On the SSPX, the Old Covenant, and No Salvation Outside the Church: A Refutation of George Weigel

Novus Ordo theologian stumbles over perennial Catholic truth…

On the SSPX, the Old Covenant, and No Salvation Outside the Church: A Refutation of George Weigel

The well-known Novus Ordo lay theologian George Weigel has published an article against the Society of St. Pius X (FSSPX or SSPX) in the neo-conservative First Things magazine.

First Things was founded in 1989 by Rev. Richard John Neuhaus (1936-2009), a name that was once a familiar one in ‘orthodox’ Novus Ordo circles but that seems to have largely disappeared from public discourse in the last decade or so, at least online. Neuhaus was a convert to the Novus Ordo religion from Lutheranism and supported Hans Urs von Balthasar’s blasphemous “hope” that all people will go to Heaven. At present, First Things is edited by R. R. Reno (b. 1959), a convert from Episcopalianism.

Weigel’s piece is entitled “The SSPX Leadership Against Scripture and Tradition”. In it he takes issue with the “Declaration of Catholic Faith Addressed to Pope Leo XIV” that was published on May 14 by Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the current superior general of the traditionalist Society founded in 1970 by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre.

Of all the things one can legitimately criticize about the SSPX — and we have done plenty of such legit criticizing here on this blog — Weigel, as a staunch adherent of the Second Vatican Council, ironically picks two points the Lefebvrists actually get right: that the Old Covenant is over, and that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

Let’s have a look at Weigel’s objections to both.

Weigel’s Rejection of Covenantal Supersessionism

The leadership of the SSPX “does not share the faith of the Catholic Church”, Weigel writes, and by that he means the doctrines of the Vatican II religion. He explains:

Take the declaration’s very first sentence, in which the SSPX declares that “Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . rendered the Old Covenant definitively null and void.” That would have shocked St. Paul who, wrestling with the tangled question of the relationship between Israel’s election and the New Covenant incorporating the Gentiles into God’s plan of salvation, wrote, under divine inspiration, “They are Israelites, and to them belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises” (Rom. 9:4). Not “belonged,” but “belong.” Two chapters later, Paul insists that “as regards election they [the Jewish people] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:28–29). God does not repent of his promises, and the Old and New Testaments form a unity, as the Church has consistently affirmed for two millennia. The SSPX declaration denies this.

Now this is just atrocious argumentation on Mr. Weigel’s part. It is fine, of course, to quote St. Paul, but that same St. Paul had a lot more to say on the topic than what the Novus Ordo theologian quotes here (and misinterprets). For example:

As it is written: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. For you are all the children of God by faith, in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ, have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.

(Galatians 3:6-7,26-29)

We saw that Abraham’s faith was reckoned virtue in him. And in what state of things was that reckoning made? Was he circumcised or uncircumcised at the time? Uncircumcised, not circumcised yet. Circumcision was only given to him as a token; as the seal of that justification which came to him through his faith while he was still uncircumcised. And thus he is the father of all those who, still uncircumcised, have the faith that will be reckoned virtue in them too. Meanwhile, he is the father of those who are circumcised, as long as they do not merely take their stand on circumcision, but follow in the steps of that faith which he, our father Abraham, had before circumcision began. It was not through obedience to the law, but through faith justifying them, that Abraham and his posterity were promised the inheritance of the world. If it is only those who obey the law that receive the inheritance, then his faith was ill founded, and the promise has been annulled. (The effect of the law is only to bring God’s displeasure upon us; it is only where there is a law that transgression becomes possible.) The inheritance, then, must come through faith (and so by free gift); thus the promise is made good to all Abraham’s posterity, not only that posterity of his which keeps the law, but that which imitates his faith. We are all Abraham’s children; and so it was written of him, I have made thee the father of many nations. We are his children in the sight of God, in whom he put his faith, who can raise the dead to life, and send his call to that which has no being, as if it already were.

(Romans 4:9-17; Mgr. Ronald Knox translation)

Indeed, our Blessed Lord Himself, when confronted with the Pharisees’ argument that they were the children of Abraham, told them plainly:

If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham. But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not. Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am.

(John 8:39b-40,56-58)

In the Old Dispensation, the seed of Abraham was understood in a carnal-biological sense only, whereas in the New Covenant this fleshly sense gave way to its true, fulfilled sense, namely, that all those are children of Abraham who have the Faith of Abraham (in the Messiah), regardless of whether they are his biological descendants or not. That is why St. Paul could write to the Gentile Romans that “Abraham … is the father of us all” (Rom 4:16). And that is why Christ taught, albeit in a different context: “It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6:64a).

