Source: https://sspx.ca/en/faq-page
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:20:24+00:00

Document:
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was the founder of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX).
Birth of Marcel Lefebvre to Rene and Gabrielle Lefebvre.
Marcel Lefebvre is ordained a priest.
Having become a Holy Ghost Father, he becomes a missionary in Gabon, Africa.
He is consecrated a bishop and appointed Apostolic Vicar of Dakar, Senegal.
Bishop Lefebvre is Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Delegate for 18 African countries.
He becomes the first Archbishop of Dakar.
Pope John XXIII appoints Archbishop Lefebvre to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Second Vatican Council; all of this commission's work though will be rejected by the liberals at the onset of the Council.
Lefebvre returns to France to be the Bishop of Tulle.
Archbishop Lefebvre is elected and acts as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. During the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), he helps to lead the resistance to the liberal hijacking of the council via the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, which consisted of nearly 200 bishops.
Approached by seminarians, parents, priests and bishops (and having received the encouraging sign that this was the will of God—the urging and permission of Bishop Francois Charriere), Archbishop Lefebvre founds the Priestly Society of St. Pius X.
The Society of St. Pius X having received its official approval on November 1, 1970 by the local bishop, Bishop Adam Nestor, and then by the Congregation of the Clergy of the Vatican, Archbishop Lefebvre acts as the priestly socieyt's first Superior General.
Until, in view of his imminent death, he consecrates successors, Archbishop Lefebvre does all he can to be faithful to the grace of his episcopacy, traveling the world to encourage Catholics to hold fast to the faith and traditions of their fathers, confirming their young and ordaining for them priests.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre passes before his Eternal Judge.
The SSPX is canonically founded.
The irregular commission writes Bishop Mamie at Fribourg telling him to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the Society, which is beyond his canonical power (once the bishop has approved a religious congregation, only the pope can suppress it: 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 493 and 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 616).
...it would be for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to determine whether my Declaration were at fault. Please provide evidence that this commission of cardinals had been expressly mandated by the pope (who by his own authority can bypass the Congregations) to decide as has been done.* And if I be at fault, of course I can be censured, but not the Society which was founded in due canonical form."
Was Archbishop Lefebvre legitimately suspended from exercising his ministry as a bishop and superior general of the SSPX?
Rome has always, at least tacitly recognized the SSPX’s legitimate continuation and the nullity of these suspensions: for example, in December 1987, Cardinal Gagnon did not hesitate to attend as a prelate the Pontifical Mass of “suspended” Archbishop Lefebvre.
November 11, 1974: An apostolic visitation is made to the Society's seminary in Econe, during which the visitors express several seriously problematic opinions (e.g., the evolution of truth and dogma).
November 21, 1974: Archbishop Lefebvre writes his Declaration declaring his adherence to Eternal Rome and rejecting the "the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies"*.
February 13-March 3, 1975: The archbishop meets with an improvised commission of three cardinals, ostensibly to discuss the apostolic visitation. This meeting takes a hostile turn, and the cardinals condemn his Declaration as “unacceptable on all points.” Being unaware of the hostility towards his "Declaration" prior to this meeting, he does not have a lawyer present. Though promised, Lefebvre never receives a copy of the recorded meetings.
May 6, 1975: The aforementioned irregular commission writes Bishop Mamie at Fribourg telling him to withdraw his predecessor’s approval of the Society, which is beyond his canonical power (once a bishop has approved a religious congregation, only the pope can suppress it: 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 493 and 1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 616).
Meanwhile, Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State, forces Cardinal Staffa, Prefect of the Supreme Apostolic Signature (the highest ecclesiastical tribunal) to refuse the archbishop’s canonical appeal for an ecclesiastical trial of his case, under threat of dismissal.
October 27, 1975: Cardinal Villot writes to the hierarchies of the world informing them to no longer incardinate** any priests from the SSPX, as it has been suppressed.
June 12, 1976: Archbishop Benelli writes Archbishop Lefebvre, telling him not to ordain priests without their local bishops’ permission.
June 29, 1976: Archbishop Lefebvre goes ahead with foreseen ordinations.
July 1, 1976: The suspension of Archbishop Lefebvre and his newly ordained priests is declared.
