A New Bishop for the Resistance

Today, March 19th, 2015, is indeed a historical day. After months of on-and-off speculation and urgent calls from many of the laity for the Resistance to receive a new Bishop, it has finally happened: Fr. Faure has officially been Consecrated a Bishop by His Lordship Bishop Richard Williamson. As a result, the Resistance now has not one but two Bishops, and given Fr. Faure’s age (73, which makes him only two years younger than +Williamson), another Consecration ceremony might not be far off.

As some may recall, Fr. Faure was actually selected by Archbishop Lefebvre to become a Bishop in 1988, but he turned down the opportunity, allowing Bishop Galarreta to be Consecrated in his place.

Nearly 27 years later, Fr. Faure accepted the position that he declined in 1988. For pictures of the event, see here:


Pope Francis and the Vatican, as of the time of the posting of this article, have yet to respond to the Consecration, but predictably, Menzingen has already released a statement “denouncing” the event. Here is their statement:

“On March 19th 2015 Bishop Richard Williamson performed the episcopal consecration of Fr. Jean-Michel Faure at the Benedictine Monastery of the Holy Cross in Nova Friburgo, Brazil.

Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure have not been members of the Society of St. Pius X since 2012 and 2014, respectively, because of their violent criticisms of any relations with the Roman authorities. According to them, such contacts were incompatible with the apostolic work of Archbishop Lefebvre.

The Society of St. Pius X regrets sincerely that this spirit of opposition has led to an episcopal consecration. In 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre had clearly indicated his intention to consecrate auxiliary bishops who would have no jurisdiction, because of the state of necessity in which the Society of St. Pius X and faithful Catholics found themselves at that time. His sole goal was to make available to the faithful the sacraments which priests ordained by the bishops would offer. After having done everything conceivable to gain permission from the Holy See, Archbishop Lefebvre proceeded with the solemn consecrations on June 30, 1988 before several thousand priests and faithful and hundreds of journalists from around the world. It was abundantly clear from all the circumstances that, despite the lack of authorization from Rome, this action done in the most public manner was for the good of the Church and of souls.

The Society of St. Pius X denounces this episcopal consecration of Father Faure, which, despite the assertions of both clerics concerned, is not at all comparable to the consecrations of 1988. All the declarations of Bishop Williamson and Fr. Faure prove abundantly that they no longer recognize the Roman authorities, except in a purely rhetorical manner.

The Society of St. Pius X still maintains that the present state of necessity renders legitimate its action throughout the world, without denying the legitimate authority of those for whom it continues to pray at every Mass. The Society intends to continue its work of priestly formation according to its statutes. It has every intention to keep the deposit of the Faith and the purity of the Church’s moral teaching, in opposition to errors, from wherever they may come, in order to pass on such Faith and morals in the traditional liturgy and by preaching, in accordance with the missionary spirit of its founder: Credidimus caritati [1 John 4:16].

Menzingen, March 19, 2015

So as not to detract from the greatness and excitement surrounding this event, I won’t take the time to address the above statement; we all know by now not to take seriously such comments from Menzingen anyway. But needless to say, the statement reeks of hypocrisy.

Despite whatever criticisms and persecution follow from this, let us rejoice that we now have a new Bishop for Catholic Tradition, and let us keep Bishop Williamson and the newly-Consecrated Bishop Faure in our payers.

God Bless.

Bishop Williamson’s Birthday

Bishop Williamson

Today, March 8th, is the 75th Birthday of Bishop Richard Williamson.

May His Lordship have a Happy and Blessed Birthday! Let us keep this loyal son of Archbishop Lefebvre in our prayers.

Merry Christmas!


To all TraditionalCatholicRemnant readers and followers, I would like to sincerely wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy and Holy New Year. May Our Lord and His Blessed Mother keep you in their care this Christmas season.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Greatest Quotes III

As has been the case on the day of November 29th each year since 2012, in honor of Archbishop Lefebvre’s birthday, I am posting a collection of some of his greatest quotes. This will be the third and final installment. Here are parts 1 and 2, in case you missed them:



And now for part three:

“The Church is destroying herself by the path of obedience… The masterstroke of Satan is thus to spread the principles of revolution from within the Church, and under the authority of the Church itself… he has succeeded in getting those whose duty it is to defend and propagate the Church, to condemn those who are defending the Catholic Faith…” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Problem of Obedience”)

“Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch.29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Can Obedience Oblige us to Disobey?” from the July 1988 edition of “The Angelus Magazine”, statement originally given March 29th, 1988)

“We cannot work together with these enemies of Our Lord’s reign.

