Lefebvrism OR What Hath The Smith Wrought?

Lefebvrism, Or The Heresies of Marcel Lefebvre: What Hath The Smith Wrought?

©Lúcío Mascarenhas, [Copyright Terms & Conditions].

H.H. Pope Michael I

 

PUBLISHED on the Internet: August 18, 2022 Feast of St. Agapitus of Palestrina, Empress St. Helena, St John of Rila, the Holy Martyrs of Utica also celebrated as the "White Company" (Massa Candida), St. Aimus Taparelli, Saints Hermas, Serapion, and Polyaenus, St. Macarius Christopher, St. Ferminus of Metz, St. Ronan of Iona, St. Daig MacCairill of Iniskin, Saints Floridus, Laurus, Proculus, and Maximus, Saints John and Crispus, St. Leonard of Cava, St. Milo of Fontenelle, St. Raynald of Ravenna, St. Gaspar of Salamanca, St. Paula Montaldi, St. Anthony Bannassat and others. Deo sit gloria!

Previous versions: Sept. 24, 2005, consolidated from documents published April 12, 2002; April 2003; Sept. 2004.

The first or topmost document, titled "Deathknell," embedded in this webpage, was first written by me about four years ago or so, from memory, on Facebook, in response to a Lefebvrist; it was my first introduction to the text from Marcel Lefebvre that it critiques. I was shortly hereafter banned from Facebook, as far as I can recall, one of several exiles from Facebook.

Lúcío Mascarenhas.

Introduction: Who Was Marcel Lefebvre?

Marcel Lefebvre was a Frenchman, and a missionary of the Society of the Holy Ghost in Africa. During the "Vatican II" Latrocinium, he became one of the founder-leaders of the Conservatives — the Coitus Patri Internationale. Later, when in retirement, he was requested by some seminarians to take them under his wings, as they were disillusioned by the Roncallite "Reformation." Thus was born the Society of Pope Saint Pius the 10th..

The name "Lefebvre" is a contraction of "Le Fevre," meaning, "the worker," "the Smith," "the Wright." The original Latin is "Faber," from which word we get "Fabric," etc.

The SSPX has always baffled the Catholic Resistance: Are they with us, or are they not?

The Lefebvrists accept the apostate Liberal Protestant / Roman Protestant / Modernist & Apostate sect's Heresiarch cum Antipopes as their "popes," but do not obey them, and actively disobey them, so much so that they have been "excommunicated" by that sect's Heresiarch cum Antipope Karol "Lying Pole" Wojtyla AKA "John-Paul II," now Damned in Hell for all eternity. Nevertheless, while they freely expose his heresies and apostasy from the Christian religion, they continue in accepting him as "a true pope" and reject all those who reject him.

In Catholic law, when a person follows a person who is "at least a schismatic," even if he does not assent to his heresies, he also becomes "at least a schismatic." Therefore, in Catholic law, the Lefebvrists, in accepting the Apostate, Heretic, Schismatic Karol "Lying Pole" Wojtyla as their "pope," thereby constitute themselves as being "at least schismatics."

(The following is / was my personal speculative understanding of Catholic Theology. I realise now that the Church has not, to the best of my knowledge, spoken on the subject of "Papal Indefectibility.")

But this is not all. Catholicism teaches that all men, including the pope, have free will and so can defect from the faith, becoming heretics. The Lefebvrists, while themselves exposing Karol Wojtyla's heresies and therefore schism, nevertheless adhere to him, thereby implicitly confessing (what I consider to be) the heresy of Papal Indefectibility — "that a man who is pope cannot defect from the faith."

Document #1

The Deathknell Of Lefebvrism, Of The Heresies Of Marcel Lefebvre And Of His Sects Or Cults

Marcel Lefebvre's July 29 1976 Statement In Response to the "Suspension 'A Divinis,''" is a curious document, to say the least.

He was "suspended" July 22.

On July 29, he ordained priests.

There are two statements from that date, July 29. One is the Homily of July 29. The other is his response to the purported "Suspension 'A Divinis.'"

Compare these two texts:

«The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).» — Pope Leo XIII, EncyclicalSatis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.

"That the Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive.

"This Conciliar Church is schismatic, because it has taken as a basis for its updating, principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church, such as the new concept of the Mass expressed in numbers 5 of the Preface to (the decree) Missale Romanum and 7 of its first chapter, which gives the assembly a priestly role that it cannot exercise; such likewise as the natural — which is to say divine — right of every person and of every group of persons to religious freedom.

"This right to religious freedom is blasphemous, for it attributes to God purposes that destroy His Majesty, His Glory, His Kingship. This right implies freedom of conscience, freedom of thought, and all the Masonic freedoms.

"The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church." — Marcel Lefebvre, July 29, 1976, Statement In Response to the "Suspension A Divinis of July 22, 1976.

Let us bore down further, deeper, isolating the operative excerpts:

«The practice of the Church has always been the same: To hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.» — Pope Leo XIII, EncyclicalSatis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.

