Skip to main content

Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!"


Lefebvrist: "The SSPX is not in schism!"

CIC: "....schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (Canon 751)

- - - - - -
 

Marcel Lefebvre:

“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.”
(Declaration, November 21, 1974)

“We believe that we can affirm, taking into consideration the internal and external critique on Vatican II, that is, in analysing the texts and in studying its circumstances and its consequences, that the Council, turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, is a schismatic council. The tree is known by its fruits. Since the Council, all the larger newspapers throughout the world, American and European, recognise that it is destroying the Catholic Church to such a degree that even the unbelievers and the secular governments are worried."
(Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre in Écône, on August 2, 1976 and published in the French magazine Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“All those who cooperate in the application of this overturning accept and adhere to this new ‘Conciliar Church‘, (as His Excellency Mgr. Benelli called it, in the letter that he sent me in the name of the Holy Father last June 25), [they adhere to this new ‘Conciliar Church’] and they enter into the schism.” (Ibid.)

“What is schism? It is a break, a break with the Church. But a break with the Church can also be a break with the Church of the past. If someone breaks with the Church of two thousand years, he is in schism. There has already been a council which was declared schismatic. Well, it is possible that one day, in twenty years, in thirty, in fifty years – I don’t know – the Second Vatican Council could be declared schismatic, because it professed things which are opposed to the Tradition of the Church, and which have caused a break with the Church.”
(Interview Given to the Nouvelliste of Sion, Valais, Switzerland, at Econe on August 3, 1976 and Printed on August 4, 1976)

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for 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, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive…. "
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on Suspension a divinis, June 29, 1976)

“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Ibid.)

“Exactly the same day nine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can’t accept Modernist Rome. I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church.”
(Press Conference, Paris, 9 December 1983)

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith.”
(Archbishop Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, Angelus Press, Kansas City Missouri, 1991)

Popular posts from this blog

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly: The folly of the Transalpine Redemptorists

As a dog that returneth to his vomit, so is the fool that repeateth his folly. -Proverbs 26:11, DRB Let's start off with what was publicly stated by the Transalpine Redemptorists in 2008. Read how important undisputed communion with Rome is for them... back in 2008. Tuesday, July 01, 2008 Canonical Good Standing 1 July, 2008 Feast of the Precious Blood My dear friends, I am happy to inform you that last June 18th, before Cardinal Castrillon and the members of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei in Rome, I humbly petitioned the Holy See on my own behalf and on behalf of the monastery council for our priestly suspensions to be lifted. On June 26th I received word that the Holy See had granted our petition. All canonical censures have been lifted. Our community now truly rejoices in undisputed and peaceful posession of Communion with the Holy See because our priests are now in canonical good standing. We are very grateful to our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI for issuing, last July,...
Read more

SSPX Masses and the Sunday Obligation by John Salza

In the span of just a few days, two well-known Catholics publicly gave what I maintain are erroneous conclusions regarding whether or not SSPX Masses fulfill the Sunday obligation. On September 18, 2024, in an interview with Gene Zannetti, Fr. Chad Ripperger stated that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation. And on September 21, 2024, in an article by Daniel Payne for Catholic News Agency (about the Carmelite nuns who defected to the SSPX), Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers is also quoted as suggesting that SSPX Masses fulfill the obligation (because he says Catholics can attend their Masses and receive Holy Communion). As I will demonstrate in this article, both statements fall short of a proper understanding of canon law, which lead to the erroneous conclusion. Note that I already addressed this issue at length in my November 2021 article “Do SSPX Masses Fulfill the Sunday Obligation?” (this previous article also analyzes all the negative judgments by the Holy See regarding SS...
Read more

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX

John Salza Responds to Peter Kwasniewski on the SSPX January A.D. 2023 Following is my response to Peter Kwasniewski’s hit-and-run post about my January 9, 2023 interview with Matt Fradd on the SSPX. Before addressing his points, notice that Peter admits he only “listened to about an hour” of my three hour and fifteen-minute interview, but then provides a laundry list of points he claims I did not cover or failed to distinguish, again, even though he did not listen to over 2/3rds of the interview, and which actually did include discussion on many of the points he claims I missed (i.e, the Magisterium’s levels of authority, obedience, the problems with Pope Francis, etc). Evidently Peter thinks so highly of himself that he believes he can publicly refute his opponents’ arguments without listening to their entire arguments. This says a lot about his approach to the issue. Now, to Peter’s points. 1 – Peter claims I don’t distinguish between Sacrosanctum Concilium and the Novus O...
Read more