Some Parallels Between 'Traditionalism' and Jansenism
Shameful beloved, extremely shameful, and unworthy of your training in Christ, is the report that on account of one or two persons the well-established and ancient Church of the Corinthians is in revolt against the presbyters. And this report has not come only to us, but even to those professing other faiths then ours, so that by your folly you heap blasphemies on the name of the Lord, and create a danger for yourselves. [Pope Clement I: Letter to the Corinthians §47 (c. 95 AD)]

In this url and the subsequent one, the intention of this writer is primarily to demonstrate some clear parallels between the radical 'traditionalist' groups and a seventeenth century heresy called Jansenism. (A secondary intention will be to highlight parallels between self-styled 'traditionalism' and  Protestantism.) In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and other SSPX clergy, their actions as documented in these sections are representative of how other schismatic 'traditionalist' clergy act - even though the precise examples are not always applicable in each individual case. Before, doing this though, the orthodoxy of Bishop Cornelius Jansen himself needs to be addressed - as the heresy of Jansenism though named after him cannot be said to legitimately apply to him.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia article that will be relied heavily upon in the next two urls, Jansenius himself claimed with regards to his manuscripts "[if] the Holy See wishes any change, I am an obedient son, and I submit to that Church in which I have lived to my dying hour. This is my last wish". Therefore, whatever parallels exist between the so-called 'traditionalists' and the Jansenist heretics, this difference between Bishop Jansenius and Archbishop Lefebvre could not be more distinct. (And because Jansenius passed on as a faithful son to the Church, only what occurred after his death and the heresy that bears his name will be dealt with in these next two urls - along with parallels between the so-called 'traditionalists' and the Protestant self-styled 'reformers'.)

Parallels Between Dissident 'Traditionalists' and Jansenism:

The Catholic Encyclopedia article Jansenius and Jansenism will be the primary source for this section.  The sources quoted will precede the analysis in this version of the treatise instead of vice versa as in previous versions for easier assimilation of the points made.

Parallel #1:

His [Jansenius'] fundamental error consists in disregarding the supernatural order, for Jansenius as for Baius, the vision of God is the necessary end of human nature; hence it follows that all the primal endowments designated in theology as supernatural or preternatural, including exemption from concupiscence, were simply man's due. This first assertion is fraught with grave consequences regarding the original fall, grace, and justification. As a result of Adam's sin, our nature stripped of elements essential to its integrity, is radically corrupt and depraved. Mastered by concupiscence, which in each of us properly constitutes original sin, the will is powerless to resist; it has become purely passive. It cannot escape the attraction of evil except it be aided by a movement of grace superior to and triumphant over the force of concupiscence. Our soul, henceforth obedient to no motive save that of pleasure, is at the mercy of the delectation, earthly or heavenly, which for the time being attracts it with the greatest strength. At once inevitable and irresistible, this delectation, if it come from heaven or from grace, leads man to virtue; if it come from nature or concupiscence, it determines him to sin. In the one case as in the other, the will is fatally swept on by the preponderant impulse. The two delectations says Jansenius, are like the two arms of a balance, of which the one cannot rise unless the other be lowered and vice versa. Thus man irresistibly, although voluntarily, does either good or evil, according as he is dominated by grace or by concupiscence; he never resists either the one or the other. In this system there is evidently no place for purely sufficient grace; on the other hand it is easy to discern the principles of the five condemned propositions (see below). [1]

There is a parallel in the rigorous theology of the Jansenists and the 'traditionalist' denial of sufficient grace for the possibility of salvation to those not in their movement. This is usually an implicit denial but there are several explicit claims that could be mentioned which (for lack of space and a desire to keep this project from descending into gossip), will not be delved into here. The primary parallel to note here is in morally rigorous attitudes and tendencies between the two groups that is akin to the more Calvinist leanings of the Reformed Protestant movement.

As Calvinists believe in "total depravity" - the latter being one of the five points of their TULIP theology - it only makes sense that converts from Calvinism are especially prone to the rigorous theology espoused by the self-styled 'traditionalist' movement. (As both Calvinism and Jansenism are heresies on grace and both have their roots in some of the speculations of St. Augustine of Hippo.)

Parallel #2:

In order to present this doctrine under the patronage of St. Augustine, Jansenius based his argument chiefly on two Augustinian conceptions: on the distinction between the auxilium sine quo non granted to Adam, and the auxilium quo, active in his descendants; and on the theory of the "victorious delectation" of grace. A few brief remarks will suffice to make clear the double mistake. In the first place the auxilium sine quo non is not, in the idea of Augustine, "a grace purely sufficient", since through it the angels persevered; it is on the contrary a grace which confers complete power in actu primo (i.e. the ability to act), in such a way that, this being granted, nothing further is needed for action. The auxilium quo, on the other hand, is a supernatural help which bears immediately on the actus secundus (i.e. the performance of the action) and in this grace, in so far as it is distinguished from the grace of Adam, must be included the whole series of efficacious graces by which man works out his salvation, or the gift of actual perseverance, which gift conducts man infallibly and invincibly to beatitude, not because it suppresses liberty, but because its very concept implies the consent of man. The delectation of grace is a deliberate pleasure which the Bishop of Hippo explicitly opposes to necessity (voluptas, non necessitas); but what we will and embrace with consenting pleasure, we cannot at the same time not will, and in this sense we will it necessarily. In this sense also, it is correct to say, "Quod amplius nos delectat, secundum id operemur necesse est" (i.e. in acting we necessarily follow what gives us most pleasure). Finally, this delight is called victorious, not because it fatally subjugates the will, but because it triumphs over concupiscence, fortifying free will to the point of rendering it invincible to natural desire. It is thus clear that we can say of men sustained by and faithful to grace, "Invictissime quod bonum est velint, et hoc deserere invictissime nolint". [2]

Though noted earlier, it is worth reiterating anew: the inspired written Word of God is capable of being misinterpreted by men or "is as capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters" (cf. St. Vincent of Lerens). Therefore, Catholics should not be so naïve to presume that non-inspired Council documents or papal apostolic letters/encyclicals would be any different. It seems quite absurd to presume that the Bible has "some things that are hard to understand which the ignorant and the unstable wrest to their own destruction" (2 Pet. 3:16) while Magisterial documents would be free and easily accessible to be understood by anyone at face value apart from the times, circumstances, and assumptions under which they were written in. And much as the latter presumption is problematical for the self-styled 'traditionalist' paradigm, the same principle applies to those seeking to interpret the intricate personal theologies of the Fathers.

