Recently a reader sent me this article which publishes the SSPX Declaration of Fidelity that all future priests of the society are obliged to make as a condition for ordination. It was imposed by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1979 possibly as a result of the rise of sedevacantism but not only.

The text reads as follows:

Declaration of Fidelity to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X

I, the undersigned (N.),

Recognize (N.) as pope of the Holy Catholic Church. That is why I am prepared to pray for him publicly as Sovereign Pontiff.

I refuse to follow him when he departs from Catholic Tradition, especially in matters of religious freedom and ecumenism, as well as in reforms that are harmful to the Church.

I admit that not all Masses celebrated according to the new rite are invalid. However, in view of the poor translations of the Novus Ordo Missæ, its ambiguity, which favors its interpretation in a Protestant sense, and the plurality of the ways in which it is celebrated, I recognize that the danger of invalidity is very great.

I affirm that the new rite of the Mass does not actually formulate any heresy expressly, but that it “departs impressively, on the whole as well as in detail, from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass,” and that for this reason this new rite is in itself evil.

Therefore, I will never celebrate Holy Mass according to this new rite, even under threat of ecclesiastical penalties; nor will I ever positively advise anyone to actively participate in such a Mass.

Finally, I accept as legitimate the liturgical reform of John XXIII. I therefore receive all of its liturgical books as Catholic: the Missal, Breviary, etc., and I commit myself to use them exclusively, according to their calendar and rubrics, especially for the celebration of the Mass and for the common recitation of the breviary.

In so doing, I wish to manifest the obedience that binds me to my superiors, as well as that which binds me to the Sovereign Pontiff in all his legitimate acts.

Commentary:

It is commonly known that SSPX priests celebrate the Tridentine Mass exclusively, which sets them apart from the vast majority of the latin clergy. So it is not surprising that the bulk of the Declaration focuses on the mass.

After referencing the pope the priest must recognise, the text begins by stating that, “...not all Masses celebrated according to the new rite are invalid..” . This openning negative statement infers an underlying assumption that many if not most Novos Ordo masses are invalid. As anyone who attends even a liberal parish can recognise, this is altogether false, as the intention of the priest is to celebrate the mass and consecrate the bread and wine, even if some of the theology may at times border on the heretical. There are other ways the Declaration could have started such as with a positive statement, for example “I recognise the validity of the Novos Ordo Missae...”.

The text continues by saying “that the danger of invalidity is very great...” attributing this risk to the ambiguity in the prayers, and or whether the priest departs from the text in the missal. But this statement is completely incorrect because what makes a mass invalid is that the priest use wrong words of consecration. Here I am not speaking of blasphemy nor sacrilege, which would be a grave sin, but which are not written into the Novos Ordo mass.

Then it states that, “the new rite is in itself evil”, because, “it departs impressively... from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass”, saying this happens despite not formulating heresy expressly. This statement is preposterous! To say that the rite is evil suggests that to celebrate it brings evil, not just that it omits a good as the SSPX says, but eucharistic miracles of the last 50 years have occurred in parishes that have almost exclusively celebrated the Novos Ordo mass. Furthermore, these statements do not consider the intention of the priest in the celebration of the mass. They may have more or less faith, which is made evident through their actions and words during the mass, but they certainly not robots who just read the rubrics.

This text shows bad will on the part of Archbishop Lefebvre who imposed it on his seminarians. It shows intention to sow division and is a complete over reaction to the much publicised heretical and sacriligious masses by a few liberal priests advertised in traditional circles in the 1960’ and 70’s. While it is true that Archbishop Bugnini, with the approval of Pope Paul VI tried to introduce modernist elements and remove catholic theology from the Novos Ordo, it is still possible for a priest to celebrate it with full intention and catholicity. This is not to say that it has been sucessful by itself in keeping the faithful in Church, while raising their minds to things of God during the ceremonies. But the main question is not the amiguities of the Novos Ordo mass, but the faith of priests who celebrate it.

Furthermore, such a categorical rejection is excessive. It separates SSPX priests from the unity of the Church and establishes the mass as superior to the Faith itself. It is useful to remember that there are several other Catholic rites such as the Syriac, Chaldean, or Mozarabic rites - apart from the two versions of the mass in the Latin Church. So, the One True Faith is expressed through different liturgies, not the other way around. What the SSPX should be championing is the Faith, not rigid adherence to a rite even if it be a more precise and clear way of adoring God than its more modern replacement.

Finally, the Declaration ends as it started, making reference to the pope, obliging obedience to him, but not stating whether he be validly elected or not. This is very revealing now that the SSPX is negotiating its future with an antipope, who was invalidly elected, does not receive the graces of Jesus’ prayer, and speaks like a heretic. Why does the SSPX not think this important? It should be more important at this time than the episcopal consecrations they want to carry out, as without unity with the true Pope, we are like unanchored boats on the open sea in a tempest.

