mons. marcel lefebvre: selected writings on obedience

7/28/2019 Mons. Marcel Lefebvre: Selected Writings on Obedience

1/18


2/18THOUGHTS ON OBEDIENCE Page 2

THOUGHTS ON OBEDIENCEA recent sermon at the SSPX chapel in St. Marys, Kansas (in January of 2013), was introduced and based upon the

following quote: The virtue of obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment.

Since obedience is such a touchy issue these days, we would like to examine obedience in much greater detail. We hope

to shine a clearer light on what obedience is and what it is not. We will quote from many traditional sourcesHoly

Scripture, the Magisterium of the Church, the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, the Saints, the moral theologians,

canon law, and other general sources, such the Catholic Encyclopedia and similar works, not to mention the guiding

lights of the SSPXArchbishop Lefebvre, the Superior Generals who followed him and the other bishops of the SSPX.

No human person has unlimited authority. All authority comes from God and must be used in a way that agrees with

His Divine Laws (John 19:11).

THE FIRST LIMIT OF AUTHORITY is Divine Law.Whatever God has ruled must be followed, it cannot be changed. Not even a priest, a bishop, or the Pope himself, can

change the laws of God. Rather, the Magisterium of the Church is entrusted with the task of guarding the Deposit of

Faith, not changing it (2 Timothy 1:14). Commands that go against the Divine Law MUST BE IGNORED AND

DISOBEYED, and in many circumstances we have an obligation to RESIST THEM ACTIVELY.

THE SECOND LIMIT OF AUTHORITY is the limit of Human Law.Human laws include ecclesiastical laws and secular laws. They have the primary goal ofexpressing Gods laws in

concrete circumstances. To the extent human laws reflect Divine Law, they protect the Common Good and must be

followed. To the extent they violate Divine Law and harm the Common Good, they MUST BE IGNORED AND POSSIBLY

RESISTED.

HUMAN LAWS HAVE LIMITS in the exercise of authority.These limits must be consistent with Divine Laws and cannot be exaggerated, or they will not be legitimate. If someone

acts outside the legitimate bounds of their authority, they do not have to be obeyed. Remember that, outside the

boundaries of their legitimate authority, those in authority do not have power over us . Rather, they become our

peers. While a policeman has authority to pull someone over for speeding, he cannot force a person to buy a particular

kind of car that wont allow the person to speed. He can only suggest a kind of car to buy, and his suggestion can be

taken by the person as the suggestion of a peer.

DEFINITIONS OF OBEDIENCEObedience is a moral virtue which inclines the will to comply with the will of one who commands(St. Thomas Aquinas).

The extent of obedience is only as wide as the authority of the person commanding. THUS, OBEDIENCE TO GOD HAS

NO LIMITS, WHEREAS OBEDIENCE TO MEN IS LIMITED (1) by higher laws, which must not be transgressed by the

commands issued by superiors to their subjects, and (2) by the limited competency of superiors. Sins contrary to

obedience are, by excess, servility or indiscriminate obedience (Fr. Dominic Prmmer, O.P., the moral theologian

whose manuals were used for the course of Moral Theology at Ecne in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre).



ST. THOMAS AQUINAS ON OBEDIENCE (Summa Theologica, IIa-IIae, Q. 104, Art. 5)It is written (Acts 5:29): "We ought to obey God rather than men." Now sometimes the things commanded by a

superior are against God. Therefore superiors are not to be obeyed in ALL things.

There are two reasons, for which a subject may not be bound to obey his superior in all things.

FIRSTLY, on account of the command of a higher power. For as a gloss says on Rom. 13:2, "They that resist[ Vulg.: 'He

that resisteth'] the power, resist the ordinance of God"(cf. St. Augustine, De Verb. Dom., viii). If a commissioner issues

an order, are you to comply, if it is contrary to the bidding of the proconsul? (for a proconsul is of higher rank than the

commissioner). Again if the proconsul commands one thing, and the emperor commands another (the emperor being

of higher rank than the proconsul), will you hesitate to disregard the proconsul and serve the emperor? [Of course not!]

Therefore, if the emperor commands one thing and God [commands] another, you must disregard the emperor and

obey God.

SECONDLY, a subject is not bound to obey his superior if the latter command him to do something in which he is not

subject to him. For Seneca says (De Beneficiis, iii):It is wrong to suppose that slavery falls upon the whole man: for the

better part of him is excepted. His body is subjected and assigned to his master, but his soul is his own. Consequently,

in matters touching the internal movement of the will, man is not bound to obey his fellow-man, but God alone.

(End of quote from St. Thomas Aquinas)

WHAT TO DO IF THERE IS A CLASH OF LAWS OR A CLASH OF COMMANDS OR DUTIESDuties conflict when two laws apparently oblige simultaneously and only one can be observed. As a matter of fact only

the more important one actually obliges. Thus, the Natural Law takes precedence over the Positive Law [and Divine Law

over Human Law]. Among the laws of nature, a law that prohibits [thou shalt not], precedes a law that commands [thou

shalt]. (Moral Theology, Jone & Adelman, 1953, Part Two : The Law, Chapter 4 : Cessation Of Obligation, 70. In A

Conflict Of Obligations The Higher One Takes Precedence).

As Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i, 5) "that which is not just seems to be no law at all": wherefore the force of a law

depends on the extent of its justice. Now in human affairs a thing is said to be just, from being right, according to the

rule of reason. But the first rule of reason is the law of nature (Natural Law). Consequently, every human law has just so

much of the nature of law, as it is derived from the law of nature. But if in any point it deflects from the law of nature

(Natural Law), it is no longer a law, but a perversion of law. . . .

BOUND TO A HIGHER LAW

How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that reflects and agrees with

the Moral Law or the Law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the Moral Law or the Law of God.

To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in Eternal Law and Natural

Law.

BLIND OBEDIENCEThere are some people who trust lawful authority to direct them without fail . When faced with a directive, theyneither seek to know options and consequences, nor think, reason or deliberate over their choices. They simply trusthat lawful authority will stay within the bounds of its power. This attitude is not true obedience, nor is it virtuous. Onlywhen lawful authority stays within the bounds of its power do we have to obey. However, such obedience is notblind. This is the kind of false obedience that Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of, when he says: Satans masterstroke is to



have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre & The Vatican; Preface

to 1st edition, Fr. Franois Laisney, December 8, 1988).

