My Declaration of Faith

To His Holiness John Paul II ,

Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Jesus Christ,
Successor of Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles,
Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West,
Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province,
Sovereign of Vatican City.

Ascension Thursday
May 21, 1998

Most Holy Father,
 On this tenth anniversary of the consecration of the four Catholic bishops by His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre for the survival of the Catholic Faith, by the grace of God, I declare that I am Roman Catholic. My religion was founded by Jesus Christ when He said to Peter: “Thou art Peter and upon this Rock, I will build My Church” (Mt. 16: 18).

Holy Father, my Credo is the Apostles’ Creed. The deposit of Faith came from Jesus Christ and was completed at the death of the last Apostle. It was entrusted to the Roman Catholic Church to serve as a guide for the salvation of souls to the end of time.

Saint Paul instructed Timothy: “O Timothy, keep the deposit” (1 Tm. 6:20), the deposit of Faith! Holy Father, it seems that Saint Paul is telling me: “Keep the deposit…the deposit that is entrusted to you, not discovered by you. You receive it: you did not draw it from your resources. It is not the fruit of any personal understanding but of teaching. It is not personal use, but it belongs to public tradition. It does not come from you, but it has come to you. With respect to it, you cannot act as an author, but only a simple keeper. You are not its initiator but its disciple. It is not for you to direct it, but your duty to follow it” (Saint Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, No. 21).

The Holy Council of Vatican I teaches that “the doctrine of Faith that God has revealed, was not proposed to the minds of men as a philosophical discovery to be perfected, but as the divine deposit, entrusted to the Spouse of Christ that she might faithfully keep it and infallibly define it. Consequently, the meaning of the sacred dogmas which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding” (Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Dz.1800).

“The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of Peter, not that they might make known new doctrine by His Revelation but rather that, with His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully explain the Revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles” (Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus Dz. 1836).

Moreover, “the power of the Pope is not unlimited; not only can he not change anything which is of divine institution (to suppress episcopal jurisdiction, for instance), but he is to build and not to destroy (cf. II Cor.10,8); he is enjoined, through natural law, not to sow confusion in the flock of Christ” (Dict. de Theol. Cath., II, col.2039-2040).

Saint Paul too confirmed the Faith of his converts: “But though we or an angel from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).

As a Catholic Bishop, briefly, this is my stand on the Post Conciliar reforms of the Second Vatican Council. If the Conciliar reforms are according to the will of Jesus Christ, then, I will gladly cooperate in their implementation. But if the Conciliar reforms are planned for the destruction of the Catholic Religion founded by Jesus Christ, then, I refuse to give my cooperation.

Holy Father, in 1969, a communication from Rome was received in San Fernando Diocese of La Union. It said the Tridentine Latin Mass was to be suppressed and the Novus Ordo Missae was to be implemented. There was no reason given. Since the order came from Rome it was obeyed without any protest (Roma locuta est, causa finita est [Rome has spoken; the matter is closed]).

I retired in 1993, 23 years after my episcopal consecration. Since my retirement, I discovered the real reason for the illegal suppression of the traditional Latin Mass. The ancient Mass was an obstacle to the introduction of ecumenism. The Catholic Mass contained Catholic dogmas, which Protestants denied. To achieve unity with Protestant sects, the Tridentine Latin Mass had to be scrapped, being replaced by the Novus Ordo Missae.

The Novus Ordo Missae was a concoction of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini. Six Protestant ministers helped Monsignor Bugnini in fabricating it. The innovators saw to it that no Catholic dogmas offensive to Protestant ears were left in the prayers. They deleted all that expressed the Catholic dogmas fully and replaced them with very ambiguous Protestantizing and heretical things. They even changed the form of the consecration given by Jesus Christ. With these modifications, the new rite of the Mass became more Protestant than Catholic.

The Protestants maintain that the Mass is a mere meal, a mere communion, a mere banquet, a memorial. The Council of Trent emphasized the reality of the sacrifice of the Mass, which is an unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Christ on Mount Calvary. “He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once to God the Father upon the altar of the Cross…offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine…at the last Supper on the night He was betrayed, so that He might leave to His beloved Spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as nature of man demands), whereby that bloody sacrifice once to be completed on the Cross might be represented…” (Dz. 938).The Mass is also a communion to the sacrifice previously celebrated: a banquet where one eats the immolated Victim of the sacrifice. But if there is no sacrifice there is no communion with it. Mass is first and foremost a sacrifice and secondly a communion or a meal.

