Following months of intrigue, dissension, and unfruitful discussion, Bishop Jean-Michel Faure has resigned his membership in the USML.

At issue was the matter of sedevacantism.

Specifically:

  1. Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed in the USML
  2. Whether sedevacantists were to be allowed into the seminary via the USML

A few weeks ago, the sedevacantist members of the USML convened a meeting of debatable legitimacy to consider these two issues (but most particularly, the admission of Fr. Pierre Roy of Canada).

All non-sedevacantist USML members except one (Fr. Pivert) refused to attend the meeting in protest, but the sedevacantists were not to be thwarted.  They went through with the meeting, admitted Fr. Patrick Roy, and announced their decision to the abstaining members (some of whom also protested the maneuver after the fact).

Bishop Faure was not the only one to resign from the USML over the matter of sedevacantism:

Fr. Rene Trincado also tendered his resignation, and another resignation is expected to be submitted within the next week or so.

All told, 5 of 8 members opposed the admission of Fr. Roy into the USML, which is now being willingly surrendered to the control of the sedevacantists, who now comprise half its members.

The question will remain as to how and why Fr. Rioult and Fr. Pinaud were permitted to have become members in the first place.  A decision back in 2014 seems to have permitted a collaboration with such priests, but which ran squarely against Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1980 statement that:

“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”

Against this declaration, it is sometimes mentioned that the Archbishop violated this statement by ordaining Fr. Belmont, only to expel him a few months later for his sedevacantism.  Alternately, it is argued that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to collaborate with sedevacantists like Fr. Coache well after 1980.

As regards examples like Fr. Coache (who was not a member of the SSPX), the explanation seems to be that Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to offer some occasional collaboration with sedevacantists ad extra (i.e., outside the SSPX), but not to tolerate them within the SSPX (i.e., ad infra).  As for those like Fr. Belmont, obviously, if Archbishop Lefebvre was willing to have ordained him, it was with the hope of Fr. Belmont’s amendment, or it would have been incoherent in the extreme to have ordained him against his own rule, only to have expelled him three months later for violation of the same!

In any case, though time has shown that admission of these sedes into the USML was a mistake, the loss of the USML is of marginal importance in the wake of Bishop Faure’s canonical erection of the SAJM (which will preclude in its Constitutions the admission of any sedevacantists -which includes those who refust to pray for the Pope in the Mass- into the seminary, or their incardination into the Society).

Those Constitutions will be published publicly soon.

Meanwhile, the preclusion of sedevacantists from the SAJM and its seminary makes curious this excerpt of the USML declaration posted today, which proclaims:

“When the need arises to administer the sacrament of Confirmation, the priests of the USML will call upon a bishop of the ‘Resistance’ to be kind enough to come to Quebec.”

Perhaps the Resistance bishops will continue to offer assistance to the sedevacantists with regard to confirmations, perhaps not.  But it is inconceivable -in light of Bishop Faure’s resignation, and the Constitutions of the SAJM which preclude sedevacantist admission to the seminary- that the Resistance bishops would ordain their priests.

This means that the NUC (“non una cum”) priests will be forced to accept the logical consequences of their position in the future, and seek out sedevacantist bishops (which they logically should not object to) to perform this office.

The surrender of the USML into the control of the sedevacantists also brings much needed clarity to the faithful:

The Resistance bishops do not support or condone sedevacantism, and the SAJM has no part with them.

This separation is also an act of charity on the part of Bishop Faure, in that the sedevacantists are made to feel the seriousness of their theological error, which they promote as a light and trifling personal choice:

“Having no intention to prevent anyone from reflecting or holding an opinion on the whys and wherefores of the crisis in the Church, the priests of the USML ask the faithful to respect the positions of one another and not try to impose their personal views. They reiterate their decision not to draw conclusions on the question of the Papacy, despite the enduring and unprecedented crisis, but rather to await the judgement of the Church.”

Hopefully, they will be humble enough to realize that they have painted themselves into a corner, and will repent of their erroneous position.

Meanwhile, a shot is fired over the bow of the naysayers of a certain Sect, who tried to pretend that Bishop Faure admitted known sedevacantists into the seminary (whereas the reality is that, with reference to the recent interviews given to Bishop Sanborn’s seminarians (skewed by followers of Fr. Pfeiffer to pretend Bishop Faure was “sede friendly”), Mr. Caleb Sons was never a sedevacantist while in Avrille, and Henry de La Chanonie was never even invited to join!.  The resignation of Bishop Faure, and the provisions of the Constitutions prohibiting the admission of sedevacantists makes foolish the idea that His Excellency has any tolerance for sedevacantism.