The Church, by approving the SSPX, approved that it have all the ordinary means to lead its religious life and fulfill its aim. This is a fundamental consideration when taking into consideration the nullity of its suppression.
A brief examination into the legality of the actions (retracting the ability to incardinate members and the declared suspensions) taken against Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society will show that these proceedings were not canonical, and had no foundation. Rome has always tacitly recognized the SSPX’s legitimate continuation and the nullity of the suspensions: for example, in December 1987, Cardinal Gagnon did not hesitate to attend as a prelate the Pontifical Mass of “suspended” Archbishop Lefebvre, in May 1988. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, before his election to the pontificate, in talks with the Society also agreed to the principle of having a bishop consecrated from among the Society’s priests.
In the three weeks before the ordinations to be held on June 29, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre was approached by Rome as many as six times with the request that he establish normal relations with the Vatican and that he give proof of this by saying a Mass according to the new rite. He was told that if the ordination Mass on the 29th would be with the Missal of Pope Paul VI, then all opposition would be smoothed over, despite the recent actions that had been taken by Cardinal Villot and Archbishop Benelli regarding the Society's right to incardinate.
Herein we see most clearly the one fundamental reason for the campaign against Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society: exclusive adhesion to the old Mass and refusal to say the new.
But even if these censures were unjust, shouldn't they be observed?
If only the one incurring them were to suffer, then yes, that is the more perfect way to act.
If however there is a question of depriving innumerable souls of the graces they need for salvation, then the greater good may demand that the unjust censures be disobeyed.
*By this, the archbishop meant the clergy in Rome who were demonstrating infidelity to the tradition of the Church, not the Church and papacy as an entity since Vatican II, a position taken by many in the sedevacantist and other movements, of which the Archbishop, and the Society since his death, have wholeheartedly disapproved.
**After Cardinal Wright wrote his letter of praise on February 18, 1971, giving Rome's permission to the foundation of the Society, the archbishop wrote to the Congregation for the Clergy seeking permission to directly incardinate religious priests into the Society. This was granted and furthermore, Bishop Adam (of Sion, Switzerland), considering that the Society was of international status, generalized this procedure (cf. The Angelus, April 1987, p. 3 and Fideliter, no. 55, p. 3ff.).
What should Catholics think of Vatican II?
The Second Vatican Council was a meeting of the world’s bishops for four sessions between October 11, 1962 and December 8, 1965.
thus appealing to all peoples (this Council was to be ecumenical, not only in the sense of being a general council of the Church, but also in that of appealing to the religiosity of all people of whatever religion).
and one-sidedly (so as to attract non-Catholics).
When discussing the Mass, the liturgy of the word is stressed (Sacrosanctum Concilium, §9), and the banquet aspect (§10), as well as active participation (§§11,14), and therefore the vernacular (§§36,54). The New Mass (cf. question 5).
Catholics should pray with Protestants (Unitatis Redintegratio, §§4,8). Eucharistic hospitality (cf. question 8).
The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church (Lumen Gentium, §8), It is also in “separated Churches” (Ut Unum Sint, §11)..
which has separated brethren in separated "Churches" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §3), All the baptized are in Christ's Church (Ut Unum Sint, §42).
which ought to be as sisters (Unitatis Redintegratio, §14). And so there is no need to convert, for example, the Orthodox.
Seminarians should take into account modern philosophy, progress in science (Optatam Totius, §15), Abandonment of Thomism, adoption of secular studies.
psychology, and sociology (§20). Open spirituality and subjective morality.
Marriage and married love equated (Gaudium et Spes, §§48,50). Annulments fiasco (cf. question 8).
The Church renounces privileges civil authorities grant her (§76).
Catholic religion no longer to be the religion of any States.
Wish for a world authority (§82). Full support for UN.
Rite and formula of penance are to be revised (Sacrosanctum Concilium §72). Face to face confessions and general absolutions.
Extreme Unction should be an Anointing of the Sick (§§73,75). New matter, form and subject (i.e.,the sick, not just those in danger of death).
