Monthly archives: January, 2017

Archbishop Lefebvre Anathematizes Non Una Cum Priests

“The Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters and oblates cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope”

-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

“Non Una Cum” and the Resistance


 “Non Una Cum” and the Resistance

By Sean Johnson, 20 January 2017


As the deterioration of the papacy accelerates under Pope Francis, with revealed doctrine consistently being openly flouted and contradicted, some priests in the Resistance have embarked upon a campaign to make the prayer for the Pope in the canon of the Mass (ie., “una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro Francisco”) optional.  These usually deny being sedevacantists, instead preferring to argue that, “as the status of the Vatican II and post-Vatican II Popes is uncertain (so they say), likewise, so too ought the rendition of the prayer “una cum” (which means “One with thy servant, Pope Francis”) be optional, since we cannot be sure he really is a Pope.”

These same priests will often be found wielding a newly created term: “Dogmatic sedeplenists,” by which they mean to adversely describe those Catholics who are rightly intolerant of the suggestion that the recognition of Francis as Pope is optional.  Just as the homosexuals created the term “homophobia” (with its connotations of irrational opposition) to make their opponents seem the “bad guys,” create a perception of being unjustly persecuted, and spread the idea that sexual orientation was merely a choice or personal preference, a similar tactic is used by the “non una cum” priests:

“Who can say whether Francis is Pope?  As the matter is doubtful, we ought not persecute -or be dogmatic- in the defense or assertion of his Papacy.  We ought to tolerate those with opposing views until the Church settles the matter, etc.  And after all, since we cannot pray for heretics in the Canon of the Mass, it is better to leave Francis’ name out.”

By this artifice, they hope to create sympathy and openness among Resistance Catholics to the idea that one may decide on his own accord whether or not the “una cum” prayer should be prayed for Francis, or as they now prefer “una cum Petro.”

Let us review Church teaching to discover whether this is justified and permitted.

What Does the Church Teach About Praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass?

In 1756, Pope Benedict XIV promulgated the encyclical Ex Quo,1 which announced to the Church that the “Euchologion”2 of the Eastern uniates had been corrected in conformity with Catholic doctrine.  One of the corrections which had taken place was the insertion of the prayer for the Pope (which quite logically was absent in the schismatic Euchologion).

The Holy Father explained:

“But however it may be with this disputed point of ecclesiastical learning, it suffices Us to be able to state that a commemoration of the supreme pontiff and prayers offered for him during the sacrifice of the Mass is considered, and really is, an affirmative indication which recognizes him as the head of the Church, the vicar of Christ, and the successor of blessed Peter, and is the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity. This was rightly noticed by Christianus Lupus in his work on the Councils: “This commemoration is the chief and most glorious form of communion” (tome 4, p. 422, Brussels edition). This view is not merely approved by the authority of Ivo of Flaviniaca who writes: “Whosoever does not pronounce the name of the Apostolic one in the canon for whatever reason should realize that he is separated from the communion of the whole world” (Chronicle, p. 228); or by the authority of the famous Alcuin: “It is generally agreed that those who do not for any reason recall the memory of the Apostolic pontiff in the course of the sacred mysteries according to custom are, as the blessed Pelagius teaches, separated from the communion of the entire world” (de Divinis Officiis, bk. 1, chap. 12).3

It is evident, therefore, that the omission of the prayer for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass is considered by the Church to be a schismatic act, which deprives the violator of communion with the Catholic Church.

But Who is to Say Francis is a Pope?

The “non una cum” priests attempt to skirt this trap by questioning the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate: “Sure, this applies to validly reigning Popes, but since it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, it is not clear this passage from Benedict XIV’s encyclical applies to him.”

But is it really true that the legitimacy of Francis’ pontificate is, for a Catholic, a matter open to question?

Siscoe/Salza cite several weighty authorities asserting the contrary: 4

1)   Cardinal Billot, S.J. expressly denies that God could allow a false Pope to be recognized as a true Pope:

“Finally, whatever you still think about the possibility or impossibility of the aforementioned hypothesis [a Pope becoming a heretic], at least one point should be considered absolutely incontrovertible, and placed firmly above any doubt whatever: The adhesion of the universal Church will be always, in itself, an infallible sign of the legitimacy of a determined Pontiff, and therefore also of the existence of all the conditions required for legitimacy itself…As will become even more clear by what we shall say later, God can permit that at times a vacancy in the Apostolic See be prolonged for a long time.  He can also permit that doubt arise about the legitimacy of this or that election.  He cannot however permit the whole Church to accept as Pontiff him who is not so truly and legitimately.

