SSPX: Open Letter to Pope Leo XIV and to the Cardinals of the Holy Church

[Stone]

Open Letter to His Holiness Pope Leo XIV and to the Cardinals of the Holy Church
by the SSPX Bishops and Superior General [taken from here]

June 24, 2026

From the SSPX website

Most Holy Father,
Most Reverend Eminences,

On the eve of the Consistory at the end of this month, and just days before the episcopal consecrations scheduled for 1 July in Écône, it seems to us that the time has come for the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X to make a full profession of Catholic Faith, which we wish to place in the hands of Your Holiness and each one of the Cardinals. [“Profession of Catholic Faith of the Society of Saint Pius X to Enlighten Souls in the Face of Modern Errors“]

Today the Church suffers under the pressure of new forces, coming both from within and without, which push her in every possible direction, except – it seems to us – the right one. In the face of such suffering, we cannot remain indifferent.

It is not for the Society of Saint Pius X to indicate the path to follow, but rather for the two-thousand-year Tradition of the Church, faithfully guarded and transmitted by the Apostolic See through the centuries, and which many now regard, in practice, as an outdated reality, subject to perpetual development.

It is in the name of this same Tradition, and in its sole light, that we formulate today this profession of Catholic Faith in response to the chief errors and gravest dangers of our time.

We are convinced that Tradition contains all the remedies for the deepest ills afflicting the Church and the world, for which solutions are sought in vain outside of it. The immutable and integral Faith is the principle, the foundation, and the root of the salvation of souls. This Faith, contained in Tradition and taught by the constant Magisterium, constitutes the true foundation of the unity of the Church and, consequently, the necessary means of establishing union and communion among the members of the Mystical Body of Christ.

Above the changes and vicissitudes of time stands the immutable Tradition, the echo in history of eternal Truth.

We can but hope and implore that this Tradition and the purity of Faith be once again placed at the foundation of the life of the Church, so that from them an authentic regeneration may begin. It is with this intention that we pray with urgency.

We are persuaded that, in the unstable and extremely perilous context that now confronts us, the finest contribution one can offer to the universal Church is that of a sincere and integral profession of Catholic Faith.

We hope that one day this doctrinal text may serve as a basis for an honest discussion with the Holy See, in a spirit of peace, brotherhood, and charity.

The text we submit to you is not the sterile repetition of a group of nostalgics, but the necessary expression, peaceful and resolute, of our Faith.

Non enim possumus aliquid adversus veritatem sed pro veritate.
“For we can do nothing against the truth; but only for the truth.”

And according to the Psalmist, taken up by Saint Paul:

Et nos credimus propter quod et loquimur.
“We also believe, for which cause we speak.”

With thanks for the attention you will deign to give this text, we assure you of our constant prayers, for you and for the universal Church.

Menzingen, 24 June 2026, the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist

Davide Pagliarani
Superior General

+ Alfonso de Galarreta
First Assistant General

Christian Bouchacourt
Second Assistant General

+ Bernard Fellay
First Counsellor General
Former Superior General

Franz Schmidberger
Second Counsellor General
Former Superior General

[Stone]

Fr. Hewko's Commentary:

An AI summary of Father's talk:


Summary of the Video Content

This video features an in-depth discussion centered on the crisis in the Catholic Church, focusing particularly on the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), the integrity of traditional Catholic doctrine, the heresies surrounding Jesus Christ's nature, and challenges involving Vatican II and the new Mass. Two priests analyze doctrinal compromises, ecclesiastical authority, and fidelity to the teachings of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.


Key Themes and Insights


Defense of the Integral Catholic Faith:

The early Church faced many heresies attacking the divine and human natures of Jesus Christ, such as the denial of His two wills. The Church defended the "integral Christ" doctrine: Jesus Christ as one person with two natures, divine and human. The modernists are condemned for attempting to adapt or evolve the Catholic faith and downplay the miraculous nature of Christ, especially in relation to Vatican II and the new Mass.


Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and Recent Developments:

On June 24th, the SSPX released a 20-page doctrinal statement addressing 138 points, including references to Vatican II and the new Mass. Although this document appears to criticize the errors of Vatican II, there is skepticism about whether the SSPX has truly returned to Archbishop Lefebvre's original uncompromising stance. The document must be carefully examined for omissions or unclear retractions, especially regarding past compromises.


Compromises and Internal Conflicts within SSPX:

Over 18-20 years, the SSPX leadership has gradually compromised by accepting cooperation with the modernist Vatican (confessions, marriages, bishop appointments). The case of Bishop Huonder, a known modernist, being honored within SSPX structures illustrates this compromise. Superiors within the SSPX have exercised authoritarian control, silencing priests who speak out in defense of the integral faith, leading to internal repression. There is a notable division: some priests resist the compromises, others tolerate or enforce them.


Critical Doctrinal Questions Needing Clarification:

Legitimacy and validity of the New Mass and New Sacraments: SSPX in prior declarations has termed them legitimate and valid, diverging sharply from Archbishop Lefebvre's condemnation of the new Mass as "bastard" and intrinsically invalid. Whether SSPX will publicly retract all prior docile statements towards Vatican II and modernist reforms remains a major question. The strategy of "conversion from within" Rome is rejected by Archbishop Lefebvre as futile; instead, prudential distance must be maintained to preserve Catholic tradition. SSPX's acceptance of modernist bishops and their honorific treatment is viewed as a betrayal of traditional resistance.


Resistance to Dilution of the Faith:

Priests used to preach strongly about the crisis caused by Vatican II and the new Mass; recent trends show a shift to more "spiritual" but less doctrinal sermons, which is criticized as neglecting the primary battle for faith. The faithful require clear teaching on specific errors, not vague denunciations. Collaboration with Ecclesia Dei communities and indult Masses is not encouraged, as Archbishop Lefebvre forbade assent to compromised Masses since they include ambiguous or erroneous doctrines and pastoral practices.


Authority, Papacy, and the Crisis of the Hierarchy:

The question of the legitimacy of the current pope (Cardinal Prévost / "Pope Leo the 14th") is raised, with the consensus: The presumption of papal authority remains until proven otherwise. No one has authority to depose the pope; a bad or heretical pope can remain in office until judged by a future pope. This parallels biblical cases like Caiaphas, a high priest who was a heretic but retained official power and was part of divine prophecy. Catholics should resist erroneous teachings of bad popes but continue to obey the office of the papacy while praying for a good pope.


Timeline of Significant Events

Early Church Era: Numerous Christological heresies addressed by the Church.
Mid-1990s (GREC): Early talks for SSPX compromise with Vatican II.
2000+: Years of gradual SSPX compromise: accepting modernist bishops, confessions, marriages.
2011: Bishop Galarreta's rebuttal of SSPX doctrinal compromises.
July 2012: SSPX doctrinal declaration with six conditions for agreement with Rome; later compromises.
2012-2013: Expulsion of Bishop Williamson from SSPX.
June 24, 2026 (approx.): SSPX releases 20-page doctrinal statement, referencing Vatican II and the new Mass.
Ongoing: Internal SSPX tensions, silencing of traditionalist priests.


Definitions and Comparative Concepts

Integral Catholic Faith: Full and undiluted Catholic doctrine without omissions.
New Mass (Novus Ordo): Liturgical reform of the Mass introduced post-Vatican II, viewed by Lefebvre as invalid and illegitimate.
Modernists: Those who advocate adapting Catholic doctrine to modern ideas, condemned by traditionalists.
Operation Survival: Archbishop Lefebvre's term for producing new traditional bishops to preserve the faith.
Conciliar Church: The post-Vatican II Church under new doctrinal and liturgical changes, distinct from the traditional Catholic Church.
Ecclesia Dei Societies: Groups in communion with Rome using traditional rite but accepting Vatican II reforms.
Sedevacantists: Groups claiming the papal seat is vacant due to the current pope's heresy.


