The Dominicans briefly laid out the sequence of ABL's Canonical foundation in 1970 in way to question the integrity and jest of today's new-sspx seeking another canonical recognition; this time under the pluralistic 1983 Code of Canon law. It is always good to remind ourselves the position of the old-sspx, through ABL, which always held the Canonical foundation of 1970 as genuine, legitimate, and still in effect. Which makes the liberal ambitions of Bishop Fellay a fraud and a fools game. Cor-Mariae has laid this out in detail and sourced with original SSPX Documents, seen here and here. The fight is on Doctrine plain and simple. “We are suspended a divinis by the conciliar church and for the conciliar church, to which we have no wish to belong. That 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 may a document, official and definitive… The church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatsoever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this hew church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre) “… supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put in conditions. I shall not accept being in the position I was put in during the dialogue. No more. I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo X III, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Qua Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communionwith the popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti- Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of the these popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless. Thus, the positions will be clear.” (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s, Interview with Fideliter, Nov.- Dec. 1988) _______________________________________________ Dominicans of Avrillé July 2017 When Bishop Lefebvre founded the Fraternity of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained from the Bishop of Freiburg, Monsignor Charrière, a canonical erection as a pious union. The work of Archbishop Lefebvre remained canonically recognized by Rome for five years. However, on 21 November 1974, following a canonical visit of Ecône by two envoys from Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration which showed his refusal of "the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency which was clearly manifested in The Second Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms that have sprung from it. " Henceforth, the dividing line between the two "churches" was made. Shortly afterwards, the "neo-modernist and neo-Protestant trend Rome" received the appellation of Conciliar Church by Bishop Benelli (letter of June 25, 1976 addressed to Bishop Lefebvre on behalf of the Pope). That name has remained to him. The canonical "suppression" of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Msgr. Mamie on May 6, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre said that it was "irregular and in any case unjust" (Archbishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, Étampes, Clovis , 2002, p. 510]. This "suppression" was therefore regarded as null by Archbishop Lefebvre and all those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, whereas it was recognized as valid by the representatives of the conciliar Church. However, for some time now we have been talking more and more of a "canonical recognition" of the Society of St. Pius X by the current authorities of the Vatican. Can such recognition be accepted? In itself, canonical regularity in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and even necessary. Bishop Lefebvre requested this regularity in 1970 and obtained it. But today, if a canonical recognition were granted, it would be granted under the new Code of Canon Law. It is within this framework that the jurisdiction for marriages has recently been granted by the Pope to the Society of Saint Pius X. For this reason alone, such recognition should be refused: "We can not be content with" A special discipline for the Fraternity; We reject this new Code because it is contrary to the common good of the whole Church, which we wish to defend "[Abbot Jean-Michel Gleize, Courrier de Rome n ° 499 of May 2017.] In the present circumstances, would have other disadvantages. Here are a few : It would bring us into conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as equal to the charismatic, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, and so on. It is the truth brought to the level of error, at least in public opinion. It would bring to our chapels faithful ones determined to remain conciliar, modernist and liberal, with all the consequences, for bad ideas bring bad habits. It would necessarily diminish the attacks against the errors professed by the authorities under which one would find himself directly. It is, moreover, easy to see that the superior authorities of the Society of St. Pius X have already diminished their criticism of the present errors of Rome (Luther, Amoris Lætitia, etc.) Finally, such recognition would place directly under the authority of superiors themselves subject to the influence of Freemasonry. Indeed, various studies published in The Salt of the Earth have shown that the Conciliar Church is an instrument in the hands of Freemasonry to compel Catholics to work, volens nolens, in the establishment of Ie the construction of the Masonic "Temple" (see in particular the editorial of No. 101, summer 2017). Providence permitted Bishop Lefebvre and those who followed him to be exempt from this influence of masonry; it would be a grave imprudence to do so voluntarily. Freemasonry was born just three centuries ago (June 24, 1717). After having destroyed all the Christian states (the work of the revolutions of the 18th to the 20th century), and then enslaved the Church (plan of the High Sale, realized by the Second Vatican Council), it will extend its influence on the The work of Archbishop Lefebvre? It would be his apparent triumph on earth. Consequently, the canonical solution can be envisaged only with a doctrinally converted Rome, and having proved its conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and struggling against the opponents of this reign. Source .