Therefore, from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head to the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy.  For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of all the required conditions.”5

2)   Msgr. Van Noort asserts the legitimacy of a reigning Pope to be a dogmatic fact (and therefore unquestionable6):

“The Church’s infallibility extends to dogmatic facts.  This proposition is theologically certain.  A dogmatic fact is a fact not contained in the sources of revelation, but on the admission of which depends the knowledge or certainty of a dogma or of a revealed truth.  The following questions are concerned with dogmatic facts: Was the First Vatican Council a legitimate ecumenical council?  Is the Latin Vulgate a substantially faithful translation of the original books of the Bible?  Was Pius XII legitimately elected Bishop of Rome?  One can readily see that on these facts hang the questions of whether the decrees of the First Vatican Council are infallible; whether the Vulgate is truly sacred Scripture; whether Pius XII is to be recognized as supreme ruler of the universal Church.”7

3)   Fr. Berry’s manual (lauded by both sedevacantists and Catholics) teaches the following:

“A dogmatic fact is one that has not been revealed, yet is so intimately connected with a doctrine of faith that without certain knowledge of the fact there can be no certain knowledge of the doctrine.  For example, was the First Vatican Council truly ecumenical?  Was Pius IX a legitimate Pope?  Was the election of Pius XI valid?  Such questions must be decided with certainty before decrees issued by any council or Pope can be accepted as infallibly true or binding on the Church.  It is evident then, that the Church must be infallible in judging of such facts, and since the Church is infallible in believing as well as in teaching, it follows that the practically unanimous consent of the bishops and faithful in accepting a council as ecumenical, or a Roman Pontiff as legitimately elected, gives absolute and infallible certainty of the fact.”8

4)   Siscoe/Salza also cite the 1951 work of Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J. “On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning them9” as declaring:

“The rejection of a dogmatic fact is a mortal sin against faith.”10

It is therefore scarcely tenable to claim, as the “non una cum” priests do, that the mandate from Pope Benedict XIV’s encyclical Ex Quo can be evaded on the pretext that it is not certain Francis is a legitimate Pope, when the Church considers that determination to be one of dogmatic fact (and therefore theologically certain).

But We Do Accept Francis as Pope!

One priest I recently corresponded with on this issue said to me, “Anyone who says that I am a sedevacantist is a liar!”

Then in the very next breath, he continued to explain to me that:

  1. He rejects the authority of Francis;
  2. He rejects the jurisdiction of Francis;
  3. He refuses to say the name of Francis in the Canon.

Is that position coherent?

Can one who claims Francis has no authority, or jurisdiction, and whose name he refuses to pray in the Mass, avoid the label of “sedevacantist?”


As (sedevacantist) Bishop Sanborn explained in a well-known article, the prayer “una cum” is the litmus test for sedevacantism:

“Because the rubrics instruct the priest to leave out the name of the pope or bishop if the see is vacant (i.e., when a pope dies and the new pope is not elected), the mention or non-mention of the name by the priest is a litmus test for the priest’s position about John Paul II [or Francis] and the New Church. If he thinks that John Paul II is the true Pope, successor of Saint Peter, then he must place his name in the Canon. If, on the other hand, he does not hold him to be a true Pope, but a false one, then the priest must not mention his name in the Canon. So this little phrase in the Mass, una cum, says it all: is he or isnt he the Pope?11

And after reaching out to Fr. Anthony Cekada (another well-known sedevacantist priest in America), I received the following response to my question on whether a non-sedevacantist could omit Francis from the Canon of the Mass (in the typically blunt Fr. Cekada fashion):

“The rubrics do not allow this. If there is a pope, his name must be inserted where prescribed. If there is no Pope, the entire phrase is omitted. The idea of inserting something else is simply stupid.”12

The same argument would have been made by every other “faction” in the Church: Sedevacantists, SSPX, indult, and conciliar.  All recognize that either Francis is Pope, and you must pray for him in the Canon, or he is not, and therefore you must omit his name.

Therefore, to omit the prayer for Francis, while simultaneously denying one is a sedevacantist, is either incoherent at best, or dissimulating at worst.

