BACKGROUND

About 1970, seminarians approached Archbishop Lefebvre and said they needed a new seminary because the Roman seminaries were teaching a new religion, the religion of Vatican II, which is not Catholic. So, Lefebvre founded the SSPX with the approval of the local bishop. Obviously, the SSPX was dedicated to the preservation of the traditional Catholic Faith. The SSPX is a missionary society and operates independently from the local bishops using supplied jurisdiction. The SSPX steadily grew to become a worldwide organization operating in many countries. The current website is SSPX.ORG.

In 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops for the preservation of the SSPX, precisely because Rome was refusing to provide the SSPX with any bishops. Lefebvre did this without the approval of Rome. It was called "operation survival". Rome was angry about this and claimed that Lefebvre incurred the "grave penalty of excommunication" in Pope John Paul II's letter: "Ecclesia Dei".

However, the excommunication for abuse of episcopal powers (canon 1382) was not incurred because:

1. A person who violates a law out of necessity is not subject to a penalty (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1323, §4), even if there is no state of necessity.
2. If one inculpably thought there was a necessity, he would not incur the penalty (canon 1323, 70).
3. If one culpably thought there was a necessity, he would still incur no automatic penalties (canon 1324, §3; §1, 80).

Did Lefebvre think there was a state of necessity? Yes, because he said: "Rome has lost the Faith. Rome is in apostasy. Rome has left the Church."

For a good explanation about what is wrong with Vatican II, listen to what Fr. Hesse says about Vatican II or read one of the two books written by Archbishop Lefebvre:

1. I Accuse The Council.
2. They Have Uncrowned Him.

The SSPX is not in schism, because it accepts the Roman papacy. Disobedience alone does not place a person in schism. For many years, the SSPX had been the only traditional group, which did not require its priests to accept Vatican II, the New Mass and the 1983 Code of Canon Law. In February 1991, Lefebvre said what separated SSPX from Rome.

Recently, a new traditional group has been founded in Avrille, France, to preserve the Faith, precisely because the past SSPX leader (Fellay) has shown a strong desire to merge with Rome for many years and has expelled many priest for publicly criticizing a merger. The new group is the Society of the Apostles of Jesus and Mary.

THE NEW SSPX

After the death of Lefebvre, in 1991, things started to change in the SSPX headquarters.

In 1997, GREC was formed to find a way to integrate the SSPX into Rome, primarily by avoiding the discussion of Church doctrines.

In 2012. A Doctrinal Declaration was presented to Rome by the SSPX superior general, Bishop Fellay, for the purpose of being reconciled with Rome. Rome refused to sign it, probably because the three other SSPX bishops were opposed to an agreement with Rome. Perhaps Rome wants the whole SSPX under its authority, not just part of the SSPX. This saved the SSPX from committing suicide, because the Doctrinal Declaration accepted (1) Vatican II, (2) the New Mass, (3) the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

Now it was obvious that Fellay was trying to take the SSPX in the opposite direction of Archbishop Lefebvre, who said in 1987, "Even if Rome gives us everything we want, We will not collaborate.  Rome is trying to de-Christianize civilization."

Later in 2012, Bishop Fellay expelled Bishop Willianson, because Williamson was speaking out against an agreement with Rome. During the next six years, we watched Fellay expell many priests who were speaking out against merging with Rome. Other priests were sent to operate in remote locations, because they were opposed to an agreement.

DECEPTIONS IN THE NEW SSPX

By 2018, we have been watching the new direction of the SSPX for six years. We have been getting a steady stream of deceptions as follows:
#1: Fellay has joyfully accepted the freeing of the Latin Mass [it was never done away with].
#2: He has gladly accepted the lifting of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops [they were never excommunicated].
#3: He has accepted permission to hear confessions and grant marriages [SSPX already had this through supplied jurisdiction].
One would think that Fellay is cooperating with the Romans to make it look like Rome is no longer the enemy of tradition.

Deception #4: Bishop Fellay said "Rome is giving us all we need for reconciliation . What is there to want from Rome? The condemnation of all Vatican II documents and the condemnation of the New Mass. However, Bishop Fellay is not asking for this.

Deception #5: Bishop Fellay said Many people have an understanding of the [Vatican II] Council which is the wrong understanding. Many things which we would have condemned are not from the Council, but from the common understanding of it. Religious Liberty comming from the Council is a very limited one, very limited . Archbishop Lefebvre said the opposite. Conclusion: Fellay has forgotten why the SSPX was founded.

