40th anniversary of SSPX - The Society of St. Pius X is part of the Church Militant

Dear members of the Society,
On this day we have a double joy. First of all the joy of the liturgical feast that we celebrate today, All Saints’ Day. The Church wishes to gather together in one feast all her children who already enjoy eternal beatitude, the Beatific Vision. An extraordinary feast, for it is the accomplishment, the fulfillment of the Church! In it we see her reason for being, and her mission, realized. And we hope that this will be our end as well. It is indeed a great joy for us to think of heaven, and truly today the Church asks us to think of heaven, of that for which God has created us. Throughout the year we celebrate a certain number of saints, those saints that the Church wished to give us as models, since in each one of them there is something extraordinary that surpasses the habitual, ordinary human. They are sublime, perfect models, and to be imitated, although some of their exploits remain on the level of admiration: we contemplate their miracles that remain for us objects of admiration and not of imitation. But today the Church tells us: yes, there are all those models, but that is not all! There are 365 days in the martyrology, and we find a few thousand saints mentioned, but there are many more in heaven! And for us this is a source of great hope, for heaven is our homeland.
At the same time, this feast of All Saints’ Day procures for us another joy: we celebrate an anniversary, that of the foundation of our dear Priestly Society of St. Pius X 40 years ago. On this day, and it is certainly not by chance for we know well that for Divine Providence there is no such thing as chance – even if it is not always easy to see what are the intentions of the Good God, what links we can make between events, and what links we must make only from a distance. But certainly for the Good God, under His gaze, everything has its place. And there is a reason that it was on this feast of All Saints’ Day that the Society was founded. Let us try at least to catch a glimpse of it.



The Church Militant on earth is Triumphant in heaven
When one speaks of the feast of All Saints, when one speaks about the saints, one of course thinks of each of them individually, but also of the assembly to which they belong. As soon as one says “all the saints,” one thinks of a body. This company has a name: it is the Church Triumphant. The Church Triumphant, as we know, is a part of the Church. One could say that it is the definitive part, that part which is the completion of the Church here below, her culmination in heaven, her definitive perfection. There is a link between the two, we call the same Church “militant” on earth and “triumphant” in heaven. This is exactly the same Church, but that which we find here below is under another mode because she is situated in time, she operates in a different mode of conduct. Every aspect of the fight against sin and the devil, which is our condition on earth, disappears in the vision of the Good Lord who is outside of time. The saints devoted themselves entirely to the adoration of God, to joy in the perfections of God found in the vision He has of Himself, in the light of glory. But here below the Church really struggles. Her end will be found in heaven.
If there is a Church on earth, if our Lord has indeed founded His Church, it is in order to save souls, to pull them out of their pathetic state, out of their miserable state of sin. We know, and it is a teaching of the faith, that every person who enters into this world is conceived in original sin. He is deprived of the friendship of God that is grace. He is not in a natural state, but in a fallen state, in a state that makes it such that he is not able to achieve by his own efforts the end offered to him by the Good Lord. If he counts only on himself, he is lost, and his life here below will be a succession of short-lived joys, pleasures, tears, sadness, and suffering coming to an unhappy end. Therefore he must look for that method given by God to take man out of this state of misery, that is continually aggravated by the succession of personal sins, and which, if one does nothing, ends in hell, in the deprivation of God—the deprivation of that for which God has made man, namely the eternal joy of the beatific vision. This deprivation that is the sorrow of damnation is difficult to understand. It is easier to understand the sensible suffering of fire and all the other physical sufferings of hell. . . . This appalling state is one into which man rushes if he does not take the only way given by God to be saved, which is the Church He Himself founded, the Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church. To take souls out of this state of misery is not just a work of charity, it is a battle.
Man has not fallen single handedly. Demons, the fallen spirits, are there. God allows them to perform certain actions. Thus they try to hinder the work of the Church which consists of bringing souls out from sin. This mission is a real combat, essentially a spiritual battle, but which can very easily extend out into the physical world. Not only does the Church have a spiritual warfare to conduct, but also she must undergo actual physical persecution. The devil’s endeavors to gain followers on earth are what we call simple “the world.” And this world, despite its charms and smiles, is an enemy, an enemy against the good of men and their salvation. This is why the Church on earth, realizing what is her end by bringing men to God, by sanctifying them, by communicating to them this grace which makes them saints, the Church must effectively devote the greatest part of her energy and her time to this battle.
One can see this combat in the defense of the faith, in the protection of the treasure of the faith. This will require the Church to issue condemnations, defenses, punishments, and excommunications. This is normal and it cannot be otherwise. We are in a real war, much more serious, much more decisive than all the human wars. It is, again, about the salvation of souls! This battle can be seen also on the moral level. We must have faith, but we also must live a life that corresponds to the commandments of God. The Church has to instruct men in the ways of the Good Lord. Daily experience shows us how reminding men of Catholic morals can start a war. Fundamentally, the battle for the faith is much more profound. However, at the level of man the battle will unfold almost always over morals. Even the suggestion of a reminder of the moral order to today’s man provokes a public outburst! The fight for the faith and the fight for morals are interrelated, but as evidence and everyday experience show, the most visible battle is being played out on the moral plane. This is why the Church on earth is called “militant.” This daily struggle can make us somewhat forgetful of the beautiful side of the Church. Or let us say more exactly that those who would like to think only of the beautiful side of the Church may well forget that which is perhaps not essential to her, but which is absolutely necessary for the battle here on earth, namely, asceticism. Our Lord aptly said: “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.” (Luke 9: 23). And so it is! But today, on this feast of All Saints, the Church asks us to raise our hearts. Without necessarily forgetting this combat, she invites us to look at this reward that the Good Lord gives to those who devote themselves to this battle, those who are dedicated to the salvation of their souls and of their neighbors: eternal beatitude.