In 2007, Fr. Anthony Cekada wrote a lengthy article titled “The Grain of Incense: Sedevacantists and Una Cum Masses,”13 which several years later was distilled into an abridged version titled “Should I Assist at a Mass that Names ‘Pope Francis’ in the Canon?”14

The purpose of those articles was to explain the importance of the “una cum” prayer to sedevacantists, and thereby exhort them NOT to attend any Mass which prays for the conciliar Popes.  Conversely, these arguments are exceptionally useful, by inversion, for explaining to Resistance clergy and laity the importance of maintaining the “una cum” prayer, and shunning the Masses of any priest who refuses to pray Francis’ name in the Canon:

  1. The prayer acknowledges Francis is the head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ, and the successor of St. Peter; it’s omission is therefore a denial of same;
  2.  Per Ex Quo, the mention of the Pope’s name in the Canon is “the chief and most glorious form of communion” with him, “the profession of a mind and will which firmly espouses Catholic unity.”Its intentional omission is therefore a denial of the same;
  3.  The inclusion of Francis’ name in the Canon recognizes him as the principle of unity in the Church; omission is therefore a denial of the same;
  4.  Mention of Francis’ name in the Canon is a sign that the priest has not separated himself from the universal Church; omission is therefore a sign that the priest has separated himself from the universal Church;
  5.  Mention of Francis’ name is proof of the orthodoxy of the offerer on this point; omission evinces the contrary;
  6.  Praying for Francis acknowledges him to be the “ruling Pontiff, the visible pastor and the authorized intermediary with almighty God for the various members of his flock.”  Refusal acknowledges exactly the opposite.

These examples from our sedevacantist adversaries, applied to the matter of Resistance priests omitting the “una cum” highlight the absurdity of excising the prayer from the Canon of the Mass, while simultaneously denying they are sedevacantists (i.e., Doing so denies all the above, in addition to contradicting the teaching of the Church in Ex Quo.15

I would ask them, along with Pope Pelagius I:

“How can you believe that you are not separated from communion with the universal church if you do not mention my name within the sacred mysteries, as the custom is?”16

“Well, That is Between the Priest and God, Not Me”


The Holy Mass is a public act of worship, and those who actively participate in it unite their actions to the priest who offers the sacrifice, thereby expressing their acceptance of his position.

Fr. Cekada cites Merkelbach (i.e., The same Dominican moralist taught by the SSPX in its own seminaries, by the way) as teaching  that active religious participation:

“is rightly considered a sign of religious unity.” It constitutes “implicit approval of an exercise of worship.”17

Fr. Cekada cites several additional Popes and theologians, all expressing the same opinion.

It is not possible, therefore, to discharge oneself from moral culpability from attending “non una cum” Masses by implementing this fictitious distinction: Whatever mental reservation one might desire to create for oneself, his actions demonstrate his support and agreement with the priest’s act.18

But there is also the problem of “insincerity” and communicatio in sacris:

If omission of Francis from the Canon implies schism for refusing to recognize him as head of the Church, then one is quite possibly running into the same preclusions that apply to prevent Mass attendance at Orthodox and other schismatic Masses.

In such cases (unless ignorance, extreme necessity, or double effect would excuse such a course of action), sanctifying grace from the sacrament would not be communicated, since, though it would be produced in the sacrament “ex opere operato,” it would fail to transmit “ex opere operantis,” because of the bad disposition of the subject (i.e., Who would be objectively and knowingly committing a grave sin, and therefore would not be in the state of grace to receive an increase of same).


There is nothing “optional” in the matter of praying Pope Francis’ name in the Canon of the Mass.

Those few Resistance priests who, on the one hand deny being sedevacantists, and on the other reject Francis’ authority and jurisdiction, and refuse to mention his name in the Canon, are incoherent to say the least.  One must look upon their position with a certain degree of suspicion.  They are sedevacantists in fact, if not by intention, and seem to be in transit to a conscious recognition of that position (even if they deny it today).

As a friend wrote to me:

The ‘non una cum’ position “resembles a kind of hideous misery of dogmatic sedevacantism, which makes it possible to present a less frightening face to souls disturbed by the current crisis of the church but which, in the end, draws them to the terrain of hard sedevacantism.”

I quite agree:

Do not be deceived, and let their pleas to “tolerance of opinion” fall upon deaf ears.

The Church has explained in her encyclicals (and rubrics) the necessity of praying for the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, and declared those who refuse to do so as severed from communion with the universal Church.

Moreover, the vast majority of approved theologians recognize the identity of the Pope to be a dogmatic fact, and therefore infallible (or at least theologically certain).