The great Scripture scholar Fr. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) makes this very point in his commentary on St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans: “…the seed of Abraham, i.e., his sons, to which the blessing was promised, i.e., justice, the friendship of God, protection, and salvation, are not understood as sons according to the flesh, namely the Jews, but rather according to the spirit, and faith, namely the Christians” (The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans [Fitzwilliam, NH: Loreto Publications, 2025], pp. 268-269; italics given).

Thus it is abundantly clear that now the true Chosen People are not those of a particular fleshly link, as was the case in the Old Covenant, but those who believe in the Messiah and are members of His religion.

Yes, the Jews of the Old Covenant were the depositaries of God’s Promises, and in that sense they were His Chosen People then: “for salvation is of the Jews” (Jn 4:22). But now that these Promises have been fulfilled, it is those who believe in and cling to the fulfillment that are His Chosen People, and certainly not those who repudiate and deny it.

Father Lapide explains what St. Paul meant when he wrote that to the Jews “belongeth the adoption as of children” (Rom 9:4), and it is not what George Weigel thinks: “Whom God adopted as children, when He designated them for Himself and His own worship, in Ex 4:22, saying: ‘Israel is My son, My firstborn’; and now, through Christ, He wills to adopt them for Himself above all others as sons and heirs” (p. 274).

Thus the Novus Ordo theologian could not be more wrong in his belief that somehow the Old Covenant remains in force, for by no means did the Apostle to the Gentiles suggest that the Old Covenant was still valid ‘for the Jews’, operating alongside the New:

But now he [Christ] has obtained a superior ministry, in proportion as he is mediator of a superior covenant, enacted on the basis of superior promises. For had the first been faultless, place would not of course be sought for a second. For finding fault with them he says, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Juda, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them forth out of the land of Egypt; For they did not abide by my covenant, and I did not regard them, says the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and upon their hearts I will write them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each his neighbor, and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord’; for all shall know me, from least to greatest among them. Because I will be merciful to their iniquities, and their sins I will remember no more” [Jer 31:31-34]. Now in saying, “a new covenant,” he has made obsolete the former one; and that which is obsolete and has grown old is near its end.

(Hebrews 8:6-13; Confraternity translation [1941])

That is entirely consonant with the teaching of Christ, who told the Jews: “Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof” (Mt 21:43).

Therefore, Pope Pius XII taught in one of his most important encyclical letters:

…by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area — He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel — the Law and the Gospel were together in force; but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. “To such an extent, then,” says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, “was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom.”

On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. …

If we consider closely all these mysteries of the Cross, those words of the Apostle are no longer obscure, in which he teaches the Ephesians that Christ by His blood made the Jews and Gentiles one “breaking down the middle wall of partition . . . in his flesh” by which the two peoples were divided; and that He made the Old Law void “that he might make the two in himself into one new man,” that is, the Church, and might reconcile both to God in one Body by the Cross.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, nn. 29-30,32)

As we can see, none of the foregoing is some ‘extremist’ interpretation of Sacred Scripture invented by traditionalists. Rather, it simply the official Roman Catholic teaching from before the false Second Vatican Council (1962-65).

That is why we find this confirmed also, for instance, in Donald Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary (1953), where we read that the New Covenant “in part fulfilled and in part superseded” the Old (p. 353). In another place of the same book we are told that the New Law “infinitely surpassed and superseded and yet fulfilled” the Old (p. 342). And we also find that in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apostle “explains the priesthood of Jesus Christ and supersession of the old covenant by the new…” (p. 225).

But what about God’s “election” of the Jews and the irrevocability of “the gifts and the call of God”, as Weigel points out? Here too we need but look at the traditional Catholic understanding of these words in Romans 11:28-29: “As concerning the gospel, indeed, they [the Jews] are enemies for your sake: but as touching the election, they are most dear for the sake of the fathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance.”

Father a Lapide explains, first regarding the second part of verse 28:

But as touching the election (by which God long ago chose the Jews as His people), they are most dear for the sake of the fathers, namely the holy Patriarchs, the friends of God, to whom God promised that He would convert their children to Christ at the end of the world, and choose them for His friendship, Church, and salvation, after the fullness of the Gentiles entered in: moreover God will keep and fulfill His promises, and for this reason, when the Jews receive the faith at the end of the world, they will be very gladly received by the Church on account of their fathers. Thus Ambrose, Origen, Augustine.

