Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

VIGANO-CARLSON II

VIGANO-CARLSON II on September 28, 2024

By Christendom Christ is absolutely needed.

Archbishop Vigano’s teaching must be heeded.

Last week these “Comments” presented in summary form the first part of a most interesting article of Archbishop Vigano from last year, inspired by a broadcast of the American journalist, Tucker Carlson. Carlson argued that secular humanism may claim to repudiate all religion, but it does that only by itself acting as a full-blown substitute religion. In this idea the Archbishop supported Carlson as only an eminent Catholic churchman can do, because only such a churchman can have the sufficient truth, height and breadth of view to grasp fully what is at stake. With this or that solution proposed by Archb. Vigano one may beg to differ, for instance sedevacantism (if that is still tempting him), or the driving out of mankind’s treacherous authorities in Church and State (how could that be done, when they hold all the levers of power, as never before?). But the Archbishop is at least grappling with the full depths of the problem. If only Mother Church had today a dozen bishops with his clarity and courage, she would not be in the same trouble. For a summary of the rest of the Archbishop’s article, read on –

It is disconcerting that among the number of converts to the universal religion we can also count Jorge Mario Bergoglio, with all the cowardliness of the churchmen who remain faithful to him. The apostasy of the Catholic hierarchy has reached the point of worshipping the idol of the Pachamama, who is the demonic personification of ecumenical, inclusive, and sustainable “Amazonian” globalism. What we are witnessing is nothing more than the reverse application of the process that led to the spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire and throughout the world, a sort of revenge of barbarism and paganism on the Faith of Christ. What Julian the Apostate tried to do in the 4th century, that is, to restore the cult of pagan gods, today is pursued zealously by new apostates, all united by a “sacred fury” that makes them as dangerous as they are convinced of being able to succeed in their intentions, because of the endless means at their disposal.

This religion is nothing more than a modern realisation of the cult of Lucifer. It is no mystery that the ideologues of globalist thought are all anti-Christian and anti-clerical, significantly hostile to Christian morality, opposed to the civilization and culture that the Gospel has shaped in two thousand years of history. All the precepts of the globalist religion are a counterfeit version of the Ten Commandments, their grotesque inversion, an obscene reversal. In practice, they use the same means that the Church has used for evangelization, but with the aim of damning souls and subjecting them not to the Law of God, but to the tyranny of the devil, under the inquisitorial control of the anti-church of Satan. At the bottom of all this, there is the hatred of God and envy for the supernatural bliss that He has reserved for men by redeeming them from sin through the Sacrifice of the Cross of His Son.

The enmity between the seed of the Woman and that of the serpent (Gen 3:15) is a theological reality in which the enemies of God believe above all. One of the signs of the end times is the abolition of the Holy Sacrifice and the presence of the abomination of desolation in the temple (Dan 9: 27). The attempts to suppress or limit the traditional Mass unite Deep church and Deep State, revealing the essentially Luciferian matrix of both. They know very well what are the infinite graces that pour out on the Church and on the world through that Mass, and they want to prevent those graces from being given so that they do not hinder their plans.

For too long citizens and faithful have passively suffered the decisions of their political and religious leaders in the face of the evidence of their betrayal. If those in authority in the State and Church act against the citizens and the faithful, their power is usurped and their authority null and void. If they do not want to be like fathers to us; if they do not want our good and if indeed they do everything to corrupt us in body and spirit, it is time to drive them out of their positions and call them to account for their betrayal, their crimes, and their scandalous lies.

Kyrie eleison

LEFEBVRE post 1988 – I

LEFEBVRE post 1988 – I on September 14, 2024

A liberal is a wolf, dressed like a sheep.

Judge by the fruits – sheep corpses in a heap.

For what use is it to him to be “free,”

If by God’s tenfold Law still bound he be?

“To Hell with Heaven! I will do as I like!

And let God with His Hell for ever strike!”

After consecrating four bishops in June of 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre saw more clearly than ever that the Conciliar Romans are no servants of the Catholic Faith. In 1989 he gave a long interview in France, cruelly shortened below. For the complete original, see https://sspx.org/en/one-year-after-consecrations-30335

Why the consecrations?

For several years I had been trying to get Rome to understand that as I was advancing in age, I had to ensure my succession. They were afraid that I would consecrate bishops, so they alluded to the possibility of our having a bishop who would be my successor.

