A blood relative of Christ, he was martyred in early apostolic times. Succeeding the apostle James, Simeon, the son of Cleophas, was, it may be said, the first bishop of Jerusalem. Under the Emperor Trajan he was arraigned before Atticus, the governor, on charges of being a Christian and a relative of Jesus. For at a certain period, all descendants of David were apprehended. After enduring all types of torture, he was affixed to a cross, even as His Savior. Those present marveled how a man of such advanced age (he was 120 years old) could so steadfastly and joyously bear the excruciating pains of crucifixion. He died on the 18th of February, 106 A.D.The siege and the destruction of Jerusalem took place during his episcopacy. He accompanied the Christian community to Pella.
Saint Fintan was born in Leinster about 524. He received his religious formation in Terryglass, Co. Tipperary under the abbot Colum mac Crimthainn, and was deeply influenced by his penitential practices and the severity of the Rule. He was an Abbot and disciple of St. Columba. Fintan was a hermit in Clonenagh, Leix, Ireland. When disciples gathered around his hermitage he became their abbot. A wonder worker, Fintan was known for clairvoyance, prophecies, and miracles. Fintan spent his early years in Carlow before making his own foundation in Clonenagh, Co. Laois. His disciples included St Colmán of Oughaval, St. Comgall of Bangor, and St. Aengus the Culdee. He has been compared by the Irish annalists to St. Benedict, and is styled "Father of the Irish Monks". This tree, an acer pseudoplatanus, was planted in the late 18th or early 19th century at the site of the Early Christian monastic site of Clonenagh. The monastery was founded in the 6th century by Columba of Terryglass and then left to his disciple St. Fintan when St. Colum moved on to Terryglass. The tree is dedicated to St. Fintan and it became custom to insert coins into the tree from which the tree suffered and was believed to be dead until the tree started to recover with some new shoots. At that time: Jesus spoke this parable unto his disciples: The kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. Sermon by St. Gregory the Pope We hear that the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning, to hire labourers into his vineyard. Who indeed is more justly to be likened to an householder than our Maker, who is the head of the household of faith, bearing rule over them whom he hath made, and being Master of his chosen ones in the world, as a Master over those that are in his house? He it is that hath the Church for a vineyard, a vineyard that ceaseth not to bring forth branches of the True Vine, from righteous Abel to the last of the elect that shall be born into the world. This householder, then, for the cultivation of his vineyard, goeth out early in the morning, and at the third hour, and the sixth hour, and the ninth hour, and the eleventh hour, to hire labourers into his vineyard. Thus the Lord, from the beginning to the end of the world, ceaseth not to gather together preachers for the instruction of his faithful people. The early morning of the world was from Adam until Noah; the third hour from Noah until Abraham; the sixth hour from Abraham until Moses; the ninth hour from Moses until the coming of the Lord; the eleventh hour from the coming of the Lord until the end of the world. At this eleventh hour are sent forth as preachers, the Holy Apostles, who have received full wages, albeit they be come in late. For the cultivation of his vineyard (that is, the instruction of his people), the Lord hath never ceased to send into it labourers. First, by the Fathers, then, by the Prophets and Teachers of the Law, and lastly, by the Apostles. He hath dressed and tended the lives of his people, as the owner of a vineyard dresseth and tendeth it by means of workmen. Whoever in whatever degree joined to a right faith the teaching of righteousness, was so far one of God's labourers in God's vineyard. By the labourers at early morning, and at the third hour, and the sixth hour, and the ninth hour, may be understood God's ancient people, the Hebrews, who strove to worship him with a right faith in company with his chosen ones from the very beginning of the world, and thus continually laboured in his vineyard. And now, at the eleventh hour, it is said unto the Gentiles also: Why stand ye here all the day idle? The Neo-SSPX’s US district website, which has certainly posted its fair share of anti-Resistance content, is now at it yet again. It recently released a new article defending its deplorable actions while bashing the “rebellion” of the Resistance. In this same article, the Neo-SSPX once again claims that it and its leader, Bishop Fellay, are still faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre, while those that have dissented have chosen a dangerous and rebellious path which, they tell us, is not