. […] ”



Ecône, April 22, 1989


“[…]The consecrations have been the occasion to tell the true traditionalists, refusing to reconcile Rome. Unity has been made on this point and the division has been made with the ralliés to modernist Rome […] ”.
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre