The following is the latest spin from the Neo-SSPX, still trying to pretend there have been no changes or compromises with modernist Rome, and that they continue to follow the path of Archbishop Lefebvre: We have ALWAYS had diocesan clergy perform the marriages in our chapels!  We have ALWAYS been at war with Eastasia!  For a longer list of compromises and deviations, see this article:  

Commentary follows.


As we are

In his relations with the Apostolic See, Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre , to affirm that the Society of Saint Pius X should be considered according to his own identity, said: ” Rome must take us as we are … ” (cf. The sermon of 27 June 1980 ). I would like to clarify this expression.

The Fraternity of St. Pius X was founded in 1970 according to the rules of canon law , with aims and means consistent with the spirit of the Church, as evidenced by the approval of the Bishop of Friborg and the various documents Romans who praised the statutes. All its subsequent acts, up to the illegal “suppression” of 1975 , were carried out in accordance with canon law.

Let us now recall the characteristic of the Society of St. Pius X: “The purpose of the Fraternity is the priesthood and all that relates to it and nothing but that which concerns it. This is what distinguishes it, for example, from Jesuits or Oratorians. Bishop Lefebvre concluded: “The Fraternity is essentially apostolic, because the sacrifice of the Mass is also apostolic. From this came the works of the Society of St. Pius X: “All works of priestly formation”, “helping the sanctification of priests”, “helping the aged and infirm priests”, but also “the Schools which are truly Christian (…), it is from them that vocations will emerge “, and again” parish ministry “.

In its teaching, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to preach the immutable truths of the faith, to be the echo of the Popes, the Councils, the Fathers of the Church. The revelation of the Holy Spirit, a new doctrine, but “to keep holy and faithfully to expose the revelation transmitted by the Apostles, that is, the deposit of faith” ( Pastor Æternus , Chapter 4 ). In the liturgy, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to sing the glory of God and to obtain the holiness of souls per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum . In the spiritual life, the Society of St. Pius X wishes only to help the baptized to progress in the knowledge and love of the God Trinity.

When one promotes good, one opposes the opposite evil. Now the Catholic faith, the Catholic liturgy and the Catholic life are threatened today, notably because of the crisis that shakes the Church and society. It is therefore not surprising that the Society of St. Pius X fights against what threatens the salvation of souls.

The Society of St. Pius X, because it is attached to the Catholic faith, stands up against the attacks which threaten this faith. Its priests, for the sake of truth, are obliged to denounce the errors which ruin the integrity of the faith, especially those which today eat away at the Church, such as false religious freedom, false ecumenism, interreligious dialogue , what is called “the spirit of the Council”. It is not only a matter of denouncing errors per se, but of maintaining the full “freedom to correct, resume, even publicly, the wrongminders or innovators of modernism,” as stated in the General Chapter of 2012.

The Society of St. Pius X, because it is attached to the Catholic Liturgy, celebrates exclusively the liturgy which was transmitted by the Tradition of the Church, and refuses the new liturgy without ambiguity and definitely, this conciliar Mass of The Protestant spirit, which no longer transmits the grace of Christ with certainty.

The Society of Saint Pius X, because it is attached to the spiritual traditions of the Church, to the Christian way of life that the Church has always practiced, refuses the abuses, notably the alteration of marriage, The cause of priestly celibacy, the liberalism of manners, the abandonment of prayer and the sacraments. This fighting spirit against errors, even if it is only a consequence of an unconditional attachment to the Catholic truth, even if it intervenes only after the primary and essential concern to transmit the grace of Christ to the Is an integral part of the perennial identity of the Society of Saint Pius X. It will never abandon this struggle against error, an indispensable accompaniment to the love of truth.

We know that one day, by the grace of God, the Society of St. Pius X will find in the Church its right canonical position, but it will be ” as it is “, that is , It was founded in the Church and in the Church in 1970, and as it never ceased to be in the Church and the Church: loving truth, thus fighting against contrary errors. As Archbishop Lefebvre proclaimed in the same sermon of June 27, 1980, we shall find the canonical situation of which we have been unjustly deprived, but it will be ” with everything we are, everything we think, everything we believe, everything What we do, “he summarized ,” with the anti-modern oath in his hands. ”

Abbé Christian Bouchacourt †, Superior of the District of France of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X

Sources : Fideliter n ° 237 of May-June 2017 – The Latin Gate of June 8, 2017



In Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” a tyrannical government has teams of censors scour all written media for any trace of ideas which run contrary to the Party line, and when they find it, they toss it down the “memory hole.”  By doing so, remembrance of any such contrarian ideas soon disappear from the collective consciousness of society, and the threat of destabilization such contradictions pose to the current positions of the Party vanish.