BISHOP TISSIER DE MALLERAIS ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SSPXJurisdiction is the fact that the bishop gives a flock to his priests, or that the Pope designates a flock for a bishop by

giving him a diocese. Jurisdiction is the power which a superior has over his flock and which a pastor has over his

sheep The traditional clergy has no ordinary authority over the faithful, for it has not received this authority which

we call jurisdiction. It has not received it by delegation, or by mandate of the Sovereign Pontiff, or the diocesan

bishops, or of regularly appointed parish priests ... In the present situation of crisis, it is obvious that your priests cannot

receive from their superiors in the Church, that is to say from the diocesan bishops and from the Pope, a flock, because

that flock is refused to them.

This authority over a flock must, therefore, be given to them in another manner: that is, by substitute, or supplied

jurisdiction ... Formerly, the parish priest had simply to speak and everybody obeyed. It was the word of the gospel

and everybody obeyed! Obviously this is no longer the case. An appropriate state of mind must therefore be

established in the faithful, with respect to the traditional clergy. There must be on the part of the laity a VOLUNTARY

[not obligatory] submission to the clergy

The hierarchy of the Society, and the only hierarchy it has, is a substitute hierarchy. Its priests have power directly over

the faithful in their priories, in their parishes, and in their traditional chapels. The district superiors have power over

their priests. But in principle that is all the power they have. According to the constitutions of the Society,they [the

district superiors] have, in principle, no power over the faithful. But on account of the crisis in the Church, they have a

supplied power over the faithful Likewise the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X has, in principle, no direct

power over the faithful, but he will all the same exercise his authority for important questions and difficult matters,

which the simple priest, or even the district superiors cannot resolve ...

[The faithful may say] "What right have they to require something of us? We are indeed free! Let us stay free! We arefree to place ourselves under their authority or not." Such a mentality is also a danger, which is opposed to the sense of

the Church. This would be to take advantage of the crisis in the Church, because of the appearance of freedom which it

gives. It is especially dangerous for the lay apostolate where, it is true, there is a large part of freedom. For very often

the tasks performed by lay people are not the specific tasks of a priest, such as, for example, to spread the Christian

social order in the State. There is, therefore, a certain element of autonomy in the Catholic action of the laity. This is

true. But it is not the sense of the Church to dispense oneselfentirely from every link with the hierarchy. To say this on

account of the crisis in the Church, because "the traditional clergy has no ordinary power over us"would be to really lack

a sense of the Church.

Let us therefore avoid these two snags of either going too far, or not going far enough ... You see, then, that I must insiston the moral necessity of an appropriate state of mind in the faithful. There are special moral requirements linked to

this time of crisis. This exceptional situation, which gives only a supplied jurisdiction to the priests, requires on the

part of the clergy, of course, QUITE SOME TACT, PRUDENCE, AND WISDOM [comment: rather than intimidation, arm-

twisting, threats and false reasoning on obedience]. FOR THEY CANNOT DEMAND TO EXERCISE A STRICT RIGHT, hence

the clergy has to understand the principles which are relevant. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, conference given to the

Catholic Study Groups in Paris, March 9-10, 1991, cf. US SSPX District website,

http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm).
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmhttp://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmhttp://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm



We will refer to Bishop Tissier de Mallerais explanation of the authority within supplied jurisdiction in later articles, and

look at how that applies in concrete circumstances. For now, it is enough that we have familiarized ourselves with the

text.

Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith , the Faith of the eternal Churchupheld by his childhood catechism. The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of everypriest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, disobediencebecomes a grave duty.(Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Friends & Benefactors, no. 9, 1975).

AN OPEN LETTER TO CONFUSED CATHOLICS

by Archbishop Lefebvre

Chapter 18: True and False Obedience

Indiscipline is everywhere in the Church. Committees of priests send demands to their bishops, bishopsdisregard pontifical exhortations, even the recommendations and decisions of the Council are not respected

and yet one never hears uttered the word disobedience, except as applied to Catholics who wish to

remain faithful to Tradition and just simply keep the Faith.

Obedience is a serious matter; to remain united to the Churchs Magisterium and particularly to the Supreme

Pontiff is one of the conditions of salvation. We are deeply aware of this and nobody is more attached to the

present reigning successor of Peter, or has been more attached to his predecessors, than we are . I am

speaking here of myself and ofthe many faithful driven out of the churches, and also of the priests who are

obliged to celebrate Mass in barns as in the French Revolution, and to organize alternative catechism classes

in town and country.

We are attached to the Pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and the teachings of all his

predecessors. It is the very definition of the successor of Peter that he is the keeper of this deposit. Pius IX

teaches us in Pastor Aeternus: The Holy Ghost has not in fact been promised to the successors of Peter to

permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep strictly and to expound

faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.

The authority delegated by Our Lord to the Pope, the Bishops and the priesthood in general is for the service

of faith. To make use of law, institutions and authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and no longer to

transmit life, is to practice spiritual abortion or contraception.

This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity with our Catholic Faith, as

it has been taught for two thousand years, but we reject everything that is opposed to it.

For the fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of all Catholics during the

pontificate of Paul VI. How could a Pope, true successor of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost,

preside over the most vast and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of



time, something that no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? One day this question will have to be

answered.

In the first half of the Fifth Century, St. Vincent of Lrins, who was a soldier before consecrating himself to God

and acknowledged having been tossed for a long time on the sea of the world before finding shelter in the

harbor of faith, spoke thus about the development of dogma: Will there be no religious advances in Christs

Church? Yes, certainly, there will be some very important ones, of such a sort as to constitute progress in the

faith and not change. What matters is thatin the course of agesknowledge, understanding and wisdom

grow in abundance and in depth, in each and every individual as in the churches; provided always that there is

identity of dogma and continuity of thought. Vincent, who had experienced the shock of heresies, gives a rule

of conduct which still holds good after fifteen hundred years: What should the Catholic Christian therefore

do if some part of the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion and the

universal faith? What else can he do but PREFER THE GENERAL BODY WHICH IS HEALTHY TO THE

GANGRENOUS AND CORRUPTED LIMB? And if some new contagion strives to poison, not just a small part of

the Church but the whole Church at once, then again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity

which obviously cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.

In the Rogation-tide litanies the Church teaches us to say: We beseech thee O Lord, maintain in Thy holy

religion the Sovereign Pontiff and all the orders of ecclesiastical hierarchy. This means that such a disaster

could very well happen.

In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. ALL

THE FAITHFUL CAN AND SHOULD RESIST WHATEVER INTERFERES WITH THEIR FAITH, supported by the

catechism of their childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption,

THERE IS AN OVERRIDING DUTY TO DISOBEY.