Core Conclusions and Recommendations

The SSPX must fully renounce all past compromises toward Vatican II and the new Mass to qualify as faithful to Archbishop Lefebvre's traditional vision. A strong doctrinal stance is essential, explicitly condemning Vatican II, the new Mass's legitimacy, and modernist bishops. SSPX priests need to resume clear, doctrinal preaching exposing the crisis of the Church rather than focusing solely on spiritual or moral topics. The distinction between the visible conciliar church and the true Catholic Church must be upheld to preserve authentic Catholic tradition. Catholics should maintain prudential distance from Vatican II structures while praying for a legitimate and orthodox pope. The crisis is ongoing, and faithful Catholics must remain vigilant, requiring transparency and courage from SSPX leadership and priests.

[Stone]

So much in this Profession is laudable. Much. But the SSPX once again falls short of it's founder. It will not denounce the New Mass outright.


SSPX words in this Profession on the New Mass:

124. I profess that the traditional Roman Mass, celebrated according to the rite in use before the reform of the Novus Ordo Missae, expresses with incomparable clarity the Catholic doctrine of Sacrifice, the priesthood, and the Real Presence. But I observe with sorrow that the contemporary liturgical reforms have departed considerably from the traditional liturgy, on the whole as in its details: in so doing, they have obscured the sacrificial and propitiatory character of the Mass, fostered a democratic conception of worship, brought Catholic liturgical expression closer to Protestant conceptions, and thereby contributed preponderantly to the loss of the sense of the sacred, the corruption of the Christian spirit, the decline of vocations, and the general weakening of the Faith.

Archbishop Lefebvre on the New Mass:

Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On The Novus Ordo Missae [the New Mass]

• “And we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith… Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion - another religion.” (Sermon, June 29, 1976)
  

• “I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such a Mass." (Conference April 11, 1990)
  

• “The current Pope and bishops no longer hand down Our Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a sentimental, superficial, charismatic religiosity through which, as a general rule, the true grace of the Holy Ghost no longer passes. This new religion is not the Catholic religion; it is sterile, incapable of sanctifying society and the family.” (Spiritual Journey, p. ix)
  

• “It is the new Mass in itself. It is not the priest who is saying it. It is not because he says it piously or anything that the new rite changes. It doesn’t change anything in the rite of the Mass. It is obvious that this new rite is a rite that has been made only to draw us closer to the Protestants. That is clear! (April 11, 1990)
  

• “This Mass is poisoned, it is bad and it leads to the loss of faith little by little. We are clearly obliged to reject it.” (The Mass of All Times, p. 353)
  

• “It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.…All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.” (The New Mass and the Pope, November, 8, 1979)
  

• “… this [new] rite is bad! Is bad, is bad. And the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Salleron says it very well, here:
  "It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically a neighbor to Protestantism,”
  
  and thus, which attacks our Faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of the question to encourage people to go to Mass in the new rite, because slowly, even without realizing it, they end up ecumenist! It’s strange, but it's like that. It is a fact. Then, ask them questions on ecumenism, on what they think of the relations with other religions and you will see! They are all ecumenist. For the priest himself, the fact of saying this mass and celebrating it in a constant manner, even without thinking about anything, about its origin, or why it was made, turns him and the people who assist at it ecumenist.” (Conference, April 11, 1990)
  

• "This union which liberal Catholics want between the Church and the Revolution is an adulterous union — adulterous. This adulterous union can only beget bastards. Where are these bastards? They are [the new] rites. The [new] rite of Mass is a bastard rite. The sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know whether they are sacraments that give grace. We no longer know if this Mass gives us the Body and the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. ... The priests emerging from the seminaries are bastard priests." (Homily preached at Lille, August29, 1976)
  

• “The radical and extensive changes made in the Roman Rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and their resemblance to the modifications made by Luther oblige Catholics who remain loyal to their faith to question the validity of this new rite.”(Écône, February 2, 1977)
  

• “Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious Mass which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The answer is simple: these Masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply to them the rules of moral theology and Canon Law as regards the participation or the attendance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious. The New Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a poison harmful to the faith.” (An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, Ch. 4)
  

• “The current problem of the Mass is an extremely serious problem for the Holy Church. I believe that if the dioceses and seminaries and works that are currently done are struck with sterility, it is because the recent deviations drew upon us the divine curse. All the efforts that are made to hang on to what is being lost, to reorganize, reconstruct, rebuild, all that is struck with sterility, because we no longer have the true source of holiness which is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Profaned as it is, it no longer gives grace, it no longer makes grace pass.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, August 1972, priestly retreat)
  

