New Program



On this great feast of the Immaculate Conception Cor Mariae is launching a new program that sets out the progression of solid unchanging doctrinal teaching unflinchingly taught by the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre. Members and guests will see for themselves the unbroken line held by priests who refuse to leave us orphaned while Shepherds, not only abandon the flock, but directly attack it. Today, the Enemy's tactic has adapted to the changing scenario from one of direct assault (Council of Vatican II) to one of persuasion. Being scattered, we are fair game at the mercy of some priests, who teach with carefully nuanced words and subtleties in a language that leads naive souls away from the faith. The new approach melds perfectly with the counterfeit church's blatant ecumenism as it whispers the easier path of compromises and 'miraculous' signs that deceive unwary souls into losing the faith.

May our Blessed Mother bless, counsel and strengthen us as we pray through these inspiring sermons and may the Holy Spirit enlighten us as we begin our part in restoring all things in Christ . O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to Thee.
Beware of false prophets, who come s to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matt. 7 : 5, 21-23

We will begin with a sermon that sets the pace for the ones that will follow.

Suggestion: Any questions relating to doctrine such as definitions, clarity, etc. may be directed to : Fun with the Catechism

Last edited:



A Summary of Fr. Hesse’s talk on the documents of Vatican II

Fr. Hesse qualifications: Fr. Hesse was appointed theologian by the Holy Father, John Paul II. He has his Doctorate from the Pontifical University in Rome in theology and canon law. Fr. Hesse spent 15 years in Rome and was the secretary for Cardinal Stickler for 2 years.

Quotations regarding the unchangeability of the Sacraments:

Canon 13, 7th Session of the Council of Trent says: “If anyone says that the received and approved rites of the Catholic Church, wont to be used in the solemn administrations of the sacraments, may be condemned, or without sin be omitted at pleasure by the ministers, or be changed by any pastor of the churches whomsoever into new ones; let him be anathema.” Some translations in English mistranslate as “…or be changed by any pastor of the churches into new ones…”. The word ‘whomsoever’ includes the Pope himself who is the Prime Minister (pastor). Latin: per quem cumque Ecclesiarum Pastorum

The Council of Trent does not need to tell me that any pastor cannot change the rites.

Pope Innocent III said that if any future Pope tries to change the sacraments, he must not be followed.

At Council of Florence Pope Eugene IV had as his theologian Cardinal Torquemada who wrote a book titled “Summa Ecclesia”, which says that if a Pope tries to change the sacraments he puts himself outside the Church. For this work Pope Eugene IV gave him the title “Defender of the Faith”.

Pope St. Pius V in response to the Council of Trent’s dogmatic definitions wrote his bull Quo Primum. This bull clearly states that the Roman rite and those rites greater than 200 years old, cannot be changed and that any priest cannot be forced to say any other rite. All Popes after this time up to and including Pope John XXIII interpreted Quo Primum as binding on them. (See Appendix A).

Now many Catholics who are “conservative” acknowledge these documents and agree that the old rites should be preserved but defend Vatican II and say that it never intended to change the rites and these are just abuses. Fr. Hesse will show that the second Vatican council did intend to change the rites and do have heresy in them. Therefore Vatican II must be rejected in total, not in each line as they do occasionally quote old Councils.

Due to many misunderstandings Fr. Hesse gives many theological definitions to assist the average lay person to understand the issues better before beginning a review of the Vatican II documents.

Definitions –

Objective vs Subjective:

Objective means something concerns the thing or object. Subjective means something concerns the person. When I make an objective judgement I judge facts or things or actions. When I make a subjective judgement I judge a person (which I do not want to do). Objective concerns the thing itself. Subjective means what something means to me. Pope Eugene IV in the Council of Florence (1441) pronounced that no one who is not subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he thinks he sheds his blood for Christ, can be saved. The Pope makes an objective judgement. He does not say that all Protestants are in Hell. Objectively speaking they have no chance to enter heaven. Subjectively we do not know what the Lord will do with them. Two rules of the church: The church does not judge the dead. (De Mortuis Ecclesia non judica.) The church does not judge internal things (De internis Ecclesia non judica.).

Material vs. Formal:
Material means that something is there i.e. It exists. Formal means it is declared as such. If I say John Paul II is a material heretic, that means, he has all the matter of a heretic. It can be proven, that many of his writings, or things that he said, are heretical. I would not dare to say he is a heretic (formal) for no one can judge the Pope and no one can judge his intentions or conscience. I see heresy, it is there (material), but one cannot say it is formal heresy. For instance, the Pope will say “according to tradition…” and then he proceeds to say something wrong. An example of formal heresy would be if he should say something like “Contrary to what the Council of Trent says, I tell you…” some heresy.

Valid vs. Licit:
Valid means it takes place, it happens. Licit means that it is allowed or legal. For instance the Roman Catholic church has always recognized the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church has all seven sacraments, valid but not licit since they are heretics and schismatics. Heretic because they say the Pope is not infallible and schismatic because they say the Pope does not have the primacy.

Act and Potency: (entire philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas is based on this distinction).
Any thing that is can be in two ways, Actually or Potentially. The new philosophy / theology does not use these distinctions. When John Paul II says “all people are saved” is he correct? If he means potentially, then he is correct. If he means actually then he is in error. Our Lord says many go to the wide and broad way to hell. The Pope does not distinguish between act and potency.

Heresy, Schism, Error, Disobedience:
means I separate myself from the Church, not denying anything of the faith itself but simply denying church authority. If I tell you not to do something that the Pope said was wrong then I just tell you what Pope Innocent III and Pope Pius IX said. If I tell you that you should not regard anything this Pope says then I would be leading you into schism. Do not deny the power of the Pope’s authority! Just as President Clinton is president and we cannot deny this but if he tells me to disregard the 10 commandments I tell him no. This is not denying his authority, it is simply not obeying an unjust command since I do not reject his power to give commands, just the command itself. This is our present relationship to the Pope.

Heresy means to know but deny or doubt a defined doctrine of the Church.

Error means you may have a mistaken understanding of what the church teaches. (i.e. you are erroneous). If there is something the Pope should know then I talk about heresy. If there is something he clearly misunderstood then I have to talk about error, always judging objectively and materially. Disobedience has nothing to do with Schism, Heresy or Error. When Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated bishops he at first glance appeared to be disobedient. (He was not disobedient because it was an unjust command he did not follow and it was certainly not against the will of Christ or the Church). In no way can one say he was in schism because he never denied the Popes right to give a command, he simply said I cannot follow this one command because it is unjust. This is explained in another lecture given by Fr. Hesse.

You must understand these distinctions otherwise you will not understand what I am about to say. Next we must go over what is know as Theological Positions (Thelochi Theologica). These are finer distinctions than heresy and error as well as Catholic truths.

Catholic Truth:
De fide divina: By divine faith. That is it must be believed. These are such things as Canons of Council of Trent, Vatican I, etc. declare a dogma.
De fide Catolica: The church has always believed it. It is part of the faith (e.g. the creed).
De fide de finita: The church has always believed it but once in history a Pope has made a definition. (e.g. 1854 – Pope Pius IX proclaimed dogma of Immaculate Conception-this was always believed but was now defined on exactly what this was supposed to mean.
Fide Proxima: Close to the faith. It is not a dogma but the church has always believed it and it could be a dogma at any time. (e.g. Mary as Co-Redemptrix: Our Lady had first role in helping Our Lord in redemption, although only Jesus saves) This is a Sententia Fide Proxima, that is you may not deny it without fear of punishment from God.
Sententia Certa: It is not actually of the faith but we are very sure about it.
Sententia Communis: We may not be very sure about it but everyone says so, not in sense of democracy but in sense of historical accordance. Most of saints, theologians, Popes throughout centuries agreed on it.
Sententia Probabalis: It is probable. We don’t know exactly. (e.g. if a person in mortal sin dies and makes a perfect act of contrition the church teaches most probably he will be saved).

Ecclesiastical Centures:
directly denies dogma of the faith.
Heresy Proxima: does not literally deny a dogma but it coming pretty close to it.
Erroneous: It is not denying a dogma but just make a mistake about it.
Arrorea Proxima: It is not wrong in itself but by circumstances.
Temeraria: It is daring to say so. How dare you say it. It is Male Sonans (it does not sound good). It is offensive to pious ears. (Piario Aurreum Offensiva). It is scandalous when done in public.

Before starting a detailed examination of some of the scandalous documents of Vatican II, let me quote the Gospel.