pleasing to God. The article is actually taken from an editorial from a Neo-SSPX priory in France, and is written by Fr. Michel Simoulin. There are several parts of the article worth addressing, in what is, I might add, an obvious attempt at damage control while the Neo-SSPX attempts to pick up the pieces and restore its image in the aftermath of the numerous mistakes made by its leadership. I will begin with this paragraph: “For several months now actually, it has seemed that a wind of madness is blowing in our circles, and this wind is so violent and irrational that it has caused some priests or laypeople to fall—too many, but fortunately not as many as they would like you to think. Some fall to the left, finding Bishop Fellay too strict, the others fall to the right, finding him too lax or liberal. Thank God, the great majority continues to walk straight ahead, faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre.“ Firstly, “not as many as they would like you to think” is a misleading remark. The Resistance does not claim to be larger than it actually is. The Resistance priests admit that they are fairly small in size. But as we are all aware, truth is not determined by numbers. The majority of Catholics, in the midst of the turmoil caused by Vatican II, went along with the changes instituted by the Council, while only a portion of Catholics remained faithful to Tradition. We certainly know who was right in that situation. Furthermore, the Neo-SSPX and its followers are not “faithful to the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre” as the Neo-SSPX would like to have you think. I’ll address this in further detail in a moment. “But you have to admit that the air sometimes becomes stifling: if you publicly declare your fidelity to and confidence in the Superior General, they will say that you are sowing disorder and making trouble. But if you speak publicly against Bishop Fellay, accusing him of liberalism and of secret maneuvers to bring about a reconciliation, you will have the reputation of being a valiant defender of the Faith and of the spirit of Archbishop Lefebvre. So it is, strange to say!“ Bishop Fellay has shown clearly through his own actions that he does not deserve the confidence of the faithful. This has been demonstrated so many times, through both his words and actions, that it is not necessary to delve into too much detail here. Those who declare their fidelity to him are indeed sowing disorder, but it is much more severe than that. They are participating in the creation of a new “brand” of “Traditionalism”. Only it is not genuine Traditionalism in the slightest, it is neo-Traditionalism. Declaring that the Jews are our “elder brothers” or that Vatican II is “95% acceptable” is not truly Traditional. Here is the next paragraph: “This has been said and written so many times already that you hesitate to say it once again, but Archbishop Lefebvre never made any claim to “converting” Rome or the Pope. At the very most, he used to say to those who rebuked him for going to Rome: “Who knows? I may do them a little good!” He never rejected contacts or discussions with Rome, in the hope of gaining freedom for his work and for Tradition. He fought and condemned the modern errors, those from before the Council, those of the Council and those after the Council, but he never fought or condemned Rome or the Pope.” The fact that Archbishop Lefebvre continued to maintain contact with Rome is greatly exaggerated in this piece. He continued to go to Rome in order to convert them, not to have friendly dialogue with them or to try to “reconcile” with them. The Archbishop said this in 1990 of those that sell out to Rome (which is precisely what was attempted by Bishop Fellay in 2012): “And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process of betraying us. Some people are always admiring the grass in the neighbor’s field. Instead of looking to their friends, to the Church’s defenders, to those fighting on the battlefield, they look to our enemies on the other side. “After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says” —but THEY ARE BETRAYING US —betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Address to his priests, Econe, 1990) Next paragraph: “And history, in its objective truth—quite apart from all the interpretations that we can give to the facts--tells us that his work was approved and recognized by Bishop Charriere, a thoroughly conciliar bishop, who never bothered His Excellency; and history also tells us that the protocol agreement that he had signed on May 5, 1988 went much further than Bishop Fellay’s proposals of last year. And Archbishop Lefebvre was not the one who put an end to the meetings; it was none other than Cardinal Ratzinger, by refusing what His Excellency requested in his letter dated May 6, 1988 (the consecration of one bishop, as provided in the protocol agreement). These are things that should not be forgotten [as well as the fact that all of this transpired two weeks later and after the Archbishop had made some visits to Rome—so he did not reject the Protocol the next day as has been falsely claimed —Ed].