• “We must not forget that the conciliar reforms of the liturgy, the reforms of the Bible, the changes in the internal structure of the Church, of the constitution of the Church—all these things are a result of the ecumenical spirit. That is clear, since Protestants were present for the changes in the Mass—six Protestant ministers were photographed with Pope Paul VI who thanked them for having come to participate in the liturgical commission, which transformed our Catholic Mass! Everything was done in this ecumenical spirit: liturgical reforms, catechetical reforms, an ecumenical Bible—which is sold in the bookstore at the Vatican. There was then, a considerable Protestant influence.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• “…if they are going to the New Mass—slowly, slowly they change their mind and become, slowly, slowly Protestant. It is very dangerous to go to the New Mass regularly, each week, because the New Mass is not some accidental change, but it is a whole orientation, a new definition of the Mass. It has not the same definition as the True Mass.” (Interview, St. Michael’s Mission, Atlanta, April 27, 1986)
  

• “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any ascetical effort, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go." (Spiritual Conference at Econe, June 25, 1981)
  

• “The consequences of this state of mind or spirit spread within the Church, inside the Church, are deplorable, and are ruining and sapping the spiritual vitality of the Church. In conscience, all we can do is turn priests and faithful away from using the Novus Ordo Missae if we wish that the complete and whole Catholic Faith remains still living.” (Letter to John Paul II, April 5, 1983 - Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference #1, St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, April 24, 1983)
  

• In many cases, Masses by their translation, by the intention (of the celebrant), for many reasons are probably no longer valid. But, nevertheless, personally, I have always said, in fact, that if the Mass was said according to the rite approved by Pope Paul VI, in Latin, and with the intention of doing what the Church does, and, obviously, with the (valid) matter also, by a priest who is a real Catholic priest, I think that the Mass is in effect valid, although it does not necessarily follow that because it is valid we must inevitably attend it. ...
  My judgment is, given that this [New] Mass, as I had occasion to remark when interrogated by the Holy Office, is that this Mass is a Mass which has been poisoned, and one cannot oblige a person in conscience to receive poison. Consequently, if these people do not wish to go to Mass on Sunday, for example, because they are aware that it is a poison for their souls, they are certainly not committing a mortal sin. ... 
  What we can say, objectively, as a general rule, is that it is a danger to the faith to attend such Masses. Subjectively, we must take into consideration the individual, and consequently we must know how to judge as a (good) pastor and not only purely in an objective manner, as if we had nothing to do with human beings who find themselves by consequences in diverse circumstances. ... Obviously, the orthodoxy of the priest does not change the quality or the situation of the New Mass. (Even if a priest is well intentioned, a doubtful Mass will remain doubtful.) This is what they tell me in Rome: "You say that the Mass of the Pope is not good; you say that the Mass of certain cardinals is not good." I must reply "yes," because this concerns an objective question, that this Mass was made with the help of Protestants, finalized in a spirit of ecumenical protestantism, and that the essential elements of the Mass are tainted more or less. Consequently, the faith is no longer expressed as it should be expressed, in such a way that the people finish by having an ecumenical spirit and a Protestant spirit, which is excessively dangerous. (Interview with the Houston Chronicle, May 1983)
  

• "... we have the precise conviction that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This New Mass is a symbol, is an expression, is an image of a new faith, of a Modernist faith. For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by Saint Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole faith, the whole Catholic Faith: faith in the Most Holy Trinity, faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments.
  
  This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of faith and at the same time a source of our faith, indispensable for us in this age when our faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is evident that the new rite, if I may say so, supposes another conception of the Catholic religion-another religion." (Ordination Sermon, July 29, 1976)
  

• [As we], on the other hand, do not cease to affirm: the new Mass has been made in collaboration with the Protestants in order to please them; it still has a Protestant definition and produces Protestants. These reasons are more than sufficient for not giving it the titles reserved to the Catholic Mass of all time in its various rites. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
  

The New Mass is Intrinsically Evil

• In April 1974, before the Archbishop had reached a decision about the New Mass, he stated:
  “Is the Mass really intrinsically evil? If the Mass was intrinsically evil, intrinsically, I say, well one cannot do an intrinsically evil act, an intrinsically evil act is always forbidden: But if the Mass is not intrinsically evil, but is evil by circumstances, by what surrounds it, by certain prayers, because the Mass is not what it should be, and so as circumstances can change, can be modified, ... it is obvious that with them, I think it is better to abstain, not to go to Mass for a whole month rather than go to Masses like that, that's for sure!”
  

• By June 1981, the Archbishop had reached a conclusion on the New Mass and said:
  “…that the evil in the New Mass is truly intrinsic, in the text … and not only something purely extrinsic, [in the abuses], this is certain. Precisely by this general effect which diminishes the proclamation of our faith, this diminution is present everywhere, in the words and in the actions. They wanted to be ecumenical to such a point, to bring themselves closer to the Protestants in order to pray with them, that in the end they no longer affirm the Faith. And that is very grave. This diminution is excessively grave for our faith, how can it be otherwise? … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not possible.” (pp. 224 in Dr. David Allen White’s, The Horn of the Unicorn).
  

• Archbishop’s conferences on the New Mass on June 23/24/25, 1981:
  
• “The liturgical reform consisted ultimately in taking a Protestant text, while affirming that one does not deny the truths the Protestants deny and, by virtue of the negation of these truths, they made this Novus Ordo…. the modernist liturgists who entered the Church found nothing better than to take the Protestant text and say: We do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny ... We do not deny the truths, but we take the same text, because this text has no formal heretical text! These texts were made by virtue of the negation of these truths, but they do not explicitly deny them, so they then say: We are not doing something heretical by taking these texts, but us, we do not deny the truths that the Protestants deny! ... I do not see how one can say: This [liturgical] reform is only evil in a purely accidental way, in a purely external or extrinsic way. In my opinion, the protestant reform, this Mass of Taizé is certainly evil because it no longer affirms truths … it is a poisoned mass. A poisoned mass, because when one no longer affirms the truly Catholic truths of the Mass, as the Protestants wanted, little by little faith in these truths also disappears. This, I would say, is so obvious, so obvious in all the consequences...”
  
  “…we cannot, in three conferences, say everything on internal characteristics, on the similarities with Protestant texts in an ecumenical spirit, and thus of the danger which the [New] Mass entails for the Faith because of this diminution of the affirmation of the faith, a diminution of the affirmation of the dogmas which are essential to the Mass.… it [the New Mass] is not formally heretical, but indirectly it favors heresy because it puts you in a climate that no longer affirms the fundamental truths of the Mass , which no longer sufficiently affirms the fundamental truths of the Holy Mass.”
  
  “… So, if someone asks me: “I only have Mass of St. Pius V once a month. So what should I do on the other Sundays? Should I go to the New Mass if I do not have the Mass of St. Pius V? ...
  
  I reply: Just because something is poisoned, obviously it is not going to poison you if you go on the odd occasion, but to go regularly on Sunday like that, little by little the notions will be lost, the dogmas will diminish. They will become accustomed to this ambiance which is no longer Catholic and they will very slowly lose the Faith in the Real Presence, lose the Faith in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and have a spirituality, since the prayers are changed and they have modified everything, in the sense of another spirituality. It is a new conception of Christian spirituality. There is no longer any asceticism, no longer a combat against sin, no longer a spiritual combat. There is a great need to combat against our own tendencies, against our faults, against everything which leads us to sin. So I would say to them: Listen, I cannot advise you to go to something which is evil. Myself, I would not go because I would not want to take in this atmosphere. I cannot. It is stronger than me. I cannot go. I would not go. So I advise you not to go."
  