It is also noted that in the Novus Ordo Missae, Christ’s real Eucharistic Presence is implicitly denied. The same observation is also true concerning the Church’s doctrine of transubstantiation.

Connected with this, in the Novus Ordo Missae, the priest has been demoted from a priest who offers a sacrifice to one who merely presides over the assembly. Now he is the President of the assembly. For this role he faces the people. In the Traditional Mass, the priest, on the contrary, faces the tabernacle and the altar where is Christ.

After having known those mutations, I decided to stop saying the new rite of the Mass, which I was saying for more than twenty-seven years in obedience to ecclesiastical superiors. I returned to the Tridentine Latin Mass because it is the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper which is the unbloody renewal of the bloody sacrifice of Jesus Christ on Mount Calvary. This Mass of all times has sanctified the lives of millions down the centuries.
Holy Father, with all the respect I have for you and for the Holy See of Saint Peter, I cannot follow your own teaching of the “universal salvation”, it contradicts Sacred Scripture.

Holy Father, are all men going to be saved? Jesus Christ wanted all men to be redeemed. In fact, He died for us all. Still, not all men are going to be saved because not all men fulfill all the necessary conditions in order to be numbered among the elects of God in heaven.

Before Jesus Christ ascended to Heaven, He entrusted to His Apostles the duty of preaching the Gospel to every creature. His instructions already hinted that all souls were not going to be saved. He said: “Go into the whole world, and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mk.16:15-16).

Saint Paul supported this in his instruction to his converts: “Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the Kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterous, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, not drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners shall possess the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor. 6:9-10).

Holy Father, should we respect false religions? Jesus Christ founded only one Church in which one can find eternal salvation. This is the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church. When He gave all the doctrines and all the truths needed to be saved Christ did not say: “Respect all false religions.” In fact, the Son of God was crucified on the cross because He did not compromise His teaching.

In 1910, in his letter “Our Apostolic Mandate”, Pope Saint Pius X warned that the interdenominational spirit is part of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for a one world Church. Pope Leo XIII warned that to “treat all religions alike is calculated to bring about the ruin of all forms of religion, and especially of the Catholic Religion, which, as it is the only one that is true, cannot, without great injustice, be regarded as merely equal to other religions” (Encyclical Humanum Genus). The process is this: From Catholicism To Protestantism; From Protestantism To Modernism; From Modernism To Atheism.

Ecumenism, as practiced today, flies in the face of traditional Catholic doctrine and practices. It places the one true Religion established by Our Lord on the same base level with false, man-made religions – something that Popes throughout the centuries absolutely forbade Catholics to do: “It is clear that the Apostolic See can by no means take part in these (ecumenical) assemblies, nor is it in any way lawful for Catholics to give to such enterprises their encouragement or support” (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos).

I am for eternal Rome, the Rome of Saints Peter and Paul. I do not follow Masonic Rome. Pope Leo XIII condemned Freemasonry in his encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Neither do I accept modernist Rome. Pope Saint Pius X also condemned modernism in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, in 1907. I do not serve the Rome that is controlled by Freemasons who are the agents of Lucifer, the Prince of devils.

But I support the Rome that leads the Catholic Church faithfully to do the will of Jesus Christ – the glorification of the most holy and Triune God – God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I consider myself fortunate because in this present crisis of the Catholic Church I received the grace to have returned to the Church that adheres to Catholic Tradition. Thank God, I am again saying the Traditional Latin Mass – the Mass instituted by Jesus at the Last Supper, the Mass of my ordination.

May the Blessed Mother Mary, Saint Joseph, Saint Anthony my patron saint, Saint Michael and my guardian Angel assist me to remain faithful to the Catholic Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of men.

May I obtain the grace to remain and die in the bosom of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church that adheres to the ancient traditions and be always a faithful priest and bishop of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

Most respectfully,

(Signed)
Bishop Salvador L. Lazo, DD
Bishop Emeritus
San Fernando Diocese of La Union

Here is the letter of Archbishop Talamayan:

Vatican preparing document for couples living in ‘new unions’ after ‘marriage failure’
Cdl. Kevin Farrell, a notable promoter of Pope Francis' 2016 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, revealed that his dicastery was preparing a document in line with the Pope's wishes on people who ‘live in new unions’ after ‘marriage failure.’