Without Archbishop Lefebvre, no Society of Saint Pius X




How can we establish a relation between this truth and the Society? It is not so difficult really, my dear brethren. When we speak of the Society, when we look around us, what is our Society for the people of the world? It is a bunch of trouble-makers, rebels, excommunicate schismatics… in short, terrible sons of the Church… or something close to it. They are always grumbling, groaning, attacking, criticizing. That is how they see the Society. And we can say that during these 40 years of existence, we can find a good number of battles and elements of this war. That is where we see to what extent the Society is part of the Church militant, at a time when it is precisely this combative aspect of the Church that people want to forget. It is striking to note that in this age that is our own, and especially since the council, they are trying to eliminate this militant aspect. They do not want to talk about it any more, they want to present a very pleasant Church, nice to everyone, to all religions, to all men, to all sinners, as if there were only one devil who remained, the Society of Saint Pius X! Yes, with them we will stay at war! It is fairly impressive to see this contrast.
As for the cross, they do not want to talk about it any more. Or if they still talk about it, they have taken down the Christ Crucified. They leave a cross with a band in the middle, the cross of the Risen Christ, the one that serves no purpose any longer because Christ is risen. Alleluia! Everything is fine. And no one wants to talk about the value of suffering, the necessity of this struggle. Sin? Think, there are no more sinners! In any case everyone goes to heaven. It is quick. It is simple. Everyone is nice, everyone is saved. Be good protestants, be good pagans, you will go to heaven. That is approximately the message that is going around everywhere. It is hard to see what the Church militant is. When we look at the Church today, we can well wonder why it is still called militant. Because it fights for, I don’t know, the rights of women or for the poor? Is that the Church militant?
On our side, certainly the idea of the “battle for the Mass” and the “defense of the Faith” is very visible, even just in our vocabulary, for if we make a list of our sermons, very often we find these ideas of combatting, battling, warring. But we are almost the only ones to speak of that. With us, one can easily see this aspect of the Church militant. And at the same time, we know that we are not only fighting for the pleasure of fighting. We do not give the impression – I say, the impression – of disobeying for the pleasure of stating our personal opinion. We are in search for something else. We are in search for salvation. We are in search of God. If we engage in this battle, it is because we want to please God, it is because we want the glory of God and thereby our salvation.



Let us take a closer look at our Society. One thing is obvious: to speak of the Society, speak of what it does, speak of its intentions, is necessarily to speak of a person, our dear and venerated founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. If he was not there, there would be no Society, and we would not be here. This work of the Church exists because he is its founder, but not only that, all our fighting for the Church is directed by the guidelines, by a spirit that we have received from Archbishop Lefebvre. Obviously, it is so clear for us that he is a man raised up by Divine Providence for this time. The Good God gave him a striking number of talents and gifts for our time. He permitted him to, firstly, understand that there was a problem in the Church, that there was a crisis, but also to find where the problem was, what the cause of this crisis was. The Good God also allowed him to make people see what means must be applied to get out of it, what the antidote for this crisis was. And the Society, for 40 years, lives by these directions that the Archbishop gave us. And what is more extraordinary, is that those lines that he left us, either to explain what was happening in the Church, or to show us what means we had to use to get out of it, well, this vision of the Church is so profound that 40 years later you can read what he was saying 40 years ago, and you can apply it as if he was saying it today. That means that this vision was so high up that it went beyond time, in a way. Of course, it is for our time, but nevertheless it is high enough above particular and contingent elements of a certain time, to be able to show us what must be done. There is the problem and there is the solution!
The Society is a heritage. Here as well, there is a link with the Church. The Church is a tradition in the sense that, from generation to generation, what Our Lord Jesus Christ entrusted to the Apostles is handed down to future generations. It is really a tradition, the passing down of a deposit, of a treasure that we call the “revealed deposit”, which God entrusted to men for their salvation. And exactly the same thing is repeated to us in our Society, as a faithful echo, and nothing different since we are in the Church. The Archbishop told us – and this is what he wished to see written on his tombstone – “I have handed down what I have received” (I Corinthians, 11, 23). So have we received this treasure and we still live by it today. And if you are here, it is because you yourselves have received it in turn. And if we are celebrating today the 40th anniversary of the Society, it is because this transmission has continued. For what we do – the Archbishop insisted so much on this – what we do must not be anything else but what the Church does. He stressed this point when he was speaking to us about the spirit of the Society. What is the Society’s spirit? He told us, “There is none.” There is no spirit specific to the Society. The spirit specific to the Society is the Church’s spirit. Look at the Church; what governs, what moves the Church? That is the spirit that must be what animates the Society. Indeed, we do have to fight, we do have to defend the Faith. But that is not enough. That is not all. You yourselves understand well that the people who see us from the outside see the negative aspects like “defense”, “battle”, or “war”…, and often they stop there. They should look a little closer, and then they would see that those negative aspects are indeed real, but are not the purpose or the completion of things. Their completion is sanctity. It is the very purpose of the Church. It is so beautiful, so extraordinary to consider this purpose in our time, when sanctity is scorned everywhere, when all the protection that the laws offerred has been taken away in the countries that still provided a little protection for the morals and behaviour of men according to the natural law. Everything has been blown away, everything has been plunged into rot, into manure, excuse me… Well then, in this environment, in this shipwreck, it is truly extraordinary to see that this little Society in this battle where it is attacked from all sides, nevertheless manages to make the Good God’s light shine forth, the light of the faith, and succeeds in giving to men the courage to resist in the midst of all that, to live a life pleasing to God, a life of grace. Yes, it is something absolutely extraordinary coming close to a miracle. We really have something to give thanks to God for today, that is, give thanks to God for having given us an Archbishop Lefebvre.