“ The above is untrue. Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1988 protocol did not go further than the 2012 preamble of Bishop Fellay. Read the Archbishop’s protocol, then compare it with +Fellay’s. It is obvious to those with sufficient reading comprehension that + Fellay’s proposals went much further. As for the assertion that the Archbishop did not reject the protocol the next day, I present you with his own words on the matter: “Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol… “If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (‘Marcel Lefebvre’ Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555). Moving on to the next paragraph: “Some may disagree with Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance (but then they should have said so during his lifetime!), or Bishop Fellay’s (but then they should have said so at the time of the first contacts in 2000!), but it is strange that this reawakening of consciences is occurring only now that nothing was accomplished and nothing is foreseen; and it is untrue to accuse Bishop Fellay of being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. Aside from differences in temperament or personal experience, the line has remained the same, and there are no indications that it is about to change; quite the contrary.” It actually is true to say that Bishop Fellay has been unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre. This article should shed some light on that: http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2013/05/01/two-conflicting-mindsets/ There are other things worth noting as examples, including the fact that Bishop Fellay recently banned a book in France that consisted primarily of quotes from the Archbishop. If that is not “being unfaithful to Archbishop Lefebvre”, I don’t know what is. The article is prolonged for several more paragraphs, but I need only address one final paragraph here: “In all this controversy, what many people lack is quite simply the sensus Ecclesiae, the mind of the Church. I do not claim to be better than those who abandon us, but I wonder: toward what Church are they venturing? The Church of Pius XII? Of St. Pius X? Of St. Pius V? But these “Churches” do not exist, any more than the “conciliar Church” or “modernist Rome” exist—these are merely expressions to describe the state of the Church or of Rome since the last Council, since they have been infested with a “non-Catholic sort of thinking” that tries to give them a more “worldly” face. There is only the Holy Catholic Church and Eternal Rome, to which Archbishop Lefebvre paid a vivid homage at the conclusion of his book Spiritual Journey, and that we desire to serve with all the grace received by the Church on the Feast of All Saints in 1970. They simply forget that the Church is not a “mental object”, as the philosophers say.” What about the church that Bishop Fellay is venturing towards? It is the conciliar church, and we know what the Archbishop said about those that venture towards it: “This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension a divinis, July 29, 1976) To sum things up, we must ask ourselves who is truly faithful to the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre. Reviewing the facts, it becomes clear that it certainly isn’t Bishop Fellay and the Neo-SSPX! This new jab at the Resistance from (N)SSPX.org only re-affirms that. God Bless. http://traditionalcatholicremnant.wordpress.com/2014/02/15/the-neo-sspx-unfaithful-to-the-archbishop/ Martyrs, members of a noble family of Brescia; the elder brother, Faustinus, being a priest, the younger, a deacon. For their fearless preaching of the Gospel, they were arraigned before the Emperor Hadrian, who, first at Brescia, later at Rome and Naples, subjected them to frightful torments, after which they were beheaded at Bescia in the year 120, according to the Bollandists, though Allard (Histoire des Persécutions pendant les Deux Premiers Siècles, Paris, 1885) places the date as early as 118. Their feast is celebrated on 15 February, the traditional date of their martyrdom. The cities of Rome, Bologna and Verona share with Brescia possession of their relics. CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY – II Much needs to be said about the Church’s infallibility, especially to correct illusions arising (by mistake) from the Definition of Papal infallibility in 1870. Today for instance sedevacantists and liberals think that their positions are wholly opposed, but do they stop for a moment to see how similarly they think ?