“We cannot follow these people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King, October 25 [1987].”(Archbishop Lefebvre, “Marcel Lefebvre: The Biography” by Bishop Tissier, pp. 548-549)

“A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”

We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism.

Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down.

These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, letter to friends and benefactors, March 1983)

“The ceremony at Lille was obviously very enthusiastic and very beautiful. The sung chants were truly very beautiful. But because I denounced the marriage that took place during the Council between the Church and the Revolution – and I said that, clearly, the offspring of this marriage were illegitimate priests, an illegitimate Mass, and an illegitimate liturgy – and then I spoke about ecumenism and then Communism, and of the warmer relations with the Communists and the repudiation of the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ-all that clearly provoked stupefaction in the press corps. And they characterized my speech as “political”: I was engaging in “politics.”

Clearly, it is now no longer possible to speak of anti-communism; one can no longer speak of the social reign of our Lord without immediately being accused of “engaging in politics.”  And, especially, I had the misfortune to take Argentina as an example. That was the last straw! I simply wanted to give an example of a country that is adopting Christian principles, the principles of the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ, and show that once those principles are put into practice, order is restored immediately: with peace and a little justice, people resume their work and live in security. Whereas two months before there were kidnappings, blood flowing in the streets, assassinations, looting, and disorder: anarchy gripped the entire country, and the economy was at its lowest ebb. Then finally, you had a typical example of the benefits conferred by Christian principles and the social reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. What did I say amiss in that?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, A Talk to the Seminarians at Econe, September 18th, 1976)

“If one tries to give a definition, or at least a clear idea of these modernist and liberal ideas, of what do they consist? “The Church is no longer the only true religion.” Here you have one of the truths denied by all these modernists and liberals now. “The Church is no longer the only way of salvation.” This is very grievous, because for twenty centuries the Church has affirmed this: “I am the only way of salvation.” The Church was saying: “Our Lord Jesus Christ gave me all means of salvation; He did not give them to any other group. He gave His Sacrifice of the Mass, His Sacraments, His teaching and all the care of the salvation of souls to His Apostles, to the Church, and to no other group. Therefore, one cannot be saved outside the Church, at least through Baptism of Desire; one must be baptized, baptized by water or at least by desire; this is necessary to go to Heaven.” This is what the Church has always preached. Why did She send missionaries throughout the world? To preach: “you must be converted to our Lord Jesus Christ, you must become Christian, you must be baptized and become Catholic if you want to be baptized!” Many missionaries have been killed, slaughtered, all the Apostles have been martyred because they have preached this Gospel, because they have preached the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. But now they say: “No! All religions are ways of salvation.” My dear brethren, this is false, absolutely false! And it is precisely this which changes everything inside the Church. This influence comes from Protestantism and from Freemasonry; one must say it, these are Masonic ideas that the Church must not claim to be the only way of salvation. If the Church wants to be friend with Protestants and Freemasons, She must give up saying that She is the only way of salvation. She must accept to say that all religions are ways of salvation. But this is contrary to what our Lord Jesus Christ Himself said! Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; he who shall believe shall be saved, he who shall not believe shall be condemned.” No other choice!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference at Campbell, California, January 5th, 1986)

“How did the union, against nature, between the Church and the Revolution give birth to the monster, whose incoherencies now fill with fright even its most ardent supporters?” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him”, 1988)

“Two centuries ago, this liberalism has spread everywhere in our society, in our families, in our schools. Everywhere extends this poison that destroys the commandments of God, which destroys all that is the beauty, the greatness of Christian civilization. So good is somehow fence it, as I also said Pope Leo XIII about Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanus Genus “. He said: We must wrest his mask and display them as they are so that we avoid the mistakes. Well, I think that liberalism, which is a fruit of Freemasonry, also needs to be unmasked and be submitted as it is, so as to understand their risk and danger to follow. This is what I would do tonight in short, not to abuse your patience, but I will try to clarify something the situation where the Church is today because of the problem of liberalism.