(The Great Commentary of Cornelius a Lapide: Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, p. 357; italics given.)

Here we see very clearly that St. Paul is speaking about the Jews’ future conversion to Catholicism. By no means do the Jews have a special ‘parallel’ covenant of their own; rather, they too, just like the Gentiles, must convert to Christ and His Church to be saved.

Regarding the gifts and calling of God being “irrevocable”, as some translations render Rom 11:29, Fr. Lapide writes:

For the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance. “Without repentance” …, irrevocable, i.e. unchangeable. … The meaning is: Although the Jews are unbelieving now, nevertheless God does not revoke what He absolutely gave or promised, namely His calling, protection, and love for their sons, especially those who are to convert at the end of the world: He will in fact grant this. To paraphrase: God now in fact calls the Jews, whom He called to Himself long ago through Moses, and promised and decreed that He would call to Christ, and treat with gifts of grace and glory; and He will call them especially at the end of the world, and will bestow on them the spiritual goods that He promised: for then the Jews, thoroughly weary of so many evils and the long years of blindness and desolation, will open their eyes through the preaching and miracles of Elias and Henoch, and will believe in Christ.

(pp. 357-358; italics given)

This, then, is how God fulfills His promise even to the fleshly descendants of Abraham: They too can find salvation in the one true Church, established by the one true Messiah, who alone is “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6); “Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).

None of this is terribly difficult to understand. Yet, today’s ‘Catholic’ theologians have a very hard time accepting that the Old Covenant is over and done with, that there is no alternative to the New Covenant ‘for the Jews’. The origin of this reluctance to embrace the perennial Catholic teaching is probably Vatican II’s false doctrine concerning the Jews. It was this abominable pseudo-council and the false, post-conciliar magisterium that changed the Catholic doctrine, replacing it with a perversion of the truth.

How radically different the Vatican II doctrine is from the traditional teaching, has recently been given visible expression in the novel sculpture Synagoga and Ecclesia in Our Time, blessed by ‘Pope’ Francis in 2015:

Weigel’s foundational error, then, lies in adhering to the pseudo-magisterial trash heap of the Second Vatican Council and subsequent Novus Ordo pronouncements instead of the perennial Catholic doctrine received from the Apostles.

Weigel’s Meaningless Version of ‘No Salvation Outside the Church’

In his short monograph against the SSPX, Weigel has more to criticize:

The [SSPX] declaration goes on to claim that “every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul, and there is but one baptism as the means of being incorporated into her. This necessity concerns the whole of humanity without exception and embraces without distinction Christians, Jews, Muslims, pagans, and atheists.” SSPX hell is thus quite well populated, and includes your Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim, and nonbelieving friends and relatives. This, however, is precisely the extreme distortion of the old maxim extra ecclesiam nulla salus (no salvation outside the Church) for which Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated in 1953, the theological ground for that sanction being laid by a 1949 statement of the Holy Office approved by Pope Pius XII.

Ironically, the SSPX declaration affirms that “the denial of even a single truth of the Faith destroys faith itself and renders radically impossible all communion with the Catholic Church.” Yet that is precisely what the SSPX does in declaring God’s promises to the Jewish people “definitively null and void” and by giving the most extreme possible interpretation to extra ecclesiam nulla salus. The SSPX thus contradicts the teaching of such giants as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, the papal condemnations of Jansenism, and the teaching of Blessed Pius IX in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore on the availability of grace beyond the sacraments.

To accuse the Lefebvrists of being Feeneyites is to be extremely ignorant of the SSPX position. Their 128-page book Is Feeneyism Catholic?, written by Fr. François Laiseny, is still in print, and has been since 1991. For those who are not aware, the author answers the question broached in the book’s title with a resounding ‘no’. For all their faults, the Lefebvrists are not Feeneyites.

In fact, regarding the question whether Fr. Feeney and his followers can properly be called ‘heretics’, Fr. Laisney states:

The decree of excommunication of Fr. Feeney, approved and confirmed by Pope Pius XII on February 12, 1953, does not mention the charge of heretic, but rather that of a “grievous disobedience to the Authority of the Church.” One cannot condemn them more than the Church did, so one should not say that they are formal “heretics.”