The purpose of the Church is to make saints

In that little book which he called his last will and testament, his Spiritual Journey, the preface informs us that all his life he was haunted by the desire to transmit the principles of priestly sanctification, of Christian sanctification. That means the desire to make saints. And that is precisely the purpose of the Church: to make saints, to make holy priests so that there may be holy faithful. It is really necessary that the whole Church be sanctified. And to attain this end he did not propose his own invention off the top of his head. He simply went back to what the Church gives us, what we should all be centered on: the Mass. It is the foundation; it is the source of all grace, of all sanctification. And it is really the remedy, the remedy for this crisis. We can see it already, just beginning, something that is not very strong, a little something that is starting and that we can easily see in the Church. It is around the Mass that everything turns; it is from this starting point that, little by little, Christendom is being rebuilt, in the midst of all sorts of miseries, sorrows, and tears. But nevertheless it is germinating, it is growing slowly. It is still imperceptible, but nevertheless, we can see that there is something happening. We just see the hand of God. I remember – and we did not ask for this praise -, during the first visit of three of the Society’s bishops to Cardinal Castrillon, just after the pilgrimage in the year 2000, he declared while speaking of the Society: “The fruit is good, so the Holy Ghost is there.” What more do we want? The Holy Ghost, the Spirit that sanctifies, the Spirit that is only to be found in the Church and that sanctifies souls.
Let us ask Our Lady today, Our Lady and all the saints, and our dear Archbishop Lefebvre, the grace of fidelity to this deposit which is given to us by the Church, fidelity to the Faith, fidelity to grace. Let us ask to live ever more according to the fire of true charity that loves God above everything, and that loves one’s neighbour for the love of God. Let us ask for this grace of fidelity so that our beautiful history may not stop at our 40th anniversary, but that it may continue, for it is not difficult to understand, when we see the state of the Church, that we have not yet finished our work. Even if we have hopes on one hand, on the other there is also the clear understanding that our struggle in and for the Church is not yet finished. Therefore let us really ask the Good God for that fire, the fire of His Love that wants to see everywhere His Name hallowed, that His Kingdom has come, that His Will is done on earth as it is in Heaven. Let us ask all the saints of Heaven, and the angels to assist us, to help us, and to guide us in this battle for the glory of God, for our salvation, and the glory of the Church. Amen.

Bishop Bernard Fellay’s sermon at the Seminary of Ecône on November 1, 2010, for the 40th anniversary of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X

A cautionary tale from English Catholic history.

The first Jesuits to set foot in England were Frs. Edmund Campion and Robert Persons in 1580. Campion was to give his life on the scaffold as did twenty seven other Jesuits. This new development was too much for Elizabeth, who already inflamed by the constant flow of missionary priests from the seminary at Douay headed by Dr Allen, saw this latest move as a direct threat. The penal laws were increased in their severity and terror ruled the streets for all Catholics. Each priest wrote a letter in answer to the Queen’s proclamation and explained their motives for being in England. Each confided his paper to a close friend, with the injunction that the document was not to be made public unless the writer was apprehended. Pound, the chosen friend of Fr. Campion, betrayed his trust and published Campion’s paper, while he was yet at large, addressing it to the Lords of the Council. It was a bold document and although it stated “that he was come solely to exercise the spiritual functions of the priesthood” it gave great offence and the manhunt for him began in earnest. At length Campion was taken at Lyfford in Berkshire in July 1581. Persons was busy, with great energy he had set up a printing press at East Ham from whence various controversial works began to issue. Before fleeing to the continent, and with Mary Queen of Scots yet living, Persons involved himself in political matters to the detriment of the Catholic cause in England. He sent Fr. Watts a secular priest and afterwards Fr. Holt to the court at Holyrood House. James VI conveyed that he was willing to connive at the introduction of Catholic missionaries, and of the filial affection towards his mother but bewailed his lack of funds to do anything other than what would please Queen Elizabeth! Person by now was in Normandy, still pushing out controversial publications. During his stay in Normandy Parsons was in constant communication with the Duke of Guise, and with his aid was able to found a grammar school for boys at Eu near the sea coast.


Esmé Stuart, Sieur d'Aubigny, created Duke of Lennox, a catholic,was the favourite of the youthful King James. He espoused the side of Mary Queen of Scots. Never had she had such an ally, who actually controlled the chief ports of Scotland, and enjoyed the king's entire confidence. So English Catholics and the friends of Mary Stuart were now turning hopefully towards Scotland.. Father Creighton was meanwhile commissioned by the general of the Jesuits to go into Scotland, but with orders to receive instructions from Persons on the way. Creighton accordingly arrived at Eu in January 1582, and held conference there with Parsons and the duke of Guise as to the best means of effecting the deliverance of the Queen of Scots, and in the following April he returned to Normandy from Scotland with despatches from Lennox.

