The Prophecy of Archbishop Lefebvre: The FSSP and Concelebration

What is at stake?

Author’s note: In this article, I take a sober look at the situation the FSSP now finds itself in with recent revelations of impending Novus Ordo concelebration. But, let it be known that I do not judge any individual priest in this forum, and I hold no general animus towards priests who are not in the SSPX. Also, I do not write this triumphantly or with the intention of “piling on” the FSSP or any of the faithful. I am indebted to all priests who have kept the flame of Tradition alive, as are we all. That being said, the crisis in the Church has not slowed down, and we must face facts and go where the facts lead us. Some things that are written in this article may make individuals feel uncomfortable, but I only write the things I write because I love the Church and Tradition, and Heaven knows I am not in this line of work to be popular.

A Voice Crying Out in the Wilderness

Not long before his death, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said about the formation of the Ecclesia Dei  groups, such as the Fraternity of Saint Peter and others:

“Availing ourselves of the Indult is tantamount to putting ourselves into a state of contradiction because at the same time that Rome gives the Fraternity of St. Peter, for example, or Le Barroux Abbey and other groups authorization to say the Mass of All Time, they also require young priests to sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted. It is a contradiction: the spirit of the Council is embodied in the New Mass. How is it possible to desire to preserve the Mass of all time while accepting the spirit that destroys this Mass of All Time? It is completely contradictory. One day, very gently, they will oblige those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time, also to accept the New Mass. And they will tell them that it is simply a matter of squaring themselves with what they have signed, since they signed a statement that they accepted the spirit of the Council and its reforms. You cannot put yourself thus into an unbelievable, irrational contradiction. It is a very uncomfortable situation. This is what has created the difficulty for these groups that have signed it and that currently find themselves in a kind of impasse.”

This quote — along with a myriad of others — will one day be collected as part of the “prophecies of Archbishop Lefebvre” when he is raised to the altars. Lefebvre, contrary to how he is often portrayed, was not a reactionary or a man of emotional decisions, he was, in fact, a saintly man of prudence. Funny enough, when you come to know the priests of the SSPX and the way the Society operates, you often find yourself wondering why they seem so slow to act. Of course, this is not a criticism, but only an admission of a feeble understanding possessed by a layman without the grace of state that Lefebvre and his spiritual sons have; a layman who, like most of you, spends way too much time thinking about Church politics and following the news cycle; a layman who in his short 35 years on this earth has not advanced in wisdom to a degree where I can see the long game the way Lefebvre did.

As moderns, we are accustomed to an unhealthy habit of activism and reactionism. Our political atmosphere — something that so many of us think will give us a religious experience — is revolutionary in nature. Every few years our ridiculous politicians galavant about the country and across our screens promising us change, hope, progress, human rights, and basically everything but salvation itself. And, every few years, whether we vote or not, we are convinced that either the best is yet to come, or the world will come to an end if enough people do or do not do what we think they should do or do not do. We live in an age of liberalism, where truth bends to the arc of the opinion of the populous, and where reason and right thinking go to die. The pendulum of justice and insanity swings back and forth like church bells, and the destabilization of the fabric of society hangs in the balance.

This is of course no way to live, and it is not normal. But, it is the air that we breathe, thus, even the best of us see the life of the Church through this lens. So it is virtually impossible for most of us — myself included — to see with supernatural insight the trajectory of the crisis and the inevitable consequences of it. Archbishop Lefebvre did not suffer from this reactionary spirit. His life was a testament to the virtue of prudence and an unwillingness to do anything seemingly drastic unless absolutely necessary. 

He did not form a society of priests until he was essentially begged to come out of retirement. He did not start the society until he received explicit approval to do so. He did not immediately forbid seminarians to attend the New Mass until it was clear that he had to. He did not persist with the initial ordinations that made him famous — or infamous — until necessity required it. He did not speak about the crisis in the Church until he was forced to do so out of fidelity to Tradition and the faith of our ancestors. He did not consecrate his bishops until he had already sought to do so with approval multiple times, and only when he knew he was on death’s door, and, there was no other way that traditional priests would be guaranteed good formation and a traditional ordination.

We are still waiting for a traditional bishop outside of the SSPX to be consecrated…

In any event, Lefebvre was offered various concessions and encouraged to concede to various compromises throughout his second career as the leader of the Society, but he never conceded. 

Why did he not concede?