This Declaration seems oriented not just to cause division but to exhert control over priests who make it, because to celebrate the Novos Ordo one would have to leave the fraternity. The excuses it gets future SSPX priests to buy into, keep them isolated. No good founder of an order has ever required his followers to repeat such a Declaration. It is a direct action in support of the masonic US Doctrinal Warfare Program, one of the objetives being to “Pave the way for deviations from, and schism in, totalitarian thought patterns”. What better way than to create the deviation of inverting the importance of Faith and Liturgy to keep traditional minded group of faithful from positively influencing the rest of the Church.

Within Traditionalist circles it has often been implied1 that Archbishop Lefebvre always resisted the changes introduced at Vatican II. That having taken part in the discussions about the draft documents, his concerns with them led to the formation of the Coetus Internationalis Patrum, a study group to oppose the liberal agenda, and that later he did not sign the council documents. But that is not entirely true. In fact, in 2009, a journalist and photographer were invited to the Vatican archives to “photograph and describe” the huge area “where letters relative to the two thousand year history of the Church are conserved.” What they discovered was that Archbishop Lefebvre in fact signed each one of the council documents.

But it was reported more recently that as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he actually praised the council. In January 1966, he wrote a letter to his congregation exhorting them to study the texts of the Council “with genuine devotion”, so they could “derive from them light for our intelligence, grace for our souls, [and] the guidance necessary for right orientation… providing… an opportunity to taste and benefit by the spiritual fruits of the Council” He concluded the letter by telling his followers to “submit ourselves fully to the holy will of God expressed in all the [Council] documents”. This does not appear to be the writings of someone who doubted or opposed the council.

But what no one has reported so far, is that his letter praising the Council, although it was published in the April 1966 edition of the magazine “Our Province”, vol. 35, nº1, it is dated only one month after the closing of the council, on the Feast day of the Epiphany. You may be asking yourself, what is the significance of that? If you have not yet noticed, the numerical date of the Feast day of the Epiphany in that year was 1/6/66! Could this numerology suggest a masonic date? I consulted Brother Bugnolo who not only agreed but also said that it was a sign that Lefebvre was one of them, since according to St John in the book of the Apocalypse, 666 is the number of the Antichrist, the number of his name when spelled in Greek Letters. Because Freemasons and other occultist2 often “flash” these numbers to reveal themselves to fellow brothers, I speculate that it may even have been a specific instruction given that later he would publically change his mind.

This also lends credence to a report from Christopher Shannon published at Today’s Catholic World News Blog on April 23, 2013, who attended the Écône seminary in 1972 and during his first months there participated in religious processions led not by a crucifix, but by a marching band with masonic regalia. When he asked why such a marching band played in the procession he was told, “....it’s the Sion Masonic band. Lefebvre is a Mason, it’s OK.”

On June 29, 1953 the CIA launched its doctrinal warefare program. This information was reported in David Wemhoff’s book: John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA Doctrinal Warefare Program Changed the Catholic Church1. It was elaborated upon by Brother Bugnolo in his article The CIA Plan for the Destruction of the Church, June 29, 1953 where he published the actual CIA memorandum that AJ Baalman from www.ordo-militaris.net had managed to find in a Freedom of Information Act file dump. The program was developed mainly to combat communism, but was applied against all societies hostile to American interests.

The document states that its psychological objective “will seek by providing permanent literature and by fostering long term intellectual movements, which will appeal to intellectuals, including scholars and opinion forming groups, to:

1. Breakdown worldwide doctinal thought patterns which have provided an intellectual basis for communism and other doctrines hostile to American and Free World objectives

2. Foster a worldwide understanding and sympathetic acceptance of the traditions and viewpoints of America and the Freeworld”

As stated by President Roosvelt in his Four Freedoms speech of January 6, 1941 Americanism promoted 1. freedom of speech, 2. freedom of every person to worship God in his own way, 3. freedom from want, and 4. freedom from fear. Since truth is foundational to the Faith, the Catholic Church did not accept concepts of freedom of speech or freedom of religion that would put truth at the same level as lies, so it was considered hostile to Americanism, and a prime target for the US Doctrinal Warefare Program. Being founded on June 29th, the feast day of St Peter and St Paul, is of particular significance as it suggests that the undisclosed prime target was the Catholic Church, who commemorates the founders of the Roman Church on this day.

The document continues by laying out the results it intends to achieve:

“3. Pave the way for deviations from, and schism in, totalitarian thought patterns by stimulating intellectual curiosity and free thought on political, scientific and economic subject.