—Major: Popes are infallible. Minor: Conciliar Popes are liberal. Liberal Conclusion: we must become liberal. Sedevacantist Conclusion: they cannot be Popes. The error is neither in the logic, nor in the Minor. It can only be in a misunderstanding on both their parts of infallibility in the Major. Once again, modern men put authority above truth. Eternal God is Truth itself, absolutely infallible. In created time, through his Incarnate Son, he instituted his Church with a doctrine for the salvation of human souls. Coming from him that doctrine could only be inerrant, but to keep it free from the errors of the human churchmen to whom he would entrust it, his Son promised them the “spirit of truth” to guide them “for ever” (Jn. XIV, 16). For indeed without some such guarantee, how could God require of men, on pain of eternal damnation, to believe in his Son, in his doctrine and in his Church (Mk.XVI, 16) ? Yet even from churchmen God will not take away that free-will to err which he gave them. And he will allow that freedom to go as far as they wish, short of their making his Truth inaccessible to men. That reaches far, and it includes a number of highly defective Popes, but God’s reach is still farther than the wickedness of men (Isaiah LIX, 1,2). At Vatican II for instance, Church error went a long way, without however God’s allowing his Church to be wholly defectible in its presentation to men of the inerrant Truth coming from his own infallibility. Even the Conciliar Popes have told many Catholic truths alongside their Conciliar errors. But how then can I, a simple soul, tell the difference between their truths and their errors ? Firstly, if I am truly looking for God with an upright heart, he will guide me to him, as the Bible says in many places. And secondly, God’s doctrine being as unchangeable as God, it must be the doctrine that I find (nearly) all his churchmen to have taught and handed down in (nearly) all places and at (nearly) all times, best known as Tradition. From the beginning of the Church, that handing down has been the surest test of what Our Lord himself taught. Down the ages inerrant Tradition has been the work of millions of churchmen. It has been that for which God endowed his Church as a whole, and not just the Popes, with the guidance of the infallible Holy Ghost. Here is, so to speak, the cake of Church infallibility upon which the Popes’ solemn Definitions are merely the icing, precious and necessary, the peak of the Church’s infallibility, but not its mountain bulk. Notice firstly that Definitions by the Popes’ Extraordinary Magisterium existed not only from 1870 but from the beginning of the Church, and they existed not to make Tradition true but merely to make certain what belonged to Tradition and what did not, whenever the erring of men had made that uncertain. Sensing truth, Archbishop Lefebvre rightly preferred inerrant Tradition to gravely erring Popes. Never having understood him, like all modern liberals not sensing truth, his successors are in the process of preferring erring Popes to inerrant Tradition. Underestimating truth and overestimating the Popes, sedevacantists wholly repudiate the erring Popes and can be tempted to quit the Church altogether. Lord, have mercy ! Kyrie eleison. Summary – The Ordinary Magisterium is indeed infallible, but its infallibility comes from God, and not from the Extraordinary Magisterium. © 2011-2014 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby. The Lesson is taken from a Sermon by St. Augustine the Bishop The illustrious day whereon the blessed Martyr Valentine conquered, doth this day come round to us again: and as the Church doth rejoice with him in his glory, so doth she set before us his footsteps to be followed. For if we suffer, we shall also reign with him. In his glorious battle we have two things chiefly to consider: the hardened cruelty of the tormentor, and the unconquered patience of the Martyr: the cruelty of the tormentor, that we may abhor it; the patience of the Martyr, that we may imitate it. Hear what the Psalmist saith, complaining against sin: Fret not thyself because of the ungodly, for they shall soon be cut down like the grass. But touching the patience which is to be shewn against the ungodly, hear the word wherewith the Apostle moveth us: Ye have need of patience, that ye may receive the promise. Grant, we beseech thee, Almighty God: that we who observe the heavenly birthday of blessed Valentine thy Martyr, may by his intercession be delivered from all evils that beset us. Through Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end. R. Amen. Feastday: February 13 1522 - 1589 St. Catherine was born in Florence in 1522. Her baptismal name was Alexandrina, but she took the name of Catherine upon entering religion. From her earliest infancy she manifested a great love of prayer, and in her sixth year, her father placed her in the convent of Monticelli in Florence, where her aunt, Louisa de Ricci, was a nun. After a brief return home, she entered the convent of the