Was it out of pride? Was he merely a stubborn man who could not see the good of the whole but just the good he desired for his own ambition? Well, he may have been stubborn, but heroic men are always stubborn. A man holding on for dear life who refuses to let go is stubborn. A general who knows either defeat or victory is imminent and holds his position is stubborn. A man who holds on to the wood of the Cross when Satan tells him to let go is stubborn. Stubbornness can be a virtue, and when it is a virtue it is an imperative.

A Matter of Faith

Why Lefebvre never accepted the Indult (special permission for the TLM to be said) was very simple: the Indult was a reductionist action on behalf of Modernist Rome wherein Tradition was reduced to rubrics. As important as the Old Mass is — and its importance is invaluable — the Old Mass is not the whole equation. The Old Mass is the most perfect presentation and prayer of the faith of Latin Rite Roman Catholics, and it is an apostolic gift that we must cherish with a love that is beyond measure. But, given that all liturgy is in a sense of work of the Church, we might say that just as faith without works is dead, so too are works without faith. 

We cannot have the Old Mass for long if we have the Old Mass without all of the Old Faith. Every heretic usurper at the Council said the Old Mass, but they were rotten inside. “Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness.” (Matt 23:27) 

Just before his death, speaking on this very concept, Lefebvre said:

“Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the Faith.”¹

Now, far be it from me to suggest that this means we can have the Faith as Latin Rite Catholics without the True Roman Rite, and in no way do I suggest that the Old Mass is relegated to some sort of “secondary” position; but, Lefebvre was right. In the hierarchy of importance, the Faith must be the animating spirit of all that we do, both priests and laymen. Thus, our affinity and attachment to the Old Mass is rooted first in our attachment to the Old Faith — we cannot let go of the Old Mass because we will only have the Old Faith. 

Traditionalism rests on this very principle, even if it is a principle that some do not want to admit in mixed company. It is a principle objection to the New Mass and the New Religion that this “bastard rite” imbibes.² Now, this does not mean that the Traditionalist is animated by the spirit of “anti”, on the contrary. When we truly love, we must truly hate. I love Christ, so I hate the devil. I love fidelity, so I must hate adultery. I love beer, and therefore I hate Bud Light. We could go on. Proper hatred is proper to a properly ordered love of good things. So, a traditionalist necessarily hates the New Mass.

This of course sounds harsh, but the truth hurts. The Crucifixion was harsh. Martyrdom is harsh. All ultimate acts of love are as harsh and as serious as a heart attack, so we should not shy away from the hard truth just because others will have hard feelings. No serious person at this point can deny that the New Mass is part of the New Order of globalist and ecumenist religion, and that the Old Mass is its mortal enemy. 

Pope Paul VI said as much:

“That Mass of St. Pius V like one sees at Ecône has become the symbol for the condemnation of the Council. I will in no wise accept the Council being condemned by a symbol. If an exception were made, the whole Council would be questioned, and consequently the Apostolic authority of the Council.”³

The meaning of this quote from Paul VI is profound: the New Mass represents the New Religion, and the Old Mass is a symbol of all that is opposed to it. Imagine the vitriol behind such a statement, as if the Mass of All Time is nothing but a symbol. It is also amazing the candour that Paul VI spoke with, admitting full well that the Old Mass was the undoing of the work of the Council. What does that say about the Council? 

“How is it possible to desire to preserve the Mass of all time while accepting the spirit that destroys this Mass of All Time?”

At any rate, it is clear that the New Mass is opposed to Tradition, and since I am for Tradition I am in principle, and unabashedly, opposed to the New Mass. And, we could add for good measure, that the Modernists are no longer hiding the fact that they view the Old Mass as an exemplar of all that they are opposed to, for further evidence analyze what Cardinals Roche and Cupich have been saying.

The Stakes are High 

By now, it has emerged that the FSSP has been voluntold by Pope Francis to either concelebrate the Novus Ordo at the Chrism Mass, or receive Holy Communion at said Mass. I will not comment much here on the public relations snafu that has resulted from the incomplete press release the FSSP released when compared to the truth of the matter which was leaked from an internal memo. But, if the intention of the FSSP administration was to hide from the public that Pope Francis did, in fact, do more than confirm their “right” to maintain their use of the Old Mass, I will say that I hope there is a good explanation for this. For all I know there was no intended duplicity in the action, and I will not impute any here.

At any rate, the FSSP — which split from Lefebvre, and whose administration has routinely slammed the SSPX as schismatics for years — is now living the fulfilment of what Lefebvre said would result from the formation of the Ecclesia Dei communities. What is amazing is how precisely his prophecy was fulfilled.

“One day, very gently, they will oblige those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass, the Mass of All Time, also to accept the New Mass.”

From my vantage point, and judging by the impression given by the FSSP brass, it seems that the meeting with Pope Francis was very gentle, and “very gently,” the Pope has obliged those who have been granted the use of the Tridentine Mass also to accept the New Mass.

“You cannot put yourself thus into an unbelievable, irrational contradiction. It is a very uncomfortable situation. This is what has created the difficulty for these groups that have signed it and that currently find themselves in a kind of impasse.”

An impasse indeed.

Now some may think that it is not really a big deal for a Traditional Priest to concelebrate a New Mass here or there. Well, while we would not say like the Donatists that this would mean these priests had somehow been shown not to be real priests, we also have to understand that the principle of Traditionalism is at stake. Some may think I am being too hard on the FSSP, and I should add that I speak here only of the situation as a whole and not of individual priests. I know a few FSSP priests and I respect them, and I know they are suffering from this ordeal. And I know they are suffering because they know full well they find themselves at the impasse Lefebvre said they would be at.

For confirmation of my opinion, we can look to the unfiltered Modernism of Mike Lewis of Where Peter Is, on the situation he writes:

“The problem is also not primarily a matter of liturgical preference or training. It is a matter of fidelity to the Church. This is made clear in that Pope Francis calls ‘at least for the presence and Eucharistic Communion of priests at this ceremony.’ It would be understandable for an FSSP priest to feel uncomfortable participating as a concelebrant in a liturgical form with which he is not familiar, especially the first few times he attends a Chrism Mass. Perhaps he even has a psychological aversion to concelebration or the reformed liturgy due to a past affiliation with the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) or another radical traditionalist group, and he has not yet fully recovered from the psychological conditioning or trauma of that experience. In such a case, his presence and reception of the Eucharist at the Chrism Mass would certainly be sufficient (along with his ongoing formation) to manifest his unity with his bishop.” (Emphasis added)

I have no respect for Mike Lewis as a Catholic and I believe his opinions generally exist in the realm of utter buffoonery, but I must concede that he understands the situation perfectly, albeit from the vantage point of a Modernist Heretic. Lewis is staying the quiet part out loud, and he is following the logic of post-conciliar ecclesiology to its logical conclusion. He understands that attachment to Tradition is nothing but a psychological neurosis (attachment to the Old Mass was always spoken of in these terms by the prelates since the Council), and therefore the pope, “very gently” has allowed these sycophant extremists to continue in their Larping for a time, but it is time to get in line and profess their true fidelity to the Church. Reading men like Lewis is illuminating, as he truly gets it, although he is on the side of Satan.

Long Game?

While it may be argued that the FSSP is playing the “long game,” I must heartily disagree, as the long game was in reality played by Lefebvre, as he knew that any “playing” with the modernists was playing with fire. What is at stake here is not merely a question of strategic action by priests who might swallow a bit of crow so they can keep their apostolates; what is at stake is a matter of identity.

What is the true identity of the FSSP if concelebration becomes the norm? As has been discussed, the Traditionalist is intrinsically opposed to the Liturgical Revolution, so, what does it mean when a man must do what he is intrinsically opposed to? Of course, this does not mean that a man is necessarily a coward or treasonous if he does something he doesn’t want to do for the greater good; we all have to do things we don’t want to do for our families or in our careers. But, there is a stark contrast between doing something that we find unpleasant, and doing something that we find untenable. 

A man with a domineering boss may agree to stay late at the office even though he knows his wife and children would benefit from his presence at home, but he cannot agree to stay late as a general rule because his family would be destroyed. And, while he may agree to stay late the odd time because of the necessity to keep his job, he can never agree to meet his boss at a strip club for lunch.

The result of doing something you believe to be wrong and justifying it as a “necessary evil” is the deadening of the conscious and of your resolve to resist evil. 

“Just take the jab, it is not intrinsically evil…” 

For those priests who agonize over this development, they are now faced with the prospect of doing what they told themselves they would never do; or, they are not in the process of talking themselves off the ledge and convincing themselves that they have changed their minds and do not believe what they believed for so long. Either way, this amounts to a tragedy for the conscience, and I imagine many of them believe there is no way out. 