The Bishop of Hippo in particular is an especially tough nut to crack of the early Fathers. The reason: he was similarly brilliant in the mould of Tertullian but with a more developed and multifaceted approach to theology than his much more rigorous and intolerant predecessor. This is similar intellectually to the difference between Socrates and Plato. Plato was more multifaceted in his theology than his teacher Socrates much as Plato’s student Aristotle surpassed his teacher in this mould. Jansenius, despite being well read in the writings of St. Augustine, nevertheless committed a rather amazing distortion of the beliefs of the Doctor of Grace. It is no different in some ways than the manifold distortions of the Bible among the divers Christian sects: the result is the exaltation of individual theologians or one person's personal theological opinions over and above the Teaching Authority of the Church. All heresies and schisms historically have come about via this same fundamental flaw; Jansenism was no exception to the rule.

Similarly, the self-styled 'traditionalists’ have done an eerily similar job distorting the teachings of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (VC II) as Jansenius did with the writings of St. Augustine of Hippo. This is one parallel of 'traditionalism' to Jansenism. Jansenius claimed to be discovering the "authentic Augustine" while groups like the SSPX, SSPV, OSJ and numerous others distort the teachings of VC II and previous Popes all the while claiming to know better than the Magisterium of the Church what is and is not authentic Tradition. The second parallel is in essence that of misrepresentation of a position. Then from that misrepresentation the branching out into philosophies of belief which like foolish men they built upon sand rather than the Rock upon which the Church was built (Dan. 2:44-45; Matt. 7:24-26, 16:16-19; Luke 6:47-49).

Parallel #3:

But it was France which thenceforth became the chief centre of the agitation. At Paris, St-Cyran, who was powerful through his relations besides being very active, succeeded in spreading simultaneously the doctrines of the "Augustinus" and the principles of an exaggerated moral and disciplinary rigorism, all under the pretence of a return to the primitive Church. He had succeeded especially in winning over to his ideas the influential and numerous family of Arnauld of Andilly, notably Mère Angélique Arnauld, Abbess of Port-Royal, and through her the religious of that important convent. When he died, in 1643, Doctor Antoine Arnauld quite naturally succeeded him in the direction of the movement which he had created. The new leader lost no time in asserting himself in startling fashion by the publication of his book "On Frequent Communion", which would have been more correctly entitled "Against Frequent Communion" but which, as it was written with skill and a great display of erudition, did not a little towards strengthening the party. [3]

This is another eerie similarity to the Jansenists that 'traditionalists' display: an exaggerated moral and disciplinary rigorism.

Parallel #4:

Although the Sorbonne had accepted the Bull "In eminenti", and the Archbishop of Paris had, in 1644 proscribed the work of Jansenius, it continued to be spread and recommended, on the pretext that authority had not rejected a single well-determined thesis. It was then (1649) that Cornet, syndic of the Sorbonne, took the initiative in a more radical measure; he extracted five propositions from the much-discussed work, two from the book "On Frequent Communion", and submitted them to the judgment of the faculty. This body, prevented by the Parliament from pursuing the examination it had begun, referred the affair to the general assembly of the clergy in 1650. The greater number considered it more fitting that Rome should pronounce, and eighty-five bishops wrote in this sense to Innocent X, transmitting to him the first five propositions. Eleven other bishops addressed to the sovereign pontiff a protest against the idea of bringing the matter to trial elsewhere than in France. They demanded in any case the institution of a special tribunal, as in the "De auxiliis" affair, and the opening of a debate in which the theologians of both sides should be allowed to submit their arguments. The decision of Innocent X was what might have been expected: he acceded to the request of the majority, keeping in view as far as possible the wishes of the minority. A commission was appointed, consisting of five cardinals and thirteen consultors, some of whom were known to favour acquittal. Its laborious examination lasted two years: it held thirty-six long sessions, of which the last ten were presided over by the pope in person. The "Augustinus" which, as has been said, had friends on the bench, was defended with skill and tenacity. Finally its advocates presented a table of three columns, in which they distinguished as many interpretations of the five propositions: a Calvinistic interpretation, rejected as heretical, a Pelagian or Semipelagian interpretation, identified by them with the traditional doctrine, also to be cast aside, and lastly, their interpretation, the idea of St. Augustine himself, which could not but be approved. This plea, skilful as it was could not avert the solemn condemnation, by the Bull "Cum occasione" (31 May, 1653), of the five propositions, which were as follows:
(1) Some of God's commandments are impossible to just men who wish and strive (to keep them) considering the powers they actually have, the grace by which these precepts may become possible is also wanting;
(2) In the state of fallen nature no one ever resists interior grace;
(3) To merit, or demerit, in the state of fallen nature we must be free from all external constraint, but not from interior necessity,
(4) The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing grace for all acts, even for the beginning of faith; but they fell into heresy in pretending that this grace is such that man may either follow or resist it;
(5) To say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men, is Semipelagianism.
These five propositions were rejected as heretical, the first four absolutely, the fifth if understood in the sense that Christ died only for the predestined. All are implicitly contained in the second, and through it, all are connected with the above-mentioned erroneous conception of the state of innocence and the original fall. If it be true that fallen man never resists interior grace (second proposition), it follows that a just man who violates a commandment of God did not have the grace to observe it. That he therefore transgresses it through inability to fulfil it (first proposition). If, however, he has sinned and thus demerited, it is clear that, to demerit, the liberty of indifference is not requisite, and what is said of demerit must also be said of its correlative, merit (third proposition). On the other hand, if grace is often wanting to the just, since they fall, it is wanting still more to sinners; it is therefore impossible to maintain that the death of Jesus Christ assured to every man the graces necessary for salvation (fifth proposition). If this be so, the Semipelagians were in error in admitting the universal distribution of a grace which may be resisted (fourth proposition). [4]