Liberalism has its goddess. Goddess What is liberalism? Freedom. You will recall worship, adoration made ​​during the French Revolution in the cathedral of Notre Dame to the goddess of reason, ie, freedom, freedom of man. And it is this freedom that has his statue at the entrance to New York, which they celebrated in an incredible way a few months ago. The free man. The man freed at last from every law and mainly the Law of God. Finally free to think whatever you want, to do what I want, to do as you like. This is the goddess of the religion of liberalism.

Liberalism has its priesthood, the priesthood are Masons. Secretly organized priesthood, priesthood extremely effective. Masons are thousands and thousands. The Masonic sect B’nai B’rith, which is so much talk now, having her ticket to Rome frequently and who was present at yesterday’s meeting in Assisi, she alone has 160,000 members worldwide and is an exclusively Jewish Masonic sect. And if you read to Leon de Poncins in the Russian revolution described by him, shows very well, with specific facts, that was the sect of the B’nai B’rith in 1917 which provided the money for the Russian Revolution and resulted in the murder of the imperial family of Russia. It also tells who met in New York to decide whether the money would allow to wipe out the imperial family. Consequently, its influence is extremely serious, and considering that this is only one of the Masonic sects. The Big East, I know that you know it as well or better than I, is spread throughout the world. This is the priesthood of Liberalism.

Liberalism has its dogmas. Wants no dogmas, rejected the dogmas, but they are dogmas. These tenets, these principles are the declaration of the rights of man. And these are the rights of liberalism. The popes have instructed us on what is the Declaration of Human Rights: is the instrument invented by Freemasonry against God, precisely to liberate man from the law of God.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Liberalism is Not Only A Sin, It Is A Religion”, conference given in Madrid on October 28th, 1986)

“Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!”

[…]“I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)

“The union desired by these Liberal Catholics, a union between the Church and the Revolution and subversion is, for the Church, an adulterous union, adulterous. And that adulterous union can produce only bastards. And who are those bastards? They are our rites: the rite of Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ or if it does not give them. The priests coming out of the seminaries do not themselves know what they are. In Rome it was the Archbishop of Cincinnati who said: “Why are there no more vocations? Because the Church no longer knows what a priest is.” How then can She still form priests if She does not know what a priest is? The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests. They do not know what they are. They do not know that they were made to go up to the altar to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, to give Jesus Christ to souls, and to call souls to Jesus Christ. That is what a priest is. Our young men here know that very well. Their whole life is going to be consecrated to that, to love, adore, and serve Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

The adulterous union of the Church with the Revolution is consolidated with dialogue. When the Church entered into dialogue it was to convert. Our Lord said: “Go, teach all nations, convert them.” But He did not say to hold dialogue with them so as not to convert them, so as to try to put us on the same footing with them.

Error and truth are not compatible. We must see if we have charity towards others, as the Gospel says: he who has charity is one who serves others. But those who have charity should give Our Lord, they should give the riches they possess to others and not just converse with them and enter into dialogue on an equal footing. Truth and error are not on the same footing. That would be putting God and the Devil on the same footing, for the Devil is the father of lies, the father of error.

We must therefore be missionaries.

We must preach the Gospel, convert souls to Jesus Christ and not engage in dialogue with them in an effort to adopt their principles. That is what this bastard Mass and these bastard rites are doing to us, for we wanted dialogue with the Protestants and the Protestants said to us: “We will not have your Mass; we will not have it because it contains things incompatible with our Protestant faith. So change the Mass and we shall be able to pray with you. We can have intercommunion. We can receive your sacraments. You can come to our churches and we can come to yours; then it will be all finished and we shall have unity.” We shall have unity in confusion, in bastardy. That we do not want. The Church has never wanted it. We love the Protestants; we want to convert them. But it is not loving them to let them think they have the same religion as the Catholic religion.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, sermon at Lille, France, August 1976)

“What should I do? I am told: “You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what you are doing, for you divide the Church.”