Upon this, Guise, Parsons, and Creighton went to Paris to discuss with Dr. Allen, James Beaton, the archbishop of Glasgow, and Claude Mathieu, provincial of the society in France, certain military plans of Lennox. Their object was to obtain the co-operation of the pope and King Philip of Spain. On 18 May Tassis, the Spanish agent, reporting the affair to Philip, said that Lennox had required for the invasion of England twenty thousand men, but that Parsons thought eight thousand sufficient; that the enterprise was to be carried out in the autumn; that all English catholics were most anxious that arms should be taken up in Scotland, and pledged themselves to join the invaders; and that when Persons was asked for the proof of his assertions, he had answered that 'he knew all this from what many of them had declared when he had treated with them of their consciences.' At the same time the nuncio at Paris forwarded to the pope a memorandum drawn up by Persons recommending the appointment of Allen, 'whose presence in England would have more effect than several thousand men,' as bishop of Durham, and urging that the greatest secrecy should be preserved, and that the catholic gentry should only be informed of the enterprise at the last moment, and by means of the priests. When the plans were matured Parsons was despatched with them to Philip at Lisbon, and Creighton to the pope at Rome. Parsons quickly gained the confidence of the Spanish king, and it was on this occasion that he obtained from him a subsidy of 24,000 crowns for the king of Scotland and an annual pension of 2,000 ducats for the seminary at Rheims. But the King would not consent to a planned invasion.

None of these events had escaped the notice of the agents of Queen Elizabeth who acted immediately by having James held by the earl of Gowrie . The Raid of Ruthven took place on 22 August 1582. It was composed of several Presbyterian nobles, led by William Ruthven, 1st Earl of Gowrie, who abducted King James VI of Scotland. He was seized while staying at the castle of Ruthven, and kept under restraint for almost a year. The earl of Gowrie remained at the head of the government. The king's favourite Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox was forced into exile in France and died in May 1583. Thus ended plans for an invasion .

In 1584 Creighton was captured while returning to Scotland from the Netherlands. He was taken to the Tower and racked. His papers, which he had torn and thrown into the sea were reclaimed and revealed details of the “invasion” which he confirmed under torture. In 1585 John Ballard a Jesuit priest became embroiled with Anthony Babington and the plot to kill Queen Elizabeth. The plot failed and Fr. Ballard along with other conspirators was executed. This plot embroiled Mary Queen of Scots who by the deception of Walsingham had no idea of the lengths that Babington was prepared to go to. She never ever planned or conspired to harm Elisabeth.

All the while Persons was busy, the school at Eu being necessarily abandoned he founded St Omers in 1592. Prior to this he also founded St Albans at Valladolid and St Gregory’s at Seville. In 1594 there appeared the “Conference about the next succession” a publication attributed either partly or wholly to Persons. This pointed to the Infanta of Spain, as being a descendant of John of Gaunt. Dr Gifford, afterwards Archbishop of Rheims denounced the book as “the most pestilent ever made”. The Catholic clergy in England were horror struck by its audacity, and the Spanish policy was denounced as the origin of every misfortune. By association the Jesuits were thought of in the same light irrespective of the blood shed by its many martyr priests. Parliament made it high treason for anyone to have this book in their possession. Thence arose the contention in Wisbeach castle known as the “Wisbeach stir” among the thirty three priests confined there of whom some were Jesuits.. In addition the Scholars in the English College at Rome broke out in revolt and it took the immediate return of Persons to Rome to quell them. He had held the Rectorship there since 1588 which gave him a degree of influence.

He brought this influence to bear in procuring the appointment of George Blackwell as the first Archpriest in England, with instructions to consult on all matters of gravity Fr. Henry Garnet Superior of the Jesuits in England. The secular clergy had desired a bishop, and Cardinal Allen prior to his death had asked Gregory XIII that one should be sent, but Persons had his way.

This Archpriest would be head of the priests sent from Douay and Rome. He was to have twelve assistants, the Cardinal Protector to have the nomination of six leaving to the Archpriest the selection of the remainder. It is evident from both public and private instruction that this was framed to admit of little independence. Blackwell the unlucky incumbent , was a friend of Persons and took his authority from Cajetan the Cardinal Protector. The outcry from the English clergy was long and loud.

Priests William Bishop and Robert Charnock were sent to Rome to represent the case of the appellant clergy to remonstrate against the mal-administration of the Archpriest Blackwell. Persons connived to have them imprisoned in the English College for four months. Eventually they were released, one sent to France the other to Lorena, with injunctions never to return to England. This particular controversy induced Persons to publish a disreputable brochure “ The Manifestation of the folly of certain calling themselves Secular priests”.

However the Pontiff after a fresh appeal in November 1600 (The French siding with the appellant priests and the Spanish with the Archpriest), considerably modified his views of the case of the appellants and Dr. Bishop was subsequently restored to favour. Clement VIII ordered that the Archpriest’s authority was to be maintained but reprimanded him for his intemperate conduct. He further decreed that six of the appellant party should be admitted among the assistants, cancelled the command for the Archpriest to seek the advice of the Jesuit superior in matters of greater moment, and forbade all further books on either side. Thus the appellants won the majority of points, and a party supported by France, but hostile to Persons, became influential among the English Clergy. Elizabeth was quick to respond and issued a proclamation that all Jesuits were to quit the kingdom in thirty days and all other priests within three months.

With James succeeding to the throne in 1603 persecutions eased but were then re-enacted with more severity following the attempted assassination known as the gunpowder plot in 1605. Fr Garnet head of the Jesuits in England was purported to have knowledge of this but it is generally held that this can only have been via the confessional. Persons continued to exert his influence, having bound Dr Worthington, the president of Douay, under a secret vow of obedience to the Jesuits, he was in all but name Master of Douay College..