«To whatever extent Pope, bishops, priests or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.» —Marcel Lefebvre, July 29, 1976, Statement In Response to the "Suspension A Divinis of July 22, 1976.

We know that Marcel Lefebvre tenaciously, even tendentiously, "clung" to the Heresy that the Public and Manifest Apostates occupying the Vatican since October 1958, are "Catholic Popes," must be accepted and acknowledged as such, or else he would break with any who rejected this his Heresy.

The above two statements, are diametrically opposites. Pope Leo XIII teaches that any one who (Publicly and Manifestly) recedes from the integrity of the Catholic faith in "in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium," has CEASED to be Catholic.

On the Contrary, Marcel Lefebvre teaches a nebulous, ongoing, indefinite Process of Separation, that is not a definitive break, not an abrupt and immediate cessation of one's Catholicness as taught by Pope Leo XIII!

The difference, indeed opposition, and mutual exclusionary position of these two statements of faith and position, cannot be more obvious!

Therefore, the only meaning that we can put to his words above are that, DESPITE these Apostates diverging widely, immensely, from Catholicism, they still remained "Catholic Popes," a position flatly in contradiction with Satis Cognitum!

My Question is: Why did he reply July 29? For me, it is a burning question.

On June 29, 1896, Pope Leo XIII released his Encyclical "Satis cognitum."

On July 29, 1976, precisely 80 years and 1 month later, Lefebvre released his "Response to the Suspension."

Look at the two documents.

I am familiar, extremely familiar, with the main operative excerpt from Satis Cognitum. It is burned into my brain.

Lefebvre's "Response to his purported Suspension," is a word to word rejection of Satis Cognitum.

I have aways, from the start of my journey, intuited, smelled, the stench of heresy in Lefebvrism, which is why I refused to associate with the cult of Lefebvrism or attend their "chapels" in Bombay. Something was not right, but I never could put my finger to the precise thing. Yes, I knew that, in "accepting" the Roman Protestant Antipopes, they were heretics. However, there is something more to the aura of the Lefebvrist cult.

Here we have the concrete proof.

I had long wondered if Lefebvre was not infected with Gallicanism and Jansenism. I long suspected it but I didn't have the proof. I had long wondered at the reason that Lefebvre rejected "Cum ex Apostolatus officio" and instead insisted on a pigheaded innovation of "Recognize & Resist."

I am now absolutely sure that Lefebvre was never an orthodox Catholic but that he was a Gallican.

This open defiant contradiction of Satis Cognitum kills all doubts.

Document #2

Caught Between Two Different & Opposite Charges Of Schism

The Lefebvrists plaintively say that they are caught between two different and opposite charges of Schism: One from their "Popes" and from the Novus Ordo sect, the other from us Catholics.

Well, YOU made your bed; you can sleep in it!

Marcel Lefebvre and his Lefebvrist sects have made a deliberate decision to reject the sempiternal orthodox Catholicism and to embrace heresy, the heresy of "Sede impedita," of "Sedeprivationism," of falsely "Recognizing" the foreign, alien intruders and predators, the wolves of Modernism, the Vicars of Satan, as Vicars of Christ, as Catholic Popes, thus attacking Catholic souls, destroying and devoring their prey, while at the same time, "Resisting" these wolves, attacking and exposing these wolves as wolves, not shepherd's, tearing off their masks.

Marcel Lefebvre and his Lefebvrist sects have made a deliberate decision to "run with the hares" of Catholicism, and to "hunt with the hounds," or rather wolves, of Modernism, of Roman Protestantism.

Why should you then cry when Catholics attack you for what you are: Enemies, Enemy agents, provocateurs, saboteurs, seducers?

What concern is it of ours, your internal affairs, between you and your masters, the wolves, who you own as your masters, that they cudgel and ill-treat you and yet you slink back to them? Enjoy!

Document #3

Adversus Hæreses: Contra Lefebvrismum

The following text was written in response to two Apologies tendered in favour of Lefebvrism in reply to my posts denouncing Lefebvrism as a Schism and as being heretical, on the "Traditionalist Catholics' Club Discussion List."

In this article, I merely intend to refute the arguments made in defence of Lefebvrism in these two apologias.

No offense is intended to any particular person; any offensiveness is purely incidental and not intended personally.

In reading the two apologies, one notices that, for people who are vaunted as lovers of the Church and her tradition, they are remarkably ignorant and poorly informed of Church Teachings, history, precedents, etc. That is something that always makes me suspicious, for the first thing I did was to seek information on Church teaching on these topics, and I found it. I read a considerable quantity of Lefevrist and Sedevacantist literature on the subject, I ransacked my parish library and went at least once a week to the Diocesan Pastoral Center at Kane Road, Bandra, Bombay, to read books in the library — both pre-Vatican II and post. The late Fr. William Astbury, S.J., at St. Peter's Church, Bandra, helped me much and allowed me access to the "Original" or 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia volumes there. I purchased pre- and post- "Vatican II" books at the St. Paul's Press, Bandra and at the Examiner Press, Fort, Bombay. I found a wealth of information. And it should be obvious that Bombay is an intellectual backwater, not exactly integrated with the rest of the world, this being one of those 'Third World Countries' that always are whining about being undeveloped, but which sedulously shirk actual development.

