The Canonical Recognition in Question
About the Conciliar Church
(Editorial of Le Sel de la terre 101)
ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CONCILIAR CHURCH, its existence, and its nature, several studies have been published in Le Sel de la terre1.
[Editor’s Note: See also the May, 2015 article on this website: Is there a conciliar church? ]
In Le Sel de la terre 59, the Conciliar Church is described as the society of the baptised placed under the direction of the current Popes and bishops so as to promote Conciliar ecumenism, and who, consequently, accept the teachings of Vatican II, practice the new liturgy and go by the new Canon law2.
In Le Sel de la terre 97, the Conciliar Church was shown as a transition between the Catholic Church and the Counter-Church. The conclusion of this article gave, as an example of this transition, the Hellfest, Hell Feast, right at the heart of the French Vendée region, where over one hundred thousand youngsters have come these past few years during the summer in order to celebrate the devil. Between their Catholic grand parents celebrating God on feast days like Corpus Christi and these demonic grandchildren, only one Conciliar generation was enough to make the transition.
Let us also mention the “Little Vatican II Catechism” published in Le Sel de la terre 93 (Spring 2015), which shows how Conciliar teaching was influenced by masonic ideas; warnings about the Counter-Church (see Le Sel de la terre 92, Summer 2015, p. 134-138); and “News from Rome” published in Le Sel de la terre 89, 91 and 94, exposing the Conciliar Church efforts to establish a secular globalisation in concert with Freemasonry.
From these various studies, we can conclude that the Conciliar Church is being used as an instrument at the hands of Freemasonry in order to compel the Catholic faithful to work volens nolens [Editor’s Note: “willingly but at the same time involuntarily”] towards general globalisation, i.e. the building of the masonic “Temple”.
Archbishop Lefebvre had seen it and clearly explained it in his “spiritual testament“:
This “Conciliar Church” is imbued with the principles of 1789. These are Masonic principles with respect to religion and religions in general and with respect to civil society. It is an imposter inspired by Hell for the destruction of the Catholic religion, of its Magisterium, of its priesthood, and of the Sacrifice of Our Lord3.
And he rightly drew the following conclusion:
It is therefore a strict duty for any priest wishing to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church, so long as she will not return to the tradition of the Church Magisterium and of the Catholic Faith4.
May we accept a canonical recognition?
When Archbishop Lefebvre founded the Society of St. Pius X (in 1970), he obtained a canonical erection for the Society as a pious union from Bishop Charrière, of Fribourg. It remained canonically recognised by Rome for five years.
Eventually, on November 21st, 1974, following a canonical visit to Écône by two Roman envoys, Archbishop Lefebvre made a declaration expressing his refusal of “the Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies which were clearly evident in the Second Vatican Council and, after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.“
From that moment on, a clear demarcation line had been drawn between the two “Churches”. The « Rome of neo-Modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies » would soon be called Conciliar Rome by Msgr Benelli5, a name which was to last.
The canonical “suppression” of the Society of St. Pius X was carried out by Bishop Mgr Mamie on May 6th, 1975. Archbishop Lefebvre used to say this was ”irregular and unjust anyway“6.
This “suppression” was consequently considered as null and void by the Archbishop as well as by those who follow the rules of the Catholic Church, while it was regarded as valid by those in line with the Conciliar Church.
Nonetheless, we hear more and more about a “canonical recognition” of the Society of St. Pius X by the current Vatican authorities. May this kind of recognition be accepted?
Per se, lawfulness in the Catholic Church is a good thing, and it is even necessary. Archbishop Lefebvre asked for this validation in 1970, and obtained it.
Yet, today, if a canonical recognition were to be granted, it would be according to the new Code of canon law, just like in the case of the jurisdiction which was recently granted by the Pope to the Society of St Pius X.
This would be a good enough reason to refuse such a recognition7.
Moreover such a recognition, under the current circumstances, would have other drawbacks such as:
— We would become part of Conciliar pluralism, Tradition being recognized as well as the charismatics, the Focolari, the Opus Dei, etc. It is truth put on the same level as error, at least in the public opinion.
— It would allow in our chapels a number of faithful who clearly mean to remain Conciliar, Modernist and Liberal, with all the consequences, since weakening of faith leads to bad morals.
— It would necessarily mean reducing attacks against errors professed by the very Authorities we would have to report to. It is anyway easy to realise that the superiors of the Society of St. Pius X have already reduced their criticism against current errors (Martin Luther Year, Amoris Lætitia, etc.)
— Finally such a recognition would place us directly under superiors who are themselves under Masonic influence. Divine Providence allowed that Archbishop Lefebvre and those who have followed him remain exempt from this masonic influence: it would be a serious lack of prudence to deliberately submit oneself to it. Freemasonry started exactly three centuries ago (24th June 1717). After destroying Catholic States (through revolutions from the 18th to the 20e century), and enslaving the Church (the Alta Vendita plan implemented by the Vatican II Council), will it succeed in extending its influence over Archbishop Lefebvre’s work? This would look like its victory down here on earth.
As a conclusion, a canonical solution could only be considered with a doctrinally converted Rome, a Rome that would have proven this conversion by working for the reign of Our Lord Jesus-Christ and fighting against its enemies.
- See notably Le Sel de la terre 34, p. 248 ; Le Sel de la terre 45, p. 36-41 : « Jean Madiran et l’Église conciliaire » ; Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007), p. 3-8 : « Une hiérarchie pour deux Églises » ; Le Sel de la terre 85 (Summer 2013), p. 1-16 : « Y a-t-il une Église conciliaire » par Mgr Tissier de Mallerais ; Le Sel de la terre 97 (Summer 2016), p. 24-44 : « Ecclésiologie comparée ».
- Editorial, Le Sel de la terre 59 (Winter 2006-2007).
- Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey according to St Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica, chapter 2.
- Abp Marcel Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, chapter 3.
- Msgr Giovanni Benelli, 1921-1982, Substitute at the Secretariate of State, created Archbishop of Florence and Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977, wrote on behalf of the Pope in a letter dated June 25th, 1976 to Abp Lefebvre: “[If the Ecône seminarians] are of good will and seriously prepared for priestly ministry in the true fidelity to the Conciliar Church, we will find the best solution for them.”
- Bp Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Marcel Lefebvre, Étampes, Clovis, 2002, p. 510.
- “We cannot be satisfied with some particular discipline for the Society; we refuse this new Code because it is detrimental to the common good of all the Church, which we want to defend”, Fr Jean-Michel Gleize, Courrier de Rome No. 499, May 2017.