Blackwell received a breve from the Pope condemning the oath of allegiance (law 1606 see appendixes) as unlawful because it contained many things contrary to faith and salvation. but Blackwell refused to announce it to his flock. Blackwell was arrested and imprisoned in June 1607. All his documents from Rome were found on him. He had previously publicly announced that the oath, notwithstanding its condemnation by the Papal breve might be taken in good conscience by any English Catholic. Before the commissioners at Lambeth he took the oath and informed his assistants and clergy that he had done so and exhorted them to follow his example. Fr Persons wrote to Blackwell and the Pope issued further breves confirming and condemning the oath. Blackwell would not be moved and handed both the breve and the letter from Persons to the Archbishop of Canterbury, he passed them to the King who made a grievous complaint of them to the French Ambassador. The King retired and in due course had published “An Apologia for the Oath of Allegiance”. Three priests immediately paid with their lives for refusal to sign. Persons and Bellarmine responded in writing and thus commenced a feud. The king eventually in 1609 had published a revised work and special messengers were despatched to present it to the several princes in Europe. This controversy would divide Catholics for the better part of the century.

The Pope relieved Blackwell from his office on February 1st 1608 appointing George Birkhead to supply his place. But the damage was done, some Catholics were swayed by Blackwell and cheerfully took the oath when it was offered thus avoiding the penalties in force, others, the greater number influenced by Birkhead and the Clergy refused the oath as a denial of their religion.


Persons died at Rome after a short illness in 1610. The life of Father Persons is surely a cautionary tale for any priest who unwisely and erroneously involves himself in temporal and political matters beyond the defined scope laid down by the Church.* Although the majority of Jesuit priests and lay brothers worked tirelessly for Our Lord in the English vineyard the whole effort was tainted by the actions of Fr. Persons.

Firstly by his ill judged provocative publications, secondly by his political involvements and apparent insatiable need to both have, and exercise power. Lastly by attempting to subjugate all clergy in England under the Jesuits via the Archpriest. How easy it is to blindly and wilfully pursue actions that we cry are ‘Gods will’ when in reality it is simply obstinate self will run riot.

In 1773 Pope Clement XIV suppressed and dissolved the Jesuit order. The order was re-established by Pope Pius VII in the early 19th century but in various countries throughout the world it continued to suffer suppression.

After the death of Harrison, the third and last Archpriest in May 1621 the repeated requests of the clergy finally achieved the appointment of a Bishop, thus Episcopal authority in England was restored.

* see post Monday, 10 May 2010 Church and State

A sermon by the celebrated Rev. Fr. Archer

While researching I was delighted to find some of Fr Archer's sermons extant in their original handwritten form, the above is the first page,as given below, dated 1788, sixteenth Sunday after Pentecost.The subject is Keeping Holy the Sabbath. Copyright Pitts Theology Library, Atlanta GA.

… And Jesus answering spoke to the lawyers and the Pharisees saying is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath day…

There is no commandment in the law expressed in stronger terms than this. When God orders his people to sanctify the Sabbath day he seems to mistrust their fidelity in this point more than any other. Remember saith He thou keep holy the Sabbath day. He commanded Moses to tell the Israelites that if they profaned this day they should be put to death. He used a very powerful motive to excite them to the observance of so just a duty, in laying before their eyes their deliverance from the Egyptian captivity and omits nothing whereby to avert them from the profanation of these holy days. The Church follows the footsteps of her divine Spouse and Master hath fulminated anathemas and excommunications against the profanation of Sundays and Holydays, and nevertheless the most dreadful threats and rigorous punishments do not suffice to stay the licentiousness of many, and nothing is more common than the profanation of these holy days. And may it not be said that there is no time…
To be continued

Canon Law regarding preaching cc 1327-1351. 1955

“…Sacred Preaching. A sermon is a sacred public address, given by one duly empowered by the Church, in order to instruct the hearers in the Christian Faith and move them to practice it”

“… In addition to the duty of explaining the catechism to the people on Sundays and holydays of obligation…it is the duty of every pastor to preach the customary homily to the people… Strictly speaking, a homily means a familiar explanation of the Scriptures: ending with a moral exhortation; but here the term is used generally, so that any form of development will do, provided it carry a supernatural message in language which the people can understand…”

“…It is recommended that at the Masses which are attended by the faithful on feast days of obligation, a short explanation of the gospel, or of some part of Christian doctrine be given…”

ARCHER JAMES DD. He was born in 1751 and in his youth was employed in a public house called the Ship in Lincolns Inn Fields. His devout behaviour coming under the notice of Dr. Challoner he was sent to Douay College in 1769. He was ordained Priest and returned to commence his labours in the very public house in which he had served. It was related that when Father Archer commenced his preaching in the club room of the Ship pots of beer were placed on the table as a “blind”. He was a most eloquent pulpit orator and an indefatigable missionary. His whole career for half a century was earnestly devoted to preaching the Gospel on each returning Sunday, and it is thought he never missed one through that extended period. He is described as very short in stature, perhaps not more than five feet one or two. But he had a magnificent head, his brow was wonderfully ample and intellectual, and his deep grey eyes shone with a flashing brilliancy until his seventieth year and upwards. His voice was silvery in tone, musical and wonderfully distinct in the pulpit. He was justly considered the most eloquent preacher in England.

Charles Butler referring to his style of preaching says “It has been his aim to satisfy Reason while he pleased, charmed and instructed her; to impress upon the mind just notions of the mysteries and truths of the Gospel; and to show that ways of virtue are the ways of pleasantness, and her paths the paths of peace. No one has returned from any of his sermons without impressions favourable to virtue, or without some practical lessons which, through life, probably in a few days, perhaps even in a few hours, it would be useful for him to remember”.