The second thing that one notices about these defences is their recourse to Emotionalism over cold reason. Not something that speaks well of the apologist or of his cause, does it?

OBJECTION:

"The culpability of the person occupying St. Peter's Chair is for God to decide and is not for us.

"According to Church Law, only a Pope can judge another Pope.

"Also the School of Cardinals are authorised to appeal to the Pope to correct his actions.

"But today we see this will not happen."

My Reply:

As Catholics, we are bound by Church Teachings. And that teaches us that, in the External Forum, we can and must discern the actions and culpabilities of persons and their acts of commission and omission, and act accordingly. We are forbidden from judging in the internal forum, where only God can and does judge.

Imagine if St. Paul had thought along these lines: "Oh, I can see that brother Peter is doing wrong, alright, when he stopped dining with Gentile Christians. But since only God can judge and since I do not know what is actually going on in Peter's mind, I cannot do anything about it." History, and the Bible would probably be different today!

That 'only a Pope can judge a Pope' is true only of formal judgement in the external forum.

But let us take this extraordinary argument to its logical conclusions.

At one time, there were even three or four men claiming to be the true pope, all at the same time. Now since we cannot judge the pope, we must necessarily accept and acknowledge all three or four of them as popes, for only a pope can judge a pope, and we cannot.

If we could, we could judge who is true pope and who is not — precisely what we are told we cannot do in this day and time, arbitrarily, with regards to Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyla, Ratfinger and Borgoglu.

And going further on this road: Today, there are something like twenty-five or more men claiming to be the true pope, including some half a dozen 'Pope Peters II.' And since we cannot judge who is and who is not, we must necessarily accept each and every one of them as being legitimate pope. Have I got that right?

Remember, some of them have got a better moral standing in the eyes of the Catholic Church than Karol Wojtyla. So, if we must follow this idea, we must necessarily accept not just the Clownarch Wojtyla, but this whole bunch of papal claimants!

OBJECTION:

"How can there be no Visible Head for the Church?

"Where will the New Pope come from in the future?

"Which Cardinals will elect him?

"Which Bishops will become Cardinals?

"Who will appoint them as Cardinals?

"What authority will such a group have?

"Does Our Lord want us to tinker about like this?

"Will such a tinkered outfit have any Apostolic Succession or Traditional Legitimacy?

"Sedevacantism will end up as a Schism, putting people Outside the Arc of Salvation.

It has already done so!"

My Reply:

When I first realized in 1993 that the 'crisis' in the Church was no crisis at all, but stage-managed, created, cultivated and sedulously maintained by Roncalli and company, continuing then under the Clownarch Karol Wojtyla, I faced this same dilemma. So I studied.

Now one of the most remarkable and easily accessible sources of Catholic teaching is the multi-volume "Original" or 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia, and I literally went through the books one by one.

Today, I am aware that this "Original," 1907 Catholic Encyclopaedia is also available on the net, at the Novusordinarian website "New Advent.

In the "Original" or 1907 Catholic Encyclopaedia, I found articles, principally, on the Election of the Popes, Papal Elections, the Council of Constance; the three articles which give the relevant information on Church Teaching as applicable to our times and situations.

Now this is in itself a large topic which I cannot cover here and in short. Therefore I refer readers to access these articles for themselves.

However, as an relevant subject, I would suggest that readers look up the subject of Conclavism, a movement thrown up by Catholics in response to, and in application of, these Church Teachings.

Conclavism follows the logical course that makes one, first of all, a Sedevacantist. It follows the logical course to seek the election of a pope by the ALTERNATIVE means taught and practiced in over a dozen times, possibly more than 2 dozen times, by the Church, its theologians, doctors, confessors, popes, etc. over the ages (See the above referenced entries in the Catholic Encyclopaedia, 1907).

The ignorance that exists in Lefebvrist (and "Traditionalist Catholic") circles is extraordinary, surprising, breathtaking. And, also, obviously, very obviously, deliberate.

OBJECTION:

"It is good to remember that Our Lord appointed St. Peter as Pope before His Passion.

"Our Lord Jesus knew that St. Peter would disown Him in the future and still ordained him as the first Pope.

"Then our Lord prayed for the Pope:

"Peter, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." (Lk. xxii:32)

"Our Lord asks St. Peter to confirm his brethren inspite of his impending fall, for St. Peter was the Pope.

"St. John who witnessed the fall of the first Pope also didn't disown St. Peter!!"

My Reply:

I would like to see Church pronouncement on this claim that Peter was constituted Pope at the time when our Lord made His promise to him, at Matt. xvi:18.

I, for myself, going merely by the grammatical understanding of the text believe otherwise.

Our Lord said, "I will," or "I shall" and it is distortion to pretend that by this, He actually did it at the very moment He pronounced these words of promise.