It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we

have THE DUTY TO DISOBEY AND KEEP THE TRADITION. Let us add this, that the greatest service we can

render to the Church and to the successor of Peter is TO REJECT THE REFORMED AND LIBERAL CHURCH. Jesus

Christ, Son of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable. On two occasions I have heard emissaries of

the Holy See say to me: The social Kingdom of Our Lord is no longer possible in our times and we must

ultimately accept the plurality of religions. This is exactly what they have said to me.

Well, I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a liberal, modernist religion which has

its worship, its priests, its faith, its catechism, its ecumenical Bible translated jointly by Catholics, Jews,

Protestants and Anglicans, all things to all men, pleasing everybody by frequently sacrificing the interpretation

of the Magisterium. We do not accept this ecumenical Bible. There is the Bible of God; it is His Word which we

have not the right to mix with the words of men.

When I was a child, the Church had the same faith everywhere, the same sacraments and the same Sacrifice of

the Mass. If anyone had told me then that it would be changed, I would not have believed him. Throughout

the breadth of Christendom we prayed to God in the same way. THE NEW LIBERAL AND MODERNIST

RELIGION HAS SOWN DIVISION.



Christians are divided within the same family because of this confusion which has established itself; they no

longer go to the same Mass and they no longer read the same books. Priests no longer know what to do;

either they OBEY BLINDLY what their superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith of their

childhood and youth, renouncing the promises they made when they took the Anti-Modernist Oath at the

moment of their ordination; OR ON THE OTHER HAND THEY RESIST, but with the feeling of separating

themselves from the Pope, who is our father and the Vicar of Christ. In both cases, what a heartbreak! Many

priests have died of sorrow before their time.

How many more have been forced to abandon the parishes where for years they had practiced their ministry,

victims of open persecution by their hierarchy in spite of the support of the faithful whose pastor was being

torn away! I have before me the moving farewell of one of them to the people of the two parishes of which he

was priest: In our interview on the... the Bishop addressed an ultimatum to me, to accept or reject the new

religion; I could not evade the issue. Therefore, to remain faithful to the obligation of my priesthood, to

remain faithful to the Eternal Church... I was forced and coerced against my will to retire... Simple honesty and

above all my honor as a priest impose on me an obligation to be loyal, precisely in this matter of divine gravity

(the Mass)... This is the proof of faithfulness and love that I must give to God and men and to you in particular,

and it is on this that I shall be judged on the last day along with all those to whom was entrusted the same

deposit (of faith).

In the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, practically all the clergy have been driven out of the churches after the

departure of Bishop Castro-Mayer, because they were not willing to abandon the Mass of all time which they

celebrated there until recently.

Divisions affects the smallest manifestations of piety. In Val-de-Marne, the diocese got the police to eject

twenty-five Catholics who used to recite the Rosary in a church which had been deprived of a priest for a

long period of years. In the diocese of Metz, the bishops brought in the Communist mayor to cancel the loanof a building to a group of traditionalists. In Canada six of the faithful were sentenced by a Court, which is

permitted by the law of that country to deal with this kind of matter, for insisting on receiving Holy

Communion on their knees. The Bishop of Antigonish had accused them of deliberately disturbing the order

and the dignity of religious service. The judge gave the disturbers a conditional discharge for six months!

According to the Bishop, Christians are forbidden to bend the knee before God! Last year, the pilgrimage of

young people to Chartres ended with a Mass in the Cathedral gardens because the Mass of St. Pius V was

banned from the Cathedral itself. A fortnight later, the doors were thrown open for a spiritual concert in the

course of which dances were performed by a former Carmelite nun.

TWO RELIGIONS CONFRONT EACH OTHER; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a

choice, but the choice is not between obedience and disobedience. What is suggested to us, what we are

expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But

even the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.

We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the Church has taught for two

thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly organized and directed, and by this token one can truly

believe that the master mind is not a man, but Satan himself. FOR IT IS A MASTER-STROKE OF SATAN TO



GET CATHOLICS TO DISOBEY THE WHOLE OF TRADITION IN THE NAME OF OBEDIENCE. A typical example is

furnished by the aggiornamento of the religious societies. By obedience, monks and nuns are made TO

DISOBEY THE LAWS AND CONSTITUTIONS OF THEIR FOUNDERS, which they swore to observe when they

made their profession. Obedience in this case should have been a categorical refusal. Even legitimate

authority cannot command a reprehensible and evil act. Nobody can oblige anyone to change his monastic

vows into simple promises, just as nobody can make us become Protestants or modernists. St. Thomas

Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes so far in the Summa Theologica as to ask whether the

fraternal correction prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made all

the appropriate distinctions he replies: ONE CAN EXERCISE FRATERNAL CORRECTION TOWARDS SUPERIORS

WHEN IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH.

()

WHAT WILL TOMORROWS RELIGION BE IF WE DO NOT RESIST?

You will be tempted to say: But what can we do about it? It is a bishop who says this or that. Look, this

document comes from the Catechetical Commission or some other official commission.

That way there is nothing left for you but to lose your faith. But you do not have the right to react in that way.

St. Paul has warned us: Even if an angel from Heaven came to tell you anything other than what I have

taught you, DO NOT LISTEN TO HIM.

Such is the secret of TRUE OBEDIENCE.

(End of extracts from chapter 18 from Archbishop Lefebvres book, OPEN LETTER TO CONFUSED CATHOLICS)

DEGREES OF OBEDIENCE2357. The Degrees of ObedienceAscetical authors (meaning authors on the spiritual life)distinguishthree degrees of

obedience: (a) external obedience, which per-forms with exactness the thing commanded though there is no heart or

willingness in its act; (b) internal obedience, which joins willingness to external submission though the judgment doubts

the wisdom or value or good faith of the command; (c) blind obedience, which submits the judgment itself to the supe-

rior's judgment, provided of course the thing ordered is not clearly sinful (Matt. 9:9; Gen. 22:3 sqq.; Matt. 2:13 sqq.).

(Moral Theology, McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

Notice that the above degrees of obedience are quoted by spiritual authors. Usually, in the spiritual life, the commands

given by the spiritual director are dealing with perfecting a soul. The commands may be varied, but they all (we

presume) are GOOD IN THEMSELVES, and not sinful, or in danger of leading to sin.

