November 2024 Print

The Fraternity of Saint Peter and their Unstable Position in the Church

By Fr. Jonathan Loop, SSPX

On December 14, 2023, at the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) church in Quimper, France, a delegate of the diocesan bishop, Monsignor Dognin, read a statement to the congregation explaining that His Excellency had decided to revoke the diocese’s contract with the Fraternity and that the priests who had ministered to them would be obliged to leave the diocese. This message was brutal both because it was unexpected and because of its timing; when these faithful were intent on preparing to celebrate the coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ into the world, they learned they would have to take their leave of the priests who had guided them and provided them with the traditional Mass and sacraments.

Clearly, many among them were distraught and rallied behind the Fraternity priests, begging Monsignor Dognin to reconsider. Monsignor Dognin was not moved, agreeing only to allow the Fraternity priests to continue working until the end of the current agreement on September 1, 2024. After this date, the faithful will be expected to assist at Mass in their regular parishes, though diocesan priests will still offer a Traditional Mass for them on Sundays at the location formerly serviced by the Fraternity.

There does not appear to be any evidence that this unfortunate episode represented the beginning of a larger scale and systematic attack against the Fraternity. Rather, it seems to have been precipitated by some very local circumstances. However, it does draw attention to the fact that the apostolate of the Fraternity—and, by extension, any “Ecclesia Dei” institute or diocesan indult Mass—is profoundly precarious and subject to the whims of the current hierarchy of the Church. This, in turn, is the source of an instability and ever-present fear by members of these institutes and the faithful who attend their Masses that there will be a more widespread persecution.¹ The Fraternity and other institutes founded on similar principles are thus unable to provide a true, secure, and perpetually integral Catholic life to the souls who approach them. We will focus more on the Fraternity, since it is the largest and most important of these communities.

Before giving an analysis of this situation, it is necessary to remark that it is difficult to give a simplistic and comprehensive description of the actual situations in which the Fraternity finds itself. Many bishops in different countries treat them in profoundly opposed manners. By way of example, in France, the FSSP is seldom allowed to oversee “personal parishes”² whereas in the United States bishops have been very generous in this regard. Fr. Benoît Paul-Joseph, the District Superior of the FSSP in France, lamenting this fact and commenting on tensions which can arise with the local parish priest in the course of the Fraternity’s apostolate, notes: “In such a case, I think a personal parish is the best solution. It is the most natural and even allows a more easy exercise [of the ministry]. By way of comparison, in the US, the FSSP operates thirty-nine personal parishes.”³ The events in Quimper were, in part, occasioned by tensions with the pastor of the parish in which the FSSP was operating; this would not likely occur in most FSSP locations in the US.

On the other hand, the US bishops have consistently declined to allow the Fraternity to run schools in their dioceses and it is rare that the Fraternity priests here even exercise a form of chaplaincy. By way of contrast, in France, the Fraternity runs five schools of various levels and serves as chaplains in at least twenty more. Thus, while preventing the Fraternity priests from being pastors according to the law, the French bishops grant a wider freedom of action when it comes to education.

 

This lack of consistency by the bishops of different nations—while confusing—serves to underscore the inability of the FSSP to provide a truly integral Catholic life. Indeed, its members are bound by the principles of their organization to accept whatever terms are granted to them by the local bishops for as long as the bishops are pleased to grant them. If the local ordinary does not want them to operate a school, they must yield to this condition if they wish to operate in the diocese⁴. If the bishop decides to end the relationship, they must leave, regardless of the effect on the faithful.

We can say that this indicates that the FSSP justifies themselves both as to their existence and to their action in this or that diocese not on the immemorial principles of the Faith but on the goodwill of the current hierarchy of the Church. This is certainly the spirit and rationale behind the petition of the superiors of the various institutes presented to Pope Francis in the wake of Traditionis Custodes:

We beg for a humane, personal, trusting dialogue, far from ideologies or the coldness of administrative decrees. We would like to be able to meet a person who will be for us the face of the Motherhood of the Church. We would like to be able to tell him about the suffering, the tragedies, the sadness of so many lay faithful around the world, but also of priests, men and women religious who gave their lives trusting on the word of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI. They were promised that “all measures would be taken to guarantee the identity of their Institutes in the full communion of the Catholic Church”[1]. This solemn commitment was expressed in the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei of July 2, 1988; then in a diversified manner for each Institute, in their decrees of erection and in their constitutions definitively approved. The men and women religious and priests involved in our Institutes have made vows or made commitments according to this specification [emphasis added].⁵