But my understanding — and I think that it is Church Teaching — is that Peter actually received his office only at the moment of his formal restoration to Divine Favour, when our Lord, post-Resurrection, after asking him, "Peter, lovest thou me?" and procuring the response, "Thou knowest that I lovest Thee," said, "Feed my sheep," "Feed my lambs," "Feed my sheep."

OBJECTION:

"At Fatima our Holy Mother repeatedly asked us to "Pray for the Pope."

"Did we listen to Her?

"Have we obeyed Her atleast now?

"Did She not know that all these Calamities will befall the Church in our times? Yes.

"SHE knew everything and predicted every thing for us and still She said, "Pray for the Pope" (SSPX prays for the Pope in every Holy Mass).

"She did not ask us to fabricate a Pope!"

My Reply:

I do not know from where this thing about our Lady 'knowing' or 'predicting everything for us' comes from.

As a Catholic, I know that Mother Mary is a Mere Creature, not God, that she is a Saint; I know that she is the greatest of all Saints, and the Mother of Jesus Christ, and by Him, made my Mother, Mother of All True and Believing Christians (which excludes all heretics); but very certainly, she is NOT "Almighty God," she is NOT "Omniscient."

And I, from a purely Catholic viewpoint, give prominence and supremacy to Holy Public Revelation, subordinating any and all Private Revelation to it.

But, now, if we accept this argument, we must posit that at Fatima, our Lady promulgated a New Revelation that abrogated and superseded that given previously and which ended with the last Apostle.

Echoes of Vatican II, which also pretends to be a "NEW PENTECOST," a "NEW ADVENT," instituting a "NEW DOCTRINE," a "NEW GOSPEL," a "NEW CHURCH," eh?

The remark, 'She did not ask us to fabricate a Pope' is purely an insult and has its basis in nothing more than sheer and a deliberate, sedulously cultivated ignorance of Catholic Teachings as expressed down the ages.

It is not those who choose to be faithful to, and act in strict accordance with, the declared and unobfuscated teachings and practices of the Church and her theologians and doctors and confessors and popes down the ages, who are "fabricating" unto themselves a pope, but it is the Lefebvrists who, in desperately seeking to portray a spiritual vampire as a legitimate pope, who are fabricating and passing off a Counterfeit, a Fraud, as "Catholic Pope;" it is the Lefebvrists who make men, who are as capable of becoming Catholic Pope as the "Dalai Lama," or the "Aga Khan," are capable of becoming Catholic Popes, as being "Catholic Popes"!

During the"Great Western Schism," when there were 3 different lineages of men claiming to be Catholic Pope, the Roman, Avignonese and Pisan lineages, did the "Council of Constance" "fabricate a Pope" in Pope Martin V?

Do the Lefebvrists reject the line of Popes from Constance, from Martin V to Pius XII, including Pope St Pius X?

Were all these Popes from Martin V to Pius XII, "fabricated Popes"?

If not, why not?

Why was it legitimate for priests and clerics and universitymen and laymen to assemble a Congress, for that is what the "Ecumenical Council of Constance" was, in fact, and not a classical Ecumenical Council. Why was it legitimate for that "Ecumenical Council of Constance" to "depose" the three Papal Claimants, and to "fabricate" Pope Martin V?

Why is it illegitimate for us, in the face of the greatest threat to Christianity since Arianism, to do as did the "Ecumenical Council of Constance" did, or the electors of Pope Innocent II in opposition to Anacletus II Pierleone, and countless other "extraordinary elections" did, in actualising the truth that the Church of Christ is a Perfect Society, indwelt by the Living God in the Holy Ghost, and capable therefore of acting extraordinarily to supply itself it's head?

The Catholic Church has acted in an extraordinary manner in more than a dozen instances, possibly more than 2 dozen instances, in its 2000 years of history, to supply itself it's head, the Pope, but now, magically, these self-styled "stalwarts" and "super-champions" of Catholicism, these Gallicans and Jansenists, have unilaterally and without authority, on their own non-existent authority, innovated to forbid us from doing what we have done a dozen times, or more, in our past, but command us to instead subject ourselves to the tender mercies of Satan and his minions, command us "as from God" to make the Stainless Bride of Christ into Satan's whore?!

Wow, what unspeakable "piety" is this!

St. Francis of Sales wrote: "Of the enemies of God and His Church we must speak openly, since in charity we are bound to give the alarm whenever the wolf is found among the sheep." Indeed. Amen! Cry out without ceasing against Marcel Lefebvre, against the Lefebvrists, against Guerard des Lauriers and his Sedeprivationists, these Gallicans and Jansenists in a new, bad, disguise, against the Modernists and their Heresiarchs cum Antipopes, against the Crackmatics who are Devilworshippers, cry out against all these bad faith actors, wolves in sheepskin, insinuating themselves into the Sheepfold of the Lord, cry out against these wolves!

He who doesn't cry out against the wolf when he plainly sees the wolf preying upon and devoting the Lord's Sheep, bought, redeemed, not by gold and silver or by precious stones but by the priceless blood of the Divine Lamb, such a one is a culprit, a partner of the wolves! Make no mistake about it!