4. Weaken objectively the intellectual appeal of other doctrines which may be hostile or inimical to American objectives...”

From an Americanist point of view, the Catholic Church was and is a totalitarian organisation. She has a topdown heirarchical structure and teaches a fixed doctrine, quite the contrary to American democratic values and freedom of speech.

But what have been the fruits of the US Doctrinal program and how was it implemented? It is sufficient to say that since Vatican II we have seen its fruits: all types of deviations and divisions both on the liberal side and the traditional side. And it is obvious that the Catholic Church has lost its appeal in the world; one just needs to look around at the empty pews. Wemhoff’ book does a good job of documenting the heretical liberal reforms which were pushed at Vatican II. But I suggest the US Doctrinal Program also promoted a rebellious overreaction. Not initially, but the seeds were planted at Vatican II by the Coetus Internationalis Patrum.

The steering committee was run by bishops who all had masonic episcopal lineages: meaning their episcopal ancestors were freemasons. For evidence of this please read Archbishop Lefebvre’s Freemasonic Affiliations where I analyse Archbishop Lefebvre`s episcopal lineage and those of the Coetus steering committe. Furthermore the Coetus did not really oppose the council but allowed the documents to be infused with ambiguous statements that allowed for both a liberal and a conservative interpretation. Liberals would accept novelties while conservatives didn’t, leaving the post Vatican II Church more divided than before. This clearly was not a strategy for resistance. So while the liberals implemented their heretical theology leading to a drop in all visible elements of the faith (vocations, mass attendance, marriages, baptisms etc,) some traditional groups were used or formed to implement the division outlined in the US Doctrinal warefare memorandum.

One group was Los Tecos, who were a catholic right wing Mexican secret society established in the early 1930’s in the aftermath of the Cristeros War, at the Universidad Autónoma de Guadalajara. They recieved 20 million USD between 1962 and 1974 from the Rockefeller Organization et alia2. This organisation fits the US Doctrinal Program perfectly: they were anticommunist and questioned Pope Paul VI’s legitimacy. In 1971 Father Joaquin Saez y Arriaga, the spiritual director of los Tecos wrote a book declaring him an antipope, and was excommunicated that same year.

Another was Archbishop Lefebvre, who denounced the council and founded the SSPX seminary at Econe, Switzerland. He had a number of freemasonic affiliations: His father had joined British Intelligence (founded by the mason Vernon Kell) during WWI in a role that was of utmost confidence : spymaster for all Belgian agents, a role likely reserved for freemasons. He was also ordained and consecrated by the freemason Cardinal Lienart and led the Coetus, that did not block the changes at the Council. Because he had resigned as Bishop of Tulle in 1962, he had no jurisdiction to appoint bishops when in 1988 he caused division by illicitly consecrating four of them. Since then, the SSPX continue their semi-solation within the Church, even refusing to collaborate with other Eclesia Dei communities.

Bishop Thuc was another3. He was part of the family regime that came to power in South Vietnam in 1955 supported by the US government and the CIA, but ousted in 1963. It is highly likely, therefore, that he had strong ties to U. S. and French Military Intelligence (Vietnam used to be a French colony) during his life. He had been Archbishop of Hue, Vietnam but was asked to resign by Pope Paul VI in 1968 while in exile in Rome. With his own personal discontent building, he noticed others who questioned the liberalising changes in the Catholic world following the Council. In 1974 he visited the SSPX Seminary in Econe, Switzerland where he gave a speech, recasting himself as an ardent traditionalist. Having lost his jurisdiction his consecrations of a number of bishops, first for the Palmarian Catholic Church, then for the sedevacantists of the Tridentine Latin Rite Catholic Church, were illicit. He was excommunicated in 1983 for declaring Pope John Paul II an antipope. He was pardoned before he died in 1984 after having recanted his views.

So Sedevacantism and the SSPX show all the hallmarks of being CIA funded because they allign with the objectives of the US Doctrinal Warefare Program whose objective is to Americanise the Catholic Church while also creating division. The masonic Rockefeller Organisation funded Los Tecos, the first group after Vatican II to propose the Sedevacantist thesis while Archbishop Lefebvre took a midway strategy, acting as a semi-dissenting voice, isolating informed and traditional catholics from the rest of the Church. Bishop Thuc began by allying himself with Archbishop Lefebvre but then supported groups that alienated themselves even further from the rest of the Church.

Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar, Christ prayed to God the Father for all who believe in Him “That they all may be one” (John 17:21). This was a call to all his disciples to unity. Sedevacantism and the SSPX´s less rebelious cousin have been efforts of division rather than unity although in a different way than the liberalism that spread after Vatican II. So, it is difficult to believe that these groups are fulfilling the words of the Jesus`s prayer to the Father, even if they justify their actions on heretical statements from past popes or a state of emergency in the Church.