Finally, the theologians explain that the knowing laity may not exempt themselves from moral culpability (via mental reservation or practical considerations), as their active participation and public worship are joined to the intentions of the priest.

We must pray for the conversion of such priests, or insist upon their departure from the Resistance, and the laity must be told that it is not possible to attend their Mass venues.

Prayer Urgent



Number CDXCVI (496)

The world today could make a saint despair –
But half a saint knows how to turn to prayer.

When the Titanic began sinking in 1912, it is well-known that the first lifeboats to be launched were not filled to capacity because not yet enough passengers took seriously the stricken ship’s doomed condition. But as the full truth became widely known, so the rest of the lifeboats each of them had more than enough people wanting to get on board. Now, the sinking of the Titanic was a mirror of God held up to the modern world, but by no means all people alive today believe that, and so the lifeboats of Catholic Tradition are being emptied rather than filled. Nothing like enough souls are yet grasping the full truth of our doomed condition to be doing what they need to be doing – praying urgently.

Here is how a friend from Switzerland puts it: “In our country as elsewhere, every last trace of Catholicism is disappearing, and the (once very Catholic canton of the) Valais is no exception. Everything needs to start all over again, while the enemies of Truth are more numerous every day.” Can anyone say that this description does not fit his own part of the world? Certainly it fits England! In a poll of 1595 English adults taken on December 18 and 19, only 28% believe in God while 38% are positive atheists. A little under two years ago those figures were 32% for the believers, 33% for the atheists. It is clear that the disbelievers are pulling significantly ahead. Poor England!

But why is belief in God so important? St Thomas Aquinas explains in his Treatise on the Angels: just as all Creation proceeds by an overflow of goodness from God, so this goodness in creatures seeks to make its way back to the Supreme Goodness of the Creator, each in its own way: vegetable and mineral by a natural inclination, animals by a sense inclination, most perfectly men and angels by an intellective inclination of mind and free-will (1a, 59, 1). Thus human beings come from God to go back to Him, by the right use of their mind, the mind being “inexcusable,” says St Paul, if it pretends that it cannot recognise God in His Creation (Rom. I, 20), and by the right use of their free-will, to choose Him rather than refuse Him. Alas, sense attractions draw most men away from God (1a, 63, 9 ad 1).

However, to be drawn away from Him is not what God meant men for. Every single human being that He created, He meant for Heaven (I Tim. II, 4), and to all men He gives grace sufficient for them to know Him and love Him and so get to Heaven. Heaven is therefore what every man is for, whether or not he accepts the fact, and if he refuses it, he is blinding himself and can have no understanding of what life is all about. It would follow that all such men who are leaders in any domain are ultimately the blind leading the blind, while all such followers are the blind following the blind. “I am the Light of the World,” says Our Lord Jesus Christ, “he that followeth me walketh not in darkness” (Jn. VIII, 12).

Then he who refuses to follow God, let alone Jesus Christ and his Catholic Church, walks in darkness, and the obstinate preference today of global “Westerners” for more and more darkness is preparing a terrible Chastisement, comparable only to the Flood in the time of Noah. As then men had so “corrupted their ways” (Gen. VI, 12) that God had to intervene with the Flood to prevent absolutely all men from choosing to go to Hell, so too today the corruption is so terrible that God alone can interrupt it.

But men can always pray, and prayer still works like nothing else still works. For it is easy to imagine, amidst millions and millions of souls turning to Mammon and away from God, how He positively watches out for, and listens to, the fewer and fewer souls that turn to Him. The hour is to prayer, through his Mother, the prayer of the Holy Rosary, fifteen Mysteries a day, if that is at all reasonably possible.Kyrie eleison.

Selective Memory

Somehow, a private correspondence between myself and Bishop Faure, on the subject of the accusation of Mr. Henri de la Chanonie regarding the bishop’s alleged openness to enrolling sedevacantist seminarians, has made its way onto a Pfeifferian forum.

Since that private conversation has now aired with the permission of neither Bishop Faure (so far as I know; it is early morning in France, and I await confirmation of this), nor myself, I will now discharge my mind on the matter, for which I had been awaiting permission.

Meanwhile, perhaps Machabees can explain how my email happened to come into his possession?]

[Update: Apparently the bishop sent the email to an enemy, not knowing he was an enemy.  This enemy in turn sent it to Machabees.]