Who were the "Cardinals" that elected Pope Martin V? Who made them "Cardinals"? What was the legitimacy of this group of men pretending to be the "Ecumenical Council of Constance"?

What, or where, was the Apostolic Succession and Legitimacy of the Popes from Martin V to Pius XII?

Was Our Lady at Fatima asking this "fabricated" lineage of Popes, from Martin V to Pius XII, to consecrate Russia?

Was Our Lady at Fatima asking us to pray for this "fabricated" lineage of Popes?

Do you see where this malicious absurdity of the Lefebvrists and of the pseudo-"Traditionalist Catholics" leads to?

OBJECTION:

"A Pope is needed to fulfill Her order of Collegial Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, so that today's abominations could be thrown out."

My Reply:

See my answers as above.

OBJECTION:

"The Pope is needed to obey our Lady so that the 'Holy Mass of All Times' is unfettered to facilitate our salvation."

My Reply:

I have already answered this in bulk. However, it remains that Divine Revelation prophecizes that the Holy Mass will be for a time unavailable (Daniel xii). So, how does this jell with that prophecy?

OBJECTION:

"It is the manifestation of the Divine guidance, that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre avoided the Sedevacantist pitfall. The poor souls who unwittingly left the fold on this point must return immediately to this firm ground.

"SSPX, following in the footsteps of Archbishop Lefebvre will not do another Campos, for the SSPX has been selected by Providence to preserve the 'Holy Mass of All Times' and provide for the 'Continuance of the Apostolic Tradition'."

My Reply:

It is bad enough that Lefebvrists should think in this way about their founder, Marcel Lefebvre, it is much worse that they should parrot the same thing in public. This smacks of a cult member's brainwashed mind.

I ask: Taking purely Catholic Teaching for our starting point, what is the basis of such a claim being made, that Marcel Lefebvre or Peter Martin Ngo Dinh Thuc or Guerard des Lauriers or Francis Shuckhardt or Louis de Vezelis or any particular person, for that matter? This transgresses all limits of Catholic thought!

The cultist might rue that some choose to stop playing these mind-charades and start awakening to reality and leave, and they may petulantly demand as much as they desire that all come and join them, but that should not bother us at all, should it?

But the Lefebvrist is so much infected with this cultitis, that he sincerely believes this Lefebvrist bit of presumption and arrogance that the 'SSPX will not do another Campos' and that it has been selected by Providence to preserve the Holy Mass and provide for the perpetuation of Apostolic Tradition.

What can be the basis of this presumptive and arrogant self-conceit, if not presumption and arrogance purely in itself?

As for the Campos Lefebvrists, certainly like the SSSP (Sacerdotal Society of St. Peter) which pioneered this rapprochement with the Antichurch and its clownarch, they too had, prior to their rapprochement, mightily affirmed that they would not do precisely what they have now gone and done.

The Lefebvrists may delude themselves that they are some divine cult with a hotline to God and some fantastic property of absolute INDEFECTIBILITY (When God evidently did NOT vouchsafe the same INDEFECTIBILITY to the Universal Church-at-large, given "Vatican II" & the Modernist Apostasy!), but they are on the same path of self-destruction. And, as is commonsense, it is this cult's arrogance, self-conceit and presumption that will pave the way for its fall!

OBJECTION:

"In a family, if the Head, the elderly father, contracts a sinful, a wasteful, habit and become a slave of that habit, how should his responsible children react?

"Is the matter settled if they all say, "You are no more my Father"?

"Does his Paternity roll-back? Just because they said it, will he cease to be their Father?

"Can he cease to be one even if he wishes?

"We almost have a similar situation with our Holy Father.

"We must accept him to be in the Catholic Church."

My Reply:

Sad, sad. It is very sad that this old, hackneyed and foolish argument, long refuted and consigned to the garbage can, keeps on being pulled out and forced to walk the streets and to seek to deceive souls even now!

But since it is, here goes once again!

We have had bad popes. Some of them really, really bad. Some of them just foolish once in awhile. Like Peter, who dissembled at Antioch when Jewish Christians came from James of Jerusalem. Like numerous popes who had liasions and mistresses, or even worse, committed adultery. Foisted their illegitimate sons on the Church and its patrimony. Or the numerous popes who foisted their nephews on the Church. And so on and on.

Now bad enough as these were, they never did constitute heresy and schism, but only moral wrongs. And so, Catholics were never within their rights to withdraw their allegiance on the ground that the particular pope had committed schism and so was no longer pope.

However, it is a fact that popes did come perilously close to heresy, at times, were rebuked and corrected themselves.

In the clownarchs of the Antichurch, on the contrary, what we have are not immoral Catholics, but incontrovertible public and manifest heretics, indeed Apostates. And Church law is clear on the point that none of these clownarchs had ever legitimately become pope, or could, for that matter, become legitimate Catholic Popes.