I went to Rome for conversations, but without any confidence in their success. I wished to go as far as possible to show what good will we had. Very soon, however, we realized that we were dealing with people who are not honest. Rome brought up the question of the Council, which we did not want to hear of. A formula for an agreement was found which was at the very limits of what we could accept. I obtained only one bishop, whereas I was asking for three. That was already virtually unacceptable. And, when, even before signing the protocol, we asked when we could have this bishop, the answer was evasive or null.

The accumulation of distrust and reticence impelled me to demand the nomination of a bishop for the 30th June. Either that, or I would go ahead and consecrate. Faced with such a choice, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “If that’s how it is, the protocol is over. It’s finished, and there is no more protocol. You are breaking off relations.” It’s he who said it, not I.

Lefebvre should have stayed in the Church

What Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years, because we want the Catholic Church, would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion.

Danger of schism?

To say that we are not the “visible Church”, that we are quitting the “visible Church”, which is infallible, all that is just words which do not correspond to reality. It is incredible that anyone can talk of the “visible Church”, meaning the Conciliar Church, as opposed to the Catholic Church which we are trying to represent and continue. We are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist Church. We are not making a parallel Church. We are what we have always been – Catholics carrying on. That is all.

Each of these recent popes is truly two popes in one. It was John XXIII who launched the opening of the Church to the world. From that point on, we were framed within ambiguity and duplicity, i.e. the two-faced way of acting proper to the liberal.

We are not against the pope insofar as he represents the values of the Apostolic See which are unchanging. But we are against the pope insofar as he is a modernist who does not believe in his own infallibility, who practises ecumenism. So long as in Rome they stay attached to the ideas of the Council: religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, they are going the wrong way.

Reconciliation?

I do not think it is opportune to try contacting Rome. I think we must still wait. Wait, alas, for the situation to get still worse on their side. But up till now, they do not want to recognize that fact.

Kyrie eleison

Bp. THOMAS SPEAKS

Bp. THOMAS SPEAKS on August 17, 2024

This true disciple made no compromise,

And, to his Master, proves still faithful and wise.

Bishop Thomas Aquinas, Superior of the “Resistance” Benedictine Monastery in the hills behind Rio de Janeiro in Brazil, does not often make public declarations, but the one that he made at the end of last month on “Archbishop Lefebvre, Archbishop Vigano and Sedevacantism” might make us wish that he took position in public more often. In those crucial years of the 1970’s and 1980’s Fr. Thomas Aquinas was never a seminarian directly under Archbishop Lefebvre inside the Archbishop’s Society of St Pius X, but he was closer to the Archbishop in thought and mind than many of his own seminarians, and could be called at that time a confidant of the Archbishop. His faithfulness to the Archbishop’s way of thinking is clear from this recent article of Bishop Thomas, translated below, complete, from a French version of the original –

Archbishop Vigano has behaved like a true hero ever since he realised, or began to realise, just how the Conciliar Church is doctrinally and morally decomposing. Unfortunately he seems to be leaning towards the position that the Apostolic See is vacant. Time will tell if he is truly a sedevacantist.

As for Archbishop Lefebvre, he had already begun this fight with the Conciliar Church when it was even more decisive than it is today. He had gained the trust of Catholics all over the world, thanks to his solid doctrinal formation and to his superior practical judgment. The latter enabled him to avoid both the trap to the left of the Ecclesia Dei communities going back under Rome, and the trap to the right of sedevacantism. He pointed out precisely how on the left Dom Gerard and others like him were leading their communities to commit suicide by placing themselves under the authority of the modernists, while the sedevacantists on the right were putting themselves in a position as uncertain as it is dangerous, by stating more than Church teaching allows one to state.

Some people think that Archbishop Lefebvre would be a sedevacantist today. I do not think so. I even think the opposite. I think the arguments he gave when he was alive have lost nothing of their force or relevance today. His arguments are simple. What becomes of the Church if the Popes from John XXIII to Francis were never Popes? Were the Cardinals appointed by them not valid Cardinals? Who will elect the next Pope? How can we ever have a Pope again? Sedevacantism would seem to imperil the very existence of the Church. Let us rather wait for the Church to give official judgment on the question one day, so as to resolve it once and for all.