If they do not comply, they may lose their parish and their ministry, and if they do comply, they may lose their self-respect.

This is Only the Beginning

There is a French saying: Revolution is like riding a bicycle, you must keep peddling or you will fall over. We are living in the revolutionary times in the Church, the spirit of 1789 and 1917 reigns supreme. First, it was a council for a New Age; then it was a New Mass; then it was a New Springtime and a New Advent; then it was a New Catechism and host of New Revisions of said Catechism. Now we have Communion for the divorced and remarried, followed by rainbow blessings, and a New Suppression of the Old Mass. The Revolution has not stopped, even if the bicycle has slowed down at times while facing strong winds here and there. 

It is a little known fact, but the priests of the FSSP have routinely been required to sign a Formula of Adherence, which is purported to be the same as the Protocol of Accord that Lefebvre signed with Ratzinger, although it is not.⁴ 

The formula states:

Declaro etiam, me accipere valitudinem Sacrificii Missae et Sacramentorum celebratorum cum intentione faciendi quod facit Ecclesia, et secundum ritus, qui inveniuntur in editionibus typicis Missalis Romani necnon Ritualium a Summis Pontificibus Paulo VI et Ioanne Paulo II editis. (I also declare that I accept the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the Sacraments, celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites found in the typical editions of the Roman Missal as well as the Ritual published by the Supreme Pontiffs Paul VI and John Paul II.)

The key word is valitudinem, which is translated into English as “valid,” but it is not that simple. The Formula is very similar to the Protocol, but there is a key difference. In the Protocol signed by Lefebvre, the word in Latin that is use is not “valitudinem” but “validitatem.” This difference in vocabulary makes all the difference in the world. Both are translated as “valid” in English, but the meaning is truly lost in translation. Valitudinem means more than just “valid” but refers to strength, good health, effectiveness, and powerfulness. Literally translated you will find the word translated as “healthy.” Contrariwise, validitatem means that something is merely “valid,” and is a term often used in Law to refer to the technical validity of a contract. It is hardly a term of approval beyond the simple recognition that a thing is technically what it is. 

“…[T]hey also require young priests to sign a profession of faith in which the spirit of the Council must be accepted.”

If the Formula is taken at face value, then of course there is no ground to stand on and reject the concelebration of the New Mass. In addition, if Lefebvre was right that the “spirit of the Council” is encapsulated in the New Mass — which it is — then why would anyone think the revolutionaries will stop with forced concelebration?

Yes, the FSSP has permission to continue saying the 1962 Missal, but the FSSP does not have any bishops. If the FSSP is asked to concelebrate with the local bishop in the New Rite, then we are in outer space if we do not expect the powers that be to ask the FSSP faithful to be confirmed in the New Rite. In addition, if performing liturgical functions with bishops in the New Rites helps the FSSP to “continue to build up ecclesial communion” then what better way to build up even more communion than ordination by a bishop in the New Rite?

Rome has made their position very clear; the FSSP is in need of “more communion” and the only way to materialize this desire for illusive “full communion” is to celebrate the New Mass. Therefore, we are not in the realm of conjecture or conspiracy if we expect the Revolution to require more and more “communion.”

Before you know it, we may be in a situation where all the FSSP is “allowed” to do is say the Old Mass for “pastoral” reasons, but everything else will be New. You may think I am reading into this too much, but you may also not have thought that the FSSP needed “more communion” and that this Holy Week would be different than the ones that came before.

As a closing statement I will say that there is no guarantee that local bishops will all enforce this matter for immediate implementation, and it could be that in various locations it will be “business as usual,” but we can no longer pretend that the cat is not out of the bag and that the FSSP is safe.

1. Interview, Fideliter No. 79, January-February 1991

2. Before you get your knickers in a twist, a bastard is an illegitimate son, meaning he has not patrimony to speak of. The New Mass is by definition a bastard, in that it was cut from whole cloth and can call no liturgy or tradition its “father.” Lefebvre referred to the New Mass as a bastard rite, and he was exactly correct.

3. Marcel Lefebvre, The Biography, Tissier de Mallerais, Bernard, pg. 493

4. Now, I cannot confirm if every priest in the FSSP is required to sign the Formula, or if it was used for a time, or only for some priests, but it is doubtless that signing the Formula has been required many times. This article from 2008 makes it clear that it was still happening then https://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/03/interview-with-cardinal-castrilln.html