1 How Rome's guidelines are further interpreted as seen in the parishes is a whole other story.
2 The documents of Vatican II are referred to by their introductory Latin words, or by the initials of these.
3 Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II, May 25, 1995.Cf., The Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which forbade mutual "proselytizing." Balamand Treaty, Lebanon, June 17-24, 1993.
and "all things on earth should be ordained to man" (§12). ...to help him save his soul.
and because of "sublime dignity of the human person" (§26), Only he who lives well is worthy (Apoc. 3:4).
his "rights and duties are universal and inviolate" (§26); including: He who buries his talent will be stripped of it.
"...all men should be immune from coercion on the part of ...every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his convictions..." (§2), Contrary condemned statement: "...the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining... offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands" (Pius IX, Quanta Cura).
"...the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using (separated churches) as means of salvation" (Unitatis Redintegratio, §3), and so, principle 2.
"ecumenical action should be encouraged so that ... Catholics might cooperate with their separated brethren ...by a common profession before the nations of faith in God and in Jesus Christ..." (Ad Gentes, §115). principle 7.
Why, even concerning non-Christian religions: "The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is good and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct..." (Nostra Aetate, §2), "All the gods of the Gentiles are devils." Ps. 95. "... beware lest thou have a mind to imitate the abominations of those nations" (Dt. 18:9).
"Now, episcopal consecration confers, together with the office of sanctifying, the duty also of teaching and ruling..." (§21). "This (episcopal) dignity, in fact, depends immediately on God as to the power of orders, and on the Apostolic See as to the power of jurisdiction..." (Deesemus Nos, Pius VI).
The Council itself both encouraged liberal trends (and its encouragement became post-conciliar Vatican policy) and departed from traditional Catholic teaching, but it has no authority for either (principle 5).
But wasn't the Council infallible?
Nor by reason of the ordinary universal magisterium, because this is not a defining power, but one of passing on what was always believed. The “universality” in question is not just one of place (all bishops) but also of time (always) (cf. Vatican I and principle 6).
Nor even by reason of the simply authentic magisterium, because the object of all magisterium is the deposit of faith to be guarded sacredly and expounded faithfully (Vatican I, Denzinger 1836), and not to adopt as Catholic doctrine the “best expressed values of two centuries of ‘liberal culture,’” even if they are “purified” (Cardinal Ratzinger, Gesu, November 1984, p. 72; cf. Gaudium et Spes, §§11, 44).
But shouldn't we follow the pope?
The question of our attitude towards the pope is a delicate one, especially since there is much confusion amongst Catholics concerning this question.
The last 50 years have made this question more important than usual since we have witnessed the introduction of various theories and practices, often by the popes themselves, that run counter to the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church.
There seem to be two errors common in these turbulent times. The first temptation is to presume to judge the Holy Father of being a formal heretic, a situation which would, according to them, cause the apparent pope to be an anti-pope, possessing no true jurisdiction. Although this has been put forward as a theoretical possibility by some theologians historically, such a theory cannot explain what happens to such doctrines as the visibility of the Church, or Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the end of time. Such a simplistic notion is actually based on the same premise as the opposite temptation: that the pope is actually protected by an extended infallibility which cannot account for any error.
The opposite error is far more common and assumes that whatever the pope does or teaches is correct. This is perhaps understandable since, in normal times, this is in actuality what happens. But one must distinguish: history is replete with examples of popes who taught or did things which were not proper. As an example, Pope Liberius signed some form of a semi-Arian document, and Pope John XXII temporarily taught that the souls of the saved do not see God until after the Final Judgment. Some Renaissance popes led lives of dubious morality. In all these cases, though wrong, papal infallibility was not involved.
The pope is infallible primarily in matters of faith and morals, and secondarily in matters of discipline (legislation for the Universal Church, canonizations, etc.) to the extent that these involve faith and morals (cf. principle 4), and then only when imposing for all time a definitive teaching. Indeed, if the pope had some form of personal infallibility with regard to his ordinary teaching, there would be no need for a definition of its limits.
How then are we to judge him?
It is not for us to judge his culpability in the destruction of the Church. Only God can so judge him.
Nor is it for us to judge him juridically—the pope has no superior on earth—or to declare unquestionably null all his acts.
No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church’s Magisterium for 19 centuries."
