+- The Catacombs (https://thecatacombs.org)
+-- Forum: Catholic Resistance (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (https://thecatacombs.org/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] (/showthread.php?tid=3992)
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-18-2022
February 20, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II
On January 5, 1988, Cardinal Gagnon submitted the report of his Apostolic Visitation to the Pope. In spite of the Cardinal’s promises, Archbishop Lefebvre never received a copy of it. It happened exactly as after the Visitation in 1974.
After the Pope had read this detailed report Archbishop Lefebvre expected to hear soon from the Vatican. After a long wait he wrote to the Holy Father to express once again the requirements necessary for a happy solution: a Roman Secretariat composed exclusively of members chosen from within Tradition; consecration of several bishops to be decided on before June 30, 1988; exemption vis-à-vis the local Ordinaries.
Most Holy Father,
His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon has just sent me a letter in which he informs me of an audience he had with you, after he gave you the report of his visit.
In this regard, permit me to express the profound satisfaction this Visit caused for everybody who was the object of it, and to inform you of our profound gratitude.
It would be regrettable if the hopes raised by this Visit turned into disappointment, observing the continual delays in the application of even a temporary solution.
May I permit myself to propose some suggestions on the subject of this solution:
In the first place, to take up again the doctrinal problems right away seems to be excluded, since this would be returning to the point of departure, and would renew the difficulties which have endured for 15 years. The idea of a Commission intervening after the juridical arrangement appears the most suitable one if we really want to find a practical solution.
Since the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X had been recognized for five years by the diocese of Fribourg and by the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy from 1970 to 1975, there should be no difficulty in recognizing it once again; it would then be recognized as being “of pontifical right.”
Three particular points seem necessary for a happy solution:
1. To establish at Rome an Office, a Commission—the term is not very important—which would have the same role vis-à-vis all the initiatives of Tradition, as the Congregation for the Missions has. This commission would be headed by a Cardinal, if at all possible Cardinal Gagnon,19 aided by a secretary general and one or two collaborators, all chosen from Tradition.20 This office would be charged with regulating all the canonical problems of Tradition, and would conduct relations with the Holy See, the dicasteries,21and the bishops.
The bishops exercising their ministry within Tradition would depend on this organism for their ministry.
It does not seem that the erection of this Roman organism would offer difficulties.
2. The consecration of bishops succeeding me in my apostolate appears indispensable and urgent.
For the first designation, and while waiting for the Roman office to assume its functions, it seems to me that you can entrust it to me, as is done with the Eastern patriarchs.
If this is agreed to in principle, I will present the names to Cardinal Gagnon.
This second point is the most urgent one to be resolved, given my age and my fatigue. It is now two years that I have not done any ordinations at the seminary in the United States. The seminarians ardently aspire to be ordained, but I no longer have the health to be crossing oceans.
This is why I entreat Your Holiness to resolve this point before June 30 of this year.
These bishops would be in the same situation vis-à-vis Rome and vis-à-vis their Society that the missionary bishops were vis-à-vis the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith and their own Society. Instead of a territorial jurisdiction, they would have a jurisdiction over individuals.22
It goes without saying that the bishops would always be chosen from among the priests of Tradition.
3. The exemption vis-à-vis the local Ordinaries
The works and initiatives of Tradition would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the local Ordinaries.23
For the resumption of good relations however, the superiors of traditional works would make a report on the houses existing in the dioceses and communicate it to the local Ordinaries; similarly, before founding a new center, they will submit a report to the Ordinary, but are not required to ask for authorization.
After examining these diverse points, I think that Your Holiness will recognize that the problem of Tradition can find a rapid and satisfactory solution.
We would be happy to renew normal relations with the Holy See, but without changing in any way what we are; for it is in this way that we are assured of remaining children of God and the Roman Church.
Deign to accept, Most Holy Father, the expression of my most respectful and filial devotion in Jesus and Mary.
† Marcel Lefebvre
Ecône
February 20, 1988
19. Not granted in the May 5 Protocol.
20.Not granted in the May 5 Protocol.
21. A dicastery is an organ of the Roman Curia, such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
22. Not granted in the May 5 Protocol.
23. .Not granted in the May 5 Protocol.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-18-2022
February 20, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Gagnon
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Gagnon
Eminence,
Fr. du Chalard has faithfully transmitted to me the letter in which you let me know the dispositions of the Holy Father after you had communicated to him your report.
Surely I do not doubt that the Holy Father has not only our problem to solve. But I fear that the procedure chosen for a solution would prolong indefinitely and thus put me in a moral obligation to proceed with the episcopal consecrations without the authorization of the Holy See which should be able to be avoided.
Therefore I take the liberty to write to the Holy Father through your intermediary, giving you a copy of this letter, in order to encourage him to make a decision, even a temporary one, that would not engage the future and would allow the experience of the exercise of tradition, in a manner officially approved by the Church.
