Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988]

Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Printable Version

+- 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)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 07-31-2022

June 19, 1988

A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre

Archbishop Lefebvre authored this Letter from Ecône, Switzerland, on why there was a cessation of negotiations between Rome and the Society of Saint Pius X after the signing of the Protocol (May 5, 1988).

Indeed, it would be difficult to understand why the talks ceased if they are not placed in their historical context.

Although we never wanted to have a break in relations with Conciliar Rome, even after the first visit of Rome on Nov. 11, 1974, had been followed by measures which were sectarian and null—the suppression of our work on May 6, 1975, and the “suspension” in July, 1976—these relations could only take place in a climate of mistrust.

Louis Veuillot says that there is no one more sectarian than a Liberal; in effect, having made a compromise between error and Revelation, he feels condemned by those who remain in the Truth, and thus if he is in power, he persecutes them fiercely. This is the case with us and all those who are opposed to the liberal texts and liberal reforms of the Council.

They absolutely want us to have a “guilt complex” in relation to them, but it is they who are guilty of duplicity.

Thus it was always in a tense although polite atmosphere that relations took place with Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Ratzinger between 1976 and 1987, but also with a certain hope that as the auto-demolition of the Church accelerated, they would end up taking a benevolent attitude towards us.

Up until that time, the goal of the contacts for Rome was to make us accept the Council and the reforms, and to make us recognize our error. The logic of events had to lead me to ask for a successor, if not two or three, to assure the ordinations and confirmations. Faced with the persistent refusal of Rome, on June 29, 1987, I announced my decision to consecrate bishops.

On July 28, Cardinal Ratzinger opened up some new horizons which legitimately gave us reason to think that finally Rome looked at us more favorably. No longer was there any question of a doctrinal document to be signed, or asking for pardon, but an Apostolic Visitor was finally announced, the Society could be recognized, the Liturgy would be that of before the Council, the seminarians would retain the same spirit!

Thus we agreed to enter into this new dialogue, but on the condition that our identity would be well protected against liberal influences by bishops taken from within Tradition, and by a majority of members in the Roman Commission for Tradition. Now, after the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, of which we still know nothing, the disappointments piled up.

The talks which followed in April and May were a distinct disappointment to us. We were given a doctrinal text, the new Canon Law was added to it, Rome reserved for itself five out of seven members on the Roman Commission, among them a President (who will be Cardinal Ratzinger) and the Vice-President.

The question of a bishop was solved after much hemming and hawing; they insisted on showing us why we did not need one.

The Cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II.

In spite of these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5th. But already the date of the episcopal consecration caused a problem. Then came the project of a letter asking the Pope for pardon, which was put into my hands.

I saw that I was obliged to write a letter threatening to do the episcopal consecrations to arrive at the date of August 15 for the episcopal consecration.

The atmosphere is no longer one of fraternal collaboration and pure and simple recognition of the Society—not at all. For Rome the goal of the talks is reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says in an interview granted to the Italian journal L’Avvenire, meaning the return of the lost sheep to the flock. This is what I express in the letter to the Pope on June 2: “The goal of the talks has not been the same for you as for us.”

And when we think of the history of relations of Rome with the traditionalists from 1965 to our own day, we are forced to observe that there has been an unceasing and cruel persecution to force us to submit to the Council. The most recent example is that of the Seminary Mater Ecclesiæ for drop-outs from Ecône, who in less than two years, have been made to serve the conciliar revolution, contrary to all promises!

The present conciliar and Modernist Rome can never tolerate the existence of a vigorous branch of the Catholic Church which condemns it by its very vitality.

No doubt we shall have to wait yet another few years, therefore, for Rome to recover her Tradition of two thousand years. As for us, we continue to prove, with the grace of God, that this Tradition is the only source of sanctification and salvation of souls, and the only possibility of renewal for the Church.

† Marcel Lefebvre
June 19, 1988
Ecône

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-01-2022

June 1988

Canonical Considerations Regarding Episcopal Consecrations

These canonical considerations are excerpted by Fr. Patrice Laroche from a study by Dr. Georg May, President of the Seminary of Canon Law at the University of Mainz, entitled Notwehr, Widerstand, Notsand (Legitimate Defense, Resistance, Necessity), drawn up in 1984. These furnish interesting points for reflection regarding the canonical penalties incurred after the episcopal consecration administered in the “case of necessity.”

State of Necessity

The 1917 Code of Canon Law spoke of necessity in Canon 2205, §2 and §3; the 1983 Code of Canon Law deals with it in Canon 1324, §4 and 1324, §1, 5. The law does not say what is meant by this term, it leaves to jurisprudence and doctors the task of giving it a precise meaning. But it is clear from the context that necessity is a state where goods