Interviews recently aired of two seminarians of Bishop Donald Sanborn (Sedevacantist bishop in Florida, USA), which are being held out by the Pfeifferites as evidence that Bishop Faure allows sedevacantists into the St. Louis de Montfort Seminary in Avrille, France.

The first interview is of Mr. Jacob Sons, who spent 90 days in Avrille.  In the interview, Mr. Sons recounts his drift into sedeprivationism.

“There’s the proof that Bishop Faure admits sedevacantists!”

Au contraire:

The interview itself shows that Jacob left because he had become sedevacantist, not that he was admitted to the seminary as a sedevacantist (and there is no allegation in his interview that he held those beliefs prior to admission, or more to the point, that if he did, Bishop Faure ever knew about it).

Quite honestly, I respect Mr. Sons for the consistency of his principles: If you become sedevacantist, leave and go to a sedevacantist seminary.

It is unfortunate, but consistent.

On the other hand, we have an interview with young Mr. Henri de la Chanonie, who at the 6:00 mark, flatly declares that Bishop Faure knew he was a sedevacantist, and invited him to enroll in the seminary anyway.

That is a more damaging statement, and certainly problematic.

Precisely for that reason, I wrote to Bishop Faure, and attached the interview, to ask if that accusation was accurate [that private email is now sloshing around the internet with Bishop Faure’s response to that question].

The response I received was twofold:

  1. Bishop Faure acknowledges he was aware of the young man’s sedevacantism, but denies he ever invited him to enter the seminary;
  2. After providing some details of the conversation His Excellency had with this boy (which it is not necessary to recount here) [but which have now somehow ended up in the hands of Machabees], Bishop Faure adds:

“It is obvious that I could not have told him: entering our seminary and remaining sedevacantist is no problem … In any case it is quite certain that he never set foot in our seminary and that he never will.”

We therefore are faced with a clash of facts, and the question then becomes, “Which account is more reliable:”

The young boy who, being interviewed by the sedevacantist seminary, knew what answers were desired of him,


The bishop who has been persecuted by, and fought, the sedevacantists since they were destroying the SSPX Mexican District and Argentina seminary decades ago (and the persecution which amped up from the Mexican and Argentinian sedecantists since the bishop’s episcopal consecration)?

Do you really think such a man is going to be tolerant of sedevacantism?

In passing, I would like to note a lesson here which, no matter how many times I mention it, never seems to sink in:

When you are faced with an account (e.g., Bishop Williamson’s Eleison Comments) which disturbs or runs contrary to expectations, go to the source for an explanation.  You will prevent rash judgments and falsehoods (as in the present case), and often times be given answers which, because they have the sound of truth, restore peace to the soul.

One must be allowed to question why some would refuse to do so, when in this case, Bishop Faure was readily available for response or explanation.

A sectarian is not interested in the truth, but only in advancing arguments which help his Sect, and for such types, approaching the accused risks diminishing the falsehood which bolsters their party.

That, my friends, shows bad faith.

But we have known this for some time.

G.R.E.C. Reborn!

[The Reconquista Blog (French Resistance) has just posted an interesting article on the practical or de facto “rebirth” of GREC Here]

My quick translation:

13th Theological Congress of the Courrier de Rome (or G.R.E.C. ?):

A diligent reader of this blog [Reconquista] has transmitted the following remarks. The question really arises of who will meet in Paris next Saturday …

‘On the occasion of its 50th anniversary, the Courrier de Rome is organizing its 13th International Theological Congress, in partnership with the District of France of the Society Saint-Pie X and DICI (January 14-14 2017), in Paris.

Saturday, January 14, from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm: The congress will be held under the presidency of Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, at the crypt of Our Lady of Consolation, 23 Jean-Goujon 75008 Paris.


9:00 AM: A brief history of the Courrier de Rome (Abbé Emmanuel du Chalard)
9:30 AM: Priests to the Rescue of Tradition (Jacques-Régis du Cray)
10:30 AM: Abbot Dulac and the law of the traditional Mass (Abbot Grégoire Celier)
11:30 AM: The Roman Theological School and the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum (Professor Roberto de Mattei)
3:00 PM: In the continuity of the Cœtus Internationalis Patrum (Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize)
4:00 PM: Evocation of the combats and fighters of the Courrier de Rome (Fr. Abbot Alain Lorans)
5:00 PM: The battle of faith continues (Bishop Bernard Fellay).

Free entry, donations welcome.

Sunday 15 January at 10.30 am: Pontifical Mass celebrated by Bishop Fellay at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet (23, rue des Bernardins 75005), Paris.’