1 By such men as Cajetan, St. Robert Bellarmine, and John of St. Thomas. There are different levels of theological certainty. Among these levels we might count revealed dogmas, which all Catholics must believe; teachings proximate to the Faith, which, though not defined, are generally regarded as true, and theological opinions, which the Church has not definitively settled and about which theologians disagree.
and the further welfare of the Christian people.
Should we accept the 1983 Code of Canon Law?
A code is a collection of laws, each one being an order of the competent authority: each canon in the 1917 Code of Canon Law was a law of Benedict XV, and each canon in the 1983 Code of Canon Law (commonly called the "New Code") is a law of Pope John Paul II.
For Pope John Paul II, the purpose of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is the expression of the Second Vatican Council’s new ecclesiology (i.e., the new understanding that the Church has of her nature and mission) in canonical language, and it must be understood always in the light of conciliar teaching (Sacra Disciplinae Leges, January 25, 1983).
We must, therefore, suspect the new legislation of codifying the same errors and so be ready not to accept all its “laws,” [principle 9] but only those which do not evidently compromise Catholic teaching on faith or morals. For the most part, we may regret the loss of clarity, precision and integrity the 1917 Code of Canon Law had, but that is insufficient reason to reject these canons.
Canon 844, §4 allows the administration of penance, anointing of the sick, and even holy communion to non-Catholics who manifest “Catholic faith” (vs. principle 7) in these sacraments.This used to be considered a mortal sin and was gravely forbidden (1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 731, §21) because it implicitly denies the dogma, “Outside the Church, no salvation” (principle 2).
Canon 1055, §1 no longer defines marriage by its primary end, the procreation of children, but mentions this only after a secondary end, the good of the spouses. And this latter, as we can see in the light of annulments now given, has become the essence of marriage [vs. principles 5 & 6]: the partners give each other their whole selves (and not just “the exclusive and perpetual right over the body of the partner as regards the acts capable in themselves of generating offspring,” 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 1081, §2) for their self-fulfillment in wedlock (canon 1057, §2).
There is considered to be no marriage where one spouse cannot provide the other this help (canon 1095, 20 and 30, canon 1098, etc., cf. canon 1063, 40). Whence today’s annulments’ fiasco: in the United States, for example, there were 338 annulments granted in 1968; there were 59,030 in 1992.
It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of the flock of Christ entrusted to them..."
general absolutions are more readily available (canons 961-963, etc.).
In passing, it is interesting to note that for Pope John Paul II the 1983 Code of Canon Law had less weight than a conciliar constitution.
Do the priests of the Society of St. Pius X possess faculties to validly and licitly administer the sacraments? How does supplied jurisdiction apply to them in the context of the post-conciliar crisis?
In virtue of his ordination, a priest can bless all things and even consecrate bread and wine in such wise that they become the very Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But whenever in his ministry he has to deal authoritatively with people, he needs, over and above the power of Holy Orders, that of Jurisdiction, which empowers him to judge and rule his flock. Jurisdiction is, moreover, necessary for the validity itself of the sacraments of penance and matrimony.
The sacraments were given by Our Lord as the ordinary and principal means of salvation and sanctification. The Church, therefore, whose supreme law is the salvation of souls (1983 Code of Canon Law, canon 1752), wants the ready availability of these sacraments, and especially penance (canon 968). The Church wants priests (canon 1026) and empowers them liberally to hear confessions (canon 967, §2). This jurisdiction to hear confessions is to be revoked only for a grave reason (canon 974, §1).
The nature of the present crisis in the Church is such that the faithful can on good grounds feel it a moral impossibility to approach priests having ordinary jurisdiction. And so, whenever the faithful need the graces of penance and want to receive them from priests whose judgment and advice they can trust, they can do so, even if the priests do not ordinarily have jurisdiction. Even a suspended priest can do this for the faithful who ask: “for any just cause whatsoever” (canon 1335). This is even more the case if a faithful Catholic can foresee his being deprived of the true sacrament of penance from priests with ordinary jurisdiction until he dies. Only God knows when this crisis will end.
The extraordinary form for marriages is foreseen in canon 1116, §1. If the couple cannot approach their parish priest “without serious inconvenience”—and they may consider as such his insistence on having the Novus Ordo Missae for the wedding, or their apprehensions concerning his moral teaching in marriage instructions—and if they foresee these circumstances to last for at least a month, then they can marry before witnesses alone, and another priest (e.g., of the SSPX) if possible (canon 1116, §2).