[Stone]

A word-search for Vatican II or Second Vatican Council in the SSPX's Profession yields only once instance other than in the footnotes:

145. I acknowledge in particular that modern errors represent a dreadful threat to the whole of the Catholic order, and that their penetration into the life of the Church, under the influence of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar reforms, has provoked a crisis of exceptional gravity: agnosticism attacks the knowledge of God; naturalism attacks the necessity of grace; subjectivism attacks the supernatural motive of faith; relativism attacks the immutability of dogma; situation ethics attacks the divine law; liberalism attacks the Social Kingship of Christ; false ecumenism attacks the uniqueness of the Church; collegiality and synodality attack the divine constitution of the Church in her hierarchy; liturgical anthropocentrism attacks the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But this passive acknowledgement of the 'influence of the Council and the post conciliar reforms' is such mild a rebuke. And once has to peruse nearly the entire multi-page document to find this 'rebuke' at the end. This is not a roaring denunciation, as it should be.


Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Vatican II Council

• “The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, Ecumenism, Religious Liberty, Collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism… A wholly different version of Revelation, of Faith, of philosophy! Very grave! A total perversion! How we are going to get out of all this, I have no idea, but in any case it is a fact, and as this German theologian shows (who has, I believe, another two parts of his book to write on the Holy Father's thought), it is truly frightening. So, they are no small errors. We are not dealing in trifles. We are into a line of philosophical thinking that goes back to Kant, Descartes, the whole line of modern philosophers who paved the way for the Revolution.” (Two Years After the Consecrations, September 6, 1990)
  

• “…it is nonetheless certain that the Council was deflected from its purposes by a group of conspirators and that it is impossible for us to take any part in this conspiracy, despite the fact that there may be many satisfactory declarations in Vatican II. The good texts have served as cover to get those texts which are snares, equivocal, and denuded of meaning, accepted and passed.” (from I Accuse the Council)
  

• “We believe we can affirm, purely by internal and external criticism of Vatican II, i.e. by analyzing the texts and studying the Council’s ins and outs, that by turning its back on Tradition and breaking with the Church of the past, it is a schismatic council.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)
  

• “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• “Some say the Council was good and has good, but only the reform is bad. But that is not true! Why? Because when Rome gave the reform, they always say the reforms they do, they do in the name of the Council. In the name of the Council! It is evident that all reform came from the Council, and if the reform is bad, it is impossible that the Council is good and all reforms are bad. Because that is the authentic interpretation of the Council by Rome!” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
  

• “This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible.” (Conference, May 11, 1976)
  

• “We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow 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. ... This reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the reform. ... That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council.” (Declaration of Faith, November 21, 1974)
  

• “We can think that there is Rome and Rome: [on one hand,] there is the Rome which is eternal in Her Faith, Her Dogmas, Her concept of the Sacrifice of the Mass; [on the other hand,] there is the temporal Rome which is influenced by the ideas of the modern world, an influence which the Council itself did not escape.” (October 13, 1974)
  

• “The Church, in the course of the 1960's, thus during the Council, acquired values that have come from outside the Church, from the liberal culture - due secoli - from two centuries of liberal culture. It is clear: these are the "rights" of man, it is religious freedom, it is ecumenism. It is Satanic.” (Conference, December 13, 1984)
  

• "Without rejecting this Council wholesale, I think that it is the greatest disaster of this century and of all the past centuries, since the founding of the Church." The Angelus A Matter of Principle
  

• “I never…I don’t accept the Council! Because you are destroying the Catholic State in the name of the Council! It is sure! It is evident!…This Council gives the same rights to error as to Truth! That is impossible…This new faith, it is a new religion. It is a protestant religion. That is a fact! How is it possible that the Pope gives the authorization to this change? How it is possible that the pope can sign this constitution (on liturgical change)? It is a deep mystery…If I take the position of the Council, I am betraying my Mother Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference, 1976)
  

• We [Bishop de Castro Mayer and the Archbishop] fought together to prevent the errors of Liberalism, which are a cancer in the doctrine of the Church, spreading themselves in the texts of the Council. ... Unfortunately, this Liberal principle has been adopted by Vatican II. ... If one does not want to believe that these texts are Liberal, one has just to see the consequences: ecumenism (all religion on an equal footing), and the laicization of the states. Ordination Sermon 1988
  