Cdl. Kevin Farrell with Pope Francis, June 2022.
Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life/Flickr

Quote:Today, the need for a specific ministeriality, an authentic closeness and witness on the part of married couples in the service of families, for the pastoral care of those experiencing crises and problems of all kinds is more urgent than ever in the area of family ministry.

• “re-married” divorcees,
  
• single parents,
  
• people in polygamous “marriages,”
  
• “LGBTQ people,” etc.
  

Quote:In certain cases, this can include the help of the sacraments… I would also point out that the Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak.’

Quote:[The] Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

The False Resistance blog, Non Possumus, is citing an anonymous contact on April 20, 2023 that:

Quote:This week, Fr. Pagliarani has given this instruction to the priests of the SSPX: "Begin to prepare the faithful for eventual episcopal consecrations" (Non Possumus cannot reveal the source of this information, but it is certain).[computer translated from the Spanish]

Quote:"an Argentine, ordained in 2001 by the Lefebvrist bishop Alfonso José de Galarreta, and who currently lives in Rome sheltered by Bergoglio (alias Francisco) and with "authorization" of the superior Pro. Davide Pagliarani, would be "consecrated bishop" in a short time.  [...] Those who had the chance to meet Suárez will recognize that he is about to achieve what he always wanted: a miter, even if for that he must sell his own mother."

Taken from The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023

Dear friends, I haven't found too many places reporting this so please forgive the sedevacantist sourcing. I have slightly adapted the article to removed sedevacantist references (such as removing quotes from the titles of various bishops and popes, etc.).

Mr. Jonathan Baker leads an Anglican ‘Mass’ in St. John’s Cathedral, Rome

• invalid, as its priests and bishops are not validly ordained, according to the solemn judgment of Pope Leo XIII
  
• the formal and heretical worship of a false religion, created by King Henry VIII
  

Quote:Then, considering that this matter, although already decided, had been by certain persons for whatever reason recalled into discussion, and that thence it might follow that a pernicious error would be fostered in the minds of many who might suppose that they possessed the Sacrament and effects of Orders, where these are nowise to be found, it seemed good to Us in the Lord to pronounce our judgment.

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the pontiffs, our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by our authority, of our own initiative and certain knowledge, we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

(Pope Leo XIII, Apostolic Constitution Apostolicae Curae, nn. 35-36; underlining added.)

Quote:With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the Apostolic Letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations.

(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on the Concluding Formula of the Professio Fidei, n. 11)

Quote:False worship is opposed to the truth of religion (e.g., Old Testament rites which signify that Christ is still to come), or of rites (e.g., Mass by a layman, Mass according to a form disapproved by the Church), or of facts (e.g., fictitious revelations, ecstasies, mysticism, miracles, relies), or of morals (e.g., human sacrifice, praises of God to the accompaniment of lascivious words or music, etc.).

(Rev. John A. McHugh & Charles J. Callan, Moral Theology [New York, NY: Joseph F. Wagner, 1958], n. 2274)

Quote:Catholic churches are consecrated or blessed buildings which have an important theological and liturgical significance for the Catholic community. They are therefore generally [!] reserved for Catholic worship. However, if priests, ministers or communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church do not have a place or the liturgical objects necessary for celebrating worthily their religious ceremonies, the diocesan Bishop may allow them the use of a church or a Catholic building and also lend them what may be necessary for their services. Under similar circumstances, permission may be given to them for interment or for the celebration of services at Catholic cemeteries.

(John Paul II, Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms of Ecumenism, n. 137)

Taken from The Recusant #60 - Easter 2023:



Some people won’t believe it until the day arrives where they go to their SSPX chapel and find the hybrid Mass being celebrated there. For those of us who are paying attention, however, the warning signs are already starting to manifest…

Quote:Fr. Paul Robinson: “Pius V [sic] wanted to canonise the Mass, to set it in stone and say: this is what it is. And he uses very strong language in Quo Primum, saying that, you know, this shall be in force for perpetuity, the wrath of Ss. Peter and Paul will fall on those who dare change this missal, and so on. And what happens with the Traditionalist movement is sometimes Traditionalists interpret that document as meaning that the Mass can never be changed, that somehow St. Pius V was wanting to bind all of his successors in the papacy. And so they use Quo Primum to say that the Traditional Mass effectively is the only Mass that ever could be or will be till the end, and that any other legislative acts of the Popes to try to introduce a new Mass or try to modify the old Mass are illegitimate for that reason.

