An Open Letter From A Confused Catholic

ATTACHMENT 2. to
"My Reasons for Withdrawing Support
from the Society of St Pius X [SSPX]
"Who can deny that Catholics in the latter part of the twentieth century are confused?...Only a short time ago the path was clearly marked; either one followed it or one did not...", 1 wrote Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1986. Regarding that state of confusion, he asked:
  • "How can the ordinary faithful decide? For the validity of a mass there exist essential conditions; matter, form, intention and the validly ordained priest. If these conditions are filled one cannot see how to conclude invalidity (Emphasis added.) The prayers of the Offertory, the Canon and the priest's communion are necessary for the integrity of the sacrifice and the sacrament but not for its validity. Cardinal Mindszenty pronouncing in secret in his prison the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, so as to nourish himself with the body and blood of Our Lord without being seen by his guards, was certainly accomplishing the sacrifice and the sacrament." 2
In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a "valid" though "sacrilegious" Mass (limiting himself to a "valid though sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Mass), and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation.
  • "... may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation..." 3
About six years earlier, on March 8, 1980, the Archbishop had written, (albeit, perhaps, with mental reservation), 4 to Pope John Paul II:
  • "Most Holy Father,

    "To put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America, concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the Pope, the Council, and the NOVUS ORDO Mass, and fearing lest these rumours should reach Your Holiness, I make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.

    • "I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.

    • "I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be understood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.'

    • "As for the NOVUS ORDO Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.

    • "I would be grateful (if you could.)...hasten (the) free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society ..., etc." 6
In Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre, Mr Michael Davies refers to a letter to him from the archbishop qualifying the term "these masses." He quotes from it after setting out the circumstances under which Novus Ordo Masses could be considered as being sacrilegious:
  • " 'Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass.' ", wrote the Archbishop.
"Thus," (writes Michael Davies), where the Archbishop states that 'these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,' he is referring to New Masses which involve 'sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.' The clarification which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning." 6 Mr Davies recorded the opinions of Archbishop Lefebvre as to some of the qualifying circumstances: "One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses (ie, those containing the following novelties in the New Mass) are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it... :-
  • the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;
    the Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;
    the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharist;
    the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;
    the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;
    the Epistle read by women;
    Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity." 7
In an interview given to Mr Don McLean, Mr Michael Davies gave the following edited replies:
  • "I believe in my Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, one of the three volumes, I have quoted Archbishop Lefebvre saying he accepted the New Mass fulfilled the Sunday Obligation ... I wouldn't say in Latin only, because the only person who can say which Mass fulfils your obligation and which Mass doesn't fulfil your obligation, is the Pope, one can't arrogate to oneself the prerogatives of the Vicar of Christ...

    "Q. Are all 'Old' Masses acceptable?

    "I would attend any Tridentine Mass which was said reverently, in accordance with the rubrics, and where the sermon was acceptable ... You are supposed to have the 1962 Missal used exactly as it is used by priests of the SSPX. An unadulterated 1962 Missal must be used, and communion must be given on the tongue ...

    "What was meant (in the answer of the Canon Law Society of Great Britain) by schismatic intent would be for example, if those who go to the Society Church in Melbourne on Sunday were to say that they were the only true Catholics in the whole of the Archdiocese of Melbourne, and everyone going to the New Mass, or to Indult Masses, are outside the Church. Such people would certainly have a schismatic mentality." 8
Moreover, on November 8, 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre was compelled to advise that "The Society of St Pius X ... cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is PER SE invalid. " (Emphasis added.) And, of course, that intolerance resulted in the expulsion of, among others, "the nine" in the United States. 9

Note that Archbishop Lefebvre is here talking about the essential validity of the 1969 Novus Ordo ! Yet it appears that some members of the SSPX apply invalidity to the Indult Mass - which is the 1962 Mass of Pope John XXIII. Some adherents to the Society extend disbelief in anything after the reign of Pope St Pius X!