Rev. Edward Price was to add “ shortly after my conversion, in the year 1822, I saw the venerable little man for the first time out of the pulpit. He was busily employed in looking over some books in front of an old shop in Holborn. I stood behind him for more than five minutes gazing with reverence upon him whose eloquent sermons had been so mainly instrumental in promoting my conversion. His dress was certainly rather slovenly. A long brown greatcoat, much the worse for wear, nearly down to his heels; an old broad brimmed hat, and thick soled shoes a world too wide for his feet, and which had evidently been soled a score of times. Though I took in these discrepancies at a glance, I though not of them but of the mind and the heart they concealed”.

This description is typical of many of those fine old priests who lived in the days of religious intolerance. They generally wore brown. For many years Dr. Archer was Vicar-General of the London District. The Pope in recognition of his talents as a preacher, and his published works, conferred upon him the degree of Doctor in Divinity at the same date with Lingard, Fletcher and Gradwell. He found a peaceful end in the family of Mr Booker, the publisher, in whose house he resided for more than twenty five years. He died August 22 1834 aged 82.

Church and State

Extracts from church and State , Burns and Oates 1952. For full text see www.sspxtheprieshood.com. Also read in conjunction with any post from www.ante-dinoscopus.blogspot.com



The teaching of Leo XIII“Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God” (Leo XIII). All authority, whether ecclesiastical or civil, has for its final sanction the divine law. But, as the main object of the States existence differs from that which is the chief concern of the Church, we must distinguish a duality of function. Pope Leo XIII has restated for the benefit of modern society the principles which should determine the relations between Church and State. The Almighty, therefore, has appointed the charge of the human race between two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, the other over human, things. Each in its kind is supreme, each has fixed limits within which it is contained, limits which are defined by the nature and special object Of the province of each, so that there is, we may say, an orbit traced out within which the action of each is brought into play by its own native right”. (encyclical Immortale Dei 1885). Though both Church and State come from God, they are to be distinguished by the diversity of ends each has in view, a distinction which is the basis of the difference of powers enjoyed by each.



… The business of the State is to foster the common good of its citizens, to provide for their temporal well being. But, as man is so constituted that he cannot be happy even in this world unless his heart is set on his final end, which is God, the State cannot disregard these supra-temporal aspirations; it must, at least, indirectly, encourage whatever may assist their realization. Directly, however the State is concerned with promoting the public good by legislation in the interests of the political, social and private rights of its citizens. The application of its laws to particular cases and the settlement of individual claims and counter claims are subject to the States judiciary. Determining the effects of civil contracts, the punishment of law-breakers, the imposition of taxes, preparation for national defense, subsidizing the arts and sciences – these are the activities which properly engage the attention of the State. Nor can the State be accused of undue interference with personal liberty when it reinforces the moral law with positive statutes; for example, by forbidding blasphemy and public indecency. Propaganda in favour of philanthropic endeavour and personal unselfishness and, in general the fostering of an intellectual and moral atmosphere favourable to the practice of the natural virtues, especially justice and mutual well doing, fall likewise within the legitimate province of the State.


Power of the Church in political and social ordersIn none of these matters has the Church the right of direct interference. Occasions might arise, however when she must speak her mind even here. For the political and social orders, in so far as they fall under the moral law and the judgment of human conscience, are subject to the authority of the Church. This supremely important principle is not seldom overlooked: most often by those who resent the subjection of their political and social actions to any higher tribunal; though it is by no means unknown for the representatives of the Church to offend against it, for example in advocating merely personal views on political and social questions by an illegitimate appeal to alleged “Catholic Principles”. The Bishops it should be noted, are not qualified by their office to criticize the military strategy of a war, or express their views as to what the political and economic arrangements of a peace settlement should be; but they may, as pastors of their flocks and witnesses to the Gospel, pronounce upon the justice, or otherwise, of the issues involved.

Political elections as such, are no concern of bishops and priests, save in their capacity as private citizens; it is in fact their duty to remain strictly impartial, so as not to prejudice their position as spiritual guides to every section of their flock; but if a political party or individual candidates, are advocating measures opposed to the Church’s interests, then the faithful may be reminded of where their duty lies. Again, ecclesiastical authority is not empowered to sit in judgment upon purely economic questions of supply and demand, though clearly it may use its influence, let us say, to ensure that the workers are not deprived of a just wage. Thus many human situations can arise upon which the episcopate is entitled to give guidance, without being charges with “interference” In matters outside its sphere.

…Concordats
It is beyond the scope of these pages to enter into the detailed relations of the Church with the modern State. Liberal Democracy on the one hand, and the various forms of totalitarianism on the other, have given rise to a new set of problems, emphasized by the complete secularization of politics and an attitude towards religion ranging from sceptical indifference to fanatical hostility; but the principles of their solution remain the same. The Church will always claim the right to judge of politics in their ethical and religious bearings; but she will never descend into the political arena or allow herself to be identified with any human polity. If her own prerogatives are infringed she will make known her protest, not indeed on account of mere prestige, but lest she prove unfaithful to her mission. In situations where the ideal is unobtainable, she will tolerate much that is imperfect for the sake of the good that may be preserved. It is thus, that, without compromising her message she comes to terms, by means of a concordat, with governments in many ways opposed to her own interests. Such a diplomatic instrument is a treaty between the Holy See and a secular State touching the conservation and promotion of the interests of religion in that State. The extreme flexibility whereby the Church, in this way or by tacit agreement, can effect a modus vivendi with almost any political regime is a proof, not of unprincipled opportunism, but that she is committed to none. Here as in many other of her activities, she may appeal for her mandate to the example of the Apostle Paul “I became all things to all men, that I might save all”.