The doctrinal problems could be the object of discussions after the canonical solution, otherwise we would be back at the starting point.24
A positive thing was your friendly visit with Monsignor Perl, which certainly consoled and encouraged all those who had the advantage to come close to you and to listen to you. It would be sad that they be disappointed by the passivity of Rome.
By the way, I hope that we will be soon able to receive a copy of your report and that we will not be deprived of this as in the visit of 1974.
We put our hope in God and in Our Lady, but also in you, Eminence, who are the only one at the Vatican to understand our fight for the Faith and for the salvation of souls.
Deign to receive, Eminence, my very grateful and fraternal feelings in Jesus and Mary,
Monseigneur Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle.
After the first visitation in November 1974, which ended in the illegal suppression of the Society of Saint Pius X, no report of the visitation was given to Archbishop Lefebvre. Neither was the request of a copy of the report granted after the second visitation in December 1987 by Cardinal Gagnon. If the report was bad, the Vatican had all advantage to release it, so as to prove that it was right to condemn Archbishop Lefebvre. If the report was good, then why did it not grant the solution proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre in order to continue its good work?
It has been reported Cardinal Gagnon theorized that if Archbishop Lefebvre would proceed with the episcopal consecrations without the Pope’s approval, 80% of the faithful attached to Tradition would abandon him. The attachment of the faithful to Rome and to the Pope, which Cardinal Gagnon had been able to witness in all traditional centers, probably made him say so. However, he had not sufficiently assessed the fact that the faithful were rightly attached to what the Pope represents more than to his own person. It is the magisterium of the popes of all times that the traditional faithful uphold, not the novelties of any single modern pope.
24. In his letter of July 28, 1987, Cardinal Ratzinger did not ask for such a doctrinal declaration: that had pleased Archbishop Lefebvre and giving him hope that a solution could be found promptly. See October 1, 1987, p.28.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-18-2022
March 18, 1988
Letter Of Cardinal Ratzinger To Archbishop Lefebvre
Letter Of Cardinal Ratzinger To Archbishop Lefebvre
The role of Cardinal Gagnon stops with this letter. Clearly the Pope removes him and replaces him with Cardinal Ratzinger. The latter takes the initiative of continuing the negotiations, and works out a plan of reconciliation, presenting the first stage of it to Archbishop Lefebvre. The removal of Cardinal Gagnon from the negotiations was the first of a long series of disappointments after hopes had been so high in the fall of 1987.
Strictly confidential
Excellency,
At the stage we have reached in the reflection undertaken following the Apostolic Visit to canonically regularize the situation of the Society of Saint Pius X, and considering your letter to the Holy Father dated last February 20, it appears extremely useful to be able to proceed to an exchange of views on the concrete propositions whose application can be envisaged.
To get it under way, Cardinal Gagnon and I would like to propose to you that a meeting take place between two experts (a theologian and a canonist) designated by the Holy See, and two experts (likewise, a theologian and a canonist) of the Society designated by yourself, presided over by a personality designated by the Holy Father in the role of “moderator.” Obviously, this stage consisting of a mutual exchange of views would still not be the place for definitive decisions, but it would have to constitute an important step on the way to these decisions.
If, as we hope, you accept this proposition, please be kind enough to inform us of it. After this moment, the place and the conditions of this meeting could be fixed rapidly, of course in the conditions of the most rigorous discretion.
Deign to accept, Excellency, the assurance of my prayer, with the expression of my respectful and devoted sentiments in the Lord.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-20-2022
March 30, 1988
Letter Of Cardinal Ratzinger To Archbishop Lefebvre
Letter Of Cardinal Ratzinger To Archbishop Lefebvre
Confidential
Excellency,
Fr. du Chalard has let me know your favorable response to the proposition which I had made to you in my letter of March 18, of a meeting, as well as the names of the two experts which you have agreed to appoint. I thank you for this.
I am now in a position to indicate that this meeting is scheduled for Tuesday the 12th at Rome and if necessary on Wednesday, April 13. The Holy Father has appointed as moderator the Reverend Fr. Benoît Duroux, O.P.; as theologian, Don Fernando Ocariz and as canonist Don Tarcisio Bertone, SDB. All three are consultants for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
During the coming week I will let Fr. du Chalard know by phone the exact location and timetable of this meeting. We foresee that participants will have to take their lunch there.
Giving you my best wishes for the holy feast of Easter, I assure you of my prayers and ask you to accept the expression of my respectful and dedicated feelings in the Lord.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-20-2022
April 8, 1988
Letter of Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Ratzinger
Letter of Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Ratzinger
To my Venerable Brother Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
In this liturgical period, when we have relived through the Holy Week celebrations the events of Easter, Christ’s words by which He promised the Apostles the coming of the Holy Spirit take on for us a special relevance: “And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth—whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:16-17;26).
The Church at all times has been guided by faith in these words of her Teacher and Lord, in the certainty that thanks to the help and assistance of the Holy Spirit she will remain for ever in the divine Truth, preserving the apostolic succession through the College of Bishops united with their Head, the Successor of Peter.