Given how opinions held and measures undertaken diverge within Tradition today, I see only one reasonable line of conduct: to hold on to and to hand down what we received from Archbishop Lefebvre, in doctrine and in practice. Many will object that in practice one needs to take into account how the state of the Church crisis has evolved from the Archbishop’s day to our own. True, there have been changes, but they are not essential. The crisis remains essentially the same. Like the Arian crisis which lasted 60 years, this crisis carries on, unchanged. Hence the relevance of the Archbishop’s example.

May Our Lady, conqueror of all heresies, grant us the grace to overcome the attacks of the Devil and of the modernists.

+Tomas Aquinas, O.S.B.

Here is the Catholic wisdom of Archbishop Lefebvre, restated for our times, most fruitful for the Church when judged by its fruits, of not deviating to the right or to the left, as the Lord God commanded Joshua when he succeeded to Moses as leader of the Israelites (Joshua I, 7). Truth is the measure of this centre position, and not where right or left may happen to find themselves, because Truth is of God.

Kyrie eleison.

LAW DEFINED

LAW DEFINED on August 3, 2024

And if I don’t see the monstrosity, I must pray,

As often urged, full fifteen Mysteries a day!

The desperate attempts of Pope Francis to use all of his papal Authority to crush the Tridentine rite of Mass and eliminate it from the Catholic Church once and for all, are rightly gaining less and less traction from among Catholics. Just how Almighty God can have allowed His own Authority that He entrusts to His Vicar on earth to be so misused, remains a mystery, because of course He gives it into the hands of men to build up His Church and not to pull it down. Many Catholics are so agonised by the problem that they are resorting to the simple solution of sedevacantism, because by that theory of there having been no valid Pope since John XXIII (1958–1963), all six Popes since Vatican II (1962–1965) have not been Popes at all. But that theory, which seems to solve the problem of the Conciliar Popes with such ease, takes many contradictory forms, and can lead to Catholics abandoning the Faith altogether, on the grounds that there can be no valid priesthood left at all, so they might as well stay at home rather than go to Mass. Thus sedevacantism can raise rather more problems than it seems to solve.

Such fruits suggest that sedevacantism may well not be the right solution to the serious problem set by all six Conciliar Popes, one after another, and culminating in the special horrors of Pope Francis. It may be a good moment to remember the fruitful solution of Archbishop Lefebvre (1905–1991), Traditionalism, of which he was the outstanding pioneer in its opposition today to the modernism of Vatican II.

Tradition is Catholicism, he said, and Catholicism is Tradition. “Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and for ever” (Heb. XIII, 8). Centuries of Protestantism and Liberalism have created a modern world which is so glamorous and seductive that in the end even the Vicars of Christ on earth have allowed themselves to be persuaded that Jesus needs to adapt himself to modern man, and not the other way round. But Jesus and His Church need no modernisation, all they need is to be presented as Catholic Tradition always used to do in times past. And the astonishing success of the Archbishop’s Society of St Pius X all over the world, at least until he died in 1991, proved that the Traditional version of Jesus and His Church can still flourish, despite modernity.

Then what did the Archbishop say about modernist Catholic Authority? He said that even Catholic Popes remain by themselves fallible men, unless they engage their infallible Authority, which they can only do on the four strict conditions clearly laid down in the solemn Definition of infallibility of 1870. If all four of those conditions are not present – and the Conciliar Popes never presented all four in their promotion of the Conciliar novelties – then Popes are as capable as any normal human being of making mistakes. And so all the modernist novelties of Vatican II in no way come under the protection of papal infallibility, which is highly restricted in its practical application.

But what about the Pope’s papal commands to abandon the Traditional rite of the Latin Mass? Are we not bound to obey him? No, we are not bound to obey him because it is not a lawful command, as Archbishop Lefebvre always said, and as the Catholic Church has always said. The Pope has no power from God to command just anything that comes into his head. The definition of law is that it is a command of reason for the common good made by those who are responsible for the common good. So if it is not for the common good, like any law pretending to legalise abortion, then it is no law at all.

Therefore when it comes to the sacrifice of the Mass, of which Padre Pio said that our planet earth can sooner do without the light of the sun than without that sacrifice, to replace its most venerable and dignified rite in Latin, centred on God, with a new rite in modern languages, doctrinally doubtful, without dignity, invented to centre on man, is so clearly opposed to the true common good of the Catholic Church that it cannot possibly be the object of a true law of the Church. Therefore no such pretended law need be obeyed, however many times Pope Paul VI or Pope Francis or their successors may try to impose any such monstrosity.