This is so common to the 'traditionalist' modus operandi that it is scary. The Jansenists casting the Church’s position as "Semi-Pelagian" while they cast their heretical doctrines as the teachings of Saint Augustine. The 'traditionalists' today do this with a number of their pet doctrines including EENS. (The Feeneyites in particular are notorious for casting their rigorist novelty as the teaching of the Fathers and Scholastics and even of the Council of Trent while casting the position of the so-called "conciliar church" as akin to the indifferentism condemned by Pope Pius X and Pope Pius XI.) The teaching of Vatican II likewise condemned indifferentism and endorsed a position very similar to that of Pope Pius IX, the Pope St. Pius X Catechism, Pope Pius XII, and the Council of Trent on Justification. When this is pointed out to the Feeneyites, then their exegetical manipulation becomes most intriguing to watch. For example the rigorist Feeneyites claim that Baptism of Water is one hundred percent necessary for salvation. When it is shown that the Council of Trent taught the doctrine of Baptism of Desire, they seek to not conform their beliefs to the Church’s teachings but the Church’s teachings to their beliefs (ala Luther, Calvin, and the Augustinian Jansenists). There is at times the facile attempt to construct a non-existent dichotomy of claiming that a person can be "justified" by Desire but cannot attain "salvation" without water baptism. Of course Trent does not distinguish between Justification and Salvation in this matter. But 'traditionalism' (falsely so-called) is not above letting a little dishonesty (or even a lot of it) get in the way of finding excuses to obstinately cling to their errors.

Now not all so-called 'traditionalist' groups are Feeneyites (most in fact are not) but the same method is used with the different groups when it involves certain teachings they do not like. As for the "for all" scenario listed above, which groups have a fit about the term "for all" in some of the vernacular translation of Pauline liturgy consecration of the Chalice??? Since his view is common to mainstream 'traditionalist' thought on this subject, Archbishop Lefebvre’s position will be cited on the matter:

In the Novus Ordo, the most ancient parts of the Roman Canon which goes back to Apostolic times has been reshaped to bring it more in line with the Lutheran formula of consecration, with both an addition and a suppression. The translation in French has even gone further by altering of the words 'pro multis.' Instead of "My blood which shall be shed for you and for many," we read "which shall be shed for you and for the multitude" This does not mean the same thing and theologically is not without significance. [5]
The concise rebuttal of 'Matt1618' on this issue is profound and worth being mentioning again:
St. Paul reports receiving this consecratory formula from the Lord himself (by apostolic tradition: v. 23). Notice, however, that he did not use the words "for many" or "for all". The same with St. Luke (Lk. 22:14-20). What so-called Traditionalist would have the nerve to say that his consecrations were not valid because Paul does not use the phrase 'for many'?! [6]
One answer to Matt's inquiry would be Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Other members of the Society hierarchy have the same stunted view on this matter that the Archbishop did not to mention most 'traditionalists' be they in communion with Rome or not. It is important to once again point out that the Archbishop is not to be trusted when it comes to knowing about what did and did not happen in Apostolic times. Neither he nor any other self-styled 'traditionalists' are reliable as a source for determining what is and is not unalterable Apostolic Tradition. If one point should be clear as crystal to the reader of this treatise by now, it should be this one because the track record of 'traditionalists' in this department is beyond pitiful. In this treatise alone, we have examined not a few of the standard so-called 'traditionalist' positions on the key issues and their track record for accuracy is frankly disgraceful.

With regards to "pro multis", obviously if St. Paul did not use "pro multis" in his consecrations, then those words are not necessary for a valid consecration. (If he did it is not mentioned in 1 Corinthians where he is saying he "received and handed on" via Apostolic Tradition a formula that does not include those words.) Setting aside for the moment the questionable Latin translation of "pro multis" from the Greek text, let us have recourse to the Angelic Doctor on this issue. 'Traditionalists' of all stripes like to emphasize the importance of Thomism but they apparently know very little about the views of the Angelic Doctor on this matter. (Or if they do then they ignore his words much as they do his condemnations of heretics and schismatics.) To quote St. Thomas from the Summa Contra Gentiles on the necessary words for consecration of the Eucharist into the Body and Blood of Our Lord:

In this Sacrament something is present by force of conversion, and something by natural concomitance. By force of conversion there is present that which is the immediate term into which conversion is made. Such under the species of bread is the Body of Christ, into which the substance of bread is converted by the words, This is my body. Such again under the species of wine is the Blood of Christ, when it is said, This is the chalice of my blood. [7]
The Angelic Doctor also noted in the Summa Theologiae that these are the only necessary form for a valid consecration. Thus, the "pro multis" canard (already refuted in detail) again is dashed to the ground as an argument lacking any foundation whatsoever. However, that is not the only glaring error in this realm:
Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of "president" has been borrowed directly from Protestantism. [8]
So says the "Protestant" Justin Martyr it seems:
ST. JUSTIN MARTYR (c. 100-165 AD)
Chapter LXV -- Administration Of The Sacraments.
But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. [9]
And the "Protestant" Tertullian:
TERTULLIAN (c. 160-240 AD)
When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist…We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign [of the cross].

If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from some one who has. [10]

Neither the Archbishop nor those who argue as he did can be trusted to tell us about what did and did not happen in the early Church because they clearly do not have a clue. And besides, if this writer was to apply the same hermeneutic towards Church practices as Archbishop Lefebvre and his allies do, then the Latins "abandoned Tradition" when they ceased to baptize by immersion: a practice that was set aside a long time before Vatican II (VC II). But of course consistency has never been a hallmark of so-called 'traditionalists' as this treatise has demonstrated in numerous areas already. (And with more still to come.)