The Church manifested this conviction of Faith also at the last Council, which met to reconfirm and reinforce the teaching of the Church inherited from the Tradition already existing for almost 20 centuries, as a living reality which progresses vis-à-vis the problems and needs of every age and deepens our understanding of what is already contained in the Faith transmitted once and for all (cf. Jude 3). We are profoundly convinced that the Spirit of truth who speaks to the Church (cf. Apoc. 2:7, 11, 17, et. al.) has spoken—in a particularly solemn and authoritative manner—through the Second Vatican Council preparing the Church to enter the third millennium after Christ. Given that the work of the Council taken as a whole constitutes a reconfirmation of the same truth lived by the Church from the beginning, it is likewise a “renewal” of that truth (an aggiornamento according to the well-known expression of Pope John XXIII), in order to bring closer to the great human family in the modern world both the way of teaching faith and morals and also the whole apostolic and pastoral work of the Church. And it is obvious how diversified and indeed divided this world is.
Through the doctrinal and pastoral service of the whole College of Bishops in union with the Pope, the Church took up the tasks connected with the implementation of everything which became the specific heritage of Vatican II. The meetings of the Synods of bishops are one of the ways in which this collegial solicitude finds expression. In this context the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod in 1985, held on the 20th anniversary of the end of the Council, deserves special mention. It emphasized the most important tasks connected with the implementation of Vatican II, and it stated that the teaching of that council remains the path which the Church must take into the future, entrusting her efforts to the Spirit of truth. In reference to these efforts, particular relevance attaches to the duties of the Holy See on behalf of the universal Church, both through the ministerium petrinum of the Bishop of Rome and also through the departments of the Roman Curia which he makes use of for the carrying out of his universal ministry. Among the latter the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith led by Your Eminence is of particularly special importance.
In the period since the Council we are witnessing a great effort on the part of the Church to ensure that this novum constituted by Vatican II correctly penetrates the mind and conduct of the individual communities of the People of God. However, side by side with this effort there have appeared tendencies which create a certain difficulty in putting the Council into practice. One of these tendencies is characterized by a desire for changes which are not always in harmony with the teaching and spirit of Vatican II, even though they seek to appeal to the Council. These changes claim to express progress, and so this tendency is given the name “progressivism.” In this case progress consists in an aspiration towards the future which breaks with the past, without taking into account the function of Tradition, which is fundamental to the Church’s mission in order that she may continue in the Truth which was transmitted to her by Christ the Lord and by the Apostles and which is diligently safeguarded by the magisterium.
The opposite tendency, which is usually called “conservatism” or “integralism,” stops at the past itself, without taking into account the correct aspiration towards the future which manifested itself precisely in the work of Vatican II. While the former tendency seems to recognize the correctness of what is new, the latter sees correctness only in what is “ancient,” considering it synonymous with Tradition. But it is not what is “ancient” as such, or what is “new” per se, which corresponds to the correct idea of Tradition in the life of the Church. Rather, that idea means the Church’s remaining faithful to the truth received from God throughout the changing circumstances of history. The Church, like that householder in the Gospel, wisely brings “from the storeroom both the new and the old” (Mt. 13:52), while remaining absolutely obedient to the Spirit of truth whom Christ has given to the Church as her divine Guide. And the Church performs this delicate task of discernment through her authentic magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, §25).
The position taken up by individuals, groups or circles connected with one or the other tendency is to a certain extent understandable, especially after an event as important in the history of the Church as the last Council. If, on the one hand, that event unleashed an aspiration for renewal (this also contains an element of “novelty”), on the other hand certain abuses in the realization of this aspiration, in so far as they forget essential values of Catholic doctrine on faith and morals and in other areas of ecclesial life, for example in that of the Liturgy, can and indeed must cause justified objection. Nevertheless, if by reason of these excesses every healthy kind of “renewal” conforming to the teaching and spirit of the Council is rejected, such an attitude can lead to another deviation which itself is in opposition to the principle of the living Tradition of the Church obedient to the Spirit of truth.
The duties, which in this concrete situation, face the Apostolic See require a particular perspicacity, prudence and farsightedness. The need to distinguish what authentically “builds up” the Church from what destroys her is becoming in the present period a particular demand of our service to the whole community of believers.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is of key importance in the context of this ministry, as is shown by the documents which your Department has published in this matter of faith and morals during the last few years. Among the subjects which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently had to concern itself with, there also figure the problems connected with the “Society of Saint Pius X,” founded and led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Your Eminence knows very well how many efforts have been made by the Apostolic See since the beginning of the existence of the “Society,” in order to ensure ecclesial unity in relation to its activity. The latest such effort has been the canonical visit made by Edward Cardinal Gagnon. Your Eminence is concerned with this case in a special way, as was your predecessor of venerable memory, Franjo Cardinal Seper. Everything done by the Apostolic See, which is in continual contact with the bishops and episcopal conferences concerned, has the same purpose: that in this case too there may be fulfilled the words of the Lord in his priestly prayer for the unity of all his disciples and followers. All the bishops of the Catholic Church, inasmuch as by the divine command they are solicitous for the unity of the universal Church, are bound to collaborate with the Apostolic See for the welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which is also the body of the Church (cf. Lumen Gentium, 23).