Kyrie eleison.

VIGANO COUNTER-ATTACKS

VIGANO COUNTER-ATTACKS on July 13, 2024

With some of the arguments one may not agree,

But here is a Catholic spirit, faithful and free.

Summoned by Rome to appear before a Newchurch court on June 28 to answer accusations of “schism,” the heroic defender of the Faith, Archbishop Vigano, chose to reply on the same day by making public an explanation of why he refused the Newchurch summons. A one-sentence-per-paragraph summary of that explanation cannot possibly do justice to the original, but it provides readers with an overview –

1 Quotation of Galatians I, verses 8–9; Let any innovated Gospel be anathema, i.e. absolutely rejected.

2 In 1975 Archbishop Lefebvre told his Roman accusers that he should be judging them, not vice versa.

3 I do not recognise the authority of this Roman court accusing me, because it lacks the Truth.

4 Not for one moment in my life have I been outside the one Ark of Salvation – the Catholic Church.

5 The Church’s enemies, led by Freemasonry, hate the power of Catholic Tradition.

6 It is clear that behind the revolution of Vatican II in the Church has been Freemasonry.

7 Freemasons have approved of their own 1789 (French Revolution) having taken over the true Church.

8 How many of the ringleaders of the “Up-dating” of Vatican II were condemned before the Council!

9 Today’s head of the Italian bishops is saying a Mass for a notorious modernist from the past.

10 A Professor just said that the “necessary renewal” was being blocked for fear of Protestantism.

11 An abyss separates the true Church of dogmas from the Newchurch (not Vigano’s term) of apostasy.

12 Truth has been relativised. If the modernist Sanhedrin accuses me, it is accusing all Catholic Popes.

13 Church and Newchurch contradict one another. It is the Newchurch that is accusing me of “schism.”

14 The Newchurch’s “necessary renewal” means, for the true Church, the heretical evolution of dogma.

15 The Newchurch’s brand-new “faith” is in rupture with the Faith of the true Church of 2,000 years.

16 But Lefebvre never called in question the Conciliar Popes’ legitimacy? That was 40 years ago!

17 Today’s Newchurch is professing, unanimously, a multitude of condemned errors.

18 By thus consigning millions of souls to perdition, the Newchurch has lost its Catholic Authority.

19 The Newchurch’s “authority” to put me on trial is null and void. I do not accept it.

20 I myself was one of many high churchmen who did not see what was really going on.

21 It was as Nuncio in the USA, confronting Cardinal McCarrick, that I at last understood – we have

22 a concerted global attack, both religious and political, being made on traditional Christian society.

23 The corruption I was observing is an integral part of this advance of the New World Order.

24 As Our Lady of La Salette said, “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist.”

25 I cannot be silent in the face of the Church’s demolition, with the damnation of so many souls.

26 In Canon Law there is no crime of schism when a Pope’s Conclave and election are cast in doubt.

27 Paul IV decreed that to any “Pope” who was a heretic prior to his election, no obedience is due.

28 So Bergoglio, by prior heresy and invalid intention at his “election,” has never been Pope.

29 However, for me to attack Bergoglio in this way by no means proves that I want to be in schism. And

30 is not his own preference to be known merely as “Bishop of Rome” a real attack on the Papacy?

31 Cannot all Conciliar Popes dropping the Tiara for ecumenical reasons be called in doubt as Popes?

32 If Conciliar ecumenism is nonsense, how can the ecumenical Bergoglio not be a nonsense Pope?

33 Many bishops and priests cannot bear what he imposes on them by force, blackmail and threats.

34 We pastors must wake up and react! We will answer before God for all that we go along with.

35 I denounce my accusers, their “Council” and their “Pope.” Saints Peter and Paul, save the Church!

36 As a bishop consecrated to guard the Faith and preach the Word, I am defending the Church, not me.

37 I cannot be accused of cutting with (=schism) Bergoglio’s Newchurch because I never belonged to it.

38 A Pope cannot be accused by anybody beneath him? Yes he can, if he never was Pope.

39 Bergoglio also misused his papal authority to help promote the deadly covid “Vaccines,” a real crime.

40 He also cut a criminal deal with the Chinese government, betraying the truly faithful Catholics.

41 As for my being accused of rejecting the errors and deviations of Vatican II, I consider that an honour.

42 And if Vatican II excuses certain schismatics (see L.G. #13) how can they accuse me of schism?

43 I condemn also all the multiple heresies of the post-conciliar “Magisterium” and “Synodal Church.”

44 Dear Catholics, pray, do penance and make sacrifices for Mother Church’s freedom and triumph.

Kyrie eleison.