Dominican nuns at Prat in Tuscany, in her fourteenth year. While very young, she was chosen Mistress of Novices, then subprioress, and at twenty-five years of age she became perpetual prioress. The reputation of her sanctity drew to her side many illustrious personages, among whom three later sat in the chair of Peter, namely Cerveni, Alexander de Medicis, and Aldo Brandini, and afterward Marcellus II, Clement VIII, and Leo XI respectively. She corresponded with St. Philip Neri and, while still living, she appeared to him in Rome in a miraculous manner.She is famous for the "Ecstacy of the Passion" which she experienced every Thursday from noon until Friday at 4:00 p.m. for twelve years. After a long illness she passed away in 1589. Her feast day is February 13. In the thirteenth century, when the more cultured parts of Italy were rent by the dread dissension of the Emperor Frederick the Second and by bloody civil wars, the mercy of God set forth divers men eminent for holiness, and among others raised up seven nobles of Florence, who were bound one to another in charity and have an illustrious example of brotherly love. Their names were Bonfiglio Monaldi, Bonagiunta Manetti, Manetto dell'Antella, Amadio Amidei, Uguccio Uguccioni, Sostegno Sostegni, and Alexis Falconieri. Upon the holiday of the Assumption of the Virgin into heaven in the year 1233 they were praying in the oratory of a guild called the Guild of Praise, when the same Mother of God appeared to each one of them, and bade them embrace a life of greater holiness and perfection. These seven men discussed the matter with the Bishop of Florence, and then, considering neither the nobility of their birth nor their wealth, and clad in haircloth under vile and worn-out garments, withdrew into a little house in the country upon the 8th day of September, that they might begin their holier life upon the same day whereon the Mother of God herself had by her birth begun her life of holiness upon earth. God shewed by a miracle how acceptable in his sight should be their manner of life, for a short while after, when these seven men were begging alms from door to door through the city of Florence, it came to pass that some children, among whom was holy Philip Beniti, who had then scarcely entered the fifth month of his age, called them blessed Mary's servants, by the which name they were called ever after. To avoid meeting people, and in the desire to be alone, they all withdrew together to the solitude of Monte Senario, and there began a kind of heavenly life. They lived in caves and upon herbs and water only, while they wore out their bodies with watching and other hardships, while they contemplated unweariedly the sufferings of Christ and the woes of his most sorrowful Mother. One Good Friday, when their thoughts were fixed thereon more than ever, the Blessed Virgin appeared to them twice, and shewed them her garments of mourning as those wherein they should clothe themselves. She bade them know that she would take it right well that they should raise up in the Church a new order to recall the memory of the sorrows which she bore beneath the Cross of the Lord. Holy Peter, the illustrious martyr of the Order of Friars Preachers, learnt this not only from his familiar converse with these holy men, but also from a special vision of the Mother of God, and it was on his incitement that they founded the regular Order called that of the Servites, or Servants of the Blessed Virgin, the which Order was afterward approved by the Supreme Pontiff Innocent IV. These holy men, when they had gathered to themselves some companions, began to go through the cities and towns of Italy, and especially of Tuscany, everywhere preaching Christ crucified, stilling contests among the citizens, and calling back almost countless backsliders into the path of grace. Neither did they make Italy only the field of their Gospel labours, but also France, Germany, and Poland. They passed away to be ever with the Lord when they had spread far and wide a sweet savour of Christ, and were famous also for the glory of signs and wonders. As one love of brotherhood and of the monastic life had joined them together upon earth, so one grave held their dead bodies, and one honour was paid them by the people. For this reason the Supreme Pontiffs Clement XI and Benedict XIII confirmed the honour which had for centuries been paid to them individually, and Leo XIII, after proof of their miracles which had been wrought by God on the common invocation of these saints, after their veneration had been sanctioned in the jubilee year of his priesthood, decreed to them the honours paid to Saints, and ordered that their memory should every year be kept throughout the universal Church with an Office and Mass. CHURCH’S INFALLIBILITY – I Probably sedevacantists’ main problem is the Church’s infallibility (Conciliar Popes are horribly fallible, so how can they