Even though the superiors speak of a “solemn commitment” they are referring to what is considered a privilege; that is, a faculty granted at the discretion of a superior⁶. This faculty therefore does not bind the authorities in perpetuity and may be rescinded. The authorities in question—the last few popes and their representatives in the Curia—have made clear consistently over the past few decades that this is how they view the concessions made to the Fraternity and other institutes like them. For example, Cardinal Re, a deputy at the Secretariat of State, wrote in January 1994:

The diverse dispositions taken after 1984 aim at facilitating the ecclesial life of a certain number of faithful, without however rendering perpetual the previous liturgical forms [i.e., the Tridentine rite and the traditional Sacraments]. The general law is that of using the rite revised after the Council, on account of which the use of the previous rite must be understood as being in the order of a privilege which has an exceptional character. . .the first duty of all the faithful is that of welcoming and probing the wealth of the meanings which are found in the liturgy in force, and of doing it in the spirit of faith and obedience to the Magisterium, by avoiding all opposition harmful to ecclesial communion.⁷

For his part, Cardinal Hoyos wrote the following in a letter in which he explained the reasoning behind the Vatican’s interventions in the internal government of the Fraternity in 2000 (resulting in the removal of Fr. Bisig from the office of General Superior):

The ground for this is the clear circumstances of the legal situation in this matter, namely: A priest, who enjoys the privilege to celebrate the Mass according to the old Missal of 1962, does not lose the right, likewise to use the Missal of 1970, which is officially in force in the Latin Church⁸ [emphasis added].

Finally, Pope Francis wrote in his famous decree for the Fraternity to be exempt from the application of Traditionis Custodes:

The Holy Father Francis concedes to all the members of the FSSP the faculty to celebrate the sacrifice of the Mass, and to carry out the sacraments and other sacred rites, as well as to fulfill the Divine Office, according to the typical editions of the liturgical books, namely the Missal, the Ritual, the Pontifical and the Roman Breviary, in force in the year 1962. They may use this faculty in their own churches or oratories; otherwise it may only be used with the consent of the Ordinary of the place, except for the celebration of private Masses. Without prejudice to what has been said above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well⁹ [emphasis added].

A concession is a granting of a permission, not the acknowledgment of a right. Furthermore, if the authority concedes to someone the ability (faculty) to do something, he necessarily reserves to himself the right to revoke that concession. In speaking in this fashion, the Holy Father merely repeats what his predecessors and their representatives have declared consistently for decades.

Furthermore, even then the Holy Father makes a point to indicate that the members of the Fraternity should be mindful of Traditionis Custodes and its prescriptions. This underlines the fact that, from the point of view of their ecclesiastical superiors, the situation of the FSSP is intrinsically temporary. In order not to offend their sensibilities, they are granted permission for a time to operate as they do. But the goal is that they move in the direction of the common “law” of the Church—i.e., the New Mass and all that it represents.

How can it be otherwise? The FSSP has agreed in principle that the Traditional Mass, sacraments and even doctrine are not essential for the Faith. At most, it is their personal preference or “charism.” At the same time, Fraternity readily admits that the Novus Ordo Mass is both good and legitimate. Thus, the current Superior General, Fr. John Berg, in an interview given in 2007 had the following to say:

Therefore, the decision that was made by the Holy See was to offer that option [to offer the “Extraordinary” or the “Ordinary” form], this is an option given to every priest in the Catholic Church. There is no option as to being united with the local bishop and to striving to “be one,” but there is no obligation to pose this or that act [i.e., to say Mass according to either the “Ordinary” or “Extraordinary” form], unless one were to count the Profession of Faith, which is confessed in certain cases and which underlines that the faith is the fundamental bond of unity.¹⁰

Evidently, his observation that the Faith is the fundamental bond of unity is correct and true. However, he admits that the Novus Ordo Mass and the Mass of All Times express equally that one Faith. As a consequence, Fr. Berg denies that the Mass of All Times expresses the timeless Catholic Faith in a more integral and accurate manner than does the Novus Ordo. In a real manner, he undermines the principle “lex orandi, lex credendi.”