“Who so shall offend one of these little ones that follow me it were better for him if a mill stone was hanged about his neck and he was drowned in the depths of the sea”.

Some ask why is Fr. Hesse not nice and kind. “Think not that I have come to send peace on earth. I have come not to send peace but a sword.”
Some say this Fr. Hesse is a rigorist. Let me quote another rigorist. “For verily I say unto you not one jot or one tittle shall in nowise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.” and “I am the way, the truth and the life”.
“But though we or an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed”.

First Constitution of Vatican II: Sacrosanctuum Concillium 12/4/63

In paragraph 1 it states
“It is the goal of this most sacred Council…to make more responsive the requirements of our times those Church observances which are open to adaptation; to nurture whatever can contribute to the unity of all who believe in Christ”. This notion is erroneous and has been condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism). He condemns the false “opinion that the unity of faith and government, which is a note of the one true Church of Christ, has hardly up to the present time existed, and does not today exist…” “Everyone knows that John himself, the Apostle of love…altogether forbade any discourse with those who profess a mutilated and corrupt version of Christ’s teaching”; “for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one, true Church of Christ”. When we make a profession of faith we say “una, sancta, Catolica, Apostolica Ecclesia” (one, holy Catholic & Apostolic Church). The Church is always in union with itself. Protestants are outside the Church. The Russian Orthodox Church is heretical and schismatic and are outside the Church, and is not our sister church as John Paul II says. We must not change liturgy to achieve union…we have this union!

Paragraph 4 says “Mother Church holds all lawfully acknowledged rites to be of equal authority and dignity; that she wishes to preserve them in the future and foster them in every way. The Council also desires that, where necessary, the rites be carefully and thoroughly revised in the light of sound tradition, and that they be given new vigor to meet the circumstances and needs of modern times.” This notion of adapting the liturgy has been condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fide as “scandalous, rash and offensive to pious ears”. Vatican II is contradicting itself here.

Paragraph 7, although not heretical is confusing. It talks about Christ being present in the sacraments but then quotes Mt 18:20 “where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them”. In the old Councils a distinction would be made that Mt18 is a spiritual presence and at the Mass Christ is really and truly present on the altar (body, blood, soul and divinity). The 2nd Vatican Council does not make these distinctions.

Paragraph 14 says “In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else”. This is not heresy but is conducive into the heresy which is promoted nowadays that a priest cannot celebrate Mass alone. This has been explicitly condemned by the Council of Trent. (Session XIII, Canon X). The most important thing according to defined dogma is to keep the tradition of Mass.

Paragraph 21 says “restoration, both texts and rites should be drawn up so that they express more clearly the holy things which they signify. Christian people as far as possible should be able to understand them with ease and to take part in them fully, actively, and as befits a community.” What does this mean? Did not the Christians take part in the old mass? The oldest liturgical rule is “lex orandi, lex credendi” i.e. The law of what has to be prayed constitutes the law of what has to be believed. The Mass is not supposed to be understood by the Village idiot or even the people. The Mass is supposed to represent the entire faith of the Church. As a theologian studying since 1974, I still do not understand all the Mass liturgy. To make a Mass that is understood by the Village idiot requires a totally imbecile rite. The liturgy is supposed to explain the faith to me. Liturgy is a sign of the specific grace received “ex operae operatio”. In old days, when most were illiterate how come they knew the faith? Either you give up the highest principle of liturgy or you make an imbecile rite. Today the Mass is understood less than ever and there is confusion everywhere.

Paragraph 22:1 “Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See, and as laws may determine on the Bishop."

Paragraph 22:2 “In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of bishop’s conferences, legitimately established with competent and given territories."

So far it means nothing else but that some things will be decided not by the Holy See, but by the Bishop’s Conferences. But then throughout the rest of the document they only quote number 22:2 (Dispite 22:1). When I’m through with this document you will see what 22:2 really means, you will see the real context of 22:2.

Paragraph 24
wants to dump the beautiful prayers of the Church for sacred scripture…why? Because for the Protestants there is no tradition, only sola scriptura. Now we have endless quotes from sacred scripture that no one understands anyway.

Paragraph 25: “The liturgical books are to be revised as soon as possible; from various parts of the world, experts are to be employed and bishops are to be consulted.” Do you ‘conservatives’ still really believe that Vatican II never meant to change the mass? They got this very quickly…4 years after Council.

When Pius VI condemned the pseudo Council of Pystoya in Auctorum Fide, he said it was the usual tactic of the liberal to use ambiguous terminology. When you accuse of them of there error they say, I did not say that, but they act according to it. Pius VI goes on to say the purpose of a Council to clarify. Vatican II certainly did not do that. Fr. Schillebex said that we will use ambiguous terms and after the council we will know how to interpret them.

Paragraph 30: “By way of promoting active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons and songs as well as by actions, gestures and bodily attitudes.” This is a Protestant and Pentecostal request. The priest celebrates Mass. The people assist, they do not celebrate the liturgy. Now we have hula masses, polka masses, clown masses, etc.

Paragraph 32: “no special honors are to be paid by any private person or classes of persons”. We are now all equal. What about the Count who entirely out of his own pocket builds the church? Should he not have his proper place up front?

Paragraph 33: “the prayers addressed to God by the priest, who presides of the assembly in the person of Christ, are said in the name of the entire holy people as well as that of all present.” They have changed many of the prayers in the new liturgy from I to We. This is an error. For instance at the offertory the priest says “I offer you up this immaculate host”. As he speaks “en persona Christi” he cannot be speaking in the name of the people. It is Christ who offers not We.

Paragraph 35.1: “In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture…” Catering to the Protestants again. As if we understood all the reading in the Roman missal. The old mass produced a lot saints, the new mass has not produced one yet.

Paragraph 36:1 “use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites”

Paragraph 36:2 “but since the use of the vulgar tongue…may be frequently be of great advantage …regulations on this matter laid down in subsequent chapters.”

Paragraph 36:3 refers to article 22:2
Note how the modernists speak with forked tongue: they say Latin must be preserved but you can use the vernacular.

Paragraph 37 promotes the use of inculturation in the liturgy.

Paragraph 40: “In some places and circumstances, however, an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed…” 40.1 refers to 22:2. This is why we get all these crazy liturgies.

Paragraph 43 says the reform is a movement of the Holy Spirit. That is probably why the whole world is converted and many have decided they don’t need to go to church anymore. This the liturgy of a new religion, not the Catholic religion.

Paragraph 44: Article 22:2 referenced. Use of experts. Pius XII condemns changes in Mediator Dei. “promotes necessary experiments”. When Cardinal Koenig was asked how it was possible that they were replacing the reading of St. Paul with communist authors, his only reply was “that’s an interesting liturgical experiment”.

Paragraph 50: “…rites are to be simplified…elements…duplicated or added with little advantage are to be discarded” Simplifying rites has been condemned by Pius VI in Auctorum Fide. Pope binds his successors in matters of faith. Vatican I says the Pope must guard and explain the faith and may not change them.

Paragraph 54 says that the faithful should be able to use Latin but then refers to Articles 36 and 40 which say to use the vernacular and both of these articles refer to 22:2.

Paragraph 55 references Council of Trent when it says “communion under both kinds may be granted when bishops think fit” whereas the Council of Trent did not want distribution under both species because of risk to Eucharist.

Paragraph 57 allows for concelebrations. Canon 902 says no priest may be forced to concelebrate yet priests are forced to frequently today.

Paragraph 58 new concelebration rite. Do you ‘conservatives’ still say Vatican II did not want concelebration?

Paragraph 62 asks for simplifying rite.

Paragraph 68 calls for a shorter rite in case of emergency. This is silly…in case of emergency you always said the old rite “I baptize thee in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost”. How much shorter can you get?

Paragraph 71: “The rite of confirmation is to be revised…”

Paragraph 72: “rites and formulas of Penance are to be revised…”

Paragraph 76: “ordination rites are to be revised…”

Paragraph 77: “marriage rites are to be revised…”

All the sacraments are new rites and this has been condemned by the Church. Those who use and approve of the new rites are materially in schism with the Church.

Paragraph 79: “the sacraments are to be revised…” “the requirements of our times have to be weighed” This has be condemned by Pius IX, Pius XII, & Pius VI.

Paragraph 91: “psalms to be distributed over longer than one week”. Oldest rule of the breviary is to say the 150 Psalms in one week. A priest must give praise to God seven times a day. The liturgical reformers took out 3 psalms which condemn the heretics to hell. This is scandalous as it goes against a tradition of nearly 2000 years.