For example, we have the story of the monastery abbot testing the obedience of one his monks in the presence of all

the community, by telling to take his staff an plant it in the garden. The monk winced. He felt it was a stupid thing to do,

and perhaps felt he was being ridiculed or humiliated. Nevertheless, he overcame his repugnance at the command and

did what he was told, even though it made no sense to him. He returned and informed the abbot that he had fulfilled

the command. The Abbot then told him, in the presence of all the community, to go back and water itand to continue

watering the staff three times a day! The monk couldnt believe what he was hearing! Nevertheless, he did as he was

told. You can imagine the comments and behind the scenes laughter that must have gone on among the other monks.



However, a short while later, it was noticed that the old wooden staff had sprouted a blossom, a flower! God rewarded

his blind obedience with a miracle!

THE CRAFTY USE OF OBEDIENCE IN DESTROYING TRADITIONMany people believe that true obedience is always blind. The above example was in the ascetical life, and the

command was not sinful, nor a remote or a proximate occasion to sin. In the current crisis, certain commands, though

not immediately sinful, can lead to a weakening or an eventual destruction of the Faith. Sadly and imprudently, many

today believe that if a person in authority makes a decision, or gives a command, that this decision or command should

be followed without question, simply because a person in authority gave it. Within the Catholic Church, many laity

believe that whatever a priest or bishop says, should be followed without question. While there are limited

circumstances and situations in which a person would be obligated to follow by trusting only in the source of the

directive, authentic obedience is never blindespecially when it deals with essential issues such as maintenance and

protection of the true Faith amidst widespread materialif not formal at timesheresy. As a virtue related to justice,

the exercise of obedience requires the use of prudence and knowledge of rights and obligations. Without such

knowledge, a person risks acting in a manner inconsistent with virtue.

The new Liberal and Modernist religion has sown division. Christians are divided within the same family because of

this confusion which has established itself; they no longer go to the same Mass and they no longer read the same

books. Priests no longer know what to do; either they OBEY BLINDLY what their superiors impose on them, and lose to

some degree the faith OR ON THE OTHER HAND THEY RESIST, but with the feeling of separating themselves from the

Pope, who is our father and the Vicar of Christ. In both cases, what a heartbreak! (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to

Confused Catholics, chapter 18).

2358. Obedience is less perfect than the theological virtues, since it belongs to the moral virtues, which are not

directly concerned with God Himself but with the means to union with Him (I Tim. 1:5). Obedience is inferior to re-

ligion, since, while obedience consists in veneration of the law, religion consists in veneration of God Himself. (Moral

Theology, McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. ALL THE

FAITHFUL CAN AND SHOULD RESIST WHATEVER INTERFERES WITH THEIR FAITH, supported by the catechism of their

childhood. If they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, THERE IS AN OVERRIDING DUTY

TO DISOBEY. It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and tendencies, that we

have THE DUTY TO DISOBEY AND KEEP THE TRADITION. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Open Letter to Confused Catholics,

chapter 18).

Human laws cannot be contrary to the divine law, from which they derive all their force and efficacy, so that a law

which prescribes something morally wrong is no law at all, and cannot exert any binding force on the conscience. A

parent is bound by natural, divine, and human law to bring up his children properly. (Manual of Moral Theology, Fr.

Thomas Slater, Vol. 1, Book 3, ch. 3)

WHEN ONE IS NOT OBLIGED TO OBEY2361. WHEN OBEDIENCE IS NOT LAWFUL OR NOT OBLIGATORY.

Obedience to a human superior is not lawful or not obligatory in those matters in which the superior has no authority

to command. (Moral Theology, McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

(a) It is not lawful to obey a human superior when his command is clearly contrary to the command of a higher superior,

and therefore unlawful. Thus, one may not obey any human superior when he orders sin, even a venial sin, for we



must obey God rather than man (Acts, 5:29; Rom. 3:8); neither may one obey a subordinate official who commands

something clearly opposed to the law, or to the regulations of his own superior. It does not belong to the subject,

however, to sit in judgment on his superior, and hence, unless the unlawfulness of a command is manifest, the subject

must presume that it is lawful. (Moral Theology, McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

(b) It is not necessary to obey a human superior when his command exceeds his competency, or when he orders

things over which he has no control. (Moral Theology, McHugh, O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

It is clear, too, that no superior may command the execution of what is physically or morally impossible, and generally

a subject should not be required to practice heroic virtue (e.g., to expose his life to danger). (Moral Theology, McHugh,

O.P. & Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, Q. 2, Art. 6).

EXAMPLES OF HOLY DISOBEDIENCEDid the Apostles obey the Council when commanded by the Council of the Sanhedrin NOT TO PREACH about the things

the Council did not want them to preach aboutnamely, Jesus Christ? The Council of the Sanhedrin was technically in

charge of the religious and legal matters for the Jews. To quote the recent St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue

of obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment. Shouldnt the Apostles have subjected

their judgment to that of their religious superiors and acknowledged that the Council knew better, and simply obeyed

without question, seeing the will of God in that command? It would not have been a sin to stop talking publicly about

Our Lord. The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses. All things, therefore, whatsoever they shall say

to you, observe and do(Matthew 23:2-3). Then they could have dialogued with the Council and sought to obtain

legitimate permission to talk about Jesus.

Did Archbishop Lefebvre obey the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, as well as the command of the Holy Father, a

little later, that told him to say the New Mass? To quote the recent St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue of

obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment. Should not Archbishop Lefebvre have

subjected his judgment to that of Vatican II and the Holy Father, and acknowledged that they knew better, and simply

obeyed without question, seeing the will of God in that command? If the Pope and thousands of bishops judged that the

New Mass was not wrong or sinful, then why didnt Archbishop Lefebvre show some humility and do what he was told

to do?

When Archbishop Lefebvre was told by Pope Paul VI to close his SSPX seminary in 1975, why did the Archbishop not

humbly obey and close his seminary? He could have then legally appealed and had negotiations to have it reopened?

Should he not have followed the principle announced recently at a St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue of

obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment? The Archbishop neither subjected his will,

nor his judgment to his superior! Why not?

When Archbishop Lefebvre was suspended by Pope Paul VI in 1976, why did he continue to do confirmations and

ordinations? Should not have Archbishop Lefebvre subjected his judgment to that of the Holy Father, and acknowledged

that he knew betterafter all, he was the Pope and simply obeyed without question, seeing the will of God in that

command? He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me,

despiseth Him that sent Me(Luke 10:16).

When, during the 1988 Protocol negotiations, Archbishop Lefebvre was told that he did not need any bishops for the

SSPX, for any Conciliar bishop in world would ordain his priests after the Archbishops death why did he refuse such

an offer, could he not humbly submit to his superior and accept that statement. Should he not have followed the



principle announced recently at a St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue of obedience means, not only subjecting

your will, but also your judgment?