Andrew: Let me jump in real quick Father, and ask if you could clarify two points for me. One is: when you say that this is a “disciplinary” bull, it’s not that he’s trying to discipline someone, it’s that it’s more about legislation, it’s not about dogma. Is that correct?

Fr. Paul Robinson: That’s correct, it more concerns the practices of the Church rather than the doctrine of the Church.

Andrew: OK, and so then when you said: “It’s not [that] no one can ever change it” - successors of Pius V [sic], of Pope Pius V [sic], could, when he was saying that no one could change it, when he was using that very strong language, who was he talking about, if not the next Popes coming down the line?

Fr. Paul Robinson: Well he was referring to those who were not in a position to do such things. For one thing, he was referring to the printers. He specifically mentions the printers, you know, they were to print exactly what he put, they weren’t to, you know, do their own editing on the missal. But he was also referring to people lower in the hierarchy: he wasn’t wanting people like a bishop of a diocese, or a certain cardinal, or priests in their parish taking the missal and modifying the missal. Certainly the Pope, St. Pius V, was not anticipating legislating to all his successors, as though he had a power that all the other Popes had, like he could take power away from the other Popes, he certainly wasn’t wanting to set limits on the power of future Popes to either change that missal or bring in a different Mass. And that’s precisely what the questioner is sort of highlighting, because people are going to the questioner and saying, well, if you believe that Quo Primum binds the future Popes, how can it be that other Popes have changed the missal? Such as St. Pius X, or, um, other Popes who have added Saints to the missal, or the missal that we use, the 1962 missal was changed by John XXIII, he added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, for instance. So how is it that these Popes have changed what St Pius V  established, if your argument is correct, that no Popes can lawfully change the missal after St. Pius V? And what I’m saying is that this is just a wrong interpretation of Quo Primum, St. Pius V was not wanting to bind all his successors that you can’t change the missal.

Andrew: I see. So, in a sense, Quo Primum was effective and perfect for its time, and what it does is it says: this is the Mass, there’s nothing wrong with this Mass, use this one, Popes down the line can change it. So I guess we’re left with two conclusions. One, that is, to use an argument of: Quo Primum is there so that’s why we have to use this Mass, - it’s kind of an ineffective argument because that’s not really what Quo Primum does, like you said, it doesn’t lock the Mass down.

Fr. Paul Robinson: It’s not an ineffective argument, it’s the wrong argument to make with Quo Primum.

Andrew: Oh, I see.”

(See: https://youtu.be/y1bdLPsWEI0?t=953 [15:53 - 20:25] )

Quote:“Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. … We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law. […] Therefore, no one whosoever is permitted to alter this notice of Our permission …Should anyone, however, presume to commit such an act, he should know that he will incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul.”

Quote:“For one thing, he was referring to the printers. He specifically mentions the printers, you know, they were to print exactly what he put, they weren’t to, you know, do their own editing on the missal.”

Quote:“But he was also referring to people lower in the hierarchy: he wasn’t wanting people like a bishop of a diocese, or a certain cardinal, or priests in their parish taking the missal and modifying the missal. Certainly the Pope, St. Pius V, was not anticipating legislating to all his successors …”

Quote:“Furthermore, by these presents and by virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment or censure, and may be freely and lawfully used. … We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal; …”

Quote:“[…] And this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law.”

Quote:“…[people are] saying, well, if you believe that Quo Primum binds the future Popes, how can it be that other Popes have changed the missal? Such as St. Pius X, or, um, other Popes who have added Saints to the missal, or the missal that we use, the 1962 missal was changed by John XXIII, he added the name of St. Joseph to the canon, for instance. So how is it that these Popes have changed what St Pius V established, if your argument is correct, that no Popes can lawfully change the missal after St. Pius V?”