Paragraph 92: “lives of saints to be in accord with history” I trust tradition handed down of martyrologies.

Paragraph 93: “hymns restored….removed of mythology” Scandalous because it tells us we have been fed a load of you know what for almost 2000 years.

Paragraph 112: “Church approves of all forms of true art, and admits them into Divine worship” You can see how this was interpreted by all the ugly new churches”

Paragraph 119: “adapt liturgy to native genius” inculturation again…

Paragraph 122: admits different forms of art. See how the bishops have interpreted this.

Paragraph 128: Along with the revision of the revision of the liturgical books as laid down in Art. 25, there is to be an early revision of the canons and ecclesiastical statutes which govern the disposition of material things involved in sacred worship.” Now it may be very hard to find the tabernacle. The altar has been replaced by a table.


There are many spiritual time bombs in Vatican II….here is one: “The feast of Easter may be moved to a Sunday” changes a tradition as old as the church itself.

Who is to interpret Vatican II? The Pope. We shall see how He interprets Vatican II. The Council was very ambiguous. This has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical “Auctorum Fide” where he condemns the Council of Pistoya saying the trick of the Modernists is to write in such a way as something can be interpreted in two ways. Pius VI says the purpose of a Council is to clarify doctrine. Pius X similarly condemns this ambiguity in Paschendi Dominici Gregious saying that one of the Modernist tricks is to give you some Catholic doctrine on one hand but take away some Catholic doctrine on the other.

St. Cyprian says that if one point of Catholic doctrine is denied then all are denied and they are outside the Church. Therefore Protestants are outside the Church and cannot really be called Christian. All you can do is pray that they convert and come into the one true Church. The same can said for those Catholics who accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. which was written up by Annibale Bugnini (a known Freemason) & seven Protestant ministers amongst others. These persons who accept Vatican II & the new mass are in material schism with the Church.

Bishop Williamson states: “While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.” “Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it. Bishop Williamson states Novus Ordo Mass is legitimate.

How can the new religion be
(a) false,
(d) dangerous,
(e) a strangler of grace
(f) helps many people to lose the faith
yet at the same time 'can be used to build the faith? Is this not typical ambiguous* modernist talk?

This has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical “Auctorum Fide” where he condemns the Council of Pistoya saying the trick of the Modernists is to write in such a way as something can be interpreted in two ways. Pius VI says the purpose of a Council is to clarify doctrine. Pius X similarly condemns this ambiguity in Paschendi Dominici Gregious saying that one of the Modernist tricks is to give you some Catholic doctrine on one hand but take away some Catholic doctrine on the other.

*Definition of 'ambiguous' : Open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal : e.g. an ambiguous answer.
Extraordinary Magesterium: (Infallible Pronouncements) When the Pope declares something on faith &/or morals, he declares that it must be believed, & he speaks with his full apostolic authority. He does not add anything to Tradition, he simply says this is part of Tradition and the question is no longer up for discussion. Divine Revelation (Tradition) ended with the death of the last Apostle. The Pope is guardian of the deposit of faith. The Pope does not have a guarantee of impeccability.

Ordinary Magesterium: When Pope does not declare in solemn manner as above, he does not speak in an infallible manner but he still binds us to obedience. Pius XII (Humani Generis) spoke against false opinions of Modernists that said we do not have to obey the Pope unless he speaks infallibly. Pius XII said in No. 20, “Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in encyclical letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their teaching authority and generally what is expounded and inculcated in encyclical letters or for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine, but if the Supreme Pontiffs pass judgement on a matter up to that time in dispute, it is obvious that the matter according to the mind and will of the same Pontiff cannot be any longer considered a question open for discussion among theologians“ Therefore when Paul VI, Humanae Vitae that contraception is a mortal sin, or when Pope Pius IX condemned heresies in his Syllabus of Errors, or when John Paul II says a woman priest is impossible, no Pope may say otherwise.

However do we follow a Pontiff who says heresy? After all he is not guaranteed impeccability:

Pope Innocent III said “It is quite conceivable that a future Pope may teach heresy and put himself outside the Church in which case we must not follow him” He did not say he ceases to be Pope. He reminds his successors that “the less a person is judged by humans the harder he will be judged by God.” Is it possible that out of 3000 bishops only 2 remained faithful to tradition? Yes, we have seen this historically with Pope Liberius & St. Athanasius.

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church in the Modern World., Lumen Gentium: November 21, 1964.
Paragraph 1 “The Church is in nature of sacrament, a sign...” There are only 7 sacraments, the Church is not a sacrament. The Church is a perfect society, not a sign. It is the instrument of salvation for the world. Christ came to unify in the faith. “I did not come to bring peace but the sword.” The Church may be an instrument of unity among all men but in actuality is not.

Paragraph 5: The Church does not “grow to maturity”, it is a perfect society. Pope Pius XII said it is a daring and wrong concept that the Church grows or matures in Humanae Generis. The Church is indefectible, not her members. Mt16:18. The Church is a Monarchy not a democracy.

Paragraph 7: Use of words “breaking of bread” which stresses meal aspect and not real presence. This is not heresy but can lead to heresy. (Note: recent poll of “Catholics” indicates only 30% believe in real presence).

Paragraph 8: “entrusted the Church to Peters care, commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule it.” This is the notion of collegiality. Our Lord only gave Peter the supreme authority. Mt16. Church called “a society” instead of “ a perfect society”. The Church is said to “subsist” in the Catholic Church. This is very close to heresy. The Church of Christ does not subsist in the Catholic Church, it is the Catholic Church. The Pope is the competent authority to interpret this text. He (John Paul II) has said that the Russian Orthodox Church is our sister church and that the Ukrainian Church loyal to Rome somehow separated herself from her Mother Church (Russian Orthodox Church). “Nevertheless many elements of sanctification and truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.” What the text says is that we want to unite with the heretics and schismatics. As they are alleged to have “elements of sanctification” they must subsist in the Church of Christ. This is heresy against the dogma of the Church. The Church is always unified “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church”. In reality elements of sanctification (e.g. baptism) is not outside the Catholic Church but is a sacrament illicitly used outside the Church which is property of the Church.

Paragraph 13: “These Churches retain their own traditions without in any way lessening the primacy of the chair of Peter.” Confusing because it does not say the eastern churches united with Rome. Seems to be interpreted by John Paul II as meaning those not in union with Rome.

#15 “The Church recognizes that she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety (i.e. the heretics) or do not preserve unity in communion with the successor of Peter (i.e. the schismatics)” I would like to know how we are linked with the heretics and schismatics when the Church has dogmatically defined they are outside the Church. This is heresy proxima.

“Likewise we can say that they are joined to us in the Holy Spirit, for to them also He gives His gifts and graces, and is thereby operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood.” This is direct heresy and blasphemy against the Council of Florence and Pope Eugene IV who said that “heretics even if they think they are shedding their blood for Christ cannot be saved.” (Remember this is an objective statement).

#16 “Finally, those who have not yet received the gospel are related in various ways to the People of God” Potentially this is true, actually it is not! Are the Jews related to the Catholics? No. St. Paul tells us that the Jews who reject Christ don’t even see the God the old testament clearly except through a veil. Do the Jews worship the God of the New Testament (the Blessed Trinity)? No. Is the God of the Old Testament the same as the God of the New? Yes Therefore, the Jews have rejected the God of the Old Testament and we don’t worship the same God. “the Moslems…together with us adore one merciful God” This is blasphemy. The Koran says the notion of God being a Trinity is excrement. They are Pagans. The Koran says to kill the infidels (that means us), therefore they adore one, merciful God (Allah) against us. St. Paul says the gods of the pagans are demons.

#18 “those ministers who are endowed with sacred power are dedicated to the interests there brethren” They are not! They are to promote the interests of God, and our following God’s commands.

#22 “The supreme authority with which this college of bishops is empowered over the whole Church is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council” The council of bishop does not have any supreme authority. There are statements which contradict this statement before and after so why did they put it in there? It can be interpreted incorrectly.

#25 “The infallibility promised to the Church resides also in the body of bishops” Heresy. This is interpreted by John Paul II in Redemptor Hominus as unity consisting in the bishops conferences, parish councils, etc., not what it really is: unity under Peter’s successor, the unity of the liturgy, and the unity of faith. We have the Soviet (council) Union in the Church. This was done to weaken the power of the Papacy.