It can be difficult to accept that one has been the victim of the deception spread by the US Doctrinal Program. Trying to be an informed Catholic and stay faithful to Jesus Christ while dealing with the disorientation is difficult. Who do you trust? Who do you believe? It can be very attractive to look to Sedevacantism or the SSPX as an easy solution rather than practicing the Faith in communities that are so obviously in decline. But disobedience to a legitimately elected Pope, whether he be a holy man or not, is never justified, unless he is obliging that evil be done. None of these groups offer a truly Catholic response, since this is only found in imitation of Our Lord by suffering meekly, trusting in God’s providence, being relentless in the search for Truth, and above all being willing and humble enough to accept to change course when one has been proven wrong.

Subscribe now

Read my other articles about Archbishop Lefebvre:

Archbishop Lefebvre's Freemasonic Affiliations

Archbishop Lefebvre’s Obituary by the Holy Ghost Fathers

Archbishop Lefebvre´s Bishop

To understand more about Archbishop Lefebvre, we will look at Archbishop Lefebvre’s Bishop: Achille Cardinal Liènart, the man who ordained him a priest and consecrated him a bishop. Their lives would intertwine at several points over the course of the years.

Achille Lienart was born in a bourgeois family of cloth merchants on February 7, 1884 in Lille, the neighbouring city to Marcel’s home town Tourcoing. His father worked in the same industry as Marcel’s father, except as a merchant whereas Marcel’s father was a factory owner. He was the second of four children of Achille Philippe Hyacinthe Liénart and Louise Delesalle. His two elder sisters died young.

He studied at St Joseph Jesuit school in Lille, and at the age of 17, entered the seminary of Saint Sulpice in Paris. He also was initiated into a Masonic Lodge at this time (another source says he was initiated in 1912 in Cambrai). On May 24, 1902 he presented presented himself for the tonsure, which he received from the hands of Cardinal Richard de la Vergne, in the chapel of the Issy seminary.

The Law of Separation of Church and State, would make his third and final year at the seminary particularly turbulent. All the property of the Church in France was confiscated including Saint-Sulpice Seminary. And on the eve of his ordination to the diaconate, Cardinal Richard de la Vergne was expelled from his residence. A protest ensued in which he participated, but the police prevented any escalation. The following day a letter from Mgr Delamaire, coadjutor Archbishop of Cambrai was recieved offering a solution. He would be ordained in Lille, at the church of Saint Maurice three days later on December 21, 1906.

He was ordained a priest on June 19, 1907 by Archbishop Ammette of Paris. He remained in Paris to continue his studies and received licentiates in theology from the Institut Catholique and in letters from the Sorbonne. He completed a Doctorate in Sacred Scriptures at the Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome, where he was one of the first students in 1909. He returned to France and taught Sacred Scripture at the grand seminary of Saint Saulve, near Valenciennes, in the diocese of Cambrai between 1910 and 1914, the Grand Seminary at Cambrai having been confiscated by the State. .

He was very affected by the death of his Father 1911. The following year he was initiated in a Lodge in Cambrai, of which Brother Debierre, a radical socialist politician was the Worshipful Master. That summer he travelled with a friend to Egypt, spending two weeks visiting the principle sites of Ancient Egypt (Pyramids, Valley of the Nile, Luxor, Karnak), and then another several weeks more in the Holy land.

Subscribe now

During World War I he chose to become a military chaplain. He was wounded twice in 1916 during the Battle of the Somme: in the thigh and in the neck and received the Croix de guerre with six citations. He was demobilised in March 1919. He became a teacher at the Grand Seminary of Lille, and took a keen interest in social issues. From 1926 to 1928, he was pastor of St. Christopher’s parish in the industrial city of Tourcoing.

The Marquis de la Franquerie tells us that, “He frequented one lodge in Cambrai, three in Lille, one in Valenciennes, and two in Paris, including one lodge specifically composed of parliamentarians. In 1919, he is listed as a Visitor (18th degree), then in 1924 as a 30th degree, Knight of Kadosh. The term “Kadosh” is derived from the Hebrew word “קדוש”, which means holy or consecrated. The ritual of the Kadosh Knight degree involves a solemn and irrevocable oath, an incense offering to Satan, the glorification of Lucifer with invocations, ritual murder, either formally or on a material occasion, the climbing of the ladder of seven steps, according to a Gnostic ritual of pagan magic, the trampling on the crown and tiara, symbols of the papacy, the swearing of hatred against God and the Christian religion, and the raising of a dagger to the sky shouting “Deus sanctus, nokem,” meaning “Holy God [Lucifer], vengeance!” and “Adonai, nokem,” meaning “Vengeance, Adonai!”