For all these reasons I would assure Your Eminence once more of my desire that these efforts should continue. We do not cease to hope that— under the protection of the Mother of the Church—they will bear fruit for the glory of God and the salvation of men.
From the Vatican, on April 8, in the year 1988, the tenth of my pontificate.
In fraternal charity,
Joannes Paulus PP. II
✠ ✠ ✠
This letter is quite important since it gives the whole spirit in which the negotiations were conducted by the Vatican. One can distinguish three parts in this letter: the first stresses the importance of Vatican II; the second opposes progressivism and conservatism; and the third draws some practical conclusions.
In the first part we notice the euphoria of Vatican II. No distinction is made, as if each and every word of Vatican II was directly inspired by the Holy Ghost. There are certainly many beautiful passages in the documents of Vatican II; yet, there are other passages directly inspired by Liberalism and Modernism.
This lack of distinction ignores the hijacking of the Council by a Modernist faction, a fact witnessed by both Cardinal Wojtyla and Fr. Ratzinger at the time. When the latter became Cardinal, he explicitly recalled it in his interview with Vittorio Messori:
Quote:“After Pope John XXIII had announced its convocation, the Roman Curia worked together with the most distinguished representatives of the world episcopate[25] in the preparation of those schemata which were then rejected by the Council Fathers as too theoretical, too textbook-like and insufficiently pastoral. Pope John had not reckoned on the possibility of a rejection but was expecting a quick and frictionless balloting on these projects which he had approvingly read....”[26]
Archbishop Lefebvre, when recalling the same fact, says that the rest of the Council was spent trying to purge the worst passages from the new schemata proposed by the modernists. These two conflicting influences can be easily found in the texts of the Council. Many conservative priests try to draw only the good side of the Council, ignoring the other side; many modernists only refer to the bad side, despising the other. To be objective, one has to recognize both sides. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is no longer too euphoric about the fruits of the Council.
“The Church took up the tasks connected with the implementation of everything which became the specific heritage of Vatican II...the teaching of that Council remains the path which the Church must take into the future....” These sentences, in the letter of April 8, 1988, were the stumbling block that made the negotiations fail.
The second part caricatures the attitudes of the faithful who are attached to Tradition, as if they were “stuck in the past.” There may be no younger order in the Church than the Society of Saint Pius X. Archbishop Lefebvre is not attached so much to the letter but rather to the spirit of Tradition. When he drew up the rules of the Society of Saint Pius X he took care to adapt them to the necessities of the modern apostolate.
Regarding the accusation of an incorrect understanding of Tradition, please see the comments on the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei.
The third part of this letter was perhaps the most noticeable. It stresses the confidence of the Pope in Cardinal Ratzinger. It also reminds all the bishops of the Catholic Church of their duty “to collaborate with the Holy See for the welfare of the whole mystical body.”
This produced fear in some conciliar bishops but hope in members of the Society of Saint Pius X, including Fr. Schmidberger.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-21-2022
April 15, 1988
Minutes of Meetings held April 12-14, 1988, at the Vatican Concerning the Society of Saint Pius X
Minutes of Meetings held April 12-14, 1988, at the Vatican Concerning the Society of Saint Pius X
The conversations took place at Rome, April 12-14. Present were Frs. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais and Patrice Laroche, named by Archbishop Lefebvre as the theologian and canonist representing the Society, and Frs. Bertone, Salesian, and Ocariz, of Opus Dei, under the direction of Fr. Benoît Duroux, O.P., moderator, as consultors of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Subsequent to these discussions a preliminary protocol of accord was signed on April 15, 1988. These meetings took place in a discreet manner in order to avoid the insatiable curiosity of the journalists, thanks to Fr. du Chalard, priest of the Society of Saint Pius X in Rome.
I. DOCTRINAL QUESTION
The Commission has studied three possibilities for a formula of communion in the Faith.
1) The Profession of Faith (Appendix I, p.55), plus the Oath of Fidelity (Appendix II, p.56), plus a text on the acceptance of Vatican II (Appendix III, p.57).
2) The Oath of Fidelity (Appendix II), plus the text of Appendix III. The reason for not having the Profession of Faith comes from the fact that there is no doubt that H.E. Archbishop Lefebvre professes the Catholic Creed, and that the request of making this profession could be offensive.
3) A unique formula as brief and clear as possible, and corresponding to the concrete position of Archbishop Lefebvre and of the Society of Saint Pius X (see Appendix IV, p.57). This formula would contain:
a) the points of the Oath of Fidelity concerning the position of Archbishop Lefebvre in particular,
b) an adhesion to the magisterium of the Church, given as an acceptance of §25 of Lumen Gentium,
c) the attitude which must be taken on the points of Vatican II which are not of Faith and which make difficulties for Archbishop Lefebvre,
d) the recognition of the validity of the new liturgy.