By 1986 the tone of the Archbishop's language had fluctuated to the point where he described the post Conciliar reformed liturgy and Sacraments in this way:
  • "All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls." 10
On November 16, 1955, a General Decree and Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites introduced the Restored Order of Holy Week (A.A.S. 47, PP. 837-847.) The Restored Ordo of Holy Week was Prescribed and "Those who follow the Roman Rite are bound in the future to follow the Restored Ordo for Holy Week [as] set forth in the original Vatican edition." 11

Elsewhere, Mr Davies praised the SSPX for adhering to the Liturgical Books of the Church in relation to Pope Pius XII's Reform of the Holy Week Liturgy: "The Holy Week ceremonies at Ecône conform to Maxima Redemptionis." 12 Ah! But what does that mean? This Decree "only permitted the time (for the liturgical functions) to be changed. Nowhere did it explain any changes to the ceremonies themselves." 13

One of the reforms of Pope Pius XII included the re-insertion of the "Oremus, flectamus genua and levate" (Let us pray, let us kneel, and arise] Thus, "On November 27, 1955, the Osservatore Romano at long last published a new ordinal of Holy Week, which, by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, made the procedure of 'kneeling, praying silently and then rising' also imperative for the eighth petition for the Jews in the Good Friday service. The official text of the decree was published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis on December 23, 1955, together with an authoritative article by an eminent Roman liturgist, explaining 'the pastoral importance of the restored rite which passed into desuetude a thousand years ago.' " 14

Comment appeared in the Australasian Catholic Record in 1958: "SOME NOTES ON HOLY WEEK... FLECTAMUS GENUA...Throughout the Restored Order the rubric directs that all should kneel and pray silently for a short time after the invitation: Flectamus genua...How long should this silent prayer continue? At least for the space of a Pater Noster. More important than the precise length of the pause is the understanding that it is meant to be a short silent prayer before the celebrant pronounces the solemn petition in the name of the Church." 15

Shortly after his elevation to the papacy in 1959 Pope John XXIII did away with the insulting and ambiguous passage "pro perfidis Judaeis", both in the Latin and in the vernacular, ordering that Christians, from March 27, 1959, on simply "pray for the Jews." 16

Being a good, obedient priest and archbishop (?), no doubt Archbishop Lefebvre took seriously his Profession of the Catholic Faith, and complied with the requirements of the "legitimate order from a legitimate superior (which) must be obeyed", 17 and added the "Oremus, flectamus genua, and levate" in the "Prayer for the Jews" in the Good Friday liturgy and, later, no longer included the "pro perfidis Judaeis". To claim otherwise on the basis of hearsay is surely unwarranted? Yet, this is claimed by at least one local SSPX priest.

There may be some doubt here, however, for this SSPX priest makes a triple claim as justification for omitting those very same prayers, "Oremus, flectamus genua and levate":
  1. "...that is how I have done it simply because that is what I was taught at the seminary;

  2. "...I have been told by numerous individuals that (Archbishop Lefebvre) omitted the genuflection [sic.] in question; indeed such was the practice at Ecône."

  3. Out of obedience to his Superior: "...at ordination...the Superior General, asks, 'Promittis mihi et successoribus meis...' " 18(Emphasis as in the original.)
The first claim simply demonstrates the possibility of group error; the second demonstrates reliance on hearsay plus an attempt to claim the possible error as being almost "infallible", an Ecône "practice"!; and the third is no argument at all (unless real evidence can be produced, for example, by way of written command from Archbishop Lefebvre, Fr Schmidberger or Bishop Fellay.)

Sad to say, I must inform Mr Davies that he should review his opinion that the SSPX is Catholic in its use of the Liturgical books of Holy Mother Church - not only overseas but also here in Australia. An account of a "mishmash" of practices was recorded by a former priest of the SSPX who has since joined the ranks of "Bishops at Large":
  • "Ecône: Didn't You Always? A question: 'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?' The answer is no. We received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)

    "It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.

    "The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics developed based on the double principle of
    1. what the Archbishop liked, and
    2. what one did in France.

    "These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in 1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...

    "As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way in which they celebrate Mass today ...

    "At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..." 19

Fr Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A. Society priests expelled from the Society in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre ".... because they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII." 20

What are today's criteria for expulsion? If Archbishop Lefebvre were alive today, would he countenance priests who now (at least ostensibly) pray for the Pope but who, nevertheless, "refuse to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and (who) refuse to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII.", as happens in the District of Australia and New Zealand! Why include these last two matters if the only real "no no" is failure "to pray for the Pope at Mass" - an action which cannot be checked ?

On April 5, 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre seems to have effectively canonised for the Society, the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII. 21 That Missal was described by Michael Davies as follows:
  • "Pope Pius XII authorised a rubrical revision chiefly concerned with the Calendar. This was in line with the reform undertaken by St Pius X. This reform was eventually completed by Pope John XXIII with the Decree Novum Rubricarum of 26 July 1960...he did make some changes to the Ordinary... omitting the Psalm Judica me, and the Last Gospel on certain occasions. The second was to drop the Confiteor and Absolution before the people's Communion...and was to be followed by adding the name of St Joseph to the Canon in December 1962...These changes left the Missal of St Pius V substantially unchanged and caused no anxiety at the time.