However if, after one has explained to them properly the Catholic doctrine on baptism of desire (not the liberal doctrine), they publicly, stubbornly, “pertinaciously” refuse to correct themselves and “to hold fast to the doctrine of the Fathers” (Pope Innocent III), I cannot see how they could be excused of a grievous sin of temerity against the Faith, together with a sin of pride! Thus they could be denied Holy Communion.

(François Laisney, Is Feeneyism Catholic? [Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2001], p. 112)

Fr. Laisney then goes on to defend the orthodoxy of the Holy Office’s 1949 protocol letter Suprema Haec Sacra, which Feeneyites will often attack.

Granted, the way Fr. Pagliarani phrased the content of the dogma of the Church’s necessity for salvation is a bit too strict and therefore inaccurate. We pointed this out in our own blog post on the SSPX ‘Declaration of Catholic Faith’ a month ago:

The SSPX’s proclamation that “every man must be a member of the Catholic Church in order to save his soul” is technically inaccurate, since the dogma does not require membership in the Catholic Church for salvation but only being inside her, which, strictly speaking, is possible without being a member (hence unbaptized catechumens who are martyred for the Faith die inside the Church, but not as members).

(“Lefebvrists Fire More Salvos at Post-Catholic Vatican: A Sedevacantist Assessment”, Novus Ordo Wire, May 18, 2026)

It seems that Weigel is relying entirely on Pagliarani’s poorly-worded statement in the ‘Declaration of Catholic Faith’ for concluding the SSPX is Feeneyite. Perhaps one should not fault him for this, as he is but interacting with the text as written; at the same time, it shows that Weigel is not much familiar with the Lefebvrist Society, because at no time has the SSPX ever been suspected of holding the doctrines of Fr. Feeney, or of denying baptism of blood or desire.

In any case, it is quite telling that Weigel believes that the ‘true’ meaning of No Salvation Outside the Church is compatible with the idea that “your Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim, and nonbelieving friends and relatives” are probably on their way to Heaven — in which case the Church’s missionaries, especially the heroic ones such as the North American Martyrs, could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

Instead, what Weigel is doing is precisely what Pope Pius XII warned against in 1950, namely, he is “reduc[ing] to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.” For if “your Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish, Muslim, and nonbelieving friends and relatives” have nothing to worry about, how can one still reasonably maintain that outside the Catholic Church, there is no salvation? Talk about an “extreme distortion” of the dogma!

We might add that in 1864, Pope Pius IX forbade Catholics to hold that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Syllabus of Errors, n. 17). Yet it is clear that Weigel does very much entertain such hope.

As is usually the case with dogma, so too No Salvation Outside the Church is denied both by excess and by defect; that is, by interpreting it too strictly and by interpreting it not strictly enough.

Those who are too strict in their understanding of the dogma conflate being inside the Church with being a proper member of the Church. Yet, one can be inside the Church in more ways than one, just as one can be inside a physical church building in more than one way (by being in the vestibule, for example, one would be considered to be inside the church building generally but not inside the church proper.) Thus, a catechumen who is in the state of sanctifying grace would be inside the Church but not as a member yet.

Those who understand the dogma in a way that is too lax, water down the concept of being inside the Church to the point where it becomes meaningless, just as Pius XII lamented. If in the end everyone, except perhaps for the most hardened of sinners, is to be considered as being on the road to salvation, regardless of religious beliefs or affiliation, as long as he is minimally sincere, what then does being inside the Church actually mean? What did Christ establish a Church for, and why should anyone bother to go to the ends of the earth to make converts, as Christ commanded (see Mt 28:19-20)? What happens to Faith, hope, and charity, and the need for God’s grace — indeed, the need for a Church or a Redeemer even — if ignorance combined with subjective sincerity is ultimately what saves us?

Liberalism is a terrible scourge, but so is Feeneyism, which can be considered perhaps a well-intentioned but nevertheless gravely erroneous overreaction to the former.

The following list includes some resources for combatting the Feeneyite error and for understanding No Salvation Outside the Church correctly, deviating neither to the left nor to the right:

In his impressive work The Catholic Church and Salvation (1958), Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton (1906-1969) describes and refutes what would, in essence, become the doctrine of Vatican II just a few years later under the false pope Paul VI. He calls it a “doctrinal aberration” and identifies it as simply another variation of Indifferentism (or Latitudinarianism), the idea that, as far as salvation is concerned, it does not matter what religion (or what church) one adheres to.