Parallel #5:

Well received by the Sorbonne and the General Assembly of the Clergy, the Bull "Cum occasione" was promulgated with the royal sanction. This should have opened the eyes of the partisans of Jansenius. They were given the alternative of finally renouncing their errors, or of openly resisting the supreme authority. They were thrown for the moment into embarrassment and hesitation, from which Arnauld extricated them by a subtlety: they must, he said, accept the condemnation of the five propositions, and reject them, as did the pope, only, these propositions were not contained in the book of the Bishop of Ypres, or if they were found therein, it was in another sense than in the pontifical document; the idea of Jansenius was the same as that of St. Augustine, which the Church neither could, nor wished to, censure. This interpretation was not tenable; it was contrary to the text of the Bull, no less than to the minutes of the discussions which had preceded it, and throughout which these propositions were considered and Presented as expressing the sense of the "Augustinus". In March, 1564, thirty-eight bishops rejected the interpretation, and communicated their decision to the sovereign pontiff, who thanked and congratulated them. [11]

Another parallel exists in the realm of 'traditionalism' is that its adherents delude themselves into thinking that their "ideas" were the same as prominent theologians and prominent Popes (St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine, Pope Gregory XVI, Bl. Pope Pius IX, Pope Leo XIII, etc.) much as Jansenists did with their novel views. (Which the latter deluded themselves into thinking were the ideas of St. Augustine.) The Angelic Doctor in his Summa Theologiae condemns those who act as self-styled 'traditionalist' groups do as schismatics and heretics. It was also shown from the Summa Contra Gentiles that the position of the 'traditionalists' as to what constitutes the valid words for consecration of the Eucharistic species is a claim without any merit whatsoever. It is quite clear that St. Thomas Aquinas’ views cannot be reconciled to those of the 'traditionalists' who love to cite him. St. Thomas’ writings - as do those of the aforementioned popes) actually condemn their positions to say nothing of another prominent and influential Church theologian (and Society "darling") St. Robert Cardinal Bellarmine.

One example that pertains to the SSPX in particular deals with some of the writings of St. Bellarmine which therefore have been "anathematized" by their little "Magisterium". The particular writing being referred to is of St. Cardinal Bellarmine defending the concept of democracy.  They were published in a book, which the Society had Tan Books suppress because the Cardinal’s views are the antithesis of the Society's anti democracy/pro monarchy philosophy. As for Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII, it was demonstrated in the last two urls several popular methods used by self styled 'traditionalist' groups to twist their writings out of context to say things different than what these Popes were saying in their respective encyclicals. Only time and space constraints prevent similar misrepresentations of the writings of Popes Gregory XVI, St. Pius X, and Pius XI (not to mention Leo XIII’s views on Americanism) from being likewise vindicated from the taint of 'traditionalist' misrepresentation. It is Jansenist to the core to misrepresent Magisterial sources to further ones agenda of disobedience and 'traditionalists' do it consistently.

Parallel #6:

The Jansenists persisted none the less in an attitude opposed alike to frankness and to logic. The occasion soon arrived for them to support this with a complete theory. The Duc de Liancourt, one of the protectors of the party, was refused absolution until he should change his sentiments and accept purely and simply the condemnation of the "Augustinus". Arnauld took up his pen and in two successive letters protested against any such exaction. Ecclesiastical judgments, he said, are not all of equal value, and do not entail the same obligations; where there is question of the truth or falsity of a doctrine, of its revealed origin or its heterodoxy, the Church in virtue of its Divine mission is qualified to decide; it is a matter of right. But if the doubt bears upon the presence of this doctrine in a book, it is a question of purely human fact, which as such does not fall under the jurisdiction of the supernatural teaching authority instituted in the Church by Jesus Christ. In the former case, the Church having pronounced sentence, we have no choice but to conform our belief to its decision; in the latter, its word should not be openly contradicted it claims from us the homage of a respectful silence but not that of an interior assent. Such is the famous distinction between right and fact, which was henceforth to be the basis of their resistance, and through which the recalcitrants pretended to remain Catholics, united to the visible body of Christ despite all their obstinacy. This distinction is both logically and historically the denial of the doctrinal power of the Church. For how is it possible to teach and defend revealed doctrine if its affirmation or denial cannot be discerned in a book or a writing, whatever its form or its extent? In fact, from the beginning, councils and popes have approved and imposed as orthodox certain formulas and certain works, and from the beginning have proscribed others as being tainted with heresy or error.  [12]

One example of this parallel is the quoting documents from the Second Vatican Council and juxtaposing them with previous council and papal documents in order to manufacture "contrary condemned statements" that do not exist. Another is the first of the two sections of this treatise on schism (where there is without fail a deliberate deception in quoting sources to defend assertions that they are not in schism) as another textbook example of an attitude "opposed to frankness". The culprit in that instance was the SSPX but they are hardly the only self-styled 'traditionalist' to engage in such disingenuousness. (To put it charitably.)

Parallel #7:

Self-styled 'traditionalists' claim to follow the Pope. Yet they deliberately disobey him in virtually every instance of record in the past thirty odd years and only obey what they choose to obey. You do not follow a leader by continually disobeying him: this is indeed the very essence of an attitude "opposed to logic". Notice also how the Jansenists are determining what is and is not a proper usage of juridical faculties of the Church Magisterium. It was demonstrated earlier where the SSPX (acting as all rebellious strands of 'traditionalism' do) was declaring in a deceptively doctored pamphlet that the Pope's judgement in the Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei Adflicta was a "similar non-juridical decision" as that of Cardinal Gantin whom they said had "wrongly declared" them to be in schism. Like the Jansenists did before them, the SSPX and other 'traditionalists' like to decide for themselves when and under what circumstances the Church's judgment is binding or "juridical" on them and when it is not. Of course in both cases when the Church opposes them, then the Church's decrees are "non-juridical". And remember, this is supposedly not the same thing as what the Protestants who interpret Scripture texts against the judgment of the Church's Magisterium do. (When the Protestants quote Scripture passages claiming that Catholic doctrines are not congruent with Holy Writ.)