The Commission favors this third solution:
- because it is reduced to the essential, in one document, and avoids the repetition of doctrinal points already admitted by Archbishop Lefebvre;
- because it signifies by itself an important doctrine of Vatican II in the Constitution Lumen Gentium.
APPENDIX I: PROFESSION OF FAITH27
This formula should be used instead of the Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent and of the Anti-Modernist Oath, in the cases in which the Law prescribes a Profession of Faith.
I, N., believe with a firm faith and profess each and every point that is contained in the Symbol of Faith:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God. Born of the Father before all ages. God of God; Light of Light, true God of true God. Begotten not made; consubstantial with the Father; by Whom all things were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down form heaven. And was made Flesh by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary: and was made Man. He was also crucified for us, suffered under Pontius Pilate and was buried. And on the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascending into heaven, He sits at the right hand of the Father. And He shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. And I believe in the Holy Ghost, Lord and Giver of life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son. Who together with the Father and the Son is no less adored, and glorified: Who spoke by the Prophets. And I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the remission of sins. And I look for the resurrection of the dead. And the life of the world to come. Amen.
I firmly embrace and retain each and every point on the doctrine on Faith and Morals which have been either defined by the Church, through a solemn judgment or affirmed and declared through the Ordinary magisterium, as they have been proposed, especially what regards the mystery of the Church of Christ, her Sacraments, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.
APPENDIX II: THE OATH OF FIDELITY TO BE TAKEN BY THE BISHOPS
I, N., promoted at the See of _____, shall always be faithful to the Catholic Church and to the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Shepherd, Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Blessed Apostle Peter in the primacy and headship of the College of Bishops.
I shall submit to the free exercise of the power of primacy of the Supreme Pontiff in the Universal Church, and I shall take care to defend and promote his rights and authority. I shall acknowledge and observe the prerogatives and rights of the legates of the Roman Pontiff who act in the name of the Supreme Shepherd.
I shall be careful to fulfil with the utmost diligence the apostolic responsibilities entrusted to the bishops, viz., to teach, sanctify and to rule the people of God within the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the College of Bishops.
I shall support the unity of the Universal Church, therefore I shall work studiously so that the Deposit of Faith transmitted from the Apostles be kept in its purity and integrity, and that the truth to be held and applied in morals, as they are proposed by the magisterium of the Church, be given to all and illustrated. I shall show a fatherly affection to those who err in the Faith, and strive with all means possible that they reach the fullness of Catholic Truth.
Looking upon the Model of Christ, the Supreme and Eternal Priest, I shall act in a pious and holy manner, and fulfil the ministry entrusted to me in such a way that, being made a pattern of the flock from the heart, I may be able to confirm the faithful so that they reach Christian perfection.
I shall foster the common discipline of the whole Church, and the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, insisting especially on those that are contained in the Code of Canon Law, always vigilant lest evil practices creep in especially concerning the Ministry of the Word and the celebration of the Sacraments.
I shall show proper diligence in the administration of the temporal goods of the Church, especially those that have been given for the exercise of divine worship, for the honorable support of the clergy and the other ministers, and for the sacred apostolate and the works of charity.
I shall pursue with a special predilection all the priests and deacons, who are collaborators of the episcopal order for the fulfillment of the mandate given to me, and also the religious monks and nuns who participate in the one and same work. Also, I shall take the greatest care to promote holy vocations, in order to fittingly provide for the spiritual necessities of the whole Church.
I shall acknowledge and promote the dignity of the laity and their proper place in the mission of the Church. I shall care, with a particular solicitude, to foster the missionary works for the evangelization of the nations.
When called for councils or other legitimate collegial actions, I shall be personally present, unless I have impediments, and I shall respond in an opportune way.
At the set time, when there will be a good occasion, I shall give an account to the Holy See of my pastoral work, and I shall receive its comments and counsels with respect and fulfil them with the greatest efforts.
May God and these holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand, help me.
[This is composed §§ 1, 3, 4, 5 of Appendix IV below.]
APPENDIX IV: STATEMENT OF THE POSITION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE AND OF THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
1) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy and headship of the College28 of bishops. (See Oath of Fidelity, Appendix II.)
2) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2529 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and all30 the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Considering the fact that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life—and after studying the propositions formulated by H. E. Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon— it seems that31 the canonical form most suitable is that of a Society of apostolic life.
1. Society of Apostolic Life
This solution is canonically possible and suitable to the nature of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, with the advantage of eventually inserting into the clerical Society of apostolic life lay people as well (for example, coadjutor Brothers).
According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can insure the common life of its members.
In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive32 possibility in respect of the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a certain exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) for what concerns public worship, the cura animarum, and other apostolic activities, taking into account Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction with regards to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the Ordinaries of the place or by the Apostolic See.
2. Roman Commission
A commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries of the Roman Curia and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and contentions, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation at the request of the faithful of a house of worship where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem, Canon 683, §2).