What I would like to say, as a simple remark, is that we note that among the speakers there are in particular:

Meeting of the GREC-Abbé Lorans- Abbé Lelong- Abbé Barthe

-Jacques-Régis du Cray, ex-member of the G.R.E.C.

-Abbé Grégoire célier, ex-member of G.R.E.C.

-Abbe Alain Lorans, ex-member of the G.R.E.C.

– Abbé Emmanuel du Chalard, of whom Father Michel Lelong (in his book “For a Necessary Reconciliation”), writes on pp. 23-24 of the Group for Reflection Between Catholics (GREC) (NEL, 2011, 162 p.):

“In the months following the writing of the document written by Gilbert Pérol, the ideas he had put forward were taken up and developed by Mme Pérol in his book “Les sans-papiers de l’Eglise.” FSSPX, presenting its present situation, this book encouraged useful meetings between Catholics with different theological options. It was an opportunity for me to meet the Abbé Emmanuel du Chalard, who had been a close friend Of Archbishop Lefebvre, who welcomed me very kindly in the priory of Albano, near Rome, when Mme Pérol proposed to publish at the end of her book a free debate on the interpretation of the Council, The Abbe du Chalard accepted as willingly as I did, and in the years that followed, he never ceased to give the GREC such discreet and attentive support.”

With such a lineup, one can only suspect the orientation of this theological congress; And to say that it is not Bishop Fellay who will come to contradict the opinions of these people on Tradition, the place of the Fraternity St Pius X in the Church, or even a certain question of agreements with modernist Rome.”

Accelerating Sedevacantism: The Fruits of Francis

(In Pictorial)

11 sedevacantist seminarians at Bishop Sanborn’s thriving Florida seminary
(Keep in mind, this is only ONE sedevacantist seminary)

A 50 acre seminary complex that would make Bishop Fellay jealous

An order of nuns ‘the Sisters of St. Thomas” attached to Bishop Sanborn
(Several other orders exist as well)

The allure by comparison becomes overwhelming

The longer Francis the Apostate avoids deposition, the greater becomes the allure, until at last the fruit falls:
“I sense the conflict within you. It is useless to resist, my son.”

Congratulations Holy Father.

Julian the Apostate could not have done worse for the Church. 


Mr. Paul Culp, former teacher at the Immaculate Conception Academy (SSPX) in Post Falls, Idaho has brought a libel/defamation lawsuit against Matthew (Owner, Cathinfo) and seven other posters on that forum (hereafter referred to as “John Does”) for posts made on Cathinfo in the wake of allegations of widespread homosexuality among the high school boys reported on that forum a few months ago.

The action seeks to first subpoena the IP addresses to ascertain the identities of the 7 “John Does,” and then bring a suit against each for damages.

Matthew counters with a “Motion to Dismiss,” citing Texas Anti-SLAPP laws (SLAPP is an acronym for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”), and seeks reasonable attorneys fees in recompense for the SLAPP.

A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition (See Here).

After some debate, I have decided not to publish the text of Mr. Culp’s complaint, or Matthew’s motion, so as not to injure public morals: The contents of Mr. Culp’s book cited in Matthew’s motion are so filthy and repugnant to Catholic morals, I feared to be the cause of sin.

You can go to for more details.

I suggest Resistance blog and fora owners, users, and readers of every stripe take an especial interest in the outcome of this case, as any of us can be the recipient of a SLAPP, if someone doesn’t like your message.

Last Handwritten Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre


 Translation courtesy of Samuel of (Here):

Father Giulio Tam, a member of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X of Italian origin, who receives daily the “Osservatore Romano”, the official journal of the Roman Curia, has thought good, for the information of his confreres, to gather together the most significant passages from the discourses of the Pope and the Roman authorities about the most topical subjects.

The collection sheds such brilliant light on the doctrinal Revolution officially inaugurated in the Church during the Council and continued up to our days that one cannot help thinking of the “seat of iniquity” foretold by Leo XIII, or of Rome losing the faith foretold by Our Lady at La Salette.

The diffusion and adherence of the Roman authorities to the Masonic errors many times condemned by their predecessors is a great mystery of iniquity which ruins the Catholic faith in its foundations.

This harsh and painful reality obliges us in conscience to organize on our own the defense of our Catholic Faith. The fact of sitting in the seats of authority is no longer, alas, a guarantee of the orthodoxy of the faith of those who occupy them. The Pope himself now ceaselessly spreads the principles of a false religion, the result of which is a general apostasy.