Certainly, it is opposite and contrary to Catholic doctrine, teaching and law to force ourselves to accept such a public and manifest heretic as being 'within the Church.' Such is nothing more than a grievous — and deliberate — act of mortal sin and also an act of contumacious schism!

(Think logically: If we must accept this baloney of an "argument," we should "go further," and instead of seeking for successors to Peter, we should seek instead for the successors of Ananias and Caiaphas on the "Chair of Moses," should we not? We don't want to be "unnatural children," do we?)

OBJECTION:

"It's a relief to know that one of us finally has it ALL figured out.

"Tell me, though... by what authority or insight do you judge the state of souls that attend the Lefebvrist Churches, or even the Novus Ordo?

"Where does the accountability lie with those that go to those places? How do you define that?"

My Reply:

The above was stated by the second apologist for Lefebvrism. Now, in reading this second apology, one notices immediately that while the first made emotionalist demands only once or twice, this second apology is shot-through with Emotionalism, pathos....

I will answer by a counter question: It is not we who are innovating, it is you, Lefebvrists, "Sedeprivationists," Acephalists, "Novusordinarians," or rather, Bogusordinarians. Tell us, by what authority in Catholic Theology do you discard, reverse irreversible Catholic theological positions? Search as you might, there are none. No one, not even a Pope, not even a purported "Ecumenical Council," not even "an angel purporting to be from heaven," can validly promulgate a "New Gospel." There is no authority greater than God, no one, not even a Pope, not even a purported "Ecumenical Council," or "an angel purporting to be from heaven," can negate and cancel the First Commandment: "I alone am the Lord your God, you shall know no other gods besides Me!" No one. What part of "No one" do you not understand? What part of the Accursed Latrocinium of "Vatican2" that negates the First Commandment to pretendedly "legitimize" the Pretend-Jews, the Mahomettans, the Hindus, the Protestants and all the other false religions of the world, and their false gods, do you not understand?

God forbade us from judging the soul in the Internal Forum, where only God can read and know hearts, but God positively and urgently commands every faithful soul to judge and to discern truth from error, good from bad!

So, YOU tell me: By what authority do you positively command Communion with Heretics and with open and blatant Apostates who deny the First Commandment to pretendedly "legitimize" the Pretend-Jews, the Mahomettans, the Hindus, the Protestants and all the other false religions of the world, and their false gods?

By what authority do you positively command Communicatio in Sacris, Missa una cum antipapa Vostro?

By what authority do you shield and firewall from denunciation and from condemnation those that knowingly reject Catholic Truth, who do wrong, as do you Lefebvrists and "Sedeprivationists" and Plinians, you who are Gallicans and Jansenists, and you Acephalists, "Novusordinarians," or rather, Bogusordinarians?

By what authority do you shamelessly pass of, indeed positively impose, evil as good, and good as evil, pass off ravening wolves as Benign Pastors who must be blindly obeyed and submitted to?

By your lies you are condemned! You are caught redhanded, devoring the Lord's Sheep together with the wolves, seated side-by-side with your brothers, nay, with your progenitors, the wolves, rending and feasting upon the Lord's Sheep, partaking with your progenitors the wolves in their "feasts," and will you delude God and escape Eternal Damnation, you Accursed Ones?

But to answer: We judge, or rather discern, as commanded by the Church, and according to its criteria, in the External Forum. Our Authority is the Authority of the Church itself, in so far as we keep within the safe boundaries set by the Church.

But it is interesting that the same argument is being made here that the New Church makes for itself. That is, 'on what basis do we judge?' Of course, this is only asked when we challenge it for permitting a woman to preside, or woman priests, or a homosexual to attend, or an infamous heretic openly teaching without any rebuke from his superiors. And so on and on.

Interesting that the thinking of the Antichurch and of its faction, Lefebvrism, is so alike...! Interesting that both bawl out that their 'liberty' is being encroached upon when we challenge their wrongdoing!

OBJECTION:

"I don't know if there are any Novus Ordo or perhaps fencesitters viewing this site who may be considering the "Traditional Mass" as the way to go... but I'm reasonably sure that your sharp and arbitrary classifcations of people will do nothing to build the Traditional movement or appeal to people's hearts, which is ultimately where the true faith must be firmly rooted. Perhaps St Paul said it best "...but if I have not charity, I have nothing." "

My Reply:

No one, absolutely no one, in the "Traditionalist Catholicism" movement, no other Schools or Parties, so blithely, and as an unthinking, kneejerk attitude, bans, blocks, isolates, condemns, bleeps out contrary voices as do you Lefebvrists. And when you face a wee little bit of your own medicine, you bawl lustily like little babies!

We all call ourselves Traditionalists and we flatter ourselves as being better than the New Church and its Ecumenist sewage. And yet we are zealous, not for the truth, but that we should be ecumenical among our own varying schools of thought, rather than insisting upon full and complete adherence to the incontrovertible teachings of the Church over the ages.

Well, here's news: Catholicism was never about Populism!

We do not seek to appeal to the heart as much as to the mind, and to the soul. And, more than anything else, the truth is not up for compromise!