#29 “the diaconate can be restored as a proper and permanent rank of the hierarchy”. Council of Trent did not want anyone who was not striving for priesthood to receive minor orders. “the diaconate will be able to be conferred upon those men…even in married state”. Goes against teaching of St. Jerome that “only a celibate clergy may touch the sacred species and this comes from the mouth of Our Lord himself.” St. Thomas Aquinas likewise teaches only consecrated hands can touch Holy Eucharist. This allows for sacrileges.

#30 “everything said so far ..applies equally to laity, religious and clergy” Clergy will be judged more harshly because of their position.

Addenda: “The question has been raised what ought to be theological qualifications in this document…In view of the conciliar practice and pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly says so.”

Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism) November 21, 1964.

I detest the term pilgrim church because of the way Vatican II uses it. In Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)

#6 we read “Christ summons the Church as she goes on her pilgrim way, to that continual reformation of which she always has need, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth. Therefore, if the influence of events or of the times has lead to deficiencies in conduct, in Church discipline, or even in the formulation of doctrine (which must be distinguished from the deposit of faith itself), these should be properly rectified at the proper moment.” Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos condemns the notion of necessary reformation. The very concept of reformulation of doctrine is heresy and has been explicitly condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos (On Ecumenism). Pius XI says

#12 “How so great a variety of opinions can clear the way for the unity of the Church we know not. That unity can arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, & one faith of Christians, but do we not know that from such a state of affairs (here Pius XI is referring to Protestant dialogue) that it is but an easy step to the neglect of religion or indifferentism and to the error of the modernists who hold that dogmatic truth is not absolute but relative, that is changes according to the varying necessities of time and place and to the varying tendencies of the mind and it is not contained in an immutable tradition but can be altered to suit the needs of human life.”

#13 “Furthermore, it is never lawful to employ in connection with articles of faith, the distinction invented by some between fundamental and non-fundamental articles, the former to be accepted by all and the later to be up to the free acceptance of the faithful.” This is exactly what Unitatis Redintegratio does.

In Unitatis Redintegaratio #8 it says “As for common worship…the practical course to be adopted, after due regard has been given to all the circumstances of time, place, and personage, is left to prudent decision of the local episcopal authority, unless the local Bishops’ conference according to its own statutes or the Holy See, has determined otherwise.” The notion of common worship (communicatio insacris) with false religions has been condemned and been under the pain of excommunication for more than 1500 years.

And in #17 “…sometimes one tradition has come nearer than the other to an apt appreciation of certain aspects of a revealed mystery, or has expressed them in a clearer manner.” This document dares to say that the eastern “orthodox” religions outside the Church understand doctrine better than Christ’s Church. In Quo Primum, Pius V says that the Roman Church is the Mother and Mistress of all the Churches. There is no such thing as a truth expressed better in another Church, even those united to Rome. The Church Fathers and Popes have rejected such a notion up to Pius XII.

#22 “The ecclesial communities separated from us lack that fullness of unity with us which should flow from Baptism, and we believe that especially because of the lack of the sacrament of orders they have not preserved the genuine and total reality of the Eucharistic mystery. Nevertheless, when they commemorate the Lords death and resurrection in the Holy Supper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ and they await His coming in glory. For these reasons dialogue should be undertaken concerning the true meaning of the Lords Supper, other sacraments, and Churches worship and ministry.” This line is interpreted in the new liturgy. It gives up the doctrine of the sacramental priesthood and the real presence on the altar when it demands dialogue with those who reject the teaching of the Church. I explain the faith to the Protestants and then I tell them take it or leave it. I don’t dialog. This document lead to the meeting in 1965 between Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras. The joint declaration called the excommunication in 1054 of Patriarch Michael who separated himself from Rome by St. Leo IX a “painful decision”. John Paul II goes out of his way to apologize for St. Leo, St. Gregory VII excommunication of the emperor, St. Pius V war with the Turks, & in the Ballamand Agreement mocks the martyr St. Joseph for keeping the unity of the Ukrainian Church and Rome when the agreement asks the Ukrainian priests to submit to the authority of the local schismatic & heretical “Orthodox” bishop. This is high treason and if it were not the Pope would require capital punishment. However no earthly authority may judge the Pope on these things. He is warned however by Innocent III, “the less a man is judged by men the more he will be judged by God.” The duty of the Ukrainian priest is to resist this command against faith and morals. (See Mortalium Animos).

Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation).
#8: “This tradition of the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in understanding the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers who treasure these things in their hearts, through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach there complete fulfilment in her.” No. The Church is in possession of the full truth. The Church cannot approach truth. Tradition does not change due to the pondering of believers and the experiences make no difference to truth. Only growth is in the deepening of the understanding. St. Vincent of Lerins: “There is a deepening of the understanding of the truth but in the same sense and in the same judgement”. You cannot change doctrine because of some “better understanding”. The most fraudulent document signed by John Paul II Ecclesia Dei: #3 “…such disobedience constitutes a rejection of the Roman Primacy” referring to Archbishop Lefebvre consecration of bishops. In the tradition of moral theology handed down to us consecrations against the will of the Pope were considered disobedience only and never a schismatic act.

#4 of Ecclesia Dei: “the root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of tradition. Incomplete in that it does not take into account the living character of tradition which as the Second Vatican Council teaches…” here John Paul II quotes Dei Verbum #8. John Paul II then talks about rejection of new doctrines. There cannot be new doctrines! Archbishop Lefebvre’s notion of tradition is exactly in accordance with Vatican I and Trent.

Dignitatis Humanae (Declaration on Religious Liberty):12/7/65
#1 “A sense of dignity of the human person has been impressing itself more and more deeply on the consciousness of contemporary man” Pius X says man has no dignity outside of bring a Christian.
#2 “The Vatican Synod declares the human person has the right to religious freedom.” “the right to religious freedom has as its foundation the very dignity of the human person…” “Thus it is to become a civil right”. What do Catholics say about this? Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos condemns this idea: #15 “From this poison source of indifferentism flows that false and absurd or rather extravagant maxim that liberty of conscience should be established and guaranteed to each man. A most contagious error to which leads the absolute and unbridled liberty of opinion which for the ruin of Church and State spreads over the whole world and which some men by unbridled imprudence fear not to represent as advantages to the Church. And what more certain death for souls says St. Augustine than liberty of error.” In Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors he condemns the following statements: Anyone who agrees with anyone of these statements is not a Catholic.
#15 of Syllabus: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which guided by the light of reason he shall consider true.”
#16 of Syllabus: “Man may in the observance of any religion whatever find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation”
#17 of Syllabus: “Good hope at least, is to be entertained in the eternal salvation of all those who are not in the true Church of Christ.”
#18 of Syllabus: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.”
#20 of Syllabus: “The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without permission and assent of the civil government.”
#21 of Syllabus: “The Church has not the power to dogmatically define that Catholic religion the only true religion.”
#22 of Syllabus: The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things which are to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgement of the Church.
#77 of Syllabus: “The present day it is no longer expedient for the Catholic religion be the only religion of state, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
#78 of Syllabus: “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy public exercise of their own peculiar worship.”
#79 of Syllabus: "Moreover it is false that the liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”
#80 of Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can and ought to reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”

Cardinal Ratzinger has admitted that Vatican II is an anti-Syllabus.

#2 of Dignitatis Humanae cont’d: “…he cannot be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience.” The Church has never contradicted this statement. The Church simply says if do not correspond with the teaching of the Church you will go to hell.
#4 Requests civil authorities to give complete freedom for all schismatic, heretical, and pagan sects to spread there error. Condemned by Pius IX in #20-22,77-80 of Syllabus. Traditionally government would have to submit to the Papal authority.
Christ the King: Pius XI Quas Primas. Christ is King over all nations. This document never mentions Christ the King or his rights over all men.

The Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) 12/7/65:
Discusses the relation of the Church and the world today. The Church wants to cooperate unreservedly with the world. They toss out Christ the King.

#12 “According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and non-believers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their center and summit.” This is Satanism because it puts man in the position of God.

#22 says that Christ reveals man to himself. Catholics always were taught Christ reveals the Blessed Trinity. “For by his incarnation the Son of God has united himself in some fashion with every man.” This is true potentially not actually. The footnotes do not correspond with this statement. “All this holds true not only for Christians but for all men of good will….” Not true. Our Lord says that unless your baptized in water and the Holy Spirit you cannot be saved. Further more the Council of Trent teaches that Baptism of Desire refers to a promise to get baptized at the first possible moment.