What is a law? What is a decree? What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a rule is ordered towards an evil, then it is no longer a law. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical “Libertas.” A law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently one is not obliged to obey it.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church”, conference given at Montreal, 1982)

“We tremble at the thought that the infiltration of modernism, that is to say naturalism, may continue in the Church. The consequences of this veritable cancer are the most serious that the Church has had to undergo during the course of her history; that is, the corruption of the Faith of numerous bishops and a great number of priests, monks and nuns. These clerics reason like the modernists and the protestants: witness the newly published book “Bishops Speak of the Faith of the Catholic Church.” The ideas of sanctifying grace, original sin, mortal sin and its consequences, of the expiatory Sacrifice of Our Lord which continues on our altars, are all spoiled. In their place one finds all the errors of liberalism, of Americanism, of Sillonism, and of modernism condemned by the Sovereign Pontiffs. Add to that the theology of liberation which is a marxist interpretation of the Gospel—a sacriligious and outrageous misinterpretation of Our Lord. Therefore, let us not be amazed that the patience of God is exhausted!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 15)

“We are now faced with a grave choice: either we agree with the Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, and thus oppose the teachings of the Popes, or we agree with the teachings of the popes, and thus disagree with Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom. It is impossible to subscribe to both. I have made my choice: I choose Tradition. I cling to Tradition over novelty which is merely an expression of Liberalism, the very Liberalism condemned by the Holy See for a century and a half. Now this Liberalism has penetrated the Church through the Council, and its catchwords remain the same; liberty, equality and fraternity.

The spirit of Liberalism permeates the Church today, though its catchwords are thinly veiled: liberty is religious freedom; fraternity is ecumenism; equality is collegiality. These are the three principles of Liberalism, the legacy of the 18th century philosophers and of the French Revolution.

The Church today is approaching its own destruction because these principles are absolutely contrary to nature and to faith. There is no true equality possible, and Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical on freedom clearly explained why.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Luther’s Mass”, February 15th, 1975)

“Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “They Have Uncrowned Him” Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).

“We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.

I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Interview with Fideliter Magazine, 1988)

“Even if at the moment he is keeping quiet, one or another of these bishops will receive from the Holy Ghost the courage needed to arise in his turn. If my work is of God, He will guard it and use it for the good of the Church. Our Lord has promised us, the gates of Hell shall not prevail against her.

This is why I persist, and if you wish to know the real reason for my persistence, it is this: At the hour of my death, when Our Lord asks me, “What have you done with your episcopate, what have you done with your episcopal and priestly grace?” I do not want to hear from His lips the terrible words, “You have helped to destroy the Church along with the rest of them.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, “Open Letter to Confused Catholics”, chapter 23)

God Bless.

Feast Day of Christ the King

Christ the King

Today is the Feast Day of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.


A Most Happy and Blessed Feast Day of Christ the King to everyone.

St. Raphael the Archangel

St. Raphael the Archangel

Today, October 24th, is the Feast Day of St. Raphael the Archangel. A fitting day to read the Book of Tobias:


A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of St. Raphael to everyone!

The Deal is Not Dead

As TraditionalCatholicRemnant reaches its 2-year anniversary today, those that have been following this blog during these two years know that I have written extensively against an agreement between the SSPX and modernist Rome, and have explained time and time again why such an agreement would be wrong.

Well, it appears a “reconciliation” might once again be looming on the horizon. Recently, Bishop Fellay and one of his right-hand men, Fr. Nely, met with Cardinal Mueller to discuss the differences that exist between the two “conflicting” (or perhaps, more accurately speaking, increasingly harmonious) sides. The meeting was confirmed by both the Neo-SSPX and the Vatican. Here is the press release:

“On the morning of Tuesday 23 September from 11 am to 1 pm, a cordial meeting took place at the premises of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, between Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Muller, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the Society of St. Pius X. The meeting was also attended by Archbishops Luis Francisco Ladaria Ferrer, S.I., secretary of the same Congregation, Joseph Augustine Di Noia, O.P., adjunct secretary and Guido Pozzo, secretary of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, along with two assistants from the Society of St. Pius X, Rev. Niklaus Pfluger and Rev. Alain-Marc Nély. During the meeting, various problems of a doctrinal and canonical nature were examined, and it was decided to proceed gradually and over a reasonable period of time in order to overcome difficulties and with a view to the envisioned full reconciliation.”

Pay close attention to that bolded part; “a view to the envisioned full reconciliation”.

Dear readers, need I explain why that is so troubling? So much for those +Fellay supporters who kept assuring us the deal was dead! And if/when an agreement is struck, rest assured that many of these same people who before told us we were being paranoid about an agreement will then say to us “Well, Bishop Fellay didn’t accept Vatican II or the New Mass, so I don’t see how this is a bad thing at all. Stop being so pessimistic!”.

These people will apparently never learn: you can’t solve the crisis from within, it doesn’t work that way. The FSSP has been telling the SSPX all these years the same thing; they need to come within the Church in order to achieve more good, for fighting outside of it will, so they assure us, accomplish nothing.