It is during this time that Achille Billiet, a disabled soldier began attending the same masonic lodge as Liènart and recognised him there. Billiet had suffered serious wounds in his right arm and leg, and left foot in an aerial bombardment in 1918. The wound in his foot would not heal, and his leg atrophied, so in 1932 he visited Lourdes and was miraculously cured, the news being reported in various newspapers at the time. He converted to Catholicism and sometime afterwards met with the Marquis de la Franquerie with whom he shared his testimony.

On Octover 6, 1928, Liènart was consecrated Bishop of Lille, by Bishop Lecomte of Amiens with Bishops Jansoone and Feltin, the former having as episcopal ancestor Cardinal Richard de la Vergne, episcopal ancestor of many of the St Gallen Mafia and Cardinal Rampolla’s collaborator in the failed Raillement policy. Once he moved into his Bishopric, he arranged an apartment for his mother who died in 1932. He was raised to the cardinalate on 1929, being the youngest in the college at that time.

A longtime advocate of Christian trade unionism and workers’ rights, he sided with the workers during a bitter strike in 1929 and and managed to get Vatican support for the right of Catholic workers to form labor unions. During the Nazi occupation, he opposed forced labor publicly and gave assistance to the victims of the war.

In 1947 he journeyed to Cameroon, where the first chapters of the Ad Lucem Medical Association were located. He had founded it in Lille in 1932 together with his protégé Dr Louis Aujoulat who established the first missions in 1935. Aujoulat gained fame by bringing modern health services to the country. Historian Simon Nken says his personality became mythologised as a sort of Mother Teresa. Under the mantle of Christian charity, his presence in Cameroon became marked by an overflowing humanism that he used to gain the confidence of Cameroonians and enter politics. He was the most influential political leader during the decolonisation inculcating in his protégés a culture of “compromise, corruption and denial of oneself.... No Aujoulatist was a nationalist...they all defended the interest of France in place of Cameroonians.” Aujoulat has been accused of being a freemason and a notorious homosexual who used sodomy as an initiation rite for political aspirants, who became presidents Amadou Ahidjo (1962-1980) and Paul Biya (1980-) and who still have a tight grip on the country more than 50 years after his death.

Cardinal Liènart supported the Priest Workers movement. Time magazine wrote in 1959 that,

“The French worker-priest movement, one of the century’s most exciting and most debated religious experiments, finally died last week after long illness.

To win back France’s Communist-led, largely unchurched working classes, the French cardinals in 1943 founded the “Mission to Paris.” Specially trained young priests began to take jobs in factories to pursue their evangelizing mission more effectively; wearing overalls, they held fulltime jobs, said Mass and performed other pastoral duties during off hours. By 1953, it was obvious that something had gone wrong: of almost 150 worker-priests, some 20 had married and left the church while others had joined Communist unions or Redline causes. Pope Pius XII sternly limited les prêtres-ouvriers to three hours of factory life a day, but only a handful submitted; others left the church, and only 25 continued in their mission, eventually won limited approval from their bishops.”

Cardinal Liènart also opposed Pope Pius XII’s request in 1951 to create a coalition of fathers to fight, under the direction of the bishops, to stop campaigns against morality and the family and probably would have prevented many problems within the Church, but also in youths, families, and schools. The Marquis de la Franquerie commented that, “Such a project could only meet with hostility from the Lodges....”

The defining event of his life took place at the First General Congregation of the Second Vatican Council. The preparatory schemas had been drafted prior to the meeting and many Bishops were unhappy them. Pope John XXIII had defined the objective which was to not “formulate new doctrinal definitions, but rather to present, in a form better adapted to modern minds, all the truths already established… that [the Church] had the mission of transmitting to every generation.”

Cardinal Liénart believed that a “common way of thinking” had to be developed as a revision of pastoral attitudes as a basis for “and to engage the Church in the new way where its permanent mission called it today.” Therefore, the selection of the commission members was key. But how could they be identified if they did not know each other?

“Abruptly, I leaned towards the Cardinal president to tell him in a low voice: ‘Eminence, it is truly impossible to vote like this… If you allow me, I am going to take the microphone.’ ‘I cannot give it to you,’ he replied… So, I said to him, ‘Excuse me but I am going to speak…’.

I rose… to request that a reasonable time be given so we could better inform ourselves of the best election candidates…. Cardinal Frings, archbishop of Cologne, who was sitting beside me at the presidency table, also rose to offer his support and the applause doubled.”