be Popes ?). However, infallibility needs to be looked at for more than just to alleviate sedevacantism. The modern problem of preferring authority to truth is vast. “Infallibility” means inability to err, or to fall into error. The First Vatican Council defined in 1870 that the pope cannot err when four conditions are present: he must (1) be speaking as Pope, (2) on a question of Faith or morals, (3) in a definitive fashion, and (4) with the clear intention of binding the whole Church. Any such teaching belongs to what is called his “Extraordinary” Magisterium, because on the one hand Popes rarely engage all four conditions, and on the other hand he teaches many other truths which cannot err or be wrong because they have always been taught by the Church, and therefore they belong to what Vatican I called the Church’s “Ordinary Universal Magisterium”, also infallible. The question is, how does the Pope’s Extraordinary Magisterium relate to the Church’s Ordinary Magisterium ? Mother Church teaches that the Deposit of Faith, or public Revelation, was complete at the death of the last Apostle alive, say, around 105 AD. Since then no further truth has been added, or could be added, to that Deposit, or body of revealed truths. Then no “extraordinary” definition can add one iota of truth to that Deposit, it only adds, for the sake of believers, certainty to some truth already belonging to the Deposit, but whose belonging had not been clear enough beforehand. In a fourfold order comes firstly, an objective REALITY, independent of any human mind, such as the historical fact of the Mother of God’s having been conceived without original sin. Secondly comes TRUTH in any mind conforming itself to that reality. Only thirdly comes an infallible DEFINITION when a Pope engages all four conditions to define that truth. And fourthly arises from that definition CERTAINTY for believers as to that truth. Thus whereas reality genera tes the truth, a Definition merely creates certainty as to that truth. But the reality and its truth already belonged to the Ordinary Magisterium, because there is no question of any Pope defining infallibly a truth outside of the Deposit of Faith. Therefore the Ordinary Magisterium is to the Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail to dog ! The problem is that the Definitiom of 1870 gave such prestige to the Extraordinary Magisterium that the Ordinary Magisterium began to pale in comparison, to the point that Catholics, even theologians, scratch around to fabricate for it an infallibility like that of the Extraordinary Magisterium. But that is foolishness. The Extraordinary presupposes the Ordinary Magisterium, existing only to give certainty (4) to a truth (2) already taught by the Ordinary Magisterium. Let the point be illustrated from a snow-capped mountain. The mountain in no way depends on the snow, except for it to be made even more visible than it already is. On the contrary the snow depends completely on the mountain to be where it, the snow, is. Similarly the Extraordinary Magisterium does no more for the Ordinary Magisterium than to make it more clearly or certainly visible. As winter closes in, so the snowline descends. As charity grows cold in modern times, so more definitions of the Extraordinary Magisterium may become necessary, but that does not make them the perfection of the Church’s Magisterium. On the contrary, they signal a weakness of believers’ grasp of the truths of their Faith. The healthier a man is, the fewer pills he needs. Next week, the application both to sedevacantism and to the present crisis of the SSPX. Kyrie eleison Summary – The Church’s infallible Ordinary Magisterium is to the Pope’s infallible Extraordinary Magisterium as dog is to tail, and not as tail is to dog. © 2011-2014 Richard N. Williamson. All Rights Reserved.
A non-exclusive license to print out, forward by email, and/or post this article to the Internet is granted to users who wish to do so provided that no changes are made to the content so reproduced or distributed, to include the retention of this notice with any and all reproductions of content as authorized hereby. Aside from this limited, non-exclusive license, no portion of this article may be reproduced in any other form or by any other electronic or mechanical means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote brief passages in a review, or except in cases where rights to content reproduced herein are retained by its original author(s) or other rights holder(s), and further reproduction is subject to permission otherwise granted thereby. |
Archives
December 2014
Categories
All
While Archbishop Lefebvre Blog is provided free of charge, there are administrative and technical costs associated with making it available to subscribers worldwide and with operating this site. Contributions to offset these costs are appreciated, and may be made via the button below
|