Pope Eugene IV (Council of Florence-1441AD): “The Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that nobody who exists outside the Catholic Church, not only the pagans, but also not the Jews, also not the heretics, also not the schismatics, can be participants in eternal life, but they will go to the eternal fire prepared the devil and his angels unless they be joined with the Church before the end of their life. And the Council, professes, believes and preaches the unity of this ecclesiastical body is worth so much that only those who remain with in her, and receive the salvation of the ecclesiastical sacraments, and profess them, and do their fastings and works and all the other offices of piety and all the other exercises of Christian virtues will have the eternal Christ. Nobody how ever many works he has done, even if he thinks he sheds his blood for Christ can be saved if he is not within the Catholic Church and its union.” – objective judgement. Objectively when John Paul II says in Ut Unun Sint that “saints come from all religions” he pronounces heresy and blasphemy.
#88 “Christians should collaborate willingly and wholeheartedly in the establishment of an international order…” This was written by Jose Maria Escriba de Balegair of the Opus Dei.
#27 Paschendi Domenichi Gregious of St. Pius X condemns the above statement.

Last edited:



An Open Letter to Confused Catholics
By His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

18. True and False Obedience
Indiscipline is everywhere in the Church. Committees of priests send demands to their bishops, bishops disregard pontifical exhortations, even the recommendations and decisions of the Council are not respected and yet one never hears uttered the word “disobedience,” except as applied to Catholics who wish to remain faithful to Tradition and just simply keep the Faith.

Obedience is a serious matter; to remain united to the Church’s Magisterium and particularly to the Supreme Pontiff is one of the conditions of salvation. We are deeply aware of this and nobody is more attached to the present reigning successor of Peter, or has been more attached to his predecessors, than we are. I am speaking here of myself and of the many faithful driven out of the churches, and also of the priests who are obliged to celebrate Mass in barns as in the French Revolution, and to organize alternative catechism classes in town and country.

We are attached to the Pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his predecessors. It is the very definition of the successor of Peter that he is the keeper of this deposit. Pius IX teaches us in Pastor Aeternus: “The Holy Ghost has not in fact been promised to the successors of Peter to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”

The authority delegated by Our Lord to the Pope, the Bishops and the priesthood in general is for the service of faith. To make use of law, institutions and authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and no longer to transmit life, is to practise spiritual abortion or contraception.

This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for two thousand years, but we reject everything that is opposed to it.

For the fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of all Catholics during the pontificate of Paul VI. How ould a Pope, true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of time, something that no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be answered.

In the first half of the Fifth Century, St. Vincent of Lérins, who was a soldier before consecrating himself to God and acknowledged having been “tossed for a long time on the sea of the world before finding shelter in the harbor of faith,” spoke thus about the development of dogma: “Will there be no religious advances in Christ’s Church? Yes, certainly, there will be some very important ones, of such a sort as to constitute progress in the faith and not change. What matters is that in the course of ages knowledge, understanding and wisdom grow in abundance and in depth, in each and every individual as in the churches; provided always that there is identity of dogma and continuity of thought.” Vincent, who had experienced the shock of heresies, gives a rule of conduct which still holds good after fifteen hundred years: “What should the Catholic Christian therefore do if some part of the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion and the universal faith? What else can he do but prefer the general body which is healthy to the gangrenous and corrupted limb? And if some new contagion strives to poison, not just a small part of the Church but the whole Church at once, then again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity which obviously cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.”

In the Rogation-tide litanies the Church teaches us to say: “We beseech thee O Lord, maintain in Thy holy religion the Sovereign Pontiff and all the orders of ecclesiastical hierarchy.” This means that such a disaster could very well happen.

In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith, supported by the catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.

It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. Jesus Christ, Son of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable. On two occasions I have heard emissaries of the Holy See say to me: “The social Kingdom of Our Lord is no longer possible in our times and we must ultimately accept the plurality of religions.” This is exactly what they have said to me.

Well, I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion which has its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechism, its ecumenical Bible translated jointly by Catholics, Jews, Protestants and Anglicans, all things to all men, pleasing everybody by frequently sacrificing the interpretation of the Magisterium. We do not accept this ecumenical Bible. There is the Bible of God; it is His Word which we have not the right to mix with the words of men.

When I was a child, the Church had the same faith everywhere, the same sacraments and the same Sacrifice of the Mass. If anyone had told me then that it would be changed, I would not have believed him. Throughout the breadth of Christendom we prayed to God in the same way. The new liberal and modernist religion has sown division.

Christians are divided within the same family because of this confusion which has established itself; they no longer go to the same Mass and they no longer read the same books. Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith of their childhood and youth, renouncing the promises they made when they took the Anti-Modernist Oath at the moment of their ordination; or on the other hand they resist, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the Pope, who is our father and the Vicar of Christ. In both cases, what a heartbreak! Many priests have died of sorrow before their time.

How many more have been forced to abandon the parishes where for years they had practised their ministry, victims of open persecution by their hierarchy in spite of the support of the faithful whose pastor was being torn away! I have before me the moving farewell of one of them to the people of the two parishes of which he was priest: “In our interview on the... the Bishop addressed an ultimatum to me, to accept or reject the new religion; I could not evade the issue. Therefore, to remain faithful to the obligation of my priesthood, to remain faithful to the Eternal Church... I was forced and coerced against my will to retire... Simple honesty and above all my honor as a priest impose on me an obligation to be loyal, precisely in this matter of divine gravity (the Mass)... This is the proof of faithfulness and love that I must give to God and men and to you in particular, and it is on this that I shall be judged on the last day along with all those to whom was entrusted the same deposit (of faith).”

In the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, practically all the clergy have been driven out of the churches after the departure of Bishop Castro-Mayer, because they were not willing to abandon the Mass of all time which they celebrated there until recently.

Divisions affects the smallest manifestations of piety. In Val-de-Marne, the diocese got the police to eject twenty-five Catholics who used to recite the Rosary in a church which had been deprived of a priest for a long period of years. In the diocese of Metz, the bishops brought in the Communist mayor to cancel the loan of a building to a group of traditionalists. In Canada six of the faithful were sentenced by a Court, which is permitted by the law of that country to deal with this kind of matter, for insisting on receiving Holy Communion on their knees. The Bishop of Antigonish had accused them of “deliberately disturbing the order and the dignity of religious service.” The judge gave the “disturbers” a conditional discharge for six months! According to the Bishop, Christians are forbidden to bend the knee before God! Last year, the pilgrimage of young people to Chartres ended with a Mass in the Cathedral gardens because the Mass of St. Pius V was banned from the Cathedral itself. A fortnight later, the doors were thrown open for a spiritual concert in the course of which dances were performed by a former Carmelite nun.

Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice, but the choice is not between obedience and disobedience. What is suggested to us, what we are expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But even the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.

We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly organized and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master mind is not a man but Satan himself. For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience. A typical example is furnished by the “aggiornamento” of the religious societies. By obedience, monks and nuns are made to disobey the laws and constitutions of their founders, which they swore to observe when they made their profession. Obedience in this case should have been a categorical refusal. Even legitimate authority cannot command a reprehensible and evil act. Nobody can oblige anyone to change his monastic vows into simple promises, just as nobody can make us become Protestants or modernists. St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes so far in the Summa Theologica as to ask whether the “fraternal correction” prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made all the appropriate distinctions he replies: “One can exercise fraternal correction towards superiors when it is a matter of faith.”

If we were more resolute on this subject, we would avoid coming to the point of gradually absorbing heresies. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the English underwent an experience of the kind we are living through, but with the difference that it began with a schism. In all other respects the similarities are astonishing and should give us cause to ponder. The new religion which was to take the name “Anglicanism” started with an attack on the Mass, personal confession and priestly celibacy. Henry VIII, although he had taken the enormous responsibility of separating his people from Rome, rejected the suggestions that were put to him, but a year after his death a statute authorized the use of English for the celebration of the Mass. Processions were forbidden and a new order of service was imposed, the “Communion Service” in which there was no longer an Offertory. To reassure Christians another statute forbade all sorts of changes, whereas a third allowed priests to get rid of the statues of the saints and of the Blessed Virgin in the churches. Venerable works of art were sold to traders, just as today they go to antique dealers and flea markets.

Only a few bishops pointed out that the Communion Service infringed the dogma of the Real Presence by saying that Our Lord gives us His Body and Blood spiritually. The Confiteor, translated into the vernacular, was recited at the same time by the celebrant and the faithful and served as an absolution. The Mass was transformed into a meal or Communion. But even clear-headed bishops eventually ac-cepted the new Prayer Book in order to maintain peace and unity. It is for exactly the same reasons that the post-Conciliar Church wants to impose on us the Novus Ordo. The English bishops in the Sixteenth Century affirmed that the Mass was a “memorial!” A sustained propaganda introduced Lutheran views into the minds of the faithful. Preachers had to be approved by the Government.