When he was asked to postpone the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations why did the Archbishop not comply? It would not

have been a sin to postpone the Consecrations! He could have said: It is the Holy Father who really wants it! He is the

Pope, after all! Should henot have followed the principle announced recently at a St. Marys sermon on obedience:

The virtue of obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment?

When Rome sent a car to Ecne, the night before the Consecrations, and asked the Archbishop to get into that car and

come to Rome why did the Archbishop not comply? It would not have been a sin to postpone the Consecrations!

Should he not have followed the principle announced recently at a St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue of

obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment? It would not have been a sin to go to Rome!

He could have said, It is the Holy Father who really wants it! He is the Pope, after all!

Archbishop Lefebvre had submitted one name after another to Rome as his desired candidates for consecration to the

episcopacy, but Rome refused one candidate after another, saying: They do not fit the profile we require. Why, then,

did the Archbishop consecrate some of those candidates when his superiors in Rome had refused them as not suitable?

Should he not have followed the principle announced recently at a St. Marys sermon on obedience: The virtue ofobedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment? He could have said, It is the Holy Father

who really wants it! He is the Pope, and after all, he is my superior and he knows best!

Hmmmm! Just a few examples and thoughts on obedience from the life of Archbishop Lefebvre a man for whom we

are praying that he might be beatified! He knew when to obey and when to disobey. Thanks be to God!

THE REASONS BEHIND ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRES DISOBEDIENCE

Having looked at a whole series of examples where Archbishop Lefebvre disobeyed and did not subject his will, nor hisjudgment, to his superiors in Rome and the Holy Father. Let us now enter his mind to see the thinking behind these

examples. We will examine some quotes of his that explain his disobedience.

JANUARY 30, 1974, TOURCOING

We are being made to disobey all tradition through obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Tourcoing, January 30, 1974)

1975, LETTER TO FRIENDS AND BENEFACTORS, NO. 9

For the problem of Ecne is the problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences, distressed, divided and

torn for the past ten years by the agonizing dilemma--whether to OBEY AND RISK LOSING ONES FAITH, or DISOBEYAND KEEP ONES FAITH INTACT; whether to obey and join in the destroying of the Church, or to disobey and work for

Her preservation and continuation; whether to accept the reformed liberal Church, or to remain a member of the

Catholic Church .

We should like to reply to the objection that will certainly be levied against it in the matter of obedience, and of the

jurisdiction held by those who seek to impose this liberalization on us. Our reply isIn the Church, law and jurisdiction

are at the service of the Faith, the chief end of the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a

lessening of our Faith.



We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they are at the service of the Faith. But who can be the judge of that? The

Tradition, the Faith taught for 2000 years. Every Catholic CAN AND MUST RESIST ANYONE IN THE CHURCH WHO LAYS

HANDS ON HIS FAITH, the Faith of the eternal Church, upheld by his childhood catechism.

The defense of his Faith is the first duty of every Christian, more especially of every priest and bishop. Wherever an

order carries with it the danger of corrupting Faith and morals, DISOBEDIENCE BECOMES A GRAVE DUTY.

It is because we believe that our whole faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and changes,THAT IT IS OUR

DUTY TO DISOBEY, AND TO MAINTAIN TRADITIONS. The greatest service we can render the Catholic Church, the

successor of Peter the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say NO! to the reformed Liberal Church (Archbishop

Lefebvre, Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 9, 1975)

NOVEMBER 1975, OTTAWA, CANADA

We are thus in a state of decomposition and we cannot accept this situation. This is why our RESISTANCE gives the

impression that we are attempting to stand in the way of all this change. I have been requested to close my seminary

at Ecne. Why do I REFUSE TO OBEY this order? Because I most emphatically do not wish my seminarians to become

Protestants, because I do not wish my seminarians to become Modernists, because I do not wish my seminarians to lose

their Faith and their moral perspective. Accordingly, it appears to me that I have no choice but to resist this order.

I am asked how it is that I can REFUSE ORDERS, WHICH COME FROM ROME. Indeed, these orders to come from Rome,

but from which Rome? I believe in Eternal Rome, the Rome of the Sovereign Pontiffs, the Rome which dispenses the

very life of the Church, the Rome which transmits the true Tradition of the Church. I am considered disobedient, but I

am moved to ask why have those who issue orders which in themselves are blameworthy been given their authority.

The Pope, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests have been given their authority for the purpose of transmitting life,

the spiritual life, the supernatural life, eternal life, just as parents and society as a whole have been given their authority

to transmit and protect life.

We are not authorized to transmit death; society is not permitted to pass laws, which authorize abortion, because

abortion is death. In like manner, the Pope, the cardinals, the bishops and priests exist as such to transmit and sustain

spiritual life. Unfortunately, it is apparent that many of them today no longer transmit or sustain life, but rather

authorize SPIRITUAL ABORTION.

These, then, are the reasons why, in the face of an order to close my seminary, I REFUSE TO OBEY. (Archbishop

Lefebvre, Ottawa, Canada, November 1975)

SEPTEMBER 3, 1977 POITIERS

We are incriminated because we have chosen the so-called way of disobedience. But we must understand clearly what

this way of disobedience consists of. I think we may truthfully say that, if we have chosen the way of apparent

disobedience, we have chosen the way of true obedience.

Then I think that those who accuse us have perhaps chosen the way ofapparent obedience which, in reality, is

disobedience. Because those who follow the new way, who follow the novelties, who attach themselves to new

principles contrary to those taught us by Tradition, by all the Popes, by all the Councils, they are the ones who have

chosen the way of disobedience. Because one cannot say that one obeys authority today while disobeying the entire

Tradition. Following Tradition is precisely the sign of our obedience. This is why we cannot say that we disobey the

Pope of today and that, for that reason we disobey the Pope of yesterday. We obey the Pope of yesterday,

consequently, we obey the one of today; consequently, we obey the one of tomorrow. For it is not possible that the



Popes teach different things; it is not possible that the Popes gainsay each other, that they contradict each other. And

this is why we are convinced that in being faithful to all the Popes of yesterday, to all the Councils of yesterday, we are

faithful to the Pope of today, to the Council of today and to the Council of tomorrow and the Pope of tomorrow.