We therefore give herewith the texts, without commentary, for the year 1990. Readers will be able to judge for themselves and by the texts of the Popes of before the Council.

Reading them amply justifies our conduct for the maintenance and restoration of the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Holy Mother on earth as in Heaven.

The restorer of Christianity is the priest, by offering the true sacrifice, by conferring true sacraments, by teaching the true catechism, by his role of vigilant shepherd for the salvation of souls.

It is around true and faithful priests that Christians must group themselves and organize the whole Christian life. All spirit of distrust towards the priests who merit confidence diminishes the solidity and the firmness of the resistance against the destroyers of the faith.

Saint John closes his Apocalypse by this appeal : “Veni Domine Jesu,” Come Lord Jesus, appear at length upon the clouds of Heaven, manifest Thine omnipotence. May Thy reign be universal and everlasting.

Écône, 4th March 1991

+ Marcel Lefebvre

This letter comes only a couple weeks after Archbishop Lefebvre had published Spiritual Journey (which Bishop Tissier de Mallerais called Archbishop Lefebvre’s “last will and testament” to the priests of the SSPX), and three short weeks before his death.
Prominent in that slim volume was the Archbishop’s contention that, “It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith” (p 13),” an idea which receives reinforcement in this handwritten letter: We must work outside Rome (de facto, and without denying Rome’s authority) in defense of the faith, until they return to it.
In this connection, one recalls the interview Archbishop Lefebvre had given 18 months earlier (one year after the episcopal consecrations), in which he said:
That is why what can look like a concession is in reality merely a maneuver to separate us from the largest number of faithful possible. This is the perspective in which they seem to be always giving a little more and even going very far. We must absolutely convince our faithful that it is no more than a maneuver, that it is dangerous to put oneself into the hands of Conciliar bishops and Modernist Rome. It is the greatest danger threatening our people. If we have struggled for twenty years to avoid the Conciliar errors, it was not in order, now, to put ourselves in the hands of those professing these errors.” (
In combination with other post-consecratory interviews, conferences, and writings (such as the well known Fideliter interviews Here and Here), one senses in Archbishop Lefebvre an obsession with justifying the SSPX apostolate independent (de facto) of Rome.  It is almost as though he fears a weakness in his priests; a worry that perhaps they will be deceived by the siren song of legality after he dies.
This thought is not such a stretch, when one considers that Rome had desired to outlast Archbishop Lefebvre in all their rused negotiations prior to the 1988 consecrations.  Why did Rome think prospects for the capture of the SSPX would be better with the Archbishop out of the way?
Well, we know from Bishop Tissier’s “Biography” that not all the SSPX clergy were on board with Archbishop Lefebvre.  Bishop Tissier himself opposed the consecrations, and favored carrying on negotiations.
And Bishop Tissier says of Fr. Aulagnier (Former 1st Assistant to the Superior General and District Superior of France), that he was willing to trust in the course determined by Archbishop Lefebvre (which is not at all the same thing as believing Archbishop Lefebvre was correct).  
The fact of having high ranking authorities in the SSPX not on board with the Archbishop’s principles and wisdom was bound to result in betrayal eventually.
Consequently, we can see in July/1988, Fr. Aulagnier willing to sign the open letter of SSPX District Superiors to Cardinal Gantin, declaring their will not to be in communion with the conciliar church  (See Here).  Yet by 1992 (only one year after Archbishop Lefebvre’s death!), Fr. Michel Lelong (GREC member) quotes Fr. Aulagnier in his book “Towards a Necessary Reconciliation” as saying:
Beginning in 1992, as District Superior of SSPX in France, I was happy to initiate new contacts with recognized ecclesiastical authorities. One day, when passing by Randol . . . Abbot Dom de Lesquen was talking to a young man in the forecourt of the monastery. Knowing the role he had played with Dom Gérard during his rapprochement with Rome on July 10, 1988, I approached him and spoke with him . . . about the rapprochement with Rome, of a normalization of the SSPX with Rome . .” (p. 104)
It is not difficult to understand why, with this incomprehension or opposition to Archbishop Lefebvre’s position viv-a-vis Rome, Fr. Aulagnier would later be expelled for endorsing Campos’ 2002 capitulation, using arguments nearly identical to those now being used by Bishop Fellay, and Bishop Rifan and Dom Gerard before him (See Here).
The point being this: It is indisputable that many of those closest to Archbishop Lefebvre, and among the highest ranking officers in the SSPX (Fr. Bisig , formerly of the SSPX was also Assistant to the Superior General; Fr. Aulagnier was Assistant to the Superior General; Bishop Tissier opposed the consecrations; another who refused to attend the 1988 consecrations for moral reasons, later became a District Superior; etc.) did not agree with his position regarding Rome.  Yet they went along with him out of human respect while he was alive.
Very clearly Bishop Fellay is also among these.