Among other things this commission would have the function of exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.
a) The delegates of the Society recall here the requests presented to the Holy Father by Archbishop Lefebvre in his letter of February 20, 1988, viz., that “this Commission be headed by a Cardinal, inasmuch as possible, Cardinal Gagnon, helped by a Secretary and one or two collaborators, all chosen from Tradition.”
i) For the relations with Roman dicasteries and the Cardinal President, the Holy Father could nominate one member not from Tradition, added to the other members of the Society.
ii) In any case, the contacts and relations with traditional religious communities would be assured by the members of the Commission taken from Tradition.
b) The members of the Commission nominated by the Holy Father make the following observations:
i) Concerning the nomination of a Cardinal as President, it would be preferable that the Roman Commission depend upon Cardinal Ratzinger as Chairman, and guarantor of the works, especially by reason of the authority which he possesses as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (see recent letter of the Holy Father to Cardinal Ratzinger).
ii) Concerning the composition of the Roman Commission, it would be opportune to widen the number of its members, taking them also from outside the Society or of persons linked with it, in order to foster the reconciliation with the whole Church.
3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society:
1) The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and lay coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.
2) The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected with the Society, all belong to an association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.
3) The Sisters (meaning the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and proper autonomy,33 even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation—at least at the beginning— would be dependent on the Roman Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.
4) The members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who have a moral bond with the Society. These are to be given, case by case, a particular statute regulating their relations with the respective Order.
Regarding the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of the Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but—notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the Society—they can go to them for the administration of the sacraments (for which the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish; cf. Canons 878, 896, 1122). The Commission draws attention to the particular complexity:
1) Of the question of reception by the laity of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, in the communities of the Society.
2) Of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and such a religious institute, without belonging to it.
The Roman Commission will have the responsibility of resolving these problems.
4. Ordinations
For the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:
1) In the immediate future. For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by himself.
2) Once the Society of apostolic life is erected. As far as possible, the normal way is to be followed, that is, to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.
In view of the particular situation of the Society, the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.
N.B.: For the admission to the ordinations, especially in the first phase, given the judgement of fitness and the regular admission from the competent superiors of the Society, the candidates should make a promise of fidelity, which shall later be elaborated in the light of the formula presented above in the doctrinal part.
5. Problem of a Bishop
1) At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.
2) But, at the practical and psychological level, the utility of the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop is considered. In this case, two hypothesis may be foreseen:
a) In the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of the project of reconciliation, the Holy Father would name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre.
b) It would belong to the Roman Commission to propose to the Holy Father this nomination of a Bishop belonging to the Society.
This solution would solve the practical problems of the use of the Rite of St. Pius V, and in the celebration of the Mass of Ordination and in other circumstances (e.g., Confirmations). Moreover, this bishop could represent the Society within the Roman Commission.
6. Particular Problems to be Resolved (By Decree or Declaration)
1Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.
2)Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.
3)Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected—or used—by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.
Fr. Benoît Duroux, O.P.,
Don Tarcisius Bertone
Dom Fernando Ocariz
Fr. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Fr. Patrice Laroche
At the Vatican
April 15, 1988
II. NOTE CONCERNING THE EPISCOPATE IN THE SOCIETY
Referring themselves in particular to the letter addressed by Archbishop Lefebvre to the Holy Father on February 20, 1988, the delegates of the Society present insist on the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre sees in this point a very important element for the realization of the ecclesial communion. Here are the principal reasons:
a)necessity of bishops chosen from the Society:
- These episcopal consecrations are awaited by the seminarians who count upon being ordained by a bishop belonging to the same spiritual family.
- It will be psychologically difficult now to ask our faithful and seminarians to ask for the Sacraments of Confirmation and Order from bishops who did not cease to warn them against the Society, who approve catechisms such as Pierres Vivantes34or who have professed highly suspicious theological opinions.
- It is very difficult in the present circumstances to find bishops knowing how to celebrate in the traditional rite the long ceremonies of the Roman Pontifical.
- These episcopal consecrations would be favorable to keep in the unity of the Church the faithful of Tradition, practically reducing to nought the inference of the many small sedevacantist groups, each one having its own “bishop.”
- Moreover, there would be for Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests and the faithful of Tradition, the unequivocal sign of the sincerity of the Roman authorities, and of their will to give back an honorable place in the Church to the traditional rite.
>From thence flows the following point:
b)Urgency of the nomination of a bishop from the Society within a very short space of time.35
- The great age of Archbishop Lefebvre and the physical exhaustion which he has been feeling for the past months do not allow him to continue to travel throughout the world.
- The good will of Archbishop Lefebvre which would have led to the normalization of the situation of the Society and of the works of tradition, would deserve that the Prelate sees while still living his episcopal ministry continued by one of his sons.
- Do the good fruits borne by the works of Tradition and which Cardinal Gagnon has witnessed during the course of his apostolic visit not merit such a gesture of acknowledgment from the Holy See at the very time of this agreement?