Even if one were to consider the above arguments as only probable, then jurisdiction would still be certainly supplied by the Church (canon 144). Therefore, we answer that these traditional priests do have jurisdiction, that is neither territorial nor ordinary, but supplied in view of the needs of the faithful.
Should we attend diocesan Latin Masses?
Pope Benedict XVI's motu proprio, Summorum Pontificum, has changed the juridical situation of the Mass. Until recently, the traditional Mass was presented as being prohibited and allowed only under an indult, that is, a special, exceptional permission joined with special conditions.
The conditions attached to the celebration of the traditional Mass under the Indult were two-fold: the recognition of the orthodoxy and legitimacy of the New Mass and the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council's decisions and reforms.
Pope Benedict XVI changed the juridical situation of the Mass stating that the traditional Mass has never been abrogated. Thanks to this statement, the Mass has been reestablished as a universal law of the Church and can no longer be considered as prohibited or even as an exception: unfortunately, the expression "extraordinary form" used in the motu propio is misleading.
Nevertheless, the practical situation of the Mass, due to the attitude of the majority of the bishops has hardly changed from the previous state. Practically speaking, the bishops continue to limit the celebration of the traditional Mass by seeking to grant a permission which is no longer necessary, oftentimes in addition to other arbitrary conditions.
In other words, for the time being, there is in general hardly a difference from the previous situation with the Indult Mass, though in certain particular places there might be a better treatment for the Mass, the priests and the faithful. This obliges us to invite the faithful to the same prudence as before about attending the Indult Mass.
We hope that this situation will gradually change and that the reasons which oblige us today to be very restrictive will little by little disappear, in a process of gradually recovering the reality of the sacrifice, the reality of the priesthood and the whole Christian spirit. But for now this is only a wish and a dream, apart from some exceptions.
and there is the danger of a confusion which could be very misleading.
In doubt, the faithful should ask their pastors for advice.
The Society of St. Pius X has always recognized and adhered to the authority of the pope, and, as noted by prominent Roman authorities (e.g., Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos), the SSPX is not schismatic.
A first argument to this is given under the heading: Wasn't Archbishop Lefebvre Excommunicated?
Weren't several laypeople excommunicated in Hawaii for attending an SSPX mass?
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Roman Mass.
Within two days of the consecrations however, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what was being refused the archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “token of good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).
to profess itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian”, and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).
2. In practice, the priests of the Fraternity must have recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates. They reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Roman Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged to them by the pope. Note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church (question 14), acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy (question 6).
in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
What are we to think of the New Catechism?
This question illustrates the fundamental differences between the SSPX and the Conciliar “traditionalists” or conservatives. These latter are often seen defending both the traditional Roman Mass and the “new” Catechism but not openly attacking either the Novus Ordo Missae or Vatican II.
The SSPX on the other hand defends the traditional catechisms and therefore the traditional Mass, and so attacks the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II and the “new” Catechism, all of which more or less undermine our unchangeable Catholic faith.
One need but consider the 806 citations from Vatican II, a number which amounts on average to one citation every three-and-a-half paragraphs throughout the 2,865 paragraphs of the Catechism.
over-emphasis on the priesthood of the faithful (§§873; 1547; 1140ff, etc.).
Now, just as he who denies but one article of Faith loses the Faith [principle 7], so a teacher who errs on one point alone proves himself fallible, and, renders all he teaches questionable.
Just as the Second Vatican Council is not an authority to quote even where it propounds Catholic teaching (it does not do so infallibly and clearly), so this Catechism is not an authority of Catholic belief because of the modern deviations which it encompasses. Hence, those who defend this Catechism are supporting the innovations of Vatican II.
Please visit our list of articles. You can look for the topics which are closer to your question among all articles already published.
We apologize for the presentation of these articles. They are still hosted in our old website and we are working to offer them to you soon in an improved environment.

References: §9
 §8
 §11
 §3
 §42
 §14
 §15
 §72
 §3
 §115
 §2
 §4
 §21
 §1
 §2
 §2
 §2
 §1
 §1
 §2
 §15
 §3