This forced the hand of the presidency breaching the stranglehold that the Roman Curia had exercised over the Council. Although Liénart denied that his intervention was ‘a coup planned ahead,’ other bishops had approached him, and even provided him with draft texts for his intervention, including his compatriots Cardinal Joseph-Charles Lefebvre, Garrone and Ancel. Camara apparently also wanted a postponement, while others such as the South African Denis Hurley ‘knew what was brewing.’

Source: The Leaven in the Council: Joseph Cardijn and the Jocist Network at Vatican II, Stefan Gigacz

This intervention occured on October 13, 1962 exactly 45 years after the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, the final day of the six monthly apparitions where Our Lady appeared to 3 little shepherds. According to Brother Bugnolo she was on a celestial mission to prevent the Vatican from falling into the hands of Freemasonry. Cardinal Liènart had played the part of a key actor of the enemy of Church in a council whose aftermath would see the decline of faith throughout the world, threatening her very existence.

In 1971, sensing that he did not have much time to live he summoned Canon Descornets, a priest of his diocese who spent 6 days a week hearing confessions. He was repentant, and asked that his memory and merits not be haloed and that by making his true hidden life public, his reputation may be destroyed. Urged by his reknowned penitent to break the seal of confession but anxious to avoid scandal for the Church, Canon Descornets stated only “You know, on his deathbed, Cardinal A.L. He said that, from a human perspective, the Church was lost”, but in private he was much more talkative.

Cardinal Liènart told him his objective had been a revolution in the Church. First, the objective was to cause a break with the mass by eroding the content of priestly studies, to ultimately lead to a lack of consecrating intention so that celebrants would cease to believe in the propitiatory value of the Holy Sacrifice, seeing it only as a “ memorial “ or a “ sacred meal “. Adding to this were the sins of the flesh that guilty priests did not confess, thus celebrating mass in a state of mortal sin.

The second objective was to break apostolic succession by modifying the ritual of episcopal consecration. The jurisdictional power of future bishops had to be maintained, since the ecclesiastical structure absolutely had to be preserved, but not the power of Holy Orders. The new ritual introduced a formula of consecration that was ambiguous, and gradually, a dissolution of the consecrators’ intention would take hold and ultimately become effective and in the long run apostolic succession would be broken without anyone even noticing.

The third objective was the corruption of the episcopate. Forced to conform, in the moral and sometimes even political spheres, Bishops would be pressured to perform acts against their conscience, and would find themselves deprived of the graces of the Holy Spirit: their ministry becoming devoid of sanctifying effects.

Is this what he have seen these last years?

Subscribe now

Share

Bibliography

Le Cardinale Liènart, Catherine Masson

An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, Albert G. Mackey, The Masonic History Company, New York, 1917. Vol. 1, p. 378

La Franc-Maçonnerie, Synagogue de Satan by Monsenhor Léon Meurin

L’Infabilité Pontifical, Marquis de la Franquerie

Achille Liénart, “Vatican II” in Mélanges de Science Religieuse, 33, Numéro Supplémentaire (1963): pg 65

Le Cardinal Achille Liénart : l’un des principaux « moteurs » de Vatican II !, Max Barret - Le Courrier de Tychique - October 25, 2009

"Archbishop Lefebvre's death during Holy Week and after a discreet retreat did not make much of a media event. And that was for the best. But all French Spiritans were sufficiently marked by Archbishop Lefebvre for us to remember here in prayer what he was for us.”

“He entered the Congregation through the French Seminary in Rome, where he was studying for the diocese of Lille from 1923 to 1930. He did his novitiate as a priest. After his religious profession in 1932, he spent 12 years as a missionary in Gabon. He was director of the Mortain scholasticate in 1945. He was then appointed Vicar of Dakar and Apostolic Delegate for French Africa in 1947. Those of us who lived with him during his long missionary years bear witness to his dedication and his organisational spirit in his missionary service.”

"In the 1960s, Africa achieved independence and the Church entered a Council. We have witnessed the difficulty that Archbishop Lefebvre had in living through these events. He left Africa for the bishopric of Tulle in 1962, and that same year he was elected Superior General. We accepted his appointment as Superior General, even if not everyone wanted it.”

"Then came the positions he took at the Council and his directives on the style of formation in the scholasticates. In the Province of France especially, we had to put up with being questioned by many people about Archbishop Lefebvre's orientations, but the vast majority of us had to reconcile our Spiritan life with these obviously oriented directives. We are grateful to all those who helped us through those difficult years, without confusing Archbishop Lefebvre's personal positions with those of the Congregation."