    "The clauses forbidding changes to the Missal included in Quo Primum can be found in other papal legislation which was subsequently amended or revoked and there has never been the least suggestion that the popes concerned were exceeding their authority.

    "There could never have been the least doubt that the Missal of Pope John XXIII was still the Missal of St Pius X." 22

From this point, the of acceptance of the reforms made by Pope Pius XII - particularly in respect of the Good Friday Liturgy - become intertwined with the continuation of reforms made by Pope John XXIII; in 1960, Pope John XXIII issued a Motu proprio in respect of the new Corpus Rubricarum for the Breviary and Missal. He decreed as follows:
  • "1. The new code of rubrics for the Roman Breviary and Missal... together with a Calendar and Missal... shall be of precept for all who follow the Roman Rite, from January 1, 1961...

    "2. On the same day...the former general Rubrics of the Roman Breviary and Missal cease to be in force...The general Decree of the S.C.R. of March 23, 1956, ... likewise ceases ... Also abrogated are those decrees and responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which do not agree with this new form of rubrics. ['Abrogantur denique eiusdem S. Congregationis decreta et ad dubia responsiones, quae cum nova hac rubricarum forma non conveniunt.']

    "3. Similarly, statutes, privileges, indults and customs of any kind, even century old and immemorial; ...etc." furthermore even those worthy of most special and individual mention all are hereby revoked, if they are contrary to these new rubrics.

    "6. Lastly, all who are concerned shall see at once to the conformation of their Calendars and Propria, either diocesan or religious, to the rule and spirit of the new redaction of Rubrics and to the Calendar which shall be approved by the Sacred Congregation. " 23
Was this Motu proprio NOT a "legitimate order from a legitimate superior which MUST be obeyed"? After all, Archbishop Lefebvre clearly stated: "...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than: Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII.", and the SSPX priests were expelled because "...they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII." ) 24

The Australasian Catholic Record for 1962 saw "no big deal" with the proposed new missal and contented itself with commenting on some of the peripheral changes:
  • "European publishers have been advertising a new edition of the Roman Missal for publication about April of this year. A recent edition of Ephemerides liturgicae (lxxv, 1961, pp. 401-447) contains a fairly complete summary of the modifications to be introduced in the Missal in order to bring it into line with the Code of Rubrics published in 1960. These changes are to be found in the Instructions issued to publishers by the Congregation of Rites.

  • "For the most part the changes are simply the application of the new rubrics as we have used them during the past year and more, however there are also some modifications in the Ritus servandus.

  • "... The simple rite of the Restored Order of Holy Week superseded the Memoriale for Holy Week, and the new rubrics have now made provision for the rites of the other two days. The Memoriale is, therefore a thing of the past."

  • "... The directions for a Missa Cantata are:... but after he has sung the Gospel the celebrant is not incensed ...The omission of the incensation of the celebrant after the Gospel is because the celebrant is discharging the office of the deacon in singing the Gospel, and it is not the deacon who is incensed in a High Mass, but the celebrant." 25
At what point of time during his career can Archbishop Lefebvre be accused of uttering a false Profession of Faith? Was it before or after his appointment as Bishop of Dakar in 1955; or of Tulle in 1962; or did he become a conscientious objector before or after the Novus Ordo in 1969; or was it early in 1974 when the campaign started to suppress the SSPX? When did he first refuse to include the "Oremus, flectamus genua, and Levate", and refuse to "kneel for the Jews"? On May 5, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD in which he made a pledge 26 for himself and the Society Members - a pledge that he repudiated the following day. Among other things he agreed:
  • "Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." 27
We also see:

  1. Fr François Laisney writing:
      "Far from us to condemn those who go to the Traditional Mass authorised by the Indult." 28
  2. The active participation (on the altar and at the grave) of a SSPX priest at the Indult Requiem Mass for Mrs Catherine Emily Foley, conducted from St Anne's Church, under the auspices of the Indult granted by Archbishop Sir Frank Little. The priest was, Fr Gerard Hogan, a former Australian District Superior. 29
  3. The following from "16 November 1976 Extracts from an Interview with Michael Davies" 30
    • Firstly: Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that