In his chapter on Pope Pius IX’s teaching in the allocution Singulari Quadam of Dec. 9, 1854, Fenton explains what errors run counter to it:

In this section of the Singulari quadam Pope Pius IX goes on to urge the Bishops of the Catholic Church to use all of their energies to drive from the minds of men the deadly error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion. To a certain extent this is a mere restatement of the erroneous opinion according to which we may well hope for the salvation of men who have never entered in any way into the Catholic Church, the first misinterpretation of Catholic teaching reproved in this section of the allocution. Yet, in another way, the error that the way of salvation can be found in any religion has its own peculiar and individual malignity. It is based on the false implication that the false religions, those other than the Catholic, are in some measure a partial approach to the fullness of truth which is to be found in Catholicism. According to this doctrinal aberration, the Catholic religion would be distinct from others, not as the true is distinguished from the false, but only as the plenitude is distinct from incomplete participations of itself. It is this notion, the idea that all other religions contain enough of the essence of that completeness, of truth which is to be found in Catholicism, to make them vehicles of eternal salvation, which is thus reproved in the Singulari quadam.

(Joseph C. Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation: In the Light of Recent Pronouncements by the Holy See [Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958], p. 47; underlining added.)

A “partial approach to the fullness of truth” — does this not sound familiar? The relevant passage in Pius IX’s Singulari Quadam to which Mgr. Fenton refers is the following:

We have learned with grief that another error, not less melancholy, is introduced into certain parts of the Catholic world, and has taken possession of the souls of many Catholics. Carried away with a hope for the eternal salvation of those who are out of the true Church of Christ, they do not cease to inquire with solicitude what shall be the fate and the condition after death of men who are not submissive to the Catholic faith. Seduced by vain reasoning they make to these questions replies conformably to that perverse doctrine. Far from Us, Venerable Brothers, to lay claim to put limits to the Divine mercy, which is infinite! Far from Us to scrutinize the counsels and mysterious judgments of God, unfathomable depth where human thought cannot penetrate! But it belongs to the duty of Our Apostolic office to excite your Episcopal solicitude and vigilance to make all possible efforts to remove from the minds of men the opinion, as impious as it is fatal, according to which people can find in any religion the way of eternal salvation. Employ all the resources of your minds and of your learning to demonstrate to the people committed to your care that the dogmas of the Catholic faith are in no respect contrary to the Divine mercy and justice. Faith orders Us to hold that out of the Apostolic Roman Church no person can be saved, that it is the only ark of salvation, and that whoever will not enter therein shall perish in the waters of the deluge.

On the other hand it is necessary to hold for certain that ignorance of the true religion, if that ignorance be invincible, is not a fault in the eyes of God. But who will presume to arrogate to himself the right to mark the limits of such an ignorance, holding in account the various conditions of peoples, of countries, of minds, and of the infinite multiplicity of human things? When delivered from the bonds of the body, we shall see God as He is, we will comprehend perfectly by what admirable and indissoluble bond the divine mercy and the divine justice are united; but as long as we are upon the earth, bent under the weight of this mortal mass which overloads the soul, let us hold firmly that which the Catholic doctrine teaches us, that there is only one God, one Faith, one Baptism; to seek to penetrate further is not permitted.

However, as charity demands, let us pour out before God incessant prayers, in order that, from all parts, all the nations may be converted to Christ; let us labor, as much as it is in us, for the common salvation of men. The arms of the Lord are not shortened, and the gifts of the heavenly grace are never wanting to those who sincerely wish for them, and who beg for the assistance of that light. These truths should be deeply engraved on the minds of the Faithful, that they may not suffer themselves to be corrupted by false doctrines, the object of which is to propagate indifference in matters of religion, an indifference that we see growing up, and spreading itself on all sides, to the loss of souls.

(Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadam; underlining added.)

Does George Weigel adhere to this teaching of the Catholic Church? To ask the question is to answer it.

Thus we have come to the end of our response to Mr. Weigel regarding the SSPX, the Old Covenant, and No Salvation Outside the Church.

To be clear: We are not friends of the Society of St. Pius X here. Lefebvrism, like Feeneyism and Liberalism, has done much damage to sound Catholic theology. The SSPX’s recognize-and-resist position spells the end of Catholic ecclesiology. In no wise are we trying to defend the SSPX per se.

But in this battle over Supersessionism and No Salvation Outside the Church, the Lefebvrists are not wrong. George Weigel is.

Image source: composite with elements from Shutterstock (Soloviova Liudmyla and gashgeron) and YouTube (screenshot)
Licenses: paid and fair use

Share this content now:

No Comments

Be the first to start a conversation

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.