In modern times, a similar technique was actually employed within the Church itself: After Vatican II, the triumphant “archaeologists” condemned by Pius XII vetted the Denzinger (i.e., A chronological sourcebook of Catholic dogmas, which shows their development from the early Church to the present): They went through it and expunged centuries of doctrinal development in order to return to the primitive Church, and “re-develop” doctrine in a direction compatible with the errors of Vatican II.

Something similar is now being practiced in Menzingen, as evinced by Fr. Bouchacourt’s interview in the opening paragraph above (quoting the Archbishop from 1980): We will excise from the public conversation all references to Archbishop Lefebvre’s post-consecratory intransigence with regard to the impossibility of any deal with unconverted Rome, go back to the days of his earlier diplomacy, and thereby maintain -dishonestly- that we have not departed from his position.  After all, look, we are using his own words!

Imagine if one did the same thing to St. Augustine, citing his early Tractates, but deliberately omitting reference to his own later corrections in the Retractationes.  In that case, would one truly understand St. Augustine’s positions?  No.

There was a brief time in 2012 when, instead of reverting to its own version of archaeologism, Menzingen actually tried to contradict the Archbishop (e.g., I am thinking of Fr. Simoulin’s “We Can’t be 88’ers Anymore”).  That approach at least had the virtue of honesty, albeit accompanied by open revolt against the founder.  But that approach was a little too honest, and completely flopped, sounding the alarm and waking the zombies in the pews to the deviations of a conciliatory SSPX.  Hence, that approach was quickly abandoned in favor of the present strategy.

“We have always been at war with Eurasia, er, Eastasia!”

The next few paragraphs of Fr. Bouchacourt cover the founding of the SSPX and its purpose.  The commentary frames this apostolate within the confines of legalism, referencing the Society’s initial legal approval, and stressing that this foundation was therefore done consistent with the spirit of the Church.

A trace of legalism is implicit here, because reference to the canon law amidst a state of universal grave public spiritual necessity is impertinent (i.e., out of place): There is a duty in charity and in justice to supply for the needs of the faithful whatever the positive law of the Church may or may not allow in normal times (Suarez), and hence to seek support for one’s actions in the canon law in the first instance is already to have gone astray.  The SSPX used to promote that position, as can be seen in the classic SiSiNoNo article “The 1988 Consecrations: A Theological Study”

The same can be said for the gratuitous reference to the “spirit of the Church,” which certainly recalls the “Romanitas” articles of Fr. Simoulin (as though those who did not want a legal agreement with unconverted Rome were to be accused of not having a proper love of the Church; an accusation formerly waged by the FSSP against the SSPX, and now by the SSPX against the Resistance).

After recalling the duty of the Society to denounce the errors which threaten souls, the mandate to do so is placed within the context of the 2012 General Chapter declaration (which itself agreed to enter into a practical accord with unconverted Rome, pending the accomplishment of six limp conditions).  The attempt is to portray the 2012 Declaration as having reaffirmed the mandate to condemn errors, and therefore not representing a departure from the SSPX’s previous positions in other aspects (e.g., the 2006 General Chapter Declaration, which stated no practical accord until the doctrinal issues are resolved in Rome).

In the penultimate paragraph, Fr. Bouchacourt declares the SSPX will never lessen its duty to condemn errors, and yet he seems to be delusional or dishonest in not recognizing what the rest of the world (particularly Rome) clearly acknowledges: The SSPX itself has already admitted to a branding campaign which has as its stated purpose to do precisely that!  To speak more positively, and less negatively about the errors ravaging souls, and thereby appease Rome, is precisely what the branding campaign of Fr. Wegner is all about!

To win a juridical recognition by modernist Rome, one must first cease attacking them (Else how can they grant it without losing face?  How can the SSPX stand shoulder to shoulder with the modernists they are condemning?).

Fr. Bouchacourt would understand that, and consequently I am not to be accused of rash judgment.  Did not Bishop Fellay allow the letter from Rome in the Cor Unum to urge all SSPX priests to focus less on doctrinal negativity, and more on prayer and the spiritual life?  Did not Fr. de Cacqueray have to go around Menzingen, and do what it would not, in order to condemn the scandalous Assisi abomination?

Then what good are these words of fr. Bouchacourt?