As a necessary corollary, they must admit the goodness and legitimacy of the principles underlying the Novus Ordo Mass and all the reforms flowing from them. Thus, in a 2013 interview, Fr. John Berg commented:

But as pope, as the one whom God selected as successor of Saint Peter to “confirm the brethren,” he chose in Summorum Pontificum to speak of two forms, with the New Mass as the norm. I trust his wisdom in making this decision. We are all impatient for things to improve, but such decisions cannot just be made theoretically; they have to look at the good of the whole Church and consider all of the circumstances.¹¹

His manner of speaking was mirrored by Fr. Benoit Paul-Joseph, the superior of the Fraternity’s French District.

In his motu proprio, Pope Benedict XVI spoke of “two expressions of the one Roman rite”: the one ordinary (Missal of Paul VI) and the other extraordinary (called the Missal of St. Pius V). There is therefore a distinction between these two liturgical forms even though they form one same rite. But it is precisely the principle of unity, which necessarily comprehends a plurality (otherwise we would be dealing with “unicity”). In the Church as elsewhere unity does not come to the same thing as uniformity but is a harmonious conjunction of various parts with their proper differences. If to walk towards unity signified seeking to destroy little by little the things which distinguish us, at that point one would be following a wrong path which would destroy the wealth and the harmony of unity.¹²

We can say that Fr. Paul-Joseph goes further by arguing that the Traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo Mass each contribute to the good of the Church through their harmonious co-existence. He makes this argument as an “ad hominem” to convince Novus Ordo bishops that the Traditional Mass is not a threat. However, the principle he lays down can be equally used by defenders of the Novus Ordo to argue that it has as much to offer for the glory of God and the good of the Church as does the Mass canonized by St. Pius V. At this point, how could one sustain the position that it is harmful for souls? Fr. Paul-Joseph’s language is reflected, unsurprisingly, in the aforementioned “superiors’ letter”:

We are eager to make our modest contribution to this harmonious and diverse unity, aware that, as Sacrosanctum Concilium teaches, ‘the liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is directed; at the same time it is the font from which all her power flows’ (SC, n ° 10).¹³

Ultimately, the superiors of the Fraternity and other organizations are simply making their own the vision of John Paul II in Ecclesia Dei Afflicta:

However, it is necessary that all the Pastors and the other faithful have a new awareness, not only of the lawfulness but also of the richness for the Church of a diversity of charisms, traditions of spirituality and apostolate, which also constitutes the beauty of unity in variety: of that blended ‘harmony’ which the earthly Church raises up to Heaven under the impulse of the Holy Spirit.

 

If this is the case, what justifies the continued existence of these organizations? The FSSP cannot claim to be defending the Faith for the Church as a whole. Rather, they merely have a “charism,” a certain way of living the Faith. We can see this very clearly in an interview given by Fr. Berg to a French publication, Famille Chretienne, after his re-election to the position of Superior General in July 2024. He asserts there that

The constitutional act of our community and the decree itself manifest that it is not necessary to pose the question of the timeliness of our charism. The FSSP was erected by the Church as a society of apostolic life of pontifical right, founded for the unity and the good of the Church and one of the manners in which it accomplished this is to receive and to confer the sacraments conformably to the traditional liturgical books. To restrict our right to use these books would be like imposing on the Franciscans the duty to serve the Church by no longer observing poverty!¹⁴

The Fraternity’s devotion to the Traditional Mass is the equivalent of the Franciscans’ devotion to poverty. The problem with this comparison is that poverty as practiced by the Franciscans is not a precept which binds all the faithful.¹⁵ It is nothing more than an evangelical counsel offered to those who want a more perfect life, who wish to go over and above the ordinary requirements of the faithful. As a consequence, it is something “extraordinary” which is not necessary for salvation and one can freely forego the vow of poverty and still be a good and holy Catholic. In a like manner, the Novus Ordo Mass is the ordinary way of worship in the Church and those who prefer the Tridentine Mass merely pursue something extraordinary.