During the same period the Pope was only referred to as the “Bishop of Rome.” He was no longer the father but the brother of the other bishops and in this instance, the brother of the King of England who had made himself head of the national church. Cranmer’s Prayer Book was composed by mixing parts of the Greek liturgy with parts of Luther’s liturgy. How can we not be reminded of Mgr. Bugnini drawing up the so-called Mass of Paul VI, with the collaboration of six Protestant “observers” attached as experts to the Consilium for the reform of the liturgy? The Prayer Book begins with these words, “The Supper and Holy Communion, commonly called Mass...,” which foreshadows the notorious Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis of the New Missal, revived by the Lourdes Eucharistic Congress in 1981: “The Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the Mass.” The destruction of the sacred, to which I have already referred, also formed part of the Anglican reform. The words of the Canon were required to be spoken in a loud voice, as happens in the “Eucharists” of the present day.

The Prayer Book was also approved by the bishops “to preserve the internal unity of the Kingdom.” Priests who continued to say the “Old Mass” incurred penalties ranging from loss of income to removal pure and simple, with life imprisonment for further offences. We have to be grateful that these days they do not put traditionalist priests in prison.

Tudor England, led by its pastors, slid into heresy without realizing it, by accepting change under the pretext of adapting to the historical circumstances of the time. Today the whole of Christendom is in danger of taking the same road. Have you thought that even if we who are of a certain age run a smaller risk, children and younger seminarians brought up in new catechisms, experimental psychology and sociology, without a trace of dogmatic or moral theology, canon law or Church history, are educated in a faith which is not the true one and take for granted the new Protestant notions with which they are indoctrinated? What will tomorrow’s religion be if we do not resist?

You will be tempted to say: “But what can we do about it? It is a bishop who says this or that. Look, this document comes from the Catechetical Commission or some other official commission.”

That way there is nothing left for you but to lose your faith. But you do not have the right to react in that way. St. Paul has warned us: “Even if an angel from Heaven came to tell you anything other than what I have taught you, do not listen to him.”

Such is the secret of true obedience.

Taken from : Open Letter to Confused Catholics : Chapter 18 : Para 9

Last edited:



St. Cyprian says that if one point of Catholic doctrine is denied then all are denied and they are outside the Church. Therefore Protestants are outside the Church and cannot really be called Christian. All you can do is pray that they convert and come into the one true Church. The same can said for those Catholics who accept Vatican II and the Novus Ordo Missae. which was written up by Annibale Bugnini (a known Freemason) & seven Protestant ministers amongst others. These persons who accept Vatican II & the new mass are in material schism with the Church.

Bishop Williamson states Novus Ordo Mass is legitimate. “While the new religion is false, is dangerous, and it strangles grace, and it’s helping many people to lose the faith, at the same time there are cases where it can be used and is used to build the faith.” “Therefore there are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it". (HUH?)

How can the new religion be
(a) false,
(d) dangerous,
(e) a strangler of grace
(f) helps many people to lose the faith
yet at the same time 'can be used to build the faith? Is this not typical ambiguous* modernist talk?

This has been condemned by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical “Auctorum Fide” where he condemns the Council of Pistoya saying the trick of the Modernists is to write in such a way as something can be interpreted in two ways. Pius VI says the purpose of a Council is to clarify doctrine. Pius X similarly condemns this ambiguity in Paschendi Dominici Gregious saying that one of the Modernist tricks is to give you some Catholic doctrine on one hand but take away some Catholic doctrine on the other.

*Definition of 'ambiguous' : Open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal : e.g. an ambiguous answer.

Last edited:


It is becoming clear why the loose federation of priests confuses the laity. I think that in their innocence, the pewsitter automatically, and without question, believes that all priests are in union with the Church's teachings, doctrine and practices. That was the situation before Vatican II council where one could go to Mass and Confession in any parish anywhere. It is far from the situation that exists now amongst resistant priests. The terrible tragedy that now exists is that the majority of the laity, priests and Bishops now exercise his/her/their own individual set of beliefs>opinions. There is no longer a unity of faith between Catholics. Some hold the sedevacantism position; do not pray for the Pope; no longer care about Fatima etc. etc. The result is that each one argues from his/her own set of beliefs...a kind of 'Catholic Protestantism'.

Another factor is that a whole generation has grown up in the shadow of the the errors promoted by the counterfeit church. Such folk do not have the experience of living in complete unity where the Pope and hierarchy spoke as one voice. The one exception to this babel of voices is where the true sons of Archbishop Lefebvre hold the line refusing any hint of compromise, howsoever small, with the counterfeit chuch. Such priests fight for the faith with every fibre of their being carrying on where the Archbishop left off. The loose federationn of priests places the pewsitter in the position of having to choose which priest to follow; which group of priests to join. What is becoming evident is that some priests leading the small groups of 'traditional' Catholics are giving bad example when publicly criticising a fellow priest. It is one thing to correct openly a doctrinal error so that the flock are kept on the road of Truth, but to attack a fellow priest at the personal level only further dismays lost and confused Catholics. Camp-followers of the various priests appear to be settling for whatever their priest tells them even though Priest A is at variance with Priest B. We do not want the comforting spell of to be broken. We continue to leave everything to the particular priest we follow, so that if he errs or compromises in small things it doesn't matter just so long as we can receive the Sacraments. In the end nothing has changed. The flock attend the n-SSPX because they receive the Sacraments. The groupings of Catholics around various resistant priests remain where they are without questioning whether he is teaching clear unadulterated doctrine - just so long as they receive the Sacraments.

And so it is the hope of this programme to 'join the dots'; to highlight the Word of Christ issuing from the mouths and documents of preachers/teachers faithful to the unchanging doctrines of Mother Church. There is one thing we have been taught well by them, and that is 'without faith we cannot please God.'. We can all keep the faith, even if we cannot, in conscience, receive the material sacraments from priests who do their own thing or because no priest is available. Cor Mariae is grateful to them for the wonderful body of knowledge/instruction bequeathed to us in this, our hour of need.



There is one thing when a diocesan priest is unjustly expelled from his dioceses (hierarchical connection), and he has no recourse but to be independent from its organized diocesan system of the church and must be "loose" as it were to exist within supplied jurisdiction that provides for his means to sanctify the faithful. It is quite another thing when a priest is unjustly expelled from his religious order or religious congregation like those of the SSPX, the Benedictines, Dominicans, Capuchins, and others...

Regarding Bishop Williamson and the SSPX priests (now calling themselves SSPX-MC) unjustly expelled by their superior general, Bishop Fellay as he pursues an adulterous union with modernist Rome, they are still SSPX priests and carry the church's blessing and legal identity of their religious congregation in their person. They have all of the integrity, graces, and promises of their order under the statutes established by Archbishop Lefebvre as a protocol and legal entity within the branches of the Holy Church founded by Christ. This is the foundation upon which the expelled Bishop/priests continue to serve the church. They have the legitimate and connective branch to continue in the redemptive work of the church God gave to his servant Archbishop Lefebvre and continues by will of God in his faithful sons without any doubt or split of conscience.

Having said all the above, it is confusing, to say the least - that Bishop Williamson, and some SSPX-MC priests with him, purposely choose independence rather than unity-as-an-order to live in a protestant-like separation from their religious congregation's statue, graces of sanctification thus depriving the legal branch of the church from receiving the living waters of Christ. They choose to be "loose" and a true vagabond of priests and bishops. This is insane!

They are priests of Jesus Christ who gave Him at their ordination ALL of their mind, heart and soul to unselfishly serve him and to be faithful to his spouse Holy mother Church. To purposely leave their religious congregation, especially when she is suffering from betrayers inside, is to purposely disconnect from reality. They too serve in a different adultery from their promises and calling of the church. Both Bishop Fellay and Bishop Williamson are existing in extremes. What a crisis!

We will have no part in their "loose" human rebellion. Their perverse actions serve more of the French revolution than the church they "loosely" claim to profess.



Defending the Indefensible
by Fr. Fernando Altamira

Recently, Bishop Williamson said that one could attend the new Mass. He was replying to a lady in a “Questions and Answers” session, after a public conference. When we gave news of this, it provoked a defence of Bishop Williamson’s words by the priest who runs the website Non Possumus.