REASON for the “RESISTANCE”

REASON for the “RESISTANCE” on February 10, 2024

God gave us the wise old Saint He knew we need –

How could a youngster think that he could lead?

Less than one month ago, on January 24, the Brazilian Prior of the Traditional Benedictine Monastery of Santa Cruz, nestling in high hills of Brazil behind Rio de Janeiro, Bishop Thomas Aquinas, published a severe denunciation of a prominent leader who is active worldwide in the Traditional Catholic movement. But surely Traditionalists have enough problems from outside of Tradition without having to fight among themselves as well? Normally that is Catholic common sense, but not if the very basis of Catholicism, the Catholic Faith, is at stake. Now in the struggle between Rome and the Society of St Pius X, never has it not been at stake. Let readers judge for themselves if, as a shepherd of Our Lord’s flock, Bishop Thomas has done anything other than his bounden duty by denouncing this wolf in sheep’s clothing – 

The reason for the existence of the Resistance is none other than Dom Fellay, with his words and actions. His words minimized the gravity of the crisis and of the Council. His actions exposed Tradition to suffer the same fate as the Ecclesia Dei communities. 

Dom Fellay did not speak like Dom Lefebvre. Dom Lefebvre strongly denounced the Council’s mistakes, as well as the churchmen who were the cause of those mistakes. He warned virtually all the popes about their responsibilities. He told John Paul II that if he continued on the path of ecumenism he would no longer be the good shepherd, and in the drawing about Assisi he said, with images and words, that John Paul II would go to hell if he continued to be an ecumenist. He told Cardinal Ratzinger that he, Ratzinger, was against the Christianization of society. The Archbishop denounced the apostasy of Vatican II. ( . . . ) He defended priests and faithful from modernist contagion. He exposed himself to an invalid but degrading excommunication. In defence of France he did not back down in the face of the Muslim danger. He protected us against Dom Gérard’s Roman temptation. He was, in short, like bishops of old: the defender of Christianity and of its basis, which is the faith. He was the man of theological virtues, who sustained our faith and all virtues. 

And Dom Fellay? Did he continue Dom Lefebvre’s actions? No. Both in word and in deed, Dom Fellay distanced himself from Dom Lefebvre. Regarding the heresy of Religious Freedom, he minimized the seriousness of what the Council had said. He did not react to the mistakes like Dom Lefebvre. He did not talk about the two churches, as did Dom Lefebvre. He did not clearly distinguish the official Church from the Catholic Church, but spoke of a “Concrete Church,” confusing the faithful and even priests. What specific church is this? Do we have to be in this church? We are in the Catholic Church. We recognize the Pope, but not the Conciliar Church that Cardinal Benelli spoke of. We recognize the Pope, but not his doctrine or his actions contrary to Tradition. These acts are not Catholic, but anti-Catholic. 

It was under the influence of Dom Fellay that the 2012 Chapter modified the principle enunciated by the 2006 Chapter: there can be no practical agreement without doctrinal agreement. This did not please Dom Fellay, and it was changed. Under certain conditions, the Fraternity can now reach a practical agreement without a doctrinal agreement. It is a legal loophole, opening the way to lead the Fraternity down the path of the Ecclesia Dei communities. He did not go that far, but he lowered his guard, and Rome took advantage of that. Opposition from within the Fraternity Dom Fellay repressed by expelling Dom Williamson and other priests; then he punished others, such as the seven deans who rightly protested against Rome’s marriage document. Dom Fellay disorganized Tradition, walked away from Dom Lefebvre’s line, and made others also depart from it. To resist this departure was the reason for the “Resistance” coming into existence. 

We want to follow Dom Lefebvre in everything, in doctrine and also in practical solutions, because, as Aristotle and St.Thomas teach, the examples of the ancients serve as principles of action. We follow Dom Lefebvre in doctrine and action, especially in relation to modernist Rome, and we do this to be faithful to Eternal Rome, teacher of truth and holiness. 

Kyrie eleison