Furthermore, the Franciscans and other religious congregations are ordered firstly to the private good of their members, even if they can serve vital functions in the life of the Church. The purpose of a man who enters the Franciscan order is to pursue poverty in view of his own personal sanctification. He does not profess perfection as such, but his will to tend towards perfection through the voluntary renunciation of his own property. He is not firstly concerned with the common good of the Church even if he is prepared to be entrusted with some apostolate and missionary work. Thus, we ought not be surprised to see the Superior General speak in terms of the personal good of individuals when describing the apostolate of the Fraternity:

My work in these parishes was the same as that conducted by all of our priests and which consists in helping the faithful to concentrate on their own and their families’ spiritual lives. If one believes what one reads on the Internet, one can easily have the false impression according to which the “traditional Mass” [sic] is a sort of movement or crusade. It would be much more judicious to speak of it as it truly is: as a parish or chaplaincy where people gather who only want to adore God and be transformed by His grace.¹⁶

There is, of course, much truth to what he says. The Mass is indeed the source of true sanctification and many souls who attend the Mass are interested primarily in the salvation of their own souls and of those whom they love. However, to reduce the Mass to an act of personal devotion is wrong.

The Mass is the center of the liturgy and the liturgy is not an act of personal or private devotion; rather, it is the official and public worship of God which is offered by the Church. As a necessary consequence, it is intimately bound with the common good of the Church and therefore has a tremendously public character. Every liturgical act is necessarily a “movement” or a “crusade” insofar as it is meant to engage the whole Church and thus to draw every member in its wake.¹⁷ From this point of view, we must say that the Holy Father is correct when he writes in the letter accompanying Traditionis Custodes:

Because “liturgical celebrations are not private actions, but celebrations of the Church, which is the sacrament of unity,” they must be carried out in communion with the Church. Vatican Council II, while it reaffirmed the external bonds of incorporation in the Church—the profession of faith, the sacraments, of communion—affirmed with St. Augustine that to remain in the Church not only “with the body” but also “with the heart” is a condition for salvation.¹⁸

Since the liturgy is an expression of the public worship of the Church, it is ultimately regulated by the hierarchy of the Church, who can legitimately establish conditions for that public worship. Thus, if the hierarchy were to judge that the time for the permission to celebrate the old rites is over, the FSSP has already accepted in principle the need to obey. They can ask for permission to continue, but this remains nothing more than a permission and will last as long as the superior is pleased to grant it. The current Holy Father has already indicated the direction he wills to go:

Indications about how to proceed in your dioceses are chiefly dictated by two principles: on the one hand, to provide for the good of those who are rooted in the previous form of celebration and need to return in due time to the Roman Rite promulgated by Saints Paul VI and John Paul II, and, on the other hand, to discontinue the erection of new personal parishes tied more to the desire and wishes of individual priests than to the real need of the “holy People of God.”¹⁹

It is true that the Holy Father has “exempted” the Fraternity from a rigorous application of Traditionis Custodes by his “decree” of February 11th, 2022. However, he did make very clear even in that motu proprio that he advises its members to be mindful of what he laid down in the document. “Without prejudice to what has been said above, the Holy Father suggests that, as far as possible, the provisions of the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes be taken into account as well.” Regardless of how this will play out concretely, the FSSP has placed itself in a position where it cannot defend its attachment to the Mass of All Times on the principle that it is necessary to safeguard the Faith. It is merely a private devotion that they have been granted for a time.

Thus, they willingly accept as normal when they are refused entry to a diocese by a bishop who does not “appreciate” their form of spirituality, as is made clear by the following comment of Fr. John Berg in an interview he gave during his first term as Superior General: “In the end, if a bishop wants to make changes to the rites, and if he sees the reception of Holy Communion in the hand as an essential act for his faithful, then he will not want the Fraternity in his diocese.”²⁰ There is no ground to critique such a bishops’ attitude as contrary to any principle of the Faith.

The last statement of Fr. Berg reveals furthermore—and perhaps most importantly from the point of view of the faithful—this “charism” is properly only for the members of the FSSP. The faithful are not members of the Fraternity and cannot properly make any claim to partake in its “charism.” They therefore are free to come to FSSP Mass centers when the FSSP is permitted to come to a diocese, but the FSSP does not pretend to defend the faithful’s right to the true Mass and sacraments as safeguards to their Faith or to guarantee to them a Catholic life to which they could make any claim in justice. If the local bishop decides they need to receive Communion on the tongue—or assist at the Novus Ordo Mass—then they must follow the bishop and the FSSP will live out its personal devotions elsewhere.