"Archbishop Lefebvre left the office of Superior General. Elected for 12 years in 1962, he announced on 27 May 1968 that he would resign from the Special Chapter, so that it could be elective. This he did. A question of procedure put him in a minority; he then left the Chapter and only returned very rarely. Father Lécuyer was elected Superior General. Archbishop Lefebvre withdrew from the life of the Congregation, as can religious who have become bishops. And we learned later that he was working on founding a seminary in Switzerland.”

"The history of Ecône is well known. Even though some confreres held their confrere in high esteem and sometimes in friendship, none of them wanted to take part in his work. Personal meetings and exchanges of letters were not lacking, especially at the major stages of this work: in 1976, suspended a divinis after the ordination of some priests; in 1988, ordination of bishops and declaration of the schism. Archbishop Lefebvre always responded to his friends with his usual benevolence, but unfortunately he remained just as firm in his approach to separation.”

"Let us bear witness to a recent exchange of letters between a confrere and him last November. Archbishop Lefebvre: "Your letter gives me great pleasure and I thank you for giving me news of you... I assure you that I do not regret what Providence suggested I do. The day after tomorrow, I'll be 85. I know very well that the end is approaching. I look forward to it with joy and peace, aware that I have only ever worked for the Reign of Our Lord during my 61 years as a priest. "Response from the confrere: "Is it really necessary to remain at odds with the Holy Father? My Lord, you are alluding to what Providence has suggested you should do. Before entering into the infinite love of God, go and kiss John Paul II. It would be such a joy for me and so many others who love you so much." He didn't do it, but it's worth knowing that he was told that.”

"Archbishop Lefebvre was a generous Spiritan, an evangelical and active missionary, a Superior General concerned about the life of the Congregation. His personal, intellectual and ecclesial orientation, which led him to his separation from the Church, will always remain a mystery to us. We entrust him in prayer to the Father's merciful welcome."

I shared this obituary with Brother Bugnolo, who lived in a religious community for some years. He replied very perceptively, "...what jumps out at me, worthy of further investigation... [is] that he never shared his motivations with fellow members of his religious Congregation and that not a single member of that Congregation joined him in his course of opposition. This is highly unusually, since in religious life, a religious has so many friendships and personal relations with his confreres that it is neigh impossible to hide one’s intentions or feelings."

Indeed, how is it that "His personal, intellectual and ecclesial orientation, which led him to his separation from the Church..." be kept a mystery from the people he lived and worked with for +35 years? Everyone needs a confidant or a friend to share ones feelings, intentions and motivations. Did Marcel Lefebvre lead a double life? This nformation is not in itself evidence that he was a freemason, but if he was, it would explain why he was so secretive.

This blog will present evidence that is often not discussed about Archbishop Lefebvre so that a more complete view of the man may be known. We will discuss his family, his parents, siblings and extended family. We will look at the fruits of his labour, his legacy and, the organisation that perpetuates his work, the SSPX. But to start, we will analyse his affiliations, associations and collaborators.

In his analysis of the St Gallen Mafia, Brother Alexis Bugnolo noted that members of the group could have their episcopal lineage traced back to an episcopal freemason from the end of the 19th century who almost became pope in the conclave of 1903, namely Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro. His election had been vetoed by Kaiser Franz Joseph for suspected freemasonry and 16 years later he was listed as a member of Alistair Crowley's Ordo Templis Orientis by its magazine The Equinox.

He suggested that these lineages were factions of Bishops that were established in the 19th century. For example, he pointed out that Pope Francis who signed the freemasonic inspired "Document on Human Fraternity", was a direct episcopal descendant of Cardinal Rampolla and that there is a significant amount of evidence that suggests that Pope Francis was a freemason. In fact, many modern day episcopal descendants of Cardinal Rampolla and his collaborators appear to be carrying out the designs of Freemasonry and of the Globalist powers instead of those of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So if episcopal lineages can dilineate epsicopal factions, what is Archbishop Lefebvre's lineage and what does it suggest?

Archbishop Lefebvre was ordained to the diaconate towards the end of his time at seminary in Rome in 1929 by Basilio Cardinal Pompilj whose episcopal lineage can be traced back to an interesting episcopal ancesor from the turn of the 18th century called Giuseppe Maria Cardinal Doria Pamphilj. Cardinal Doria Pamphilj was an Italian clergyman who came from the noble Italian family of the Counts of Melfi. He was consecrated a Bishop in 1873 at the early age of 21, and sent to France as apostolic nuncio until 1785 when he was elevated to cardinal and made legate to Urbino, a post he held until 1794. In 1797, he was appointed Cardinal Secretary of State and was in charge of the French occupation of Rome at the hands of Napoleon's troops. In 1808, he was one of the fourteen cardinals expelled from Rome by the French and one year later, on orders from Napoleon, was transferred to Paris and shortly afterwards took part in the French Emperor's marriage to Marie-Louise of Habsburg-Lorraine on 2 April 1810, thus becoming one of the so-called 'red cardinals'. This term was used to indicate the eleven cardinals attending the wedding ceremony in contrast to the twelve "black" cardinals who refused and were stripped of their property and ecclesiastical status preferring to be faithful, as the pope had not yet declared Napoleon's first marriage invalid. He maintained favour with Napoleon who appointed him as an intermediary to negotiate the Concordat of Fontainebleau in 1813, whereby Napoleon was exiled to Elba. It is possible that during his time in Paris early in his career or around the time of Napoleon's wedding, he entered the lodge as he maintained the approval of Napoleon who himself was a freemason.