Parallel #8:

To demonstrate this next parallel, a section from the above Encyclopedia passage is excerpted (from footnote twelve):

Such is the famous distinction between right and fact, which was henceforth to be the basis of their resistance, and through which the recalcitrants pretended to remain Catholics, united to the visible body of Christ despite all their obstinacy. This distinction is both logically and historically the denial of the doctrinal power of the Church. For how is it possible to teach and defend revealed doctrine if its affirmation or denial cannot be discerned in a book or a writing, whatever its form or its extent? [13]

In order to draw this parallel out a bit more, the following citation from a small but excellent book that everyone should obtain will be utilized. The work is M L Cozens' book A Handbook of Heresies. The following passage should help clarify the excerpted passage (footnote thirteen) a bit better and show the parallel:

Jansenism like Lutheranism and Calvinism was a heresy concerning Grace but, whereas with these last two, all the heresies of the sect sprung from their false teaching on Grace, while with the Jansenists the heresy on Grace seems to have been a result rather than a cause. The theory from which all of their false teaching drew its strength being the theory professed by many Anglicans today; that the teaching of the Church is something to be searched for in the records of the past rather than something to be heard and accepted in the living present. [14]
In demonstrating this parallel, it will require another "test case" from 'traditionalist' circles and the SSPX wins this job by virtue of them being the largest of these rebellious groups. As this characteristic is universal in the world of 'traditionalism', using some words of the Archbishop and others in the SSPX as examples of the larger movement would not be irregular. The last sentence of citation fourteen has been bolded and underlined because this is the parallel being demonstrated in the following sections of this url. As this next section may go off on a bit of a tangent, the passage bolded and underlined above is the "guide-post" if you will in examining the following representative passages.

It is important to note once again in light of how frequently some dismissed the first version of this treatise - and even to some extent the second version - that these kinds of passages could easily be duplicated from the works of other pseudo-'traditionalists'. (Lest any readers affiliated with other such groups somehow think this is not applicable to them.) With that in mind, remember also that it was amply demonstrated earlier how so-called 'traditionalists' are constantly confusing ecclesiastical directives and disciplines as unchanging Tradition. For additional evidence to highlight this Jansenistic parallel with greater clarity, the following additional quotations of the Archbishop and other high-ranking members of the SSPX have been submitted for consideration. (As representative of the kinds of assertions made by all self-styled 'traditionalist' groups.) Unless otherwise noted, the quotes will be from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Pay special attention to the words of the quotes in bold print please:

November 11, 1974:

To insure our salvation the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine is a categorical refusal to accept the Reformation. We will pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old magisterium in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the Church, to the Pope, and to future generations. [15]

July 1976:

All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, [Vatican II] accept and adhere to this new conciliar church ... enter into schism. [16]

Here we have a private interpretation by Archbishop Lefebvre as to what is and is not "acceptable" and what does and does not constitute schism. Is schism determined by those other than the Church hierarchy??? After all, anyone can make these kinds of claims; therefore a non-arbitrary method needs to be proven and not merely asserted to exist at the whim of any accuser who comes along and makes such claims. However, the mercurial Lefebvre whose "heart-felt" sentiments changed colours more often than a chameleon made the following comment about the "upheaval" he condemned in the previous quote only one week later saying:
July 1976:

I do not reject it [Vatican II] altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition. [17]

This is more question begging because again the question then becomes one of who determines when something does or does not conform to Tradition. Oh but the Archbishop changed colours yet again saying the following after the previous comment:
In spite of all objections, [Lefebvre] proceeded with the ordinations [on June 29, 1976]. Paul VI replied on 1st July by striking the priests ordained with a suspensus a divinis. On 29th July the same sanction struck Lefebvre - who replied the same day with an unequivocal declaration:

"This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries ... This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church. The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic. [18]

Now we have the Archbishop declaring when the Church breaks with history. But the reader is asked to recall that the Archbishop has demonstrated a rather ahistorical outlook already; he has made numerous statements that do not square with what actually happened - one of which was repeated earlier on in this url. Notice that again we have the attitude of a schismatic/heretic being displayed by the Archbishop who is declaring on his authority (much like Luther and Calvin did on their "authority") what is and is not schismatic and heretical. But the mercurial Archbishop is not finished yet. Only six days after this quote (where he castigates the Catholic Church for "breaking with tradition"), Lefebvre makes the following comment, which is very revealing of his true mindset:
August 4, 1976:

We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us to experiment with tradition. [19]

You see, Tradition is not now something that never ever changes (as the SSPX and radical 'traditionalists' erroneously claim when it comes to the Mass, sacramental norms, or ecclesiastical directives, etc.) but now it is something that can be "experimented" with!!! And not only that, but it is clear that the Archbishop was unconcerned with any actions undertaken by the ecclesiastical hierarchy to compel his obedience because he indicated the intention to continue his unsanctioned work "whatever happens". That is indicative of a schismatic spirit, though it seems most evident that the material implicit schism that became explicit and formalized in 1988 had its genesis either on or shortly after July 29, 1976. (If we presume for the sake of charity that the outburst in footnote eighteen was simply a statement of manifested frustration at the circumstances. The problem is, such an assumption quickly reveals itself to be less probable then the presumption of material schism when the subsequent pattern of statements and actions of the Archbishop and his clergy from 1976-1988 and beyond are considered - a minuscule few of which will be documented here.)
March 19, 1978:

The Catholic-protestant mass, a spring henceforth poisoned which produces incalculable ravages. The ecumenical mass leads logically to apostasy. [20]

Of course only five years earlier the Archbishop made the following statement:
March 1973:

I shall never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical, I shall never say that it cannot be a Sacrifice. I believe that many priests, above all those priests who have known the old Ordo, -certainly have very good intentions in saying their Mass. Far be it from me to say that everything is wrong with the new Ordo. [21]

And two years before the previous statement, the Archbishop made the following one:
June 10, 1971:

How can I agree to abandon the Mass of all ages or to admit to place it at the same level as the Novus Ordo, created by Annibal Bugnini, with the participation of Protestants to make of it an equivocal supper that eliminates totally the offertory, and touches the very words of the consecration? [22]

So while "not being heretical" the Pauline liturgy "leads logically to apostasy" according to the late Archbishop. All of this is very interesting because only two years later we have the following example of the Archbishop apparently contributing to the apostasy of others:
June 30, 1980:
[I]n regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted "actively" at "Luther's mass" completely in the modern fashion. [23]
Let us recap for a moment to avoid getting too far off track as (i) the very words in footnote twenty-two are in contradiction to the words spoken two years later in 1973 (footnote twenty-one). Further still, (ii) the words in footnote twenty-one are then contradicted by the Archbishop's words from 1978 (footnote twenty) and then (iii) contradicted yet again by the actions of the Archbishop in 1980. (Where he is reported to have assisted at the very liturgy he condemned in 1978 as an "ecumenical mass" that "leads logically to apostasy.) Also, the words "the Mass of all ages" is more historical ignorance from the Archbishop. How can such inconsistencies possibly be justified??? Some self-styled 'traditionalists' reading this work will certainly make an attempt to do this with statements along the lines of "oh but it was different then. The Archbishop did not realize then how impossible it would be to work with Rome which he would only realize later" etc. The problem is that such attitudes have a historical parallel that 'traditionalists' will find very discomforting. Consider the following four passages a classic example of this indecisive tendency from a very well known historical figure:
These four quotes are from four separate letters written in a ten month span from May 30, 1518 to March 13, 1519. The author was a rather mercurial and chameleon-like ex Augustinian friar names Fr. Martin Luther. These comments were all written after the 95 Thesis were posted on October 31, 1517 which is often recognized as the "official" start of the Protestant "reformation". (Though the statement of Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521 was when the "reformation" got its start for all intents and purposes.) They were in short written a few years before Pope Leo's excommunication of Fr. Luther with the issuance of the Apostolic Letter Exsurge Domine. We will briefly take a look at whom these quotes were aimed at. While doing so, the reader is asked to consider the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre in his twenty-one years of dealings with the Holy See from 1970-1991. This writer doubts that the reader will be able to say without hypocrisy that they are at all different in substance.
Quote number one is from a letter written by Luther to Pope Leo X on May 30, 1518. Of course on December 11, 1518, he wrote a letter to Wenceslaus Link where he infers that the Pope is the Antichrist. Then, less than a month later (January 6, 1519), he is claiming that he "never approved of a schism" to Pope Leo X and in essence flatly contradicting what he has said in the letter to Wenceslaus Link. But then another about-face approximately two months later (March 13, 1519) was committed by Luther in a letter to Georg Spalatin where again the Pope is either (i) the Antichrist or (ii) the Apostle of the Antichrist. In short, Luther contradicted himself three times in ten months: a tendency that was characteristic to his personality throughout his lifetime. (As anyone who has read the history of Dr. Luther could tell you.) As much as the Archbishop denounces Luther in writing, his attitudes and methodology in the areas of constantly contradicting himself (and a few other areas) are mirror images of the German heresiarch. If not for the Archbishop being a saintly man in his morals and personal piety, how would we be able to tell the two apart by reading the writings attacking the Catholic Church set forth by these two men??? The answer is we would not. And it is also worth noting that the fact that the Archbishop was more saintly in his morals and piety does not excuse his actions. Origen was also very saintly and full of personal piety and he was still condemned by the Church as a heretic. Therefore, saintliness and personal piety cannot act as substitute for orthodoxy (or excuse those who deviate from orthodoxy).

Keep these inconsistencies committed by the Archbishop in mind and revisit footnotes fifteen through twenty-three earlier in this section for the exact same type of "flim flam" being pulled here as Luther did in the segments of footnote twenty-four. Also, note the upcoming footnotes twenty-five and twenty-six of this url too and contrast all eleven of them with the words of Fr. Luther in footnote twenty-four. (And compare them to the bolded and underlined part of footnote fourteen.) Then try and tell this author with a straight face that there is any difference whatsoever between the ex-Augustian friar and the schismatic Archbishop of Econe. If you can say with a straight face that there is any difference in substance between the two, then you are you are lying to yourself and are effectively brainwashed because there is no difference whatsoever in substance between the two.

November 18, 1978:
Lefebvre declares himself ready "to sign a declaration accepting the 2nd Vatican Council interpreted according to Tradition." [25]
Again, the reader needs to ask themselves who is authorized to determine when Vatican II has been "interpreted according to Tradition". Also, is this the same Tradition that the Archbishop asked Pope Paul VI to let him "experiment with" in August of 1976 (see footnote nineteen)??? And they are also asked to consider if this is also not the very same Tradition that Lefebvre constantly chastised "the Conciliar Church" (sic) of abandoning. If "experimenting" with Tradition is what the Archbishop condemns VC II of supposedly doing, than why would the Archbishop want to "experiment" himself if this is the foundation of his accusations against the Church since VC II??? Also, notice all of his condemnations of the Church since VC II and contrast them with the following words from a letter he wrote to Pope John Paul II in late 1978 a few months after the latter became Bishop of Rome:
December 24, 1978:
Lefebvre lowers himself to beg from these (who he calls) 'schismatics' a recognition for which he is still waiting: "Most Holy Father, for the honour of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beseech you to say a single word, a single word: 'Let them continue'. [26]
Archbishop Lefebvre and Fr. Martin Luther both begged for what they wanted from the Pope and then, when they did not get their way, they both threw temper tantrums. This is probably not a parallel that will please 'traditionalist' groups to have exposed for others to see, but the truth must be made known regardless of the degree of discomfort or embarrassment it causes. This attitude of the Archbishops is mirrored in the attitudes of every 'traditionalist' group not in communion with Rome — both their leaders and even at times some of the laity.
September 1982:

The Society of Saint Pius X is founded on the history of the Church and upon the doctrine of theologians. It believes that the Pope can favor the ruin of the Church by choosing and letting act bad advisors, also by signing documents and decrees which do not engage his infallibility and that cause considerable damage to the Church. Nothing is more dangerous for the Church than liberal popes who are in a continual incoherence. We pray for the Pope, but we refuse to follow him in his errors on religious freedom, ecumenism, socialism and the application of reforms destructive for the Church. Our apparent disobedience is true obedience to the Church and to the Pope as successor of Peter in the measure that he continues to maintain holy Tradition....All the members of the Society have one desire, to be submitted in filial obedience to a Rome returned to Tradition. [27]

Consider citation twenty-seven in full context now. (To best do that, it would help to scroll back and view all the bolded parts of citations fifteen through twenty-three, and footnotes twenty-five through twenty-six. (And also look at the upcoming citations twenty-eight and twenty-nine when you get to them.) They all clearly show the Jansenistic tendency to take an "Anglican" view of history and find the Tradition of the Church in the documents of the past. The Catholic views Tradition as a living entity which matures and develops while retaining the essence of the Apostolic Deposit of Faith handed on to the saints once for all (Jude 1:3). The views of the Archbishop show that the concept of Tradition and a Living Magisterium (covered earlier in this treatise) are alien to his mode of thinking. As the next few quotes will show, it is clearly a case of the followers of the Archbishop displaying this same defective mentality. (The next two quotes are from former United States District Superior Fr. Franz Schmidberger.)
February 1985:
The best service we can give to the Church, the Pope and the Bishops, is to insist inflexibly on our position, to preach the Gospel at any cost, to continue in the way in which we are engaged, and first of all to form true priests. Our disharmony with the present Rome does not come from us but from those who have broken with tradition. It is not us who are the defendant; we are the prosecution, and this not by a caprice, nor pharisaism, but in virtue of a sacred duty and with our heart full of sorrow. [28]
Again the question must be asked: who determines when Tradition has or has not been violated and by what standard???
May 21, 1993:
We are not liberals nor schismatic; we are Catholic, Roman Catholic. We want to be the heirs of St. Thomas Aquinas, of Saint Pius V, of the Society of Saint Pius X. We are the children of Archbishop Lefebvre. We do not want any particular spirituality, we make ours the one of the Holy Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, priest and victim, prophet and king. The holiness of the Church is not to be found in the new liturgy, in the relativist ecumenism, nor in the naturalist laicization of the nations. The sanctity of the Church is to be found in holy tradition. [29]
This is the very same illogic that the schismatic Eastern Churches use. They claim that they belong to the "Orthodox Church" and then when you try to pin them down on exactly what the "Orthodox Church" is, they say "the Church that adheres to holy tradition, etc." Like the schismatic Eastern Churches, the radical 'traditionalists', have no concept whatsoever of the living characteristic of Tradition that grows and matures with the passage of time. New insights into the Deposit of Faith are gradually uncovered that are implicit initially much as the colour of a persons eyes was implicit in the genetic coding they obtained at conception. This concept is totally biblical and fully consistent with Our Lord’s description of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 13:31-34; Mark 4:26-33; Luke 13:18-20).
Fr. Jean Violette:

"Mr Pickford says: ‘Father Violette establishes his belief that what he holds as true religion is other than what the Catholic Church holds as true religion.’ I distinguish; what I hold as the true religion is other than the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII; I deny, the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede." [30]

These examples are supplied here to show this parallel between the Jansenists and the common 'traditionalist' view on Tradition. (As well as highlight some more glaring inconsistencies of the Archbishop, the Society, and others in the 'traditionalist' movement.) Of course the infallible Magisterium for determining what is and is not authentic Tradition is not every little 'traditionalist' splinter group with access to their own copies of the Decrees of Trent and Denzinger right.  For this is no different from what the Protestants do with the Bible; just as every Protestant is by default their own Pope, every 'traditionalist' is their own default Magisterium. Or as Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman noted so eloquently about Apostolic times and how incongruent it is with the mentality behind 'traditionalism':
Men were told to submit their reason to a living authority. Moreover, whatever an Apostle said, his converts were bound to believe; when they entered the Church, they entered it in order to learn. The Church was their teacher; they did not come to argue, to examine, to pick and choose, but to accept whatever was put before them…
Now, my dear brethren, consider, are not these two states or acts of mind quite distinct from each other;--to believe simply what a living authority tells you, and to take a book such as Scripture, and to use it as you please, to master it, that is, to make yourself the master of it, to interpret it for yourself, and to admit just what you choose to see in it, and nothing more? Are not these two procedures distinct in this, that in the former you submit, in the latter you judge? At this moment I am not asking you which is the better, I am not asking whether this or that is practicable now, but are they not two ways of taking up a doctrine, and not one? Is not submission quite contrary to judging? Now, is it not certain that faith in the time of the Apostles consisted in submitting? And is it not certain that it did not consist in judging for one's self? It is in vain to say that the man who judges from the Apostle's writings, does submit to those writings in the first instance, and therefore has faith in them; else why should he refer to them at all? There is, I repeat, an essential difference between the act of submitting to a living oracle, and to his written words; in the former case there is no appeal from the speaker, in the latter the final decision remains with the reader. [31]
Cardinal Newman spelled it out perfectly and this is a parallel between 'traditionalism' and Jansenism, between 'traditionalism' and Protestantism, and in essence the core difference between Catholicism and all other forms of Christianity: Catholics have faith and other Christians (in the primitive notion of this word) do not. The attitude of the so-called 'traditionalists' is not one of submission but instead it is one of judgment. Faith and private judgment (as Newman noted) are polar opposites. The attitude of these schismatic groups is in essence a rehashing of Dr. Luther at the Diet of Worms in 1521:
Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything... [32]
The obvious question that needs to be asked about who is to determine what the testimony of the Scriptures is and what it is not can be mentioned at this time. In light of this important question, the immortal words of St. Vincent of Lerens (among other Fathers that could be mentioned) comes to mind:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, [Scripture] and then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here perhaps, someone may ask: Since the canon of the Scripture is complete and more than sufficient in itself, why is it necessary to add to it the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation? As a matter of fact, [we must answer] Holy Scripture, because of its depth, is not universally accepted in one and the same sense. The same text is interpreted different by different people, so that one may almost gain the impression that it can yield as many different meanings as there are men. Novatian, for example, expounds a passage in one way; Sabellius, in another; Donatus, in another. Arius, and Eunomius, and Macedonius read it differently; so do Photinus, Apollinaris, and Priscillian; in another way, Jovian, Pelagius, and Caelestius; finally still another way, Nestorius. Thus, because of the great distortions caused by various errors, it is, indeed, necessary that the trend of the interpretation of the prophetic and apostolic writings be directed in accordance with the rule of the ecclesiastical and Catholic meaning. [33]
The parallels of the schismatic/heretic throughout history are unmistakable because they do not follow this protocol outlined by many a Church Father who wrote a treatise against heresy. St. Vincent's formula (or a derivative of it) is prominent in the writings of the Fathers as crucial for determining the true Gospel from the numerous heretical ones spread about by innumerable false christs and false prophets seeking to lead the Lord's sheep astray. This is also very much in line with the position of Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman, who apparently was influenced by St. Vincent of Lerens in more areas then just development of doctrine.