Thus, if the FSSP is sent away from a church, the faithful can be stripped of the sacraments. The FSSP will not defend them. Here, let us return to the situation in Quimper, France, since it is quite instructive in this regard. In the first place, we can consider the statement made on December 31, 2023 by Abbé Loïc Courtois and Abbé Nicolas Télisson, the two FSSP priests who served the “traditional Mass community”:

We thank Mgr. Dognin (the local ordinary) for permitting us to continue our apostolate until the end of our “pastoral year” [the term of the contract which had been signed with the diocese, ending on August 31, 2024—author] and we assure to you, the faithful, of our entire devotion during this period. The same letter [of the bishop] of 22 December . . . directs you to the pastors of your parishes, who will be “ready to receive you.” It is therefore to them you must turn to make known your needs for the future.²¹

Thus, the Fraternity sends the faithful who had been coming to them to receive the Mass and a Catholic life back to the pastors and their local bishop. They can “make known their needs” but ultimately must accept whatever their superiors decide. What has the bishop decided? In a letter dated August 10th 2024, Monsignor Dognin wrote to the erstwhile “parishioners” of the Fraternity:

The Sunday Masses will be celebrated according to the ancient Missal, but at the same time all pastoral activities must be common in the heart of the parishes. I equally ask the faithful from the two communities [the FSSP served two small chapels in the diocese, akin to a priory and a mission chapel] participate at Masses according to the current Missal [i.e., the Missal of Paul VI] during the week and for certain greater feasts as a sign of the recognition of the validity of the sacraments celebrated in the universal Church. I have also announced that we can no longer celebrate baptisms, marriages, and confirmation with the ancient rites since the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes does not give me permission to do so.²²

The Fraternity—and by extension, other “Ecclesia Dei” communities—by its principles, is powerless to defend its erstwhile faithful or the common good of the Church. Thus, the FSSP gave no official condemnation of this action on the part of the bishop in depriving the faithful of the traditional sacraments, nor advised them of their right to what is necessary to safeguard their Faith. What do we see instead? In one of the last sermons given to the faithful at Quimper, Abbé Courtois observed:

Many are wondering what will happen to them, what they should do and that I tell them what to do. Unfortunately, there is no solution that is entirely satisfactory. It is apparent that not all of you will make the same choice, because this is intimately linked to the personal history and spiritual journey of each. It seems important to me to be conscious of that [diversity] so that one not believe that a personal solution is the only correct one that must be imposed on all. The different choices which you might make ought not to be a source of condemnation or division.²³

The powerlessness of this statement is breathtaking. In effect, this poor priest is telling souls whom he likely cares deeply about: “I have nothing to say to you. I can give you no guidance. You are all on your own and must do as you see fit, but please don’t judge each other.” He foresees the progressive dissolution of this community but can do nothing about it. He may well be zealous and dedicated, but the principles of his organization fundamentally handicap him in his efforts to navigate the crisis he and the faithful are facing. In the same sermon, he comments:

I do not believe—despite the efforts made by some, even at the highest level—that [the Mass] will be wholly forbidden. At your level, it is necessary to act so that it is maintained here locally. In effect, humanly speaking, given the general and current circumstances in the Church—and among the local clergy—if the traditional Mass disappears from Quimper, it will not return. But if it is maintained here by a united and bonded community, we can hope that Providence will improve the situation from these ‘small remains.’²⁴ [emphasis added]

This poor priest “hopes” but can do more. What he offers is not a solution and there is every reason to believe that the Mass may well disappear for good from Quimper. The faithful do not have a right to it and if the local ordinary decides that the Mass of all Times ought not to “maintained” and commands that they assist at the Novus Ordo, what real recourse do they have? Certainly not the Fraternity.

What this poor priest says to his former flock is applicable to the entire Church given the principles of his organization. If the Mass of all Times, if a Catholic life is to survive, it must be defended on the level of principle and on the level of Faith. It is not a private devotion but the sure safeguard of the Catholic Faith to which every member of the Church—particularly in the Latin Rite—has a strict right. As good willed as individuals of the FSSP and other organizations may be, “they are not of the seed of those men by whom salvation was brought to Israel.”²⁵

Endnotes

¹ One need only consider this summer’s rumored Vatican document which caused great apprehension. According to various sources, the document was prepared and ready to be signed, but the Pope declined to do so for reasons known to him.