- the reception, within a short space of time, by Archbishop Lefebvre of the pontifical mandate enabling him to proceed to an episcopal consecration would be a delicate way to erase, in effect, the injustices endured by the Prelate for the past 15 years.
c)Necessity of several bishops taken from the bosom of Tradition.
- The development of the works of Tradition mean already from now at least 25 ceremonies of ordination per year throughout the whole world.
- The faithful addressing themselves to the Society for Confirmation in the traditional rite are more and more numerous.
- In 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre gave 2,500 Confirmations in France alone. This represents ceremonies three or four days per week for a whole month, often gathering children from great distances.
- In 1984, in Chile, Archbishop Lefebvre had to give, in one ceremony, the Sacrament of Confirmation to
1,527 faithful.
- In 1982, in Mexico, during one week’s travel alone, he performed 2,500 Confirmations.
- The Society alone has opened, at the request of the faithful, 530 places of worship on five continents. The faithful would like to receive the visit of Archbishop Lefebvre, or of a bishop representing their spiritual family.
- Moreover, many ceremonies, blessings and consecrations,36 must be accomplished by a bishop. One alone could not suffice for this work.
28. This word has been corrected in the May 5 Protocol to, “body.”
29. See p.77-79 for complete text of §25 of Lumen Gentium.
30. This word “all” has been suppressed in the Protocol, since Canons such as Canon 844 (of the 1983 Code of Canon Law) are unacceptable.
31. These three words have been suppressed, too.
32. Please note the adjective.
33. Note the desire to separate the unity that exists between traditional foundations.
34. The current modernist French catechism. See Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. III, available from the Angelus Press.
33. Note the desire to separate the unity that exists between traditional foundations.
35. See the letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Holy Father on February 20, 1988, p.42.
36. Blessing of a church; consecration of an altar; of a chalice, etc.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-21-2022
April 15, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger
Eminence,
After having been able to follow the works of the Commission in charge of preparing an acceptable solution for the problem which preoccupies us, it seems that with the grace of God, we are coming closer to an agreement, which makes us very happy.
With this letter I attach the doctrinal declaration, modified slightly in such a way that I believe that I can sign it; I hope it will be agreeable to you.
Without doubt, there will be more precisions to add to the canonical document on the Roman Commission; I would like, at least in the beginning, to be able to play a part in it in order to facilitate the solutions for the diverse cases for those who have been at our side during these last years, and who also wish a happy ending of their problems.
On this occasion wouldn’t it be desirable that the possibility37 to use the liturgical books of John XXIII be granted for all the bishops and all priests?
The prospect of having a successor in the episcopate gives me great joy and I thank the Holy Father and yourself for it. Only one bishop will hardly suffice for the heavy work load; wouldn’t it be possible to have two, or at the least, couldn’t the possibility of raising its number in the next six months or a year be provided for?38
Please, Eminence, would you express to the Holy Father my deep gratitude on my behalf and on behalf of all those that I represent. Please believe in my respectful and fraternal sentiments, in Christo et Maria.
† Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop Emeritus of Tulle
Formula
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:
1) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the College of bishops. (see Oath of Fidelity, Appendix II).
2) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.
4) Moreover, taking into account what was said in §3, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5) Finally, here also taking into account what was said in §3, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and thus the disciplinary laws contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
Note that Archbishop Lefebvre inserted twice the words “taking into account what was said in §3,” which stresses the reservations on the new liturgy and on the Canon Law, through which the liberal ideas of the Council were implemented.
Note also that “all the ecclesiastical laws” are changed into “thus the disciplinary laws...” Indeed some laws of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, such as Canon 844 (on Eucharistic Hospitality) are in direct opposition with sound Catholic doctrine.
37. The “wide application” of the 1984 Indult called for by Pope John Paul II in his motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei, does not fulfil this request, because the priest still depends upon a permission from modernist bishops to be allowed to have the traditional Mass. What is needed is to simply reaffirm the Indult granted by St. Pius V in Quo Primum.
38. A conservative retired bishop, whom I know, asked the Pope in June [1988], after the failure of the negotiations, for this alternate possibility, which was not granted to him.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-21-2022
April 28, 1988
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre
Excellence,
I am now in a position to answer your last letter of April 15. Indeed I was able to submit it recently to the Sovereign Pontiff and to discuss with Him the results at which the Commission arrived during the sessions of April 12-14 last. It is thus with His agreement that I can communicate to you the following.
The Holy Father was satisfied with these results and He considers that they provide a valuable foundation to bring to a good end the work of reconciliation. This concerns in particular the juridical framework foreseen for the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.
As you have been able to observe, on certain points the document of the commission indicates alternate solutions or underlines a particular complexity. Several of these questions could be solved by the Roman Commission foreseen after the canonical erection of the Society but others should be solved as soon as possible. Now this requires common study and reflection and could take still more time. Thus definitive answer cannot be given to you for the moment but it will be at latest in the first half of June.
With regard to the nomination of a bishop39 the Holy Father tends to regard your proposition taking into account the practical and psychological reasons for such a nomination. However this one could not happen right now, even if there were no other reason than the preparation and examination of the files according to the usual procedure of episcopal nominations.