… No one has put this point more forcefully than Pope Pius XII, in words that refute forever the charge that Catholic Christianity oppresses the free life of the spirit under the weight of ecclesiastical formalism: “For although the juridical grounds upon which also the Church rests and is built have their origin in the divine constitution Given her by Christ, and although they contribute to the achievement of her supernatural purpose, nevertheless that which raises the Christian Society to a level utterly surpassing any order of nature is the Spirit of our Redeemer, the source of all graces, gifts and miraculous powers, perennially and intimately pervading the Church and acting in her. Just as the framework of our mortal body is indeed a marvellous work of the Creator, yet falls short of the sublime dignity of our soul, so the structure of the Christian Society, proof though it is of the wisdom of its divine Architect, is nevertheless something of a completely lower order in comparison with the spiritual gifts which enrich it and give it life, and with Him who is their divine source.”


The will of Christ fulfilled in the Church
So it is that the Catholic Church remains, now as ever, the ultimate hope of the world. She is the one supra-national force able to integrate a civilization fast dissolving in ruins. Outside her visible communion there may be “broken lights”, half truths of authentic Christianity; but only within the fold can men respond to the full and objective will of Christ. Fittingly we may end with the memorable words of St Augustine “Let us love the Lord our God; let us love his Church; the Lord as our Father the Church as our Mother…What doth it profit thee not to offend the Father, who avenges an offence against the Mother? What doth it profit to confess the Lord, to honour God, to preach him, to acknowledge his Son, and to confess that he sits on the right hand of the Father, if you blaspheme his Church? Hold fast therefore, O dearly beloved, hold fast unswervingly to God as your Father, and the Church as your Mother.”

Reticence set aside

I publish now in May 2010, the writings explaining how anti-dinoscpus.blogspot came about.

Following my public denouncement (September 2009) it seems the moment to explain how anti-dinoscopus came about and why it was re-submitted, I give the facts to avoid the need for further erroneous speculation. Below are my views and observations from 1977-www.ante-dinoscopus.blogspot.com

With Burning Sorrow
The opening chapter in the book “The Living Flame” (the history of the first 25 years of the SSPX in the UK) is headed with this title ”With Burning Sorrow”. Surely there can be no better description of what any serious minded Catholic endures today, and has endured since Vatican II, be they man or woman, consecrated soul or a member of the laity.

Archbishop Lefebvre wrote of living through three world wars, the last being Vatican II which he refers to as the most terrible. The aftermath of this conflict remains with us still. Perhaps in a hundred years or so, at a future moment when the Church is restored to her soundness the events we are living through will be codified and laid down for all to see and understand and Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be raised to the altars of the church as the modern day St Athanasius.

I was by God’s grace converted and received into the Traditional Catholic church on 28 May 1977 and began my life as a Catholic having lived previously beyond the pale. I had the further privilege of being confirmed by Archbishop Lefebvre on the feast of Pentecost, 1978 at Ecốne.

England, once known as the Isle of Saints and Our Lady’s Dowry can claim to be a first fruit of the SSPX. Fr Peter Morgan an Englishman, was the first priest to be ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre for the Society on 29 June 1971. As a district of SSPX we are small in size and number and possibly considered as an irrelevance compared to the many major districts that now flourish but the steady and dogged practice of the faith by many here in the UK, both living and dead bear witness to “the Faith of our Fathers” as being alive and well, I believe we are loyal to SSPX. Those early years in the 70’s and 80’s were heady days, the days when all energies were directed towards the devotional life and sticking together with the SSPX as the provider of the true sacraments of the church.

The stewardship of the SSPX in the UK passed from Rev Fr. Peter Morgan to Rev Fr Edward Black. His trustworthy hand remained on the helm until the Autumn of 2000. There were of course difficulties, sedevacantism reared its ugly head, the introduction here in the UK of the 1962 liturgy , priestly departures for a variety of reasons - but it never crossed my mind to speak publicly on any issues during these years as full confidence in the Superior Fr Black, made it unnecessary, at least for me. We just got on with living the faith. The opening of additional churches and Mass centres created a dilution of the “feeling” of strength but generally special events like Corpus Christi, the Forty Hours Devotion, processions for Our Lady, first Friday vigils, pilgrimages etc. were well attended.


While Archbishop Lefebvre lived there were no need for qualms of any kind, the creation of the four bishops gave positive hope for the continuance of what had gone before and initially all seemed well in the first few years following the death of that great prelate in 1991.

The proliferation of the world wide web and most recently blog pages and twitter give the impression that everyone is now a Theologian, or Canon Lawyer - if not vested with papal authority ! What a mess.

I have seen wonderful young men enter the seminaries to become priests and how blessed I am that this is so and that the priestly society of St Pius X increases in numbers. However priests from the USA seminary in particular seemed to bring with them a politicized view of their ministry, their priesthood seemed secularized, I am left thinking something is not quite right and then convincing myself it is not so, over and over again.

I chanced upon the secular/ conspiracy/ Jewish domination “Theology” being carried by HE Bishop Williamson in doing a good turn. I was copying the talks he gave at St Josephs here in London for St Georges House, The publicized talks on “1984” and “Alice in Wonderland” made no sense to me, but the talks on papal encyclicals did - so I started to listen to what I was copying. My word was I shocked… I then started to look on the internet plus reading some of dinoscopus and the full impact of world wide damage being done by dear Bishop Williamson became apparent to me . At every point he was introducing his personal and distorted views on worldly issues from the platform of his Episcopal dignity.

So in 2008 literally after three to four months of prayers and research and anguishing I put on line anti-dinoscopus. What a terrible thing it is (of that I have no doubt) to admonish a Bishop of the church. I tremble yet at it but believe it was the right action to take, done as respectfully as I could muster. The thrust of anti-dinoscopus being to ask HE Bishop Williamson a number of questions. At the hand of a disreputable blog page I was vilified. Then In discussion with Fr Morgan I agreed as a mark of respect and courtesy to withdraw the blog believing that it had served its purpose.