There is no denying that Protestants do exactly what Ven. John Henry Newman noted above and the 'traditionalists' can point this out to them all day long. The only problem is that self-styled 'traditionalists' fail to see that in being critical of the Protestants for this practice, they are in essence preaching what they do not practice: the very trait of hypocrisy of which Our Lord condemned the Pharisees of doing (Matt. 23:1-4). In short, they practice private judgment in deciding what is Tradition for themselves and they do this on their own interpretation of past Church documents much as Protestants do with the Bible. Both practices are the antithesis of submission, they are the antithesis of faith.


[1] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[2] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[3] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[4] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[5] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics", p. 27, (c. 1986)

[6] Matt1618: "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass" (c 1998)

[7] St. Thomas Aquinas: "Summa Contra Gentiles", Book IV Section 63 (circa AD 1260)

[8] Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: "An Open Letter To Confused Catholics", p. 22, (c. 1986)

[9] St. Justin Martyr: "First Apology" §65, (AD 151)

[10] Tertullian: "The Chaplet" §3, (AD 204)

[11] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[12] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[13] Catholic Encyclopedia: From the article "Jansenius and Jansenism" (c. 1913)

[14] M L Cozens: "A Handbook of Heresies", pg. 75, On Jansenism (c. 1928)

[15] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[16] Le Figaro, 4 August 1976, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[17] France-Soir: 4 August 1976, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[18] Fr. Noél Barbara: Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[19] Le Figaro, 4 August 1976, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[20] Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14, 19 Mar. 1978, reported in Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[21] Paris Lecture, March 1973 at the invitation of the Union des Intellectuels Indenendants and the Club de la Culture française per "A Bishop Speaks Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Writings and Addresses 1963- 1975", published by Scottish Una Voce; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[22] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[23] Fr. Noél Barbara: Ecône Full Stop, Fortes in Fide (28/7/96 Item in opposite column); as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[24] Dave Armstrong: "The Orthodox and the Heterodox Luther" (c. 1992)

[25] Answer to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time of the conversations of 11 and 12 January 1979; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[26] Letter to Pope John Paul II, December 24, 1978; as quoted in "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" compiled by F. John Loughnan (c. 2000)

[27] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[28] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[29] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[30] From F. John Loughnan via private correspondence (January-March 2000)

[31] Ven. Cardinal John H. Newman: Excerpt from his sermon "Faith and Private Judgment" (c. 1849)

[32] Fr. Martin Luther: "Martin Luther's Life: The Imperial Diet of Worms" (c. 1997)

[33] St. Vincent of Lerens: "A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies" §2, (c. 434 AD)

Additional Notes:

The citation from Pope Clement’s First Letter to the Corinthians was taken from William A. Jurgens’ "The Faith of the Early Fathers" Vol. I, pg. 11, Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota, 1970.

The citations from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) article "Jansenius and Jansenism" were obtained at the following link:

The citations from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre were taken from his book "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, 1986.

The citation from Matt1618 is from his essay "In Defense of the Novus Ordo Mass" and was obtained at the following link:

The citation from St. Thomas Aquinas’ Multi-Volume treatise "Summa Contra Gentiles" was obtained at the following link:

The citations from St. Justin Martyr's "First Apology" was obtained at the following link:

The citation from Tertullians writing "The Chaplet" was obtained at the following link:

The citation from ML Cozens was taken from the book "A Handbook of Heresies", Sheed and Ward Ltd., Fifth edition (c. 1928)

The footnoted citations not from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s book "An Open Letter to Confused Catholics" were obtained from F. John Loughnan in private correspondence (most likely in the period between January-March 2000) and were also posted at the SSPX's website at that time as well. (So much email correspondence took place between the author and F. John Loughnan in the period from November 1999-June 2000 that it is difficult to pinpoint precisely when the above references were sent; however it is most probable that they were sent between January and March of 2000. John also served as a research assistant, a consultant, and also as the chief editor of the original version of this treatise.)

The citations from F. John Loughnan's article  "The Anything BUT Consistent Mind Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!" were obtained at the following link:

The citations from Dave Armstrong's essay "The Orthodox and the Heterodox Luther" was obtained at the following link:

The citation from Ven. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Sermon "Faith and Private Judgment" was obtained at the following link:

The citation from Fr. Martin Luther was taken from KDG Wittenberg's "Martin Luther's Life: The Imperial Diet of Worms" and was obtained at the following link:

The citation from St. Vincent of Lerens' treatise "A Commonitory For The Antiquity And Universality Of The Catholic Faith Against The Profane Novelties Of All Heresies" was obtained at the following link:

©2003, 2000, "A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism'" (Part 12), written by I. Shawn McElhinney. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author.


Go to Next Section of "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Return to Index Page "Prescription Against Traditionalism" Treatise


Go to Ultratraditionalist Page


Return to Matt's Catholic Apologetics Page