We are in apparent disobedience, in reality, we are not disobedient, but obedient. How are we obedient? In believing

in our catechism and because we always keep the same Credo, the same Ten Commandments, the same Mass, the same

Sacraments, the same prayerthe Pater Nosterof yesterday, today and tomorrow. This is why we are obedient and not

disobedient . Consequently, we have a clear conscience whatever may happen to us. If we are apparently disobedient

we are really obedient. This is our situation. And it is right for us to tell this, to explain it, because it is we who continue

the Church. Really disobedient are those who corrupt the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments and our prayers, those

who put the Rights of Man in the place of the Ten Commandments, those who transform the Credo. Because that is

what the new catechisms do. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Poitiers, September 3, 1977)

1977, DECEMBER 8, ECNE

In the circumstances in which we live, in the confusion in which the Church finds herself today, we can wonder: But

where is this obedience today? How is obedience practiced in holy Church today?

We must not forget that our first obedience, our fundamental and unconditional obedience must be to Our Lord JesusChrist, to God! Indeed, it is He who asks for our obedience; He it is who commands our submission. The Good Lord has

done all so that we may be enlightened in our obedience. For two thousand years of the existence of the Church, the

light was given by Revelation, by the Apostles, by the successors of the Apostles, by Peter and by the successors of Peter

If an error was made by some so that the transmission of the truth was incorrect, the Church corrected it. The Church

took care to transmit to us the truth conformed to the will of God.

Therefore, when we have to choose either to obey the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ or to obey the message of

men, transmitted to us by men, insofar as the message transmitted by men CORRESPONDS TO THE MESSAGE OF OUR

LORD Jesus Christ,we have no right not to obey them to the last iota. But, in the measure in which these orders, these

obligations given to us, DO NOT correspond to those Our Lord Jesus Christ gives us, WE CANNOT. We must obey God

rather than men. In these occasions these men do not fulfill the function for which they have received the authority the

Good Lord has given them.

Thus St. Paul himself said: If an angel from heaven or myself remember it is the great St. Paul himself who speaks

If an angel from heaven or myself would teach you a truth contrary to what has been taught to you originally, do not

listen to us! Today we are living this; we are faced with this reality. I would myself say to you very willingly, my dear

friends, I would repeat this word very willingly: If it would happen that I teach you something contrary to what the

whole Tradition of the Church has taught, do not listen to me! At that moment you have THE RIGHT NOT TO OBEY ME,

and you have THE DUTY NOT TO OBEY ME! Because I would not be faithful to the mission given to me by the Good

Lord.This is what our obedience ought to be: to obey God before all else. This is the only way to reach Eternal Life.

Obedience is the way that leads to Eternal Life. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecne, December 8, 1977)

JUNE 29, 1977, ECNE

They talk to us of obedience. We wish to and we try to obey more and more every day the Church of all time founded by

Jesus Christ, Son of God and Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity but we refuse to obey Masonry, with its promotion

of liturgical reform, resulting in the naturalization of the Incarnation.The effects of the liturgical reforms are every

day more clear and obvious to all. The ecumenical Mass leads logically to apostasy. One cannot serve two masters. One

cannot nourish oneself indifferently with truth and error because error with its evil tendencies will triumph over the

more austere and demanding truth . We remind those, that maintain that we are distancing ourselves from the



Church, that EACH OF THE FAITHFUL HAS THE DUTY OF NOT OBEYING ORDERS CONTRARY TO THE FAITH. The

obedience to ecclesiastical superiors finds a limit, in fact, when something harmful or clearly damaging is proposed or

ordered in the name of obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecne, June 29, 1977)

JULY, 1978, USA

Interview with a leading USA Catholic Newspaper. Never published due to fear of reprisals by the diocesan bishops.

QUESTION: What about those bishops who are not liberals but still oppose and criticize you?

ARCHBISHOPS LEFEBVRE: Their opposition is based on an inaccurate understanding of obedience to the pope. It is,

perhaps, a well-meant obedience, which could be traced to the ultramontane obedience of the last century, which in

those days was good because the popes were good. However, today, it is A BLIND OBEDIENCE, which has little to do

with a practice and acceptance of true Catholic faith.

At this stage it is relevant to remind Catholics all over the world that OBEDIENCE TO THE POPE IS NOT A PRIMARY

VIRTUE. The hierarchy of virtues starts with the three theological virtues of faith, hope and charity followed by the four

cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude. Obedience is a derivative of the cardinal virtue of

justice. Therefore it is far from ranking first in the hierarchy of virtues.

Certain bishops do not wish to give the slightest impression that they are opposed to the Holy Father. I understand how

they feel. It is evidently very unpleasant, if not very painful. I certainly do not like to be in opposition to the Holy Father,

but I have no choice considering what is coming to us from Rome at present, which is in opposition to the Catholic

doctrine and is unacceptable to Catholics.

QUESTION: How can you be loyal to the church and disobedient to the pope?

ARCHBISHOPS LEFEBVRE: One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between BLIND

OBEDIENCE and the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE. Indiscriminate obedience is actually A SIN AGAINST THE VIRTUE OF

OBEDIENCE. So if we disobey in order to practice the virtue of obedience, rather than submit to unlawful commands

contrary to Catholic moral teachings, all one has to do is to consult any Catholic theology books to realize we are not

sinning against the virtue of obedience. (Archbishop Lefebvre, USA, July, 1978).

JUNE 27, 1980, ECNE

So we believed in the DUTY OF DISOBEDIENCE, if indeed it was disobedience! To obey, but to obey the immemorial

Church, to obey all the Popes, to obey the whole Catholic Church. So we thought it our DUTY TO DISOBEY those

cardinals who asked us to adopt, IN PART, Modernist errors, because we did not want to poison our souls and our

hearts with the errors which have been condemned by our holy patron, Saint Pius X, and we remain faithful to the anti-

Modernist Oaththe oath which Saint Pius X requires us to take. We remain faithful to that. (Archbishop Lefebvre,

Ordination Sermon, June 27, 1980).

AUGUST 31, 1981, ARGENTINA

Then, when they tell us, You should obey, we answer them, WE DONT WANT TO OBEY the enemies of the Church.

DO NOT WANT TO OBEY those who destroy the Church. I do not admit it. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference in

Argentina, August 31, 1981).



MAY, 1982, MONTREAL, CANADA

What should I do? I am told: You must obey. You are disobedient. You do not have the right to continue doing what

you are doing, for you divide the Church. What is a law? What is a decree?What obliges to obedience? A law, Leo

XIII says, is the ordering of reason to the common good, but not towards the common evil. This is so obvious that if a

rule is ordered towards an evil, THEN IT IS NO LONGER A LAW. Leo XIII said this explicitly in his encyclical Libertas. A

law, which is not for the common good, is not a law. Consequently ONE IS NOT OBLIGED TO OBEY IT. (Archbishop

Lefebvre, Conference in Montreal, Canada, May, 1982).