To do this is to defend the indefensible. Once such a thing happens, and the more so when what has been said is very serious, one has a duty to warn people, regardless of who might have said it. The priest in question is doing with Bishop Williamson what he would not accept doing with Bishop Fellay (and this is a risk which concerns us all).

With Bishop Fellay, warn about all the bad things he says. With Bishop Williamson, make excuses for him and give a false interpretation of what he really meant to say, despite the literal meaning of his words. Thus one falls into the trap of the supporters of Bishop Fellay: he is always the object of misinterpretation.

Let us return to Bishop Williamson. The news of this which we gave did not include everything which he affirmed publicly. We strongly urge all those who understand English to watch this video, in which one finds all the incriminating words. But let us look briefly at the short text which we put out:

Bishop Williamson and the New Mass

This piece of film represents the words of Bishop Williamson saying that one can assist at the New Mass. This seems to us to be something very serious on his part. We do not approve the somewhat mocking tone of the video (from about half-way through, more or less), but the content is quite correct. Bishop Williamson’s words last for 12 minutes and the video is in total 30 minutes long.

–At Minute 0.55: “There’s the principles and then there’s the practice”
-At Minute 6.46
: “There have been Eucharistic miracles with the Novus Ordo Mass.”
–At Minute 8.56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one’s faith instead of losing it.”
–At Minute 9.53: “Be very careful, be very careful with the Novus, stay away from the Novus Ordo, but exceptionally, if you’re watching and praying, even there you may find the grace of God. If you do, make use of it in order to sanctify your soul.”
-At Minute 10.37: “Therefore I would not say every single person must stay away from every single Novus Ordo Mass”.

It is sad to say, and I do not say it maliciously (I know I am not lying), this shows the sad state of the spirit of this priest, the things which he is ready to do: defending Bishop Williamson blow for blow. I insist: before, he would not have tolerated this kind of attitude from Bishop Fellay, whereas now

In the defence which he makes, this priest forgets the heart of the problem and seems to use (we suppose that he does so unconsciously) a sophism to defend the indefensible. If my memory serves, this sophism is called “ignorantio elenchi” (which means answering a question with something which is beside the point).

Let us say things clearly:

The New Mass is bad (I hope that this priest will not change his view of that). That being the case, there is a universally valid moral principle of capital importance: nobody (not even a priest or a bishop) can positively advise someone to do something bad. But that is exactly what Bishop Williamson did several times over with this lady: he advised her to assist at the New Mass.

This principle is absolutely certain. And if this priest wrote that knowingly and not in ignorance (which should have been the case, since he is a priest and it relates to his duty of state), he must assume responsibility for his words. And if he is writing out of ignorance, well that’s not very glorious either.

If it is really necessary, when a priest speaks with one of the faithful who is of good will (a simple soul) who goes to the New Mass, he could keep quiet, out of prudence, if that faithful is still not ready to hear the whole truth. But keeping quiet is one thing, positively advising him to go to the New Mass, as Bishop Williamson did, is something else.

The priest who tries to defend Bishop Williamson even goes so far as to use as an argument the fact that Bishop Williamson was replying to a woman who was sobbing. Well, firstly one does not hear any sobbing in the video. Secondly, even if there were, what kind of an argument is that? Otherwise, we would be reduced to the absurdity of having to declare the following moral principle: “To someone asking if they are allowed to do an evil act (e.g. assisting at the New Mass, abortion, etc.) one may answer in the affirmative, on condition that the person is sobbing.” Comment would be superfluous.

What is more, Bishop Williamson returns insistently to the question of the validity of the New Mass (they “can” be valid). But hold on: first of all we don’t know and we are justified in saying with as much likelihood (if not more so!), that Novus Ordo Masses can be invalid. Secondly, to even suppose that Novus Ordo Masses are valid, all or some of them, that’s not where the problem is at. It is well known: even in such a case it is still not permissible to assist at a Novus Ordo Mass since, whether or not it is valid, this rite is bad in se and is displeasing to God. Thirdly, the Masses of the heretical Russian Orthodox are certainly valid and yet it is obvious that we’re not allowed to assist at them. So: what should we say concerning the New Mass?

At the end you can read the quotes from Bishop Williamson.

I think that we priests who reacted against what Bishop Fellay is doing are wrong to hide the problems which also exist on our side. [Editor’s note – the same surely goes for “we laymen who reacted…”] And there are so many that the only positive attitude one can have is neither to hide them nor to seek to excuse them but to confront them calmly, proving our realism, and trying to remedy them. That is the only constructive thing we can do. Otherwise God will not bless us, nor will He bless what we are doing, and it will all end badly.

And so I cordially greet this priest at Non Possumus, without any hypocrisy, in the hope that this writing will help contribute to improving the current situation. May the Most Holy Virgin Mary come to our aid.
Fr. Fernando Altamira
28th July, 2015
-Minutes 10:45 and 22:05: If they can trust their own judgment that this…attending this mass [the New Mass] will do more good than harm spiritually… but it does harm in itself, there´s no doubt about that. It´s a rite designed to undermine Catholics´ faith[…]”. And at that point, the authors of the video add: “Remember: The new mass is poison! But if poison is good for you, then go ahead”.

-Minute 11:27: “But exceptionally… The wise thing would be probably to say in private this to that person, but here I am saying it in public, that may be foolish.”
Note – no one has the right to advise someone to do something wrong (such as assisting at the New Mass) either in public or in private. That’s an absurdity, it’s evil and it’s an error (cf. main text)
-Minute 6:36: “I don´t know if any of you know, again, I´m going to get hanged! But that´s in the contract…”
-Minute 8:56: “There are cases when even the Novus Ordo Mass can be attended with an effect of building one´s faith instead of losing it. That´s heresy, almost heresy within Tradition.”
-Minute 1:10: “Therefore, the Archbishop (Lefebvre) would say, in public he would say stay away, keep away from the New Mass.”

Note – these words about Archbishop Lefebvre (“in public he would say…”) seem to be insinuating that in private he would say something different: such an insinuation is disgraceful!

The Recusant
Last edited:


Letter to Bishop Williamson from Heaven

CATHOLIC. June 1994. (Re-typed verbatim, for clarity).

People who have remained faithful to the Mass of all Times from the 70's onwards in Australia will remember the name of Father Denis O'Brien Buckley. Those who knew him will know of the difficulties he suffered. Some of these difficulties are detailed in the letter reproduced here. Not long after he wrote this letter to his Bishop, he was told that he was no longer wanted in the Diocese of Townsville. He set up a chapel in his parents' home soon after his father died in 1976. From there he became known throughout the country as one of the few priests who was actively defending the Old Mass. Most countries had just a few priests who remained faithful to their ordination oath; we might indeed call them hero-priests, and that is a fitting description for Fr. Buckley.

For a time Fr. Buckley operated The Catholic Research Centre, which inserted paid advertisements in the Brisbane daily The Courier Mail, until forces conspired to prevent them appearing. He also printed many pamphlets as funds permitted. But it also has to be said that he was not very successful, no more than many other priests who tried to fulfil their priestly vocation by staying faithful to the True Mass and True Faith.

Fr. Buckley contracted a particularly painful cancer, a trial which he accepted with resignation. His illness caused him to lose more than half his body weight from around 150 pounds (70Kg) to less than 70 pounds (32Kg). Our Lord took this priest of God to his eternal reward six years ago, on June 10, 1988, the Feast of the Sacred Heart. Please pray for the repose of the soul of Fr. Buckley, for God knows that all the prayers that will be offered for every soul at the time of judgement.

And his Bishop? Fr. Buckley¹s letter had little effect on him. He has gone on to become the Archbishop of Adelaide, and is Australia¹s leading proponent of inclusive language in the liturgy, and also went "soft" on homosexuality.


1st March 1975
Most Rev. L A Faulkner, D.D.
Bishop of Townsville

My Lord Bishop,
I have just arrived home yesterday from overseas, and I will be in the Diocese of Townsville as soon as I can manage it, as there are some matters I must attend to first. As you know, I followed your advice and went to the St. John of God Brothers' Hospital (in Sydney) in May last year for mental examination. Their doctor did not admit me as a patient, and after treating me as an out-patient, finally said that as far as he could discover, there was nothing wrong with my mental processes, and that he would issue a certificate to that effect to anyone who required it. He was going to advise you accordingly. So I was cleared, but the problem was still there. You remember I told you three years ago that I didn't know what was going on ­ I wasn't leaving the Church as far as I knew, but the Church was certainly leaving me. I didn't know how else to put it. I had been ordained into a Church that believed and taught certain very definite things, and acted in a certain very common sense and satisfying way ­ and here it was believing and teaching and acting differently, and in a most unsatisfying and distressing way. I told you there were times when I felt ashamed to be a priest ­ and I never thought I'd ever feel that way. The Church was actually questioning and contradicting its own previous teachings, and permitting and promoting things that had been explicitly forbidden and anathematized in the past.