The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of the Jewish Nation

(1883 – 1954)

The Kingship of Christ
The Conversion of the Jewish Nation

REV. DENIS FAHEY, C.S.Sp., D.D., D.Ph., B.A., Professor of Philosophy,
Holy Ghost Missionary College, Kimmage, Dublin

Imprimi Potest: P. O’CARROLL, C.S.Sp., Praep. Prov. Hib.
Nihil Obstat: JACOBUS BROWNE, Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: †JACOBUS, Episcopus Fernensis. die 26 januarii 1953
First printed : January 1953


CHAPTER I: The Programme of Christ and the Plans of Satan:
(i) Church and State;
(ii) The Indirect Power of the Church;
(iii) Marriage;
(iv) Education;
(v) Private Property;
(vi) Monetary System;
(vii) Submission to the Blessed Trinity with Christ in Holy Mass.

CHAPTER II: The Kingship of Christ, in its Integrity: the Divine Plan for Ordered Social Life

CHAPTER III: An Outline of the Theology of History: Acceptance of Christ the King and Subsequent Rejection—Some National Reactions. Spain. Portugal, Ireland, Germany

CHAPTER IV: The Struggle of the Jewish Nation against the True Messias: Jewish Naturalism—The Opposition of Jewish Naturalism to our Supernatural Well-being

CHAPTER V: The Dual Citizenship of the Jews in Modern Times: Modern Progress as the Growth of Naturalism—Freemasonry has contributed to the Advance of Naturalism—The Significance of the Balfour Declaration—The Primary Allegiance of the Jews—The Jewish State—Jewish Naturalism and the Duty of Catholics

CHAPTER VI: The Catholic Church and Anti-Semitism: Meaning of Anti-Semitism—Attitude of the Church in this Matter—Explanation of Persistence of Opposition to the Jews

CHAPTER VII: The Conversion of the Jewish Nation: The Talmudic Formation and the Conversion of the Jews—The Jewish Law—The Schulchan Aruch—The Talmud and Jewish Messianism—Certitude of the Conversion of the Jews—An Outstanding Jewish Convert—Supplementary Explanation of National Apostasy

CHAPTER VIII: Contemporary Jewish Aims: The Divine Plan for Order in the World—Twofold Opposition to Order on the Part of the Jewish Nation—Anti-Semitism in the Jewish Sense—Effects on the Jewish People of their Opposition to the True Supernatural Messias—Materialism of Zionist Plans—Outline of the Conquest—Non-Jews Turned Back—The Final Stage—The Arab Refugees—Israel, the United States, Russia and the World—UNESCO—The Jews, Lenin and the Russians—Marxism and Jewish Nationalism—Return to Membership of Christ

CHAPTER IX: The Coming of Antichrist: The Sovereign Pontiffs and Apostasy—Antichrist in Scripture and Tradition—The Date of the Coming of Antichrist—Decree of the Fifth Lateran Council

APPENDIX: Programme of Christ the King and Programme of the Jewish Nation since Calvary Reports the Death of Bishop Fellay’s Father

“Mr. Guy André Louis Fellay, father of our Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, passed away on January 5, 2017.

Eternal life grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him.
Today, January 5, 2017, it is with sorrow that the United States District Office learned of the passing of Mr. Guy André Louis Fellay, the father of our Superior General Bishop Bernard Fellay. He was 86 years old. His funeral will take place on Monday, January 9, at the Immaculate Heart of Mary Chapel of the SSPX seminary in Ecône, Switzerland.
Please pray for the repose of Mr. Fellay, along with the soul of his wife and Bishop Fellay’s mother, Françoise, who passed away only 15 months earlier. We also ask that you remember Bishop Fellay and his family in your prayers during this time of grief and mourning.” 

The Sodalitium-Pianum Blog offers our sincere condolences to Bishop Fellay, and requests of the faithful the offering of Masses for the repose of the soul of Mr. Guy Fellay.