We all know the storm that burst early this year following the repeated “one too many times declaration” from Bishop Williamson over the Holocaust.

I of course with many other people who attend the SSPX Mass looked to Bishop Fellay for the definitive word on the debacle, and the compliance of all his priests with his words. I give some of his early statements:


“We, the Society, are a religious organization, part of the Catholic Church. Our aim, energies, and means have to be used for the purpose of the Church, which is the salvation of souls. This is accomplished by preaching the truths of Revelation given by Our Lord and through the grace of the sacraments.”

“…. He (BW) has damaged us and hurt our reputation. We have very clearly distanced ourselves. He was not ordained as a bishop for his own personal purpose but for the common good of the church, to spread the revealed truth. “

“…That will happen ( removal from SSPX) if he denies the Holocaust again. It is probably better for everyone if he stays quiet and stays in a corner somewhere. I want him to disappear from the public eye for a good while.”

“..The problem is that his comments have been linked to his office. “

“…These statements have not only caused a limitation on Bishop Williamson’s movement, but they have caused severe damage to the Society as a whole. This is seen first in different material ways, such as having lost several churches or Mass centers, places we rented, whose owners now refuse to rent to us ( in more than one country). Also, several projects which were designed for the growth of the Society have simply been lost because of this story. Thus, even materially, the Society’s growth has been prevented because of this situation. I may say that the worst part of the situation is the fact that our enemies and adversaries have used his statements to make the whole Society infamous: “The Society is anti-Semitic or influenced by Nazism.” This is, of course, not true, but they have tried to imply consequences on the religious level by these kinds of statements.,”

Further very active promotions of Bishop Williamson are taking place on the www and many hundreds of videos which carry the poisoned views have not been removed from You Tube. Any one who understands even a little about You Tube will know that if Bishop Williamson wished videos to be removed they could and would be. I can only presume he does not wish it. His publisher Mr Heiner continues to promote through the blog true restoration much that is incipiently hamrful.

It seems to me reasonable to expect that a genuine "true restoration" and a healing of the breach in the SSPX would come from following the directives of Bishop Fellay. Removing from You Tube and the world wide web in general every vestige of secular opinions that have brought the SSPX into disrepute. If this is not done clearly the harm to the SSPX continues. A war on the internet is raging, a war in virtual reality that has disastrously over spilled into the real lives of traditional Catholics throughout the world.

The repercussions of this genuine scandal are far more severe on the continent than they are here in the UK, a fact which seems to be lost on the potty minority who proclaim they are ”for” Bishop Williamson. Personally I am “for” the true seven sacraments of the Church in order to save my soul.

Therefore, with dismay and a heavy heart, on the 1st July I advised Switzerland and Fr Morgan that I intended to re-introduce an amended blog of anti-dinoscopus. I invited Switzerland to request me not to do so but they did not respond. I was aware though that Fr Morgan intended to take steps against me and I respect his right as a priest and District Superior to do that. Thus in the September 2009 Newsletter I was publicly denounced for my action.

My blog page is rather more for what it is about than against Bishop Williamson. Anyone who works out what dinoscopus means will see that! The madness of all this is its irrelevance and that includes my blogs. My duty is to save my soul, to keep the commandments and laws of the church, to live my faith on a daily basis so when God Calls me home I am not found wanting but in full confidence of His saving Grace and mercy.

Do any of Bishop Williamsons secular opinions alter that responsibility NO
Does how many Jewish people died in WWII alter that responsibility NO
Does what happened on 9/11 alter that responsibility NO
Does who was Jack the Ripper alter that responsibility NO
Does any worldly conspiracy of any kind alter that responsibility NO
Does my age or gender alter that responsibility NO
Does sickness, health, wealth or poverty alter that responsibility NO
Does war or peace alter that responsibility NO
Does Jewish or Muslim domination alter that responsibility NO


Obviously some of the above can make the practice of the faith more or less difficult. The list could go on but this is the nub! I look to Bishop and priest to feed and nurture my soul on the word of God. To lead and direct me in the way of sanctity and to leave all worldly matters outside the church please.!

Conclusion

How heartily I wish and pray that Bishop Williamson should be renowned for his sanctity in emulation of Archbishop Lefebvre, that his “casting out” should have been in imitation of Christ in which case he would have returned to us a spiritual hero, a giant among men. I hope for unity and singleness of purpose among the clergy of SSPX and pray as it is my duty to do for all the priests and Bishops of the Society,

especially for Bishop Fellay who has the unenviable responsibility of being Superior General. Well might the sentiments expressed by St. Pius X in an allocution apply to him at this time.

"In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men.... All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics. Oh! if I might ask the Divine Redeemer, as the prophet Zachary did in spirit: what are those wounds in the midst of thy hands? The answer would not be doubtful: with these was I wounded in the house of them that loved me. I was wounded by my friends, who did nothing to defend me, and who, on every occasion, made themselves the accomplices of my adversaries. And this reproach can be levelled at the weak and timid Catholics of all countries."

St. Pius X, allocution upon the occasion of the Beatification of Joan of Arc in 1908 emphasis in the original


Sincerely, Dorothy Banks 19 October 2009 (placed on line regretfully on 5 May 2010)


** see ‘The Teaching of the Catholic Church’ Burns & Oates 1952. Chapter xx The Church on Earth, part xi Church and state- for an explanation of the rightful stance of the Church on politics and social conditions.