You remember I said to you in April 1972 that if before our ordination we had said that we could refer to bread and wine on the altar after the Consecration in the Mass, we would never have been ordained ­ and yet that is what is done now. This can't be the Catholic Mass ­ even the Protestants see that because they use the English Eucharistic Prayers at their service.
I asked you why we say 'your people and your ministers' and not 'your people and your Priests', because I was ordained a Priest, not a minister. Were we not supposed to regard ourselves as Priests now? How could we now, with the blessing of the Church, involve ourselves in 'communicatio in sacris' which the Church has always taught was illicit, being formal co-operation in an evil act, and forbidden by the natural law? Was the Church wrong about this in the past? It was an insult to our intelligence to make out, as has been made out, that nothing was really changed. Of course it was changed, and most dishonestly; but because of our promise of obedience we were prepared to believe that we must accept anything we were told by authority in the Church. We should all be very angry that our obedience has been abused by making us agree to heresy. The thing that shocked me most when I realised it was that the Mass had been so tampered with. Every time the priests says the words of the Consecration over the wine in English (and who now uses anything else?) he tells a lie. He says that Our Lord's words were 'It will be shed for you and for all men' The Gospels say Our Lord said 'shed for many'. The Catechism of the Council of Trent says: 'with reason were the words 'for all' not used, as in this place the fruits of the passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation.' And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: 'Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many'; and also the words of Our Lord in John: 'I pray for them; I pray not for the world, but for them whom thou hast given me, because they are thine.' Not only is it a lie to say that Our Lord said 'for all men', but if the priest uses these words he attacks the Mystical Body. The Mass is not for all men, but only for the members of the Mystical Body. This is simply Catholic doctrine. So if this form of worship is being offered for all men, it cannot be the Mass.

What more sacrilegious way to make the Mass invalid than to put a lie in the words of the Consecration. Would Our Lord be involved in condoning a lie? How could the Real Presence be there? Even if this made it only doubtfully invalid, a Priest is seriously forbidden to confect a doubtful Sacrament ­ again Catholic doctrine. The day I found that out, eight months ago, was the last day I had anything to do with the Novus Ordo. I went back to the Mass I was certain of.

When the psychiatrist, Dr. Pasfield, was able to assure me that I was thinking perfectly straight, then it was one of two things: either the Catholic Church had gone mad, and therefore Our Lord had abandoned it, which would rule that out, or this was not really the Catholic Church speaking at all, but heretics had somehow got inside the Church and were speaking in its name. This also seemed crazy, but at the time I'd forgotten, if I ever knew, that in 1910 Pope St. Pius X had warned the Bishops that this very thing was facing them: 'Internal enemies who in alliance with the chief enemies of the Church are aiming at the ruin of the Faith.' Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII had warned of the same thing. That's why I went overseas, My Lord, to Rome, Switzerland, France, the U.K. and U.S.A., to check on this unbelievable situation. And everywhere I went the Catholics I met said the same thing: 'Unbelievable.' They found it just incredible that the Catholic Church was getting to be just another Protestant sect; even more incredible that the Bishops were doing nothing to prevent it ­ were even doing the very things that would bring it about.

The Catholics angriest about all this were the converts. They knew at first hand what Protestantism was and had left it precisely to become Catholics; and now they were expected, commanded, to become and think like Protestants again. They were now directed to accept in the Novus Ordo Missae what they had clearly recognised as their former Protestant communion service. Of course they have refused this substitute for the Mass ­ when they can't attend a Catholic Mass they certainly don't go to the Novus Ordo. Everywhere people complained at all the things that were being allowed to humiliate the Church and take away its image. They blame the Bishops and Priests for it. We have never in our lifetime been regarded with such contempt as now. One leading Catholic in San Francisco told me: 'Anyone who trusts a priest today is a nut.' And he was very savage when he said it.

Truly, every Priest has reason to be angry at what has happened to us. Sadly enough, I heard of no Bishop, Priest or lay person who had enough concern about what was happening to the Church to go and find out. Now wonder everyone is ignorant, and doing nothing about it ­ but there is absolutely doubt the Church is meant to be destroyed and its enemies are working hard at it. In the five months I was away I gathered an immense amount of documented facts which show to anyone who is honest that the Church has been 'got at', very cleverly. The Mass has been mutilated so that many of the clergy overseas no longer believe in the Real Presence. Changes have been made in the matter and form of the Sacraments which bring into doubt the validity of at least some of them.

Heresies which have been condemned by name by the Church in the past are now presented as Catholic truth or at least 'acceptable to Catholic thinking.' The Catholic Church is no longer thought of as the repository of all religious truth, but we have something to learn from heretics and pagans. And so on and on. And in the USA in the last five years the Church has lost 3,000 Priests, and in the last ten years 40,000 nuns and 553 Catholic High Schools. Surely there¹s a connection. Anyway My Lord, I don't intend to have anything more to do with the new religion, no matter who commands it or authorizes it; and that is in accord with the oath we all took at our ordination. As you know, I have been a Priest of the Diocese of Townsville for twenty-six years. You asked me when we met at the seminary (Banyo) in September if I was still saying my Office. I have never deliberately missed an hour of the Office since my sub-diaconate; nor have I ever missed attending a single Mass if I could be there, as I think you know. My one aim in life has been to look after my own soul and any others I could; and in this crisis in the Church, knowing what I do know, I am more determined than ever that I won¹t be cheated out of Heaven anyway.

So if I am to continue to serve in the Diocese it can only be on the conditions the Diocese agreed to ordain me in 1948 ­ to offer the Mass in the rite to which I swore an oath to be faithful; to administer the Sacraments in the Catholic way, which was the only way before they were mutilated by licence of the Second Vatican Council; to teach and preach orthodox Catholic truth and devotion; to have nothing to do with Modernism of any kind. If My Lord, you feel bound by some agreement with the Australian National College of Bishops not to allow me to work in the Diocese in that way, then that is your decision. I shall carry on my priestly work for my own parents to whom I owe so much for my Priesthood, and for the many other people I know who value their Faith.

I would hope that what I have written, My Lord, will make you determined to look into what is going on in the Church as I have done. In a matter as serious as this, surely you owe it to yourself and the Priests and Religious and people of the Diocese. I assure you that you will find things very wrong.
People overseas asked me: 'Is there an honest Bishop in your country whom will come over here to see what is happening and do something about it?' They have no hope of their own Bishops saving the Church.

The one thing that should strike everyone as significant is the hatred shown for the true Mass. It is literally true that any kind of sentimental, unlawful, blasphemous performance of the Novus Ordo can take place anywhere, with communion handed around in baskets by nuns to children who are told to help themselves ­ any disrespectful, irreverence or sacrilege is allowed without restriction; apparently no one cares. But let a priest try to offer the Sacrifice of the Mass in the presence of even a few devout Catholics, the Mass for which the English Martyrs died, and he is persecuted as though he were a traitor to the Church. It is the same hatred of the Mass as at the Reformation, but now in the name of the Church! How could Our Lord¹s Church treat His Sacrifice like that?

The Mass is the clue to what is happening in the Church today, My Lord. They tried to destroy the Mass at the Reformation by outlawing it, but after the Reformation it was still there, to come down to us. This time they have slyly changed it into a non-Mass, while having everyone think nothing has been changed. So the grace of the Mass has gone for most clergy and people throughout the English-speaking world at least. No wonder there is serious trouble in the Church and the world.

My Lord, those Catholics who know all this are very angry that they have been robbed. When all Catholics know it, as they are going to, their anger will make things very hard for those in authority who should have stopped this disaster. Even in your own interest and that of the Episcopacy generally, My Lord, please do something about it before it is too late. You surely must realise what a dangerous situation this is.

I couldn't avoid writing at this length, My Lord, and this is only a fraction of what could be said. I hope to be in the diocese about March 12th, and meanwhile ask your blessing.
I am, My Lord,
Your obedient servant.
Father Denis O¹Brien Buckley.
He fought the good fight
He has finished his course
He has kept the faith.

Reverend Father
Denis O¹Brien Buckley.
Born 18th May, 1923
Ordained Priest 29th June, 1948
Died on the Feast of the Sacred Heart
10th June, 1988

Contributed by 'Veronica' from another forum