Charity is not about countenancing prostitution, whether physical or spiritual! It is not about conniving at evil. It is not about refusing to rebuke one's brother when he is doing wrong.

OBJECTION:

"It is good to remember that a Pope doesn't become infallible by his appointment (as Pope)""

My Reply:

The Vatican Council, 1869-1870, formally defined the Dogma of Papal Infallibility. A Pope, as soon as he becomes the Pope, receives, as part of his Papal or Pontifical Office (the Petrine Ministry), the charism of Infallibility. I speak of Papal Infallibility in the terms by which the Vatican Council, 1869-1870, defined it. In the above quote, this Lefebvrist Apologist evidently denies Papal Infallibility, contradicting the Vatican Council, 1869-1870. This isn't surprising. Traditionalists, including Lefebvrists, often, too very often, seek to justify themselves by denying the Dogmas of the Apostolic Magisterium, which is what "Recognize & Resist" means, and also Papal Infallibility. After all, I can't play SuperPope, judging, correcting, refusing, denouncing the strawman I pretend is the "Pope" if Magisteriality and Papal Infallibility come in my way!

Lúcio Mascarenhas

Document #4

Why Catholics MUST NOT Attend SSPX Services

Or Commit The MORTAL SIN Of "Communicatio In Sacris"

By Lúcio Mascarenhas

From: Lúcio Mascarenhas

Date: March 24, 2003

Subject: The Validity of SSPX Masses

The following query was received in response to my post on the Traditional Catholics' Club D-List on the subject of the validity of attending SSPX services. The post on the SSPX, and my post in response, are reproduced at the bottom. I keep my correspondent's name secret as he desires so.

Problems With the SSPX

As Traditional Catholics, if we take your position not to attend the SSPX's masses, where are we to go to mass besides a Sedevacantist church? There aren't many of these around.

My Reply:

Dear Friend,

I understand that this is your proposition:

"There Is No Alternative" (TINA) to Attendance at SSPX Mass — If we avoid it, we cannot have other masses, because the other are more rare.

I take things from the Catholic viewpoint.

It was in 1993 that I became a Sedevacantist. I did so by going directly from the New Church, without going through the intermediatory phase of being a 'Conservative', such as a Lefebvrist.

When I did, I was persuaded to make a trip to the SSPX centre in India, in the far south at St. Thomas' Town, Thailapuram in the district of Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu.

Here too, I asked, as I have always been asking ever since I became aware of the facts and was exposed to Lefebvrist literature:

Since the SSPX literature itself demonstrates that the New Church and its 'Popes' are heretics, how did they justify themselves remaining in union with him?

Fr. Eric Simonot was the in-charge of India at the time, and he told me that he refused to answer that query.

Now, his refusal to answer did not absolve me from asking it and seeking an answer to it.

And so I conclude, taking Catholic theology, that

The Lefebvrists themselves conclusively prove that the present church run out of the Vatican is in schism and apostasy from Catholicism, and that its 'popes' are relentless heretics and apostates;

Nevertheless, the Lefebvrists insist that these heretics and apostates remain lawful popes, include them in the canon of the mass and insist on excluding all who refuse to do so;

That this is evidence that they accept as their lawful superior one about whom they themselves bear conclusive witness to his being a heretic and apostate, and therefore, it being impossible that he either could have validly become Pope or that he could have remained Pope if he had been validly elected;

Therefore, the Lefebvrists incontrovertibly are schismatic in that they confess a heretic and apostate as their lawful superior, and in doing so, they repudiate the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and constitute themselves schismatics at the very least!

[Moreover, they are also implicitly culpable of Papal Indefectibility — which I classify as a heresy, which implicitly denies that Popes, following their election as popes, retain their free will, and implicitly teaching that they are incapable of doing anything whatsoever that would constitute themselves as heretics and thus outside the Church.]

Now, taking this logic further, since the Lefebvrists are, at the very least, schismatics, one who would wish to be a Catholic is under the grave obligation to avoid at all costs participation and complicity in any act of liturgy conducted by any schismatic, for such participation would constitute "Communicatio in Sacris".

[Catholic Theology defines the participation of a Catholic in the liturgies of any sect whatsoever as constituting the crime and Mortal Sin of "Communicatio in Sacris" — which is a violation of the First Commandment — and which a Catholic is strictly prohibited from committing.]

But what if there is no other mass available?

The Church has already spoken on this issue a long time before the present situation came about: And it insists that disregarding all factors, no Catholic may, for any reason, commit the Mortal Sin of "Communicatio in Sacris". The prohibition is total and final.

Those who persist in attending such services are considered to have incurred schism under Catholic law.

But let us look at things in a logical manner. If the Lefebvrist services are valid, then certainly also those of the Nestorians, Jacobites and Byzantine schismatics and heretics, besides those of the 'Old Catholics' — Jansenists, Dollingerites, etc.. The same is also true of many 'High Church' or 'Anglo-Catholic' Anglicans (Henricans), or as they are styled in the US, Episcopalian, services (Following Pope Leo XIII's ruling that Anglican Orders according to the Edwardine Ordinal are invalid, some Anglicans have procured valid orders from the Greeks and other schismatics).

And, if the Lefebvrist service is not available, these are usually well accessible, whether in India or in America (I believe, at least in the major cities?): A Jacobite church is within five minutes walk from my home, just about as much as the New Church's church. So should I not attend the Jacobite Mass?

That is, if it is justifiable to attend Lefebvrist services, is it not also justifiable to attend these services?

But, from the Catholic viewpoint, the answer to both is no: No to Lefebvre as much as to any other heretical and or schismatic sect.

That leaves us with the further question: What if we have then nothing else?

The Church has answered this also from long before this situation arose. Certainly, throughout history such situations have existed, largely in the missions, where priests were unable to attend to every community in their parishes on every Sunday.

To cater to such a situation, the Church instructed the faithful to gather at the chapel or church, even if only a makeshift one, or otherwise in a private home or oratory, and conduct the service under the leadership of a trusted church elder or catechist, always and necessarily a male of good standing.

The congregation is to be led by a male of good standing in following the Spiritual Mass, or the Mass of St. John. There is and can be no real consecration in such a service, nor was it claimed or pretended that there was one. Instead, the congregation was led to conduct a spiritual communion. Now, in the Spiritual Communion, where participation in the body and blood of the Lord, the transubstantiated bread and wine, cannot be had, it is true Communion, the true Priest behind the appearances, as with the Mass, is the Lord Himself, Jesus Christ, and, with the sincere seeker, He gives Himself to us, He comes and dwells in us. Yet Spiritual Communion is inferior to Communicating in the Mass, and is permitted only as a substitute, not as a thing in and by itself.

Now, for Catholics in such a position, because they have not culpably failed to assist at Holy Mass, they are positively incapable of incurring the penalties that come with failure to attend and assist at Holy Mass.

And, while not a true Mass, strictly speaking, nevertheless these services do convey grace, unite the participants to the Universal Church, and also bind together the community of the faithful of that district.

This is the only legitimate means available today, just as it always was.

Moreover, this is also the ONLY legitimate means open to those who genuinely doubt the validity of the orders of Sedevacantist priests and bishops, and the HOME ALONE position is positively excluded as being sinful and as being destructive of the Catholic community....

I hope that I have answered your queries adequately.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

Lúcío Mascarenhas

Lúcío Mascarenhas wrote:

Message 1011, TraditionalCatholicsClub

From: Lúcío Mascarenhas

Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:25 am

Subject: The Validity of SSPX Masses

Dear Friends, — As a Catholic, I work from Catholic teaching, theology, etc., that Karol Wojtyla is not the pope. Therefore, I consider it sinful, excepting invincible ignorance, to celebrate and participate in a service "una cum" Wojtyla, Ratfinger, Borgoglu, as much as a service "una cum" the Dalai Lama would be.

What I want to know is: Is there justification for attributing Invincible Ignorance to Lefebvrists? I seriously doubt it, given the furious controversy and their vicious anti-sedevacantism: Remembering that Bishop Dolan, Frs. Sanborn, Cekada, etc., broke off on precisely this point.

The Lefebvrist position is a house built on sand — and it is precisely for this reason that it is comparatively easy for the rise of the Fraternity of St. Peter or for the apostacy of Campos, etc.

The Lefebvrist whom I know personally, quakes in his boots that one day sooner than latter, the SSPX is going to do a Campos.

I too believe that given its ideological position, it will do this, barring a small minority who will in probability be forced to become Sedevacantists. What I regret and what pains me is the loss of so many more souls to the Modernist apostacy!

Lúcío Mascarenhas, Bombay.

Robert Gerard Prescott wrote:

You will deny me three times by Jacob Michael, Catholic Apologetics International

Posted March 18, 2003.

Comment by RGPII:

Wojtyla is a thoroughly public heretic, a monster and not pope — and never was a pope. Peter's actions were allowed BEFORE he was pope, were not actions (therefore) under ecclesial / papal charism and (as oft stated) meant to humble him / to show him his own fallibility so soon after Our Lord had proferred the Primacy (which could have ONLY taken place with the Saviour's death and Resurrection — the Pentecost being the PUBLIC birth of the Church).

The writer and relayer continue to show impossible cause that the 3rd Person of the Blessed Trinity somehow sanctioned these last four claimants in the "auto-destruction" of the Bride of Christ. It is grievous error. The sophistication of Wojtyla's apostacy is wooing many well-meaning men into great error in even addressing this usurper as "Holy Father."

"Let no one at that day say in his heart 'unless God willed it, He would not have permitted' No, The Apostle forewarns you, saying not that they may be excused, but condemned." (St. Cyr. Catech. X V 16, 1 7)

God did NOT will these "elections."

In J.M.& J.

Robert/Chip Prescott

©Lúcío Mascarenhas, [Copyright Terms & Conditions].

H.H. Pope Michael I