But if you think the SSPX or any group will solve this crisis, you are sorely mistaken. Only God can put a stop to it, and it likely will not end until He sends the great chastisement (three days of darkness). Until then, trying to fight from within the conciliar church will only lead to inevitable failure. It would be, as Archbishop Lefebvre labeled it, “Operation Suicide”.

Nevertheless, it is becoming clear that Bishop Fellay still wants that “reconciliation”, and that the deal is NOT dead. We will see soon enough how things transpire. In the meantime, we need to continue praying that people will begin to wake up and realize what is going on. Too many Traditional Catholics nowadays have become complacent and have forgotten what it truly means to resist modernist Rome.

Perhaps it could be summed up like this: Archbishop Lefebvre’s position – which is now the position of Bishop Williamson and the Resistance priests – was “recognize and resist”; that is, to recognize the Vatican II Popes as legitimate successors of St. Peter, but to resist their modernist teachings and realize that they could not work together because they were going in two different directions. The position of Bishop Fellay and his supporters? “Recognize and reconcile”.

Needless to say, it’s not at all the position that Archbishop Lefebvre held, or one that he would approve of if he were alive today.

God Bless.

St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael

Today, September 29th, is the Feast Day of St. Michael the Archangel

St. Michael prayer:

Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

A Happy and Blessed Feast Day of St. Michael the Archangel to all.

The Validity of Archbishop Lefebvre’s Ordination

This Sunday (September 21st) marks the 85th anniversary of the day a young Marcel Lefebvre was ordained to the priesthood, while this Thursday (September 18th) is the 67th anniversary of the day he was Consecrated a Bishop.

As many of you are aware, his ordination has unfortunately been the subject of much wrongful speculation, doubt, and controversy over the years. Some people assert that his ordination and Consecration were “invalid” because the person administering them, Cardinal Leinart, was (supposedly) a Freemason seeking to infiltrate the Church, and because he was a Freemason with malign intentions, he could not have possibly intended to ordain Marcel Lefebvre or anyone else, thus meaning Archbishop Lefebvre was never a legitimate priest.

I have briefly addressed this before, but I feel it is necessary to devote an entire article to debunking this madness.

It is, firstly, worth noting that most of the proponents of this theory do not like Archbishop Lefebvre; most adherents to this position are dogmatic sedevacantists who have some sort of axe to grind with the Archbishop. Their intense disdain (if not outright hatred) towards him can be attributed largely to the fact that he was not a sedevacantist. Because these dogmatic sedevacantists I am speaking of cannot stand to see this “recognize and resister” portrayed by Traditionalists as a hero, they will go to extreme lengths to tarnish his image.

One of the most outspoken critics of the Archbishop and the SSPX is Hutton Gibson, the father of the Traditional Catholic celebrity Mel Gibson. Hutton is one of the people I speak of whom cannot stand the Archbishop, and, like others, is simply using this absurd argument against the validity of his orders to persuade people to distance themselves from the Archbishop and the Society of St. Pius X. He’s using it to fuel his own hatred for him and determination to damage his reputation. Hutton’s hatred for the Archbishop is quite evident from reading his book The Enemy is Still Here, in which he not only claims the Archbishop wasn’t a valid priest, but goes as far as to accuse him of “Masonic entanglement”, while even admitting he couldn’t provide any proof. It is an incredibly scandalous book, and one which should be avoided.

The problem with this theory about the Archbishop’s “invalid” ordination held by Hutton and others is that it is contrary to both logic and Church teaching.

First of all, it has never been proven that Cardinal Leinart was a Mason. And even if he was, would that mean he couldn’t have had the proper intention, and therefore all of his Sacraments were invalid? The answer is no.

Here is what St. Thomas Aquinas says:

“In the words uttered by (the minister), the intention of the Church is expressed; and this suffices for the validity of the sacrament, EXCEPT THE CONTRARY BE EXPRESSED EXTERIORLY on the part of the minister”.

Pope Leo XIII echoes this:

“Concerning the mind or intention, inasmuch as it is in itself something internal, the Church does not pass judgment; but in so far as it is externally manifested, she is bound to judge of it. Now, if in order to effect and confer a Sacrament a person has seriously and correctly used the due matter and form, he is for that very reason presumed to have intended to do what the Church does. It is on this principle that the doctrine is solidly founded which holds as a true Sacrament that which is conferred by the ministry of a heretic or of a non-baptized person, as long as it is conferred in the Catholic rite.“

In other words, the intention of the Church is expressed when the minister utters the proper words, and it is ONLY when he exteriorly expresses otherwise that the validity of his Sacraments become suspect.