• And, so I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger], "What is the source of these bad fruits? For me, it is the Council of aggiornamento; that signifies the Council of the changes. What changes? Changes in the sacraments, changes in catechisms, changes in the Bible, so that we are no longer Catholics [but] are like Protestants. ... And he said, "No! No, no, no, that does not come from the Council; it comes from bad interpretations of the Council; it comes from abuses of the reforms." I said, "That is not true. That comes from the new orientation of the Church in the Council, especially by ecumenism." Changes in the Sacraments...We are like Protestants 1985
  

• “It is stupefying to read in the Documentation Catholique that the Lutheran-Catholic Commission of the Secretariat for Christian Unity, and thus an official Roman commission, said in effect that numerous points in the Council were drawn from the teachings of Luther…” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• The Church has always dreaded novelties, even in her vocabulary and that is why she has held on so strongly to the Latin language in the principal form of Tradition, viz. the Roman Church. For it is by a tendency to novelty that heresies, schisms, and errors have come about. This spirit of novelty, mutation, and change has succeeded in entering into the Church. It necessarily tends to destroy Tradition. The Second Vatican Council, which wished to be the Council of "up-dating," opened the door to this spirit of change and novelty. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
  

• The Council should have been the occasion of the reaffirmation of the Truth of the Church and the necessity of the social reign of Jesus and Mary against the errors of Protestantism and Teilhardian naturalism and against socialism and communism. Ordinary Protestants would have been converted en masse. They were disposed to it and their debacle was profound on the eve of the Council. But the Modernists, traitors to the Church, used the Council to favor their compromise with all the modern errors, profiting from a weak pope and a pope disposed to radical changes. All of the commentators on the Council recognize the triumph of the liberals who did not hide their satisfaction and who neutralized or drove from the Roman Curia all of the conservatives and who took the reins of government, centralizing power in the Secretariat of State in order to be certain of managing the ecumenical revolution so much desired by the enemies of the Church. The work was quickly carried out in all fields. Destruction also followed quickly. In this pastoral Council the spirit of error and lies was able to work at its ease, placing time-bombs everywhere which, in due course, would destroy the institutions. (Principles and Directives - 1982 General Chapter)
  

[Stone]

A word search for the term Canon Law, or New Code of Canon Law, or simply the word, code, yields zero results in the SSPX's Profession. We all know that so many Vatican II errors are codified in the New Code of Canon Law. To pass over this in silence seems inexcusable. But guess who did not pass over the New Code in silence....

Archbishop Lefebvre - On the New [Conciliar] Code of Canon Law

• “And in fact, there is even an additional obstacle, which is the new Code of Canon Law, which has been made in the same spirit I’ve just been speaking to you about, the spirit of the Council, a bad spirit.” (Conference, Long Island, New York, November 5, 1983)
  

• “Another grave problem now undermining the Church is found in the new Canon Law. The new Canon Law is very serious for it goes much further than the Council itself.” (Conference in Germany, October 29, 1984)
  

• A second question is now being put to us: “What do you think of the new Canon Law?”
  
  We are unfortunately obliged to answer that despite certain useful modifications, the spirit which has presided over this general reform is the same as that which inspired the changing of liturgical books, catechisms, and the Bible. The Apostolic Constitution introducing the new Canon Law explicitly says on page xi of the Vatican edition: “The work, namely the Code, is in perfect accord with the nature of the Church, especially as has been proposed by the II Vatican Council. Moreover, this new Code can be conceived as an effort to expose in canonical language this doctrine, i.e., conciliar Ecclesiology. The elements of this Ecclesiology are the following: Church = people of God; hierarchical authority = collegial service; Church = communion; and lastly the Church with Her duty to ecumenism. Each one of these notions is ambiguous and will allow Protestant and Modernist errors to inspire from now on the legislation of the Church. It is the authority of the Pope and of the Bishops which is going to suffer; the distinction between the clergy and the laity will also diminish; the absolute and necessary character of the Catholic will also be extenuated to the profit of heresy and schism; and the fundamental realities of sin and grace will be worn down. These are all dangerous for the doctrine of the Church and the salvation of souls. (Letter to Friends and Benefactors, March 1983)
  

• ... when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of, since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic constitution which introduces the new Code. ". . . It follows that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code." Hence the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code of Canon Law. (Archbishop Lefebvre, given at Turin, Italy, March 24, 1984)
  

• What is this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing else ... (Ibid.)
  

