Semper Idem?

Little Known Letter of +Lefebvre on Conditional Confirmation

A. Introduction:

On November 11, 2024, the Superior General of the SSPX issued a letter to commemorate the 50 year anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration, titled “Semper Idem” (i.e., “always the same”). Unknown to most, the title of this letter was a double entendre: On the surface, it was intended to convey the alleged fidelity of the SSPX to it’s founder’s principles, as outlined in that Declaration. But underneath, it was a passive-aggressive jab aimed at me, as my email signature “Semper Idem” is well known in SSPX and Resistance circles, and on the other hand, it is a rejection of the thesis of my book “As We Are? 101 Compromises, Changes, and Contradictions of an SSPX in Pursuit of a Practical Accord with Modernist Rome,” that the SSPX has undergone a radical transformation.

Yes Fr. Pagliarani, I got it.

In any case, Fr. Pagliarani ended up giving conferences on this letter, including this one on December 8, 2024 at the SSPX priory in Vendee, France, in which he concluded his address with these words:

That was the purpose of the conference, to show this continuity, this continuity in the life and in the battle of the Society. We live in another era, yes, but an era that follows the one from 50 years ago. And these principles, provided by Archbishop Lefebvre 50 years ago, are even more relevant today.¹

Against this claim of 50 years of fidelity to the principles of Archbishop Lefebvre, let us consider the matter of conditional confirmation, and compare the position of the Society’s Founder, as articulated in a written response to an inquiry Fr. Francois Pivert in 1988, to that of the SSPX today, as presented in a recent article titled Matters Arising: Conditional Confirmation.²

B. Archbishop Lefebvre on Conditional Confirmation:

+Econe, April 25, 1988

Dear Father Pivert:

Indeed, the sacrament of Confirmation is perhaps the one that raises the most problems with regard to its validity. In Rome we are criticized for conditional Confirmations, to which we respond that we understand the doubts of parents:

1° The dubious validity of the translation of the new Latin form, "accipe sigillum Spiritus Sancti." What matters is "sigillum." How is it translated? Is it always translated? “Receive the mark” would be clearer than “be marked.” But sometimes it is simply said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” which is certainly invalid. If "sigillum" is translated correctly, there would be no doubt about the form. Otherwise, there is a doubt.

There is also now the question of intention. Bishop Bontemps stated in his Semaine Religieuse de Chambéry: "Confirmation does not give the Holy Spirit, but makes one aware of the Holy Spirit received at baptism." His confirmations are not valid. Do many bishops now think this way?

2° The matter is also a matter of concern. The tradition of olive oil is such that one may really doubt the validity of oil taken from another vegetable. Twenty centuries of use, Rome's reprimands against other oils, the prayers of consecration all written for olive oil, the general consensus of moral theologians, the Catechism of the Council of Trent, all compel us to believe that this matter is of divine intention and is part of the substance of the sacrament. It is possible, but not certain, that many bishops use olive oil, especially in countries where olive trees grow.

These are all subjects of doubt and difficult to verify, unless one writes to the diocesan chanceries to ask what matter and form are used for the Sacrament of Confirmation.

That is why I do not hesitate to confer confirmation conditionally when asked. This sacrament is to important, especially today.

It would be up to the parents to write their respective diocesan chanceries, if need be.

I hope I have answered your questions sufficiently.

Yours in Christ and Mary,

+ Marcel Lefebvre.³

B. The Neo-SSPX Position:

The heart of the SSPX’s new position can be encapsulated in this quote:

The purpose of this article is not to…simply to consider whether or not one is justified in seeking the conditional repetition of Confirmation according to the old rite. In answer to the question posed, we can reply: no, unless you have positive grounds to doubt that your specific Confirmation was invalid when it happened.⁴

We see in this article a slavish adhesion to canon law, despite an unprecedented apostasy from the faith among the bishops (and in stark contradistinction to the SSPX’s old dismissal of legalistic arguments), a rank undervaluing of the importance of confirmation (“confirmation is not necessary for salvation,” the author states, and glibly moves on),⁵ and an unsupported contention that almost all bishops use olive oil.

Please be sure to read the entire SSPX article, and for an excellent analysis, also see this article.

D. Conclusion:

One would think, in reading the recent SSPX article, and comparing it to the letter of +Lefebvre, that the Society was attempting a point-by-point refutation of their Founder on behalf of modernist Rome. And perhaps they are. As in ordinations, marriages, and here in confirmations, the conciliar church demands complete submission before formal recognition can be granted: It cannot tolerate reconciling with a group which doubts its very legitimacy. And so a long ralliement is the means by which the faithful and clergy will be reconditioned, and all necessary changes in doctrine and praxis incrementally modified.

As Fr. Cottier said upon his 2002 conquest of the priests of Campos, Brazil:

We must expect little by little other acts of rapprochement: For example, participation in concelebrations in the reformed rite. But we must still be patient. It is important that there no longer be rejection in their hearts. Unity found within the Church contains within itself an internal dynamism that will bear fruit."⁶

That “internal dynamism” is a maniacal drive for approval by those who now feel themselves not to be in communion with the Catholic Church, having been made to doubt many of their former positions by imprudent contacts with modernist Rome, and now feeling a scrupulous compulsion to correct their “abnormal situation.”

Did not +de Mallerais warn what would happen if this nonsense was believed?⁷

But this has been Rome’s modus operandi from the beginning, and explains Cardinal Castrillon de Hoyos’ agreement with +Fellay to “proceed by stages” toward an agreement.

Now you know why there are stages.

1. https://sspx.org/en/news/fr-davide-pagliaranis-conference-semper-idem-51877

2. https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375

3. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNL4TMnYgU2-tLd3-W_28HCiH8jELfrz/view?invite=CL6amNQD&ts=68998fe4&pli=1

4. https://fsspx.uk/en/matters-arising-conditional-confirmation-52375

5. It would be very enlightening if the author could explain how any of the faithful could be expected to persevere in the faith amidst today’s wreckage without valid confirmation! But no such explanation is offered.

6. https://fsspx.news/fr/news/campos-quelques-citations-14028

7. Sermon on 1/1/15 in Chicago: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=13403.5&wap2=

Excerpt:

“Sixth point, let us reject also the wrong supposition of some of our friends, bad friends, who say the Society of St. Pius X is now in an abnormal situation. Because we are not acknowledged by the church. The Society of St. Pius X must come back to a normal situation and receive a canonical status from Rome. That is wrong! That is false! We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome! We possess the Faith, the Sacrament and the disposition to submit to the pope. We have the Faith, the true Sacrament and the disposition of to obey the pope! And the bishops. We are of the disposition. We are not in an abnormal situation. The abnormal situation is in Rome, now! We have not to come back! These people in Rome have to come back, to Tradition. Let us not reverse the reality. We have not to come back. But these Romans have to come back to their Tradition. To the Tradition of the Church. That is my sixth point.”