Furthermore, even if, hypothetically-speaking, Leinart was a Mason and really did withhold the proper intent, meaning the ordination in 1929 was not valid, +Lefebvre would have undoubtedly become a priest in 1947. Here is what Bishop Williamson wrote on the matter in 1992:

“But again, fourthly, let us assume that Lienart was a Mason and let us assume that he deliberately invalidated the Orders he conferred on Marcel Lefebvre. The Anti-Lefebvrists have still not won their point, because, as Michael Davies quite correctly argues, Marcel Lefebvre would still have become bishop and priest in 1947 at the hands of either or both of the two bishops co-consecrating him then with Cardinal Lienart: he would have become bishop, because out of the three bishops performing the rite of his consecration, one alone needs to have had the correct intention for the sacrament to have been valid, and the odds against all three having secretly withheld their intention are simply astronomical; he would have become a priest because as the greater contains the lesser, so bishopric contains priesthood.”

His Excellency is correct, only one of the three Consecrating Bishops must have the proper intention in order for the Consecration to be valid. This is precisely what Pope Pius XII stated:

“In accordance with the most ancient tradition of the Church, a new bishop is always consecrated by THREE other bishops. The Pontificale Romanum refers them as assistentes, but since, as the rubrics prescribe, all three bishops impose hands on the bishop-elect (the matter of the sacrament), and recite the form of consecration, Pope Pius XII (Episcopalis consecrationis, Nov. 30, 1944) insists that they are to be referred to as co-consecrators. Thus, as this was already obvious, all three concur in the consecration (where only one would suffice for validity), and, therefore, even in the unimaginable case where two of the three bishops would lack the necessary intention, the remaining bishop would still validly consecrate the elect.” (Cf. also Pius XII, Allocution to the International Congress of Pastoral Liturgy, Sep. 22, 1956.)

It is, then, ridiculous to argue that the Archbishop was not a valid priest. Again, even if, by some chance, Leinart withheld his intention to ordain Marcel Lefebvre in 1929 – which we cannot prove – then +Lefebvre would still have become a priest in 1947, for Consecration is the “fullness of orders”, and it is valid if only one of three Consecrators has the proper intention.

So let us put these nonsensical arguments to rest once and for all. Hutton Gibson – along with those who share his views on the issue – are WRONG. Period. Their stance is not supported by the teachings of the Church.

However many may not approve of him, because he was “schismatic” (an absurd accusation) or “wasn’t a sede”, we should ignore what others think and continue to thank God for blessing us with such a true Catholic hero and loyal defender of the true Faith, who fought endlessly until his death to preserve the Faith and Mass of all-time.

God Bless.

Nativity of the Blessed Mother

Blessed Virgin Mary

Today, September 8th, is the Feast Day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Novena – Preparation for the Feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary

September 7: Day Eight:

V. O God, come to my assistance

R. O Lord, make haste to help me

Gloria Patri… (Glory Be)

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto. Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in saecula saeculorum. Amen.

Brilliant Aurora of Heaven, lovable Mary, thy birth brought great consolation to the souls of the saints detained in limbo, for it announced the approach of the Sun of Justice, Jesus Christ, Who would enlighten their darkness and then conduct them to paradise. May thy birth give joy to my soul also, and obtain for me from God, patience in all adversities, a perfect and constant conformity to His most holy will.

Ave Maria …(Hail Mary)

Ave Maria gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen.

Antiphon: Thy Nativity, O Virgin Mother of God, was the herald of joy to the whole world; since from thee arose the Sun of Justice, Christ our God, Who, destroying the curse, bestowed the blessing, and confounding death, rewarded us with life everlasting.

V. Let us celebrate with joy the birth of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

R. That she may intercede for us with Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray

Grant to us Thy servants, we beseech Thee, O Lord, the gift of Thy heavenly grace, that as our salvation was begun in the child-bearing of the Blessed Virgin, so from this solemn festival of her Nativity may we obtain an increase of peace. Through Our Lord Jesus Christ. Amen.


A Happy and Blessed Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady to everyone.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 115 other followers