² A “personal” parish is opposed to a “territorial” parish. The latter is the original structure of a parish and, as the name indicates, gathers together in one religious body all the faithful who live in one geographical area. A “personal” parish gathers together faithful who are united not by location but by some other characteristic: common language, common rite, common nationality, etc.

³ Fr Benoît Paul-Joseph, Interview with Michel Janva with Le Salon Beige, June 7, 2021. Accessible here: https://www.fssp.fr/2021/06/07/la-croissance-reguliere-des-apostolats-de-la-fssp-necessite-de-revoir-leur-statut-canonique/

⁴ In normal times, this is actually the standard way to proceed. Everything pertaining to the apostolate in a diocese falls properly to the jurisdiction of the local ordinary. He may invite a religious order to take on some element of the apostolate, but they are subject to his authority in the exercise of that charge.

⁵ Letter published in Courtalain, France, September 2, 2021. Accessible here: https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/09/communique-of-superiors-general-of.html

⁶ As noted in Canon 79 of the 1983 CIC, a privilege can be revoked by the competent authority.

⁷ Enquete sur la Messe traditionelle, 1988-1998 in the article, “Dixieme anniversaire du motu proprio Ecclesia Dei,” special issue of La Nef, 1988, edited by Christopher Geffroy and Philip Maxence. Cited in A Canonical Study of the 1988 Consecrations, https://sspx.org/en/canonical-study-1988-consecrations-30473.

⁸ Letter of June 29, 2000, accessible at: https://unavocecanada.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/VTMS-News-FSSP-General-Chapter.pdf.

⁹ Decree of February 11, 2022 accessible at: https://fssp.com/decree/.

¹⁰ Interview appearing in Remnant Newspaper on July 5, 2007. NB: This was published two days prior to the release of Summorum Pontificum, accessible at: https://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2007-0715-fr-berg.htm

¹¹ Interview appearing in Winter/Spring 2013 edition of Latin Mass Magazine, accessible at: http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/pdfs/Berg-interview-LM-2013-1-WinSpr.pdf

¹² Interview given to Michel Janva of le Salon Beige, June 5, 2021, accessible at: https://lesalonbeige.fr/la-croissance-reguliere-des-apostolats-de-la-fssp-necessite-de-revoir-leur-statut-canonique-la-paroisse-personnelle-serait-la-meilleure-solution/

¹³ https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2021/09/communique-of-superiors-general-of.html

¹⁴ Available at: https://www.fssp.fr/2024/08/08/entretien-de-labbe-john-berg-dans-le-journal-famille-chretienne/. !

¹⁵ St. Thomas Aquinas discusses the relation of the evangelical counsels to perfection in IIaIIae Q184, especially article 3. There, he comments that Christian perfection is to be found essentially in the commandments. The counsels contribute to perfection secondarily and instrumentally; that is to say, they remove certain things that are not intrinsically opposed to perfection (e.g., marriage) but which could hinder a man in his pursuit of perfection.

¹⁶ Interview cited above.

¹⁷ Thus, in the Statutes of the FSSPX, Mgr Lefebvre indicated that the congregation was essentially apostolic because such is the Mass.

¹⁸ https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2021/documents/20210716-lettera-vescovi-liturgia.html

¹⁹ Ibid.

²⁰ Remnant Newspaper, 2007. Interview cited above.

²¹ https://fsspfinistere.blogspot.com/2023/):

²² Letter of Monsignor Dognin, August 10, 2024, accessible at: https://www.paixliturgique.fr/temp/2024-08-10%20Lettre%20Mgr%20Dognin%20aux%20fidèles%20de%20Quimper%20et%20Ste%20Sève.pdf

²³ Sermon of August 18, 2024, accessible at: https://fsspfinistere.blogspot.com/2024/08/.

²⁴ Ibid.

²⁵ Cf. I Maccabees 5:62.

 

TITLE IMAGE: Église Saint Mathieu, Quimper, France. One of the churches that were served by the FSSP.