Moreover, His Holiness has pointed out that which was marked in the document of the Commission, viz. that on the one hand the guarantee of stability and of the continuation of the life and activity of the Society would be assured by its erection as a Society of Pontifical Right and by the Pontifical approval of its Statutes and on the other hand it would be quite possible to find a temporary solution for the ordinations which are already scheduled.
With regard to the doctrinal declaration, the Holy Father desires that the formula established as the outcome of the work of the Commission be kept without the addition of the three modifications which you proposed in your letter. It appears indeed that point No. 3 (see p.66) as it is in the formula sufficiently expresses with due precision the points of doctrine, of canon law and liturgical regulations which could present a difficulty and the engagement that you would take in their regard. But such a restriction cannot take place without regard to the very precise object of the adherence expressed at object No. 4 and of the promise formulated at No. 5.
At the end, allow me to assure you that though the definitive solution must wait some while because such an important problem cannot be resolved by being treated with precipitation, the desire of the Holy Father is however to reach it as soon as possible on the basis of the positive elements which already exist. This is the object of all our cares and of our common prayer.
In this spirit I beg you to accept, Excellence, the expression of my faithful and respectfully dedicated feelings in the Lord.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
✠ ✠ ✠
This letter manifests the intention of the Vatican to delay as much as possible the episcopal consecration. One can ponder the following expressions: “common study and reflection and could take still more time;” “definitive answer cannot be given to you for the moment;” “the Holy Father tends to regard your proposition;” “could not happen right now;” “even if there were no other reason than;” “the definitive solution must wait some while, etc.”
But the most alarming passage in this letter is the fifth paragraph. The whole intent of that paragraph is to say that, once the Society of Saint Pius X is recognized with a proper canonical situation, then there is no need of a Bishop, at least for a long time. This is what Archbishop Lefebvre feared the most: that after the approval of the Society, and a great increase of its number as the natural consequence which everyone could see, the Vatican would have said to him: “See you are going very well, you do not need a Bishop!” On the contrary, he saw the need of Bishops dedicated to Tradition, first as defenders of the Faith. Bishops, not priests, are part of the “Teaching Church,” even if they do not have a flock assigned to them.40
There was need that the Bishops who would do the ceremonies of Ordinations or Confirmations be wholly attached to the tradition of the Church. Indeed to have these ceremonies performed by bishops who otherwise say the Novus Ordo would be a danger. Their preaching and example would insinuate to the young priests or confirmands that the Novus Ordo is acceptable, as the current situation within the Fraternity of St. Peter proves.
39. Note that Archbishop Lefebvre had asked for consideration for several bishops. Cardinal Ratzinger makes no reference at all to this.
40. The Pope assigns the flock to the local bishops, thereby giving them jurisdiction on this flock. Archbishop Lefebvre never claimed to be able to assign flock to the four Bishops he consecrated. They are nonetheless successors of the Apostles and as such part of the Teaching Church.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-21-2022
May 3, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger
(This letter is confidential and will not be published.)
In this letter Archbishop Lefebvre proposed four names to Rome for its choice of one bishop. Of these four names, two were consecrated on June 30, 1988. The two others remained the secret of Archbishop Lefebvre.
RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-21-2022
May 5, 1988
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Pope
On May 3, Cardinal Ratzinger asked Archbishop Lefebvre that the consecrations be delayed indefinitely. After new meetings between Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre, and each’s respective experts, a more precise Protocol of Accord was established on May 4. It was signed by Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican and counter-signed by Archbishop Lefebvre at Albano on May 5, Feast of St. Pius V.
Most Holy Father,
At the request of His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger, I write you these few lines at the conclusion of the Visit of Cardinal Gagnon, and of the work of the Commission instituted by your care.
Through the grace of God, this initiative which you have deigned to take has reached a solution acceptable by both parties.
Thus, please find enclosed the declaration duly signed. If Your Holiness accepts it, it could be the starting point of the several measures which will give back to us a legal status in the Church: the legal recognition of the Society of Saint Pius X as a society of pontifical right, the use of the liturgical books of John XXIII, the constitution of a Roman Commission and the other measures indicated in the Protocol of Accord.
The members of the Society and all the persons who are morally united to it are rejoicing at this agreement and give thanks to God and to yourself.
Deign to receive, Most Holy Father, my respectful homage and my filial and respectful gratitude in Jesus and Mary.
† Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop Emeritus of Tulle
✠ ✠ ✠
This letter shows the goodwill of Archbishop Lefebvre. It was handed by him to Fr. Klemens, envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger, even before signing the Protocol. Fr. Klemens, after giving the Protocol to His Grace to sign, gave him the text of the communication which Cardinal Ratzinger intended to be released on May 8, and the draft of another letter to be addressed to the Holy Father, which you will find after the text of the Protocol (p.80). This letter of apology requested of the Archbishop was the straw that broke the camel’s back, and was the cause of His Grace’s letter to the Pope on May 6.