Interestingly, some of Cardinal Doria Pamphilj's episcopal descendants are associated with freemasonry. For example, Sebastian Cardinal Baggio who according to Father Charles Murr was a freemason, as Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops between 1973 and 1984 he nominated all the members of the St Gallen Mafia. Another afilliation is with Cardinal Vallini who although no evidence suggests that he is a freemason, he was the consecrator or co-consecrator of some of the worst "Francis" Cardinals of the present time: Zuppi, Tobin, etc

Nevertheless, the most obvious affiliation that Archbishop Lefebvre had with freemasons in the Catholic church was with the very liberal Achille Cardinal Liènart who ordained him a priest and consecrated him a Bishop. In his book, L’Infallibilité Pontificale, The Marquis de la Franquerie said that Cardinal Liènart was a freemason having been identified at a lodge in nothern France by an ex soldier and brother mason whom he had interviewed after he had been cured at Lourdes of a foot ailment in 1932 and then converted to Catholocism. Liènart also appeared in the 1976 Freemason registry list in Italy. And even Archbishop Lefebvre recognized Cardinal Liènart as a freemason when the information was made known.

Cardinal Linèart was reported to have been a 30 degree freemason with lineage that could be traced to Cardinal Rampolla del Tindaro in two ways. He was ordained a deacon by Bishop François Marie Delamaire who was consecrated a Bishop by Cardinal Rampolla. But he also had a direct episcopal lineage with Cardinal Richard de la Vergne who collaborated with Cardinal Rampolla in the failed Ralliément policy, and who also was an episcopal ancestor of Cardinal Danneels and other members of the St Gallen Mafia.

But the most revealing affiliations Archbishop Lefebvre was with his collaborators in the Coetus Internationalist Patrum, the organisation he presided over to resist the liberal changes at Vatican II. The steering committee was made up of three Brazilians, Bishops Geraldo de Proença Sigaud, José Mauricio da Rocha and Antonio de Castro Mayer, one Italian Bishop Luigi Maria Carli and the French Abott of Solesmes, Jean Prou. Their episcopal ancestors are all remarkably similar and point to either Cardinal Rampolla or his collaborator Cardinal Richard de la Vergne or Cardinal Doria Pampilj.

• Bishop Geraldo de Proença Sigaud of Diamantina, Brazil : Richard de la Vergne

• Bishop José Maurício da Rocha of Bragance, Brazil : Rampolla

• Bishop Luigi Maria Carli of Segni, Italy: Doria Pompilj

• Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil: Richard de la Vergne

• Jean Prou OSB, Abott of Solesmes monastery, France, ordained by Bishop Paul Chevalier with lineage of Richard de la Vergne.

It is sufficient to say that the Coetus did not manage to correct the problems inherent in the Vatican II documents but were obliged to infuse the documents with ambiguities, which could hardly be considered a strategy of resistance, and gave the modernists enough leeway to carry out their plans of tranforming the Church.

So Archbishop Lefebvre is loosely associated with episcopal masons through the cardinal that ordained him a deacon, directly through the liberal cardinal that ordained him a priest and consecrated him a bishop, and by collaboration with the bishops that cooperated with him in opposing the liberal tendencies at Vatican II advanced by his consecrator. The Freemasonic plan detailed in the Alta Venditta published in the 19th century by both Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII indicated a plan for liberalism infiltrate the Catholic Church. Would it not be logical then that they would want to influence both the liberal side and the reactionary or traditional side at Vatican II, so that they could better determine the outcome? In light of this, what are the chances that Archbishop Lefebvre was a freemason?

March 10, 2026 - Since many readers land on this page and are not aware that I have written other articles on the subject, I am listing those related articles below:

The US Doctrinal Warfare Program and it's Fruits : The Connection Between Sedevacantism, the SSPX and the CIA

Archbishop Lefebvre´s Bishop : Evidence that Achille Cardinal Liènart was Freemason

Archbishop Lefebvre Promoted Vatican II on Antichrist Numerology Date

Archbishop Lefebvre's Obituary by the Holy Ghost Fathers