• This is exactly the same thing as saying today that Bishops, priests and laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is precisely what Luther and the protestants did, laicizing the priesthood. It is consequently very serious. (Ibid.)
  

• It is this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the Protestants who say that Eucharistic devotion (for them there is neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven "all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought. (Ibid.)
  

• You know that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion to a Protestant. It is what they call Eucharistic hospitality. These are Protestants who remain Protestant and do not convert. This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To give Communion to a Protestant is to rupture the Faith and its unity. (Ibid.)
  
  

Quotes by Other Traditional Clergy on the New Code of Canon Law

• It was, in fact, Pope John Paul II who recognized the centrality of the new theology of the Church in all the changes that have come about in the past 40 years. He states it very explicitly in the Apostolic Constitution that he wrote to introduce the 1983 Code of Canon Law, on January 25, 1983. He there states that: "the new Code can be conceived as a great effort to transfer into canonical language this doctrine itself [i.e., proposed by Vatican II], namely conciliar Ecclesiology." He goes on to state that: "the fundamental reason for the novelty which...is found in the Second Vatican Council, especially with respect to its ecclesiological teachings, is also the reason for the novelty contained in the new Code." It must be remembered that the laws contained in the Code of Canon Law are the practical guide for Catholics in living their Faith, and that any "novelty" contained therein must be of the greatest importance for them. (Fr. Peter Scott, "How Are Catholics to Respond to the Present Crisis in the Church?: April 2003)
  

• "... it was the mark of collegiality that eminently distinguished the origin of the new Code, and that this mark is full in agreement with the Magisterium and nature of the Second Vatican Council, bearing its spirit. In order to establish this point the Pope lists the chief novel teachings of Vatican II contained in the Code, namely that "the Church, the universal sacrament of salvation, is shown to be the People of God and its hierarchical constitution to be founded on the College of Bishops together with its head". This is effectively the definition of collegiality. (Ibid.)
  

• "...the shameless practice of Ecumenism and sacramental sharing with non-Catholics, [is] permitted in the entirely invalid Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law." (Ibid.)
  

[Stone]

A word search for the term indult, or Ecclesia Dei [communities], yields zero results in the SSPX's Profession. We all know that the old SSPX used to warn often on the dangers of assisting at such Masses. Once again, silence.

But guess who did not pass over the indult or Ecclesia Dei Masses in silence....

Quotes of Archbishop Lefebvre - On the Indult Mass

“I myself also during these years have not ceased asking of Rome: leave us this liberty! And so, faced with the insistence of many people, and mine also, they finally decided to do something. Unfortunately however they have added to it incredible conditions. It's absolutely unimaginable, after all this, to be interrogating people on their opinion: Do you reject the New Mass? If you reject the New Mass, then you don't have the right to say the old one. ...To my mind, this decree is a typical example of the present mentality at Rome, the progressive mentality. This is a progressive decree; it is not a traditional decree where Rome would act out of consideration for the holiness of the Mass, for the holiness of the faithful, for the apostolate and good of souls, the glory of God. No, it's not that. It's pure politics. They conducted a referendum . . . a poll . . . to see who were in agreement; because there was still a small group holding out, they decided to make a concession, but to also add some conditions. That is politics, the same kind they practice in democracies—it's not supernatural at all. (Archbishop Lefebvre, The Church, The Priesthood and the Tridentine Indult, 1984)

" ...the religious authorities would only grant this freedom [of the Indult] on condition that the traditional Mass not be celebrated out of contempt for the New Rite. They would require priests to say the New Mass at least once in a while. It is difficult not to descry in the arrangement of the conditions a maneuver destined to put pressure on traditional priests to convince them to celebrate the New Mass.” sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass
[*]
“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.” sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass

“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." (Homily, Friedrichshafen, April 29, 1990) sspx.org/en/archbishop-lefebvre-indult-mass

“Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church's defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. "After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says"—but they are betraying us—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil's work.” (Two Years After the Consecration, September 6, 1990)


See also: What are we to think of the Fraternity of St. Peter? by Fr. Peter Scott.