      • "Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning Pontiff according to the accepted norms.";
      • He accepted "that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff."; and then he disagreed with the next allegation:
      • That "you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?" "Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue."
    On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated three bishops under "Operation Survival". ("Catholic", Aug/Sep. 88, p.1.) This is not to say that in 1976 the Archbishop did have any intentions to consecrate, however, some believed the contrary at that time. How can an ordinary card-carrying traditionalist cope with this "mishmash"? Does the Society of St Pius X have a policy in regard to the Rite of Mass that must be followed, else "off with your head"? Is 1962 the norm, or 1958, or 1903, or 15xx? If there is no norm, why is there not? Ironically, an article appeared in the SSPX American magazine, The Angelus, which may offer an explanation. The principles may apply, not only to sedevacantism per se, but also to attitudes towards the post Conciliar Popes, the Novus Ordo, the Sacraments and other administrative acts that do not involve sin:
    • "Among the other contradictions in which sedevacantists involve themselves, many reject the reformed Holy Week rites of Pius XII. At the same time, however, they uphold the legitimacy of Pius XII. If Pius XII can promulgate a liturgy contaminated with modernistic principles (as they assert), then why could not Paul VI have done the same (with regard to the Novus Ordo ) while also remaining a legitimate Supreme Pontiff? After all, there would only be a difference in degree between them. Rejection of the reformed Holy Week rites - which had, by the way, been accepted without any protest whatsoever from the Universal Church - remains absolutely inexplicable in light of their argument from infallibility." 31
    While condemning the "bastard" products of the Conciliar Church seminaries - isn't it also true that the Society has produced results of which it would prefer to minimise? What does this say for the "formation" of SSPX priests?
    1. Isn't it true that one priest has defected from the Society (in some form or another) for approximately every third to fourth SSPX priest ordained - in other words a 25 to 33% loss rate?

    2. Isn't it true that the Society is responsible for the introduction into the folds of "Bishops at Large" at least another four schismatic Bishops?

      • Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, O.P., the main author of the so-called Ottaviani Intervention, and was also at one time a professor of theology at Ecône. Consecrated by Archbishop Ngo-dinh-Thuc in July 1981, he consecrated another three bishops, one of whom is responsible for another four bishops.

      • Bishop Daniel L Dolan - the same as mentioned in pages 3 and 4 above - a former SSPX priest, was consecrated also by a schismatic Thuc line bishop in November 1993.

      • Bishop Clarence Kelly - another Lefebvrite priest, illicitly consecrated by a USA bishop who appeared to be in communion with Rome, but...

      • Bishop Rangel of campos, Brazil - directly consecrated by the schismatic and excommunicated four SSPX bishops.
    3. Less than two months prior to the ordination of Fr Laisney on May 13, 1982, Juan Fernandez Krohn, age 32, a former priest of the SSPX made an assassination attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II, at Fatima.

    4. Having "effectively canonised", the 1962 Missal of Pope John XXIII (with his Letter of April 5, 1983, and his having expelled "the nine" in the United States because "they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John XXIII." 3120, did the Archbishop de-canonise that Missal? Is that Missal still or now obligatory? Will recalcitrant priests be brought into line if they still refuse? If it is not obligatory, then what is? Will the SSPX be Catholic in its use of the liturgy and calendar?

    5. The same applies to the Holy Week Liturgy! Will those who refuse to include the "Oremus, Flectamus genua and Levate" in the Prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy, and who intermix the rites according to their own will be required to conform?
    In one of his The Faith in Crisis Series tapes - The Long And Narrow Path 32 - among many other things, Bishop Richard Williamson says:

    • "...if my superiors seem to treat these things as if they are true - what am I to think? to do?..."

    • "...it's clear also that the Catholics today that are keeping the faith are very much more having to think for themselves than they may have had to do fifty years ago when they could simply trust their parish priest. But today they are being obliged to use their own minds and make their own decisions, and many of these Catholics have chosen, at least for the time being, to accompany or follow the Society of St Pius X."

      "But it is also clear, and it is absolutely right that it should be so, that they are not following the Society unconditionally, ... and they must accustom themselves to using their own minds and making their own decisions rather more than they would have when they had a reliable parish priest; and, then, when it comes to using their minds they must apply the test of Our Lord, which is, 'By their fruits you shall know them'. "

    • "Catholics are not expected to be learned theologians or to go into all the arguments or to be able to understand all the arguments. But Our Lord does expect them to use their faith and their supernatural common sense to judge where there are the fruits of Our Lord and the fruits of Satan..."

    • "Interviewer: 'So often it's the easy way out to just proclaim: obedience! obedience! obedience!' "
      • "Bishop Williamson: 'They are taking the easy way out in order to follow the easy path.' "
    In response to statements made by some SSPX priests in Australia Mr Michael Davies responded with:
    • "The Roman Rite, to which the overwhelming majority of Catholics belong, is considered as equivalent to the universal Church. It is thus incompatible with the profession of the Catholic Faith to claim that any liturgical rite approved by the Roman Pontiff for universal use, above all the rite of Mass, could be invalid, contain heresy, or harm souls...

