Reality Check for 'La Resistance' - The Real Line of Archbishop Lefebvre

Reality Check for 'La Resistance' - The Real Line of Archbishop Lefebvre - Updated March 28, 2015

JMJ

Update: I decided to include more text from the 1 and 2 year after the consecration interviews. Here we have the 'recognized as we are' which was quoted by Bishop Fellay and oddly enough criticized by the 'resistance' (Odd that the resistance criticized Bishop Fellay for these words). The second aspect is the 'I did not wish to act in secret' - which shows a marked difference between Bishop Williamson and Archbishop Lefebvre. Bishop Williamson et al had intended to keep the consecration of Fr. Faure a secret. So ... who is really following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre? Not the 'resistance'

What was the line of Archbishop Lefebvre?

Here is why I have always thought that I had to go to Rome, that I had to write, that I had to visit these cardinals in order that they should not say that we are doing nothing or that we no longer recognize them or that we wish to have no contact with them. (Archbishop Lefebvre - Long Island Conference 1983)

Realizing the impossibility of coming to an understanding, on the 2nd of June I wrote again to the pope: It is useless to continue these conversations and contacts. We do not have the same purpose. You wish to bring us round to the Council in a reconciliation, and what we want is to be recognized as we are. We wish to continue Tradition as we are doing.

It was over. That was when I took the decision to give the press conference on the 15th of June because I did not wish to act in secret. There can be no durable Tradition without a traditional bishop. ...(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989)

As always, I think that actions are more convincing than words. There are some who say to me, you could easily write a grand letter to the pope. But, for twenty years now, we have been writing letters which get nowhere. Once again, actions speak louder than words. When we open a seminary or when we create priories, or when we open schools, when the sisters swarm and the convents multiply, that is the only way of forcing Rome to negotiate. It's not a question of my being there, it's a question of the works we do. At Rome, they're well aware that what we're doing is not nothing. The bishops get a little annoyed when we implant ourselves here and there, and so they complain to Rome and Rome knows what's going on. So I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome (Tnote: In 2000 it was Rome that approached the SSPX - as predicted by Archbishop Lefebvre). 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.(Archbishop Lefebvre - One Year After the Consecrations 1989)

Someone was saying to me yesterday, "But what if Rome accepted your bishops and then you were completely exempted from the other bishops' jurisdiction?" (Note: This is the basic structure proposed to the SSPX in 2012 with some adjustments) But firstly, they are a long way right now from accepting any such thing, and then, let them first make us such an offer! (Note: The Archbishop does not out-of-hand reject the possibility as do the 'resistance') 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. It had to be a bishop according to the profile laid down by the Holy See. "Profile". You see what that means! Impossible. They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. (Archbishop Lefebvre - Two Years After the Consecrations 1990)

I would suggest that being recognized 'as we are' would be accomplished if the Pope regularized the SSPX according to the 'six conditions'.

The opinion of the 'resistance' is definitely going against the second quote - have nothing to do with Rome.

So who really is following the line of Archbishop Lefebvre? It was always Rome that would not accept him and his little SSPX. It was the other Bishops who maneuvered the Pope into the sanctions against him.

It was not the other way around. Archbihop Lefebvre followed another Catholic principle: Assuming the good will of the other.

Quite the contrast with those who scream from the housetops that they alone are following the 'line of Archbishop Lefebvre'.

Funny that ...

P^3

A Reply to Martin Blackshaw’s FLAWED Remnant article titled: FLAWED: SSPX Advice on Abortion-tainted Vaccines

+ JMJ An article has appeared in the Remnant (link to article) and I am afraid that there are a number of flaws in it that need to be addressed. The author, Martin Blackshaw, believes that both the Church and the SSPX are misapplying the principle of Moral Theology called 'Cooperation In Evil'. Unfortunately, Mr. Blackshaw rests most of his arguments on citing authors that support his position, without considering the possibility that they are wrong. This highlights a key factor in this crisis: ignorance of the faith and its application . I don't am not singling out Mr. Blackshaw for this criticism, I have observed that it applies to laity and religious, superior and subject a like. No one seems immune in this enduring crisis, myself included. I further believe that this ignorance is why so many Catholics, both traditional and non, rely on their gut feeling or "Catholic conscience" for charting their way through this crisis of the faith. While...

What Archbishop Lefebvre Said About the New Mass - SSPX.org

+ JMJ The New Mass is many things and one thing that it is is ambiguous. While there are a few Catholic elements in the Novus Ordo, but even those are lost in the morass of protestant simulation. It truly is a case of : P^3 Courtesy of SSPX.org: What Archbishop Lefebvre said about the New Mass

Rome,the SSPX and this time of Crisis - Updated

+ JMJ Obviously there's lots of events right now. First we have the April 1st - I almost thought it was April Fools - meeting between Pope Francis and Bishop Fellay. Nothing really news worthy as this is a natural progression as Rome appears to be considering fulfilling Archbishop Lefebvre's wish to 'accept us as we are'. Second we have the April 8th publication of what will be a verbose exhortation of the Synod of the Family. I'm willing to bet that the Pope will give with one hand (unilateral regularization of SSPX) and take with the other (ambiguous document that opens the flood gates of sin further). Much to pray for. P^3

Does the SSPX 'Reject the conclusions of the Second Vatican Council'? (Updated 2026-08-03)

+ JMJ Update: Dr. Lamont, in a Rorate article (link) , pointed out that : It is notable that the profession does not reject any text of the Second Vatican Council, but only states that the influence of the Council promoted deviations from the faith. Catholics may hold that the influence of an ecumenical council was noxious in some respects. It is only the authoritative teachings of a council that demand their assent; they do not have to approve of all the historical results that it led to. One may, for example, reasonably hold that the definitions of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the First Vatican Council led to an exaggerated and harmful conception of papal power, while accepting the definitions themselves. Further what the SSPX actually wrote (link) : I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican ...

The Vatican and SSPX – An Organizational Culture Perspective

Introduction The recent and continuing interactions between the Vatican and the SSPX have been a great opportunity for prayer and reflection. The basis for the disagreement is theological and not liturgical. As noted by Dr. Lamont (2012), the SSPX theological position on the four key controversial aspects of the Second Vatican Council are base on prior theological work that resulted from relevant magisterial pronouncements. So it is difficult to understand the apparent rejection of the theological position of the SSPX.

Tradicat

Search This Blog