SEPTEMBER, 1986, ECNE

The new Code of Canon Law contains articles which are contrary to the mission of the Church. When it is permitted to

give Holy Communion to a Protestant, it cannot be denied that is contrary to the mission of the Church. When the

affirmation is made that there are two supreme authorities in the Church, it cannot be denied that this is contrary to the

mission of the Church. This definition of the Church as the People of God in which all of the ministries basically can be

found and in which there is no longer any distinction between the clergy and the lay people, is contrary to the dogma.

All of this is contrary to the mission of the Church. The fundamental principles of the Code of Canon Law are being

destroyed! HOW ARE WE EXPECTED TO SUBMIT AND OBEY?. This is why we must absolutely maintain our traditional

line, in spite of the appearance of disobedience and the persecutions of those who use their authority in an unjust and

often illegal manner. (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference Ecne, September, 1986).

MARCH 29, 1988

The principles governing obedience are known and are so in conformity with sane reason and common sense that one

is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like, They prefer to be mistaken with the pope,

than to be with the truth against the pope.

That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church. Obedience presupposes an authority

which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those instituted by God, have no authority other thanto attain the end apportioned them by God and not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in

opposition to the law for which this power was given it, such an authority HAS NO RIGHT TO BE OBEYED and one

MUST DISOBEY IT.

This need to disobey is accepted with regard to a family father who would encourage his daughter to prostitute

herself, with regard to the civil authority which would oblige doctors to perform abortions and kill innocent souls, yet

people accept IN EVERY CASE the authority of the Pope, who is supposedly infallible in his government and in all words.

Such an attitude betrays a sad ignorance of history and of the true nature of papal infallibility . And here is what Pope

Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20,1888: If, then, by any one in authority, something be

sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth,

such an enactment can have no binding force of law. And a little further on, he says: But where the power to

command is wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance of

God, then OBEDIENCE [to that law] IS UNLAWFUL, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God.

Now OUR DISOBEDIENCE is motivated by the need to KEEP THE CATHOLIC FAITH. The orders being given us clearly

express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit, without reserve, to the Second Vatican Council, to

the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are

undermining our Faith and destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction

of the Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.



Now all the theologians, worthy of this name, teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the Church, WE CANNOT

OBEY HIM (Vitoria: Obras, pp.486-487; Suarez: De fide, disp.X, sec.VI, no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book

2, Ch.29; Cornelius Lapid: ad Gal. 2,11, etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.

The principles governing obedience to the popes authority are the same as those governing relations between a

delegated authority and its subjects. They do not apply to the Divine Authority, which is always infallible and

indefectible and hence incapable of failing. To the extent that God has communicated His infallibility to the pope and to

the extent that the pope intends to use this infallibility, which involves four very precise conditions in its exercise, there

can be no failure.

Outside of these precisely fixed conditions, THE AUTHORITY OF THE POPE IS FALLIBLE and so the criteria which bind us

to obedience apply to his acts. Hence it is not inconceivable that there could be a DUTY OF DISOBEDIENCE with regard

to the pope. The authority which was granted him was granted him for precise purposes and in the last resort for the

glory of the Holy Trinity, for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the salvation of souls.

Whatever would be carried out by the pope in opposition to this purpose would have NO LEGAL VALUE and NO RIGHT

TO BE OBEYED, nay, rather, it would OBLIGE US TO DISOBEY, in order for us to remain obedient to God and faithful to

the Church.

This holds true for everything that the recent popes have commanded in the name of Religious Liberty or Ecumenism

since the Council: all the reforms carried out under this heading are deprived of any legal standing or force of law. In

these cases the popes use their authority contrary to the end for which this authority was given them. THEY HAVE A

RIGHT TO BE DISOBEYED BY US. (Archbishop Lefebvre, March 29, 1988).

JUNE 29, 1988, ECNE

Therefore, even if the authorities of the Church wish for you to go with them and become Liberals with them, not only

do you have the right not to obey, nay, even more, you have the DUTY TO DISOBEY! (Archbishop Lefebvre, June 29,1988).

UNREFERENCED QUOTE

Satans masterstroke is to have succeeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience. (Archbishop

Lefebvre & The Vatican; Preface to 1st edition, unreferenced quote of the Archbishop by Fr. Franois Laisney, SSPX)

CONCLUSION

AUTHORITY

Obedience presupposes a command or a law; and a command or laws presuppose the one issuing them having a

legitimate authority. It was already noted that no human person has unlimited authority. The only authority he or she

has is strictly within their particular religious or secular domain. All authority comes from God and must be used in a

way that agrees with His Divine Laws (John 19:11). Whatever God has ruled must be followed, it cannot be changed.

Not even a priest, a bishop, or the Pope himself, can change the laws of God. Rather, the Magisterium of the Church is

entrusted with the task of guarding the Deposit of Faith, not changing it (2 Timothy 1:14). Human laws include

ecclesiastical laws and secular laws. They have the primary goal of expressing Gods laws in concrete circumstances.

Human laws have limits in the exercise of authority. These limits must be consistent with Divine Laws and cannot be

exaggerated, or they will not be legitimate. To the extent human laws reflect Divine Law; they protect the Common

Good and must be followed. Commands or laws that go against the Divine Law must be ignored and disobeyed, and in

many circumstances we have an obligation to resist them actively.



The extent of obedience is only as wide as the authority of the person commanding. THUS, OBEDIENCE TO GOD HAS

NO LIMITS, WHEREAS OBEDIENCE TO MEN IS LIMITED (1) by higher laws, which must not be transgressed by the

commands issued by superiors to their subjects, and (2) by the limited competency of superiors. Sins contrary to

obedience are, by excess, servility or indiscriminate obedience [meaning unquestioning slave-like obedience in all

things] (Fr. Dominic Prmmer, O.P., the moral theologian whose manuals were used for the course of Moral

Theology at Ecne in the time of Archbishop Lefebvre).