Quote:“I see. So, in a sense, Quo Primum was effective and perfect for its time, and what it does is it says: this is the Mass, there’s nothing wrong with this Mass, use this one, Popes down the line can change it.”

Quote:“The Fathers of Trent therefore said that the Pope could not change the rites. Is that my interpretation or is it papal teaching? It is implicit papal teaching because - have you ever held a Roman [altar] Missal in your hands? Well if you get a chance, look up the first decrees at the beginning of the book. At the beginning of the Roman Missal, you will find the decree Quo Primum by Pius V. And as the only exception in Church history, you will not only find Pius V’s decree, but you will find three other decrees. All through Church history, no Pope published a book without cancelling his predecessor’s document if there was one. The typical way, for example, of publishing the Code of Canon law, or the Corpus Iuris Canonici which was its predecessor before 1917, would be to authorise a new edition and put in one’s own document. Like Pope Urban IX, who put in his name and threw out his predecessor’s decree.

The Roman Missal since 1570 is the only exception in Church history. Why? Because Pius V did nothing else but respect the Council of Trent when he codified what was there. When Pius V, Saint Pius V, in 1570 published the Roman Missal, he did not change anything. He changed a few little rubrics that were not clear, they were kind of confusing, so he changed them. But the book as such was the missal that had been used for centuries by the Roman Curia. And he canonised it with the decree Quo Primum, in which he says: not only the book must not ever be changed in the future, this Mass must be said by all priests in the future, but the decree as such is irreformable. Some people now argue that a Pope cannot bind a Pope. They argue in what you call legalistic nonsense. They quote Roman law, and they misquote Roman law, because they quote Roman law well but they quote Roman law on a wrong level, by quoting the old line: par in parem potestatem non habet - “An equal has no power over an equal.”

The Pope, at first sight, may seem another Pope’s equal. But then, how about the dogma of the Immaculate Conception? Can a future Pope take that back? No, you know very well he can’t. So that means that the Pope’s have to respect their predecessors. […] So Tradition binds the Pope. Especially in liturgy. Why? The oldest liturgical principle, written down the first time in the year 250, exactly 750 years ago, is: Lex orandi statuat legem credendi. The law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. Do not confused the law of what has to be believed with the Deposit of Faith.

The Deposit of Faith is at the very beginning of everything. But the law of what has to be prayed will determine what has to be believed. What is the law of what has to be believed? The Creed, for example. Every time you recite the creed at Sunday Mass, you recite what you have to believe in order to remain a Catholic. Now in the liturgy, you always found the feast of the Immaculate Conception. You talk about lex ordandi, the law of what has to be prayed: in an ancient missal of the 14th century or in a handwritten missal of the eighth century, you will find the feast of the Immaculate Conception on December 8th. That’s the law of what has to be prayed, because the priests had to celebrate that feast. However it only became the law of what has to be believed in 1854 when Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. So you can easily see in history that the law of what has to be prayed will determine the law of what has to be believed. Lex orandi statuat legem credendi. […]

You can see from this principle that the Roman Missal cannot be considered a mere disciplinary law. It is much more than that, it is way above any discipline. The Roman Missal is the number one law of what has to be prayed because Holy Mass is the number one prayer! Therefore, when Pius V said: this missal cannot be changed, and this decree confirming that is irreformable - he did in fact bind his successors. I ask you, is this my interpretation or is it that of the Popes? Well I showed you, that is the papal interpretation. Because even John XXIII did not dare to take out Quo Primum or the decree following it by Clement VIII, or the decree by Urban VIII. He did not dare to replace these documents.

That means even John XXIII visibly thought that he was bound by his predecessors decrees. That makes four hundred years of Popes being who ‘felt’ that they were bound. Of course, the Popes didn’t just have a ‘feeling’ about it. Leave the feelings in California!” (See: https://youtu.be/FABY6aIJw6A)

Quote:“Pope St. Pius V, following a decree of the Council of Trent, promulgated the bull Quo Primum to fix the Rite of Mass for all time for the Latin Church. Henceforth the Rite was known as the Tridentine Rite of Mass.”

Quote:“...merely mean that the Society recognizes that Paul VI and John Paul II had the right to promulgate liturgical rites. Hence, it is not a judgment on the Novus Ordo itself.”