      "It is thus, to put it mildly, theologically untenable to maintain that 'the New Mass is not a Catholic liturgy ... is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil.' and is not 'an official Mass of the Catholic Church'...

      "To deny the Catholic character of the New Mass constitutes an explicit denial of the divine authority of the Pope and must therefore be considered a schismatic act. To state that the New Mass is intrinsically evil is also blasphemous...

      "The question as to whether the New Mass is or is not intrinsically evil must be decided by our acceptance or rejection of the fact that Paul VI was a true Pope. If he was then the New Mass is an official Catholic Mass. Those who deny that Paul VI was a true Pope are schismatic and their opinion is of no relevance to members of the indefectible Church founded by Our Lord." 33
    ***********************************************************************************
    Footnotes:
    1. "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics", by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 9, 1986.
    2. Ibid. p. 35, Chapter: "The Mass Of All Time Versus The Mass Of Our Time".
    3. Ibid. p. 36.
    4. Fr Kevin Robinson, Sermon, August 28, 1996. See page 3 above.
    5. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre", Vol. 2, pp. 378/9, published by The Angelus Press, 1983.
    6. Ibid. p. 367.
    7. Ibid. p. 369.
    8. Catholic, June-July 1996, pp. 8, 9.
    9. Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre. (Catholic, July 83 & Nov. 83, p. 3.)
    10. "An Letter To Confused Catholics", by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 116, 1986.
    11. "Canon Law Digest", Bouscaren & O'Connor, Vol. 4, p. 52.
    12. "Pope Paul's New Mass", Vol III, Footnote to p.12, published by The Angelus Press, 1980.
    13. "The Liturgical Movement, 1840-1970, A Brief History", by Desmond J. McDonnell.
    14. "The Last Three Popes and the Jews", p. 303, by Pinchas E. Lapide, 1967, Souvenir Press.
    15. "Australasian Catholic Record", 1958, p. 58.
    16. "The Last Three Popes and the Jews", p. 320, by Pinchas E. Lapide, 1967, Souvenir Press.
    17. Fr Jean Violette, letter of March 19, 1996, to Mr Max Longford.
    18. Fr Todd Angele letter of May 31, 1996, to the author.
    19. "The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
    20. Catholic, Nov. 83, p. 3
    21. "...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than: 1. Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books authorised by Pope John XXIII." (Archbishop Lefebvre: Letter of April 5, 1983, to Sovereign Pontiff, Catholic, Jul. 84, p. 10.)
    22. "Pope Paul's New Mass", Vol III, pp. 12-15, published by The Angelus Press, 1980.
    23. "Australasian Catholic Record", 1961, pp. 10-13
    24. Catholic, Jul. 84, p. 10. Archbishop Lefebvre Letter of April 5, 1983, to Sovereign Pontiff.
    25. "Australasian Catholic Record", 1962, p. 152.
    26. "Pledge: promise solemnly by pledge of one's honour, word, etc.; bind by solemn promise, etc."
    27. "Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican", Father François Laisney (also a former Australasian District Superior), p. 77.
    28. "A Response to Michael Davies from Father Laisney", Catholic, August 1996, p. 9;
    29. Indult Requiem Mass for Mrs Catherine Emily Foley, July 4, 1996. Principal Celebrant: Fr Velmir Maglica, a Melbourne Diocesan secular priest.
    30. "Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre", Vol. 1, pp. 347/8, published by The Angelus Press, 1979.
    31. "Pope-Sifting, Difficulties with Sedevacantism", by Laszlo Szijarto, "The Angelus", October 1995, p. 5. Mr Szijarto adds: "We need to remember that our judgements even about the purported 'errors' of Vatican II do not have the Church's authority behind them - and are therefore liable to be mistaken."
    32. Available from St Benedict's Book Centre, PO Box 36, Yarra Junction, 3797.
    33. Catholic, Oct. 96, p. 9.


    F.J.LOUGHNAN
    October 2, 1996 (Edited and abbreviated Jan. 5, 1998 and June 24, 1998.)
    jloughnan@hotmail.com

    Go To Skeleton of
    "My Reasons for Withdrawing Support from the Society of St Pius X [SSPX]     page



    Sean Ó Lachtnáin's Home Page

    See also "The JEWS" and ANTI-SEMITISM  page