THE AUTHORITY OF THE SSPXBISHOP TISSIER DE MALLERAIS SAYS: The traditional clergy has no ordinary authority over the faithful, for it has not

received this authority which we call jurisdiction. It has not received it by delegation, or by mandate of the Sovereign

Pontiff, or the diocesan bishops, or of regularly appointed parish priests ... This authority over a flock must, therefore, be

given to them in another manner: that is, by substitute, or supplied jurisdiction ... Formerly, the parish priest had

simply to speak and everybody obeyed. It was the word of the gospel and everybody obeyed! Obviously this is no

longer the case. An appropriate state of mind must therefore be established in the faithful, with respect to the

traditional clergy. There must be on the part of the laity a VOLUNTARY [not obligatory] submission to the clergy

[SSPX] priests have power directly over the faithful in their priories, in their parishes, and in their traditional chapels

[but only through supplied jurisdiction, meaning, it is asked by the faithful]. The district superiors have power over thei

priests. But in principle that is all the power they have. According to the constitutions of the Society, they [the district

superiors] have, in principle, no power over the faithful. But on account of the crisis in the Church, they have a

supplied power over the faithful Likewise, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X has, in principle, no

direct power over the faithful

This exceptional situation, which gives only a supplied jurisdiction to the priests, requires on the part of the clergy, of

course, QUITE SOME TACT, PRUDENCE, AND WISDOM [comment: rather than intimidation, arm-twisting, threats and

false reasoning on obedience]. FOR THEY CANNOT DEMAND TO EXERCISE A STRICT RIGHT, hence the clergy has to

understand the principles which are relevant. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, conference given to the Catholic Study

Groups in Paris, March 9-10, 1991, cf. US SSPX District website,http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm).

Canon Law describes the three types of jurisdiction: ordinary, delegated, and supplied. Supplied jurisdiction is activated

by the faithful requesting the sacraments, or other spiritual benefits of the Church, from a priest who has no ordinary or

delegated jurisdiction. According to Canon 2261: The faithful can for any just cause ask for Sacraments or

sacramentals of one who is excommunicated, especially if there is no one else to give them. In such a case, because

the faithful have asked, the Church supplies, the priest who has no jurisdiction, with a temporary jurisdiction for that

one moment in timeafter which it ceases, until he is asked again. This is why Bishop Tissier de Mallerais says: This

exceptional situation, which gives only a supplied jurisdiction to the priests, requires on the part of the clergy, of course,

QUITE SOME TACT, PRUDENCE, AND WISDOM. [comment: rather than intimidation, arm-twisting, threats and falsereasoning on obedience] FOR THEY CANNOT DEMAND TO EXERCISE A STRICT RIGHT, hence the clergy has to understand

the principles which are relevant. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Paris, March 9-10, 1991).

This supplied jurisdiction is on a case by case basis, and the faithful are the instigators of it by requesting something of

the priest, and then they give a VOLUNTARY [not obligatory] acceptance or obedience to what the priest then gives. As

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais says: the third characteristic of this supplied jurisdiction is that it depends a great

deal on the faithful... It is inasmuch as YOU DO NOT REFUSE TO RECEIVE from your priests the ministry which they

have the right to exercise for your good, thatTHE JURISDICTION THAT YOU IN A CERTAIN WAY GIVE THEM will be able

to be fruitfully exercised. (Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Paris, March 9-10, 1991).
http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmhttp://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htmhttp://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/supplied_jurisdiction/supplied_jurisdiction.htm


18/18

Today, the attitude of many priests seems to indicate that they think have a permanent and absolute authority over the

faithfulwhich is why there is no tact, nor prudence, nor wisdom in their manner of commanding. Some even manage

to create an impression of being bullies.BLIND OBEDIENCE IS WHAT HELPED VATICAN II DESTROY THE CHURCH

There are some people who trust lawful authority to direct them without fail. When faced with a directive, they

neither seek to know options and consequences, nor think, reason or deliberate over their choices. They simply trustthat lawful authority will stay within the bounds of its power. THIS ATTITUDE IS NOT TRUE OBEDIENCE, NOR IS IT

VIRTUOUS. Archbishop Lefebvre puts it this way: A BLIND OBEDIENCE has little to do with a practice and

acceptance of true Catholic faith One must understand the meaning of obedience and must distinguish between

BLIND OBEDIENCE and the VIRTUE OF OBEDIENCE. Indiscriminate obedience is actually A SIN AGAINST THE VIRTUE OF

OBEDIENCE. (Archbishop Lefebvre, USA, July, 1978).

If there is any scope for a blind obedience, then it is mainly within the scope of the ascetical life (spiritual life), where

it is presumed that the blind obedience is applied to any good means by which the spiritual director wants to lead the

soul to perfection. He may choose any one of a host of innumerable GOOD [not wrong or sinful] MEANS to ask a soul to

use in its climb to holiness. In fact, blind obedience is the perfection of obedience, and so one should obtain the lower

degrees first, before insisting on the pinnacle of obediencewe build on foundations and not thin air. To apply blind

obedience all across the board, is wrong and sinful as Archbishop Lefebvre points out in the above quote. God has given

us our human reason for a purpose, obedience is an act of the will in accordance with RIGHT REASON, not an absence,

paralysis or annihilation of reason.

Blind obedience is the dream of the devil and he put it to good use during and after Vatican II. During Vatican II,

many bishops thought: Well, the Pope wants it, so I guess Ill have to go with it! After Vatican II, it filtered down to the

priests and the faithful: Well, the bishop says so, so I guess Ill have to do it!or Well, Father says so, so I guess hes

right! Why should the devil change his tactics now? It worked so well for him before in the ENTIRE CHURCH on million

of blind souls, so why wont it work on a little group like the SSPX?

Be careful of submitting the steering-wheel of your soul (your reason and your judgment) to others. Statements like

the following have been heard: Only Bishop Fellay has the grace of state to decide what to do!or He is the superior

and we must follow! or He is a better theologian than I am! History, especially the history of Liberalism, Modernism

and that of Vatican II, clearly shows the danger of doing so. The Popes, bishops and priests of Vatican II ALL HAD THE

GRACE OF STATE and look where they led us! All Catholic fathers and mothers have the grace of state to be perfect

spouses and parents, but look at the disastrous family life we see around us ruined families and children, divorce,

separation, remarriage, delinquency, sin upon sin, apostasy! The Pope was supposed to be a better theologian than the

bishops, the bishops were supposed to be better theologians than their priests, the priests were supposed to be better

theologians than the laity and look what happened through blind trust, blind presumption and blind obedience!

They are blind, and leaders of the blind. And IF THE BLIND LEAD THE BLIND, BOTH WILL FALL INTO THE PIT.(Matthew 15:14).

The virtue of obedience means, not only subjecting your will, but also your judgment.

We hope that the above quote will not now be exaggerated and taken out of context, and stay within its sphere and

intended limits. Otherwise, it opens the doors to grossest and most shameful abuse, and perhaps an even greater

tragedy for the Faith.

THE END

mons. marcel lefebvre: selected writings on obedience

Documents