Deception #6: The New SSPX is saying that the purpose of the SSPX is the formation of priests, but Rome had never stopped forming priests. So, what was the state of necessity that required Lefebvre to the consecrate four bishops in 1988? Logical conclusion: the New SSPX does not want us to remember what the state of necessity was all about.

Deception #7: The SSPX claims that they can do a better job of bringing Rome back to tradition from within. This is very naive. It has forgotten that the 9 other formerly traditional groups, who reconciled with Rome, are no longer traditional.

Deception #8: The SSPX no longer calls Rome the Conciliar Church, now it's called the Visible Church. Logical conclusion: the SSPX does not want us to know that Rome has a new religion, the religion of Vatican II.

Deception #9: The New SSPX is saying that Rome will let them continue as they are. So who is stopping SSPX from continuing as they are? Nobody. Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1987, "Even if Rome gives us everything we want, We will not collaborate.  Rome is trying to de-Christianize civilization." Logical conclusion: the New SSPX has decided that it needs permission from Rome to continue operating, supplied jurisdiction is not good enough.

More deceptions: The new superior general of the SSPX, Fr. Pagliarani, has demonstrated, in his first interview (July 13 2018), that he is embracing the new attitude of the SSPX. He said: (1) when Rome realizes that the SSPX has something to offer, then the reconciliation will happen, (2) the purpose of the SSPX is the formation of priests who persevere in HOLINESS, (3) the solution to the problems in the SSPX is UNITY. [Just obey and be nice?]

WRONG. The correct answers are as follows: (1) when Rome condemns Vatican II and returns to the traditional Catholic Faith, then we will consider a reconciliation, (2) The purpose of the SSPX is to form priests who persevere in the TRADITIONAL CATHOLIC FAITH, (3) The solution to the division in the SSPX is to stop all the deception, stop expelling priests who are critical of Rome, and return to the goals set by Archbishop Lefebvre.

CHANGE IN STATUTES: The SSPX has changed its statutes to allow for two additional assistants to the superior general, Bishop Fellay and Fr. Schmidberger. So now there are five at the top. Both Fellay and Schmidberger are liberal and experienced in dealing with Rome. Do you see the problem here? Fr. Pagliarani can work on public relations, while Fellay and Schmidberger can work behind the scenes to hasten an agreement with Rome. See this article by Fr. Girouard for his analysis of the situation.

SSPX WANTS A MONOPOLY

Now the New SSPX is attacking the Resistance (those faithful who want to follow Lefebvre and are opposed to an agreement with Rome). The rector, in Saint Marys KS, said, "What is there to resist? The Resistance people are making rash judgements." Obviously, he doesn't know much about the Resistance or he doesn't realize the SSPX is going in the wrong direction.

The SSPX has denounced the consecration of Bishop Faure, however, Bishop Faure's consecration was, in every way, identical to the consecrations done by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. Besides, Fr. Faure had been chosen by Lefebvre in 1988 to be consecrated a bishop. The SSPX says that Lefebvre's consecrations were based on a state of necessity and that makes them different (valid). Concerning the consecration of Bishop Faure, the SSPX is saying "There was no state of necessity." Well, Pope John Paul II, said in 1988, "There was no state of necessity".

The biggest criticism SSPX has for the consecration of Bishop Faure is that Williamson did not ask for permission from the Pope, like Lefebvre had done. Did Bishop Fellay ask for permission when he and another SSPX bishop consecrated a new bishop for the Society of St. John Vianney in South America? Is Pope Francis going to give Bishop Williamson permission? No way. Why ask? Don't need permission anyway.

In reality, the authority of the SSPX is supplied authority (or jurisdiction), no different than what Bishop Faure has. Independent priests have the same situation as SSPX priests, supplied jurisdiction. The SSPX seems to think that it has a monopoly on Traditional Catholicism and that going outside the SSPX is inherently disobedient, schismatic and bad.

The SSPX has decided against any future "illicit consecrations without papal mandate". Logical conclusion: if the SSPX does not merge with Rome, they will DIE from lack of bishops. Perhaps this is why they are upset about the four bishops in the Resistance.

QUESTION

Why should the SSPX care if there are non-SSPX priests and bishops saving souls? After all, they are responsible for expelling many priests and one bishop from the SSPX. So, they have only themselves to blame. Did the SSPX expect the expelled priests to wither and die? Logical conclusion: the SSPX has been taken over by traitors to tradition, and does not want anybody operating outside of SSPX when they are finally sucked into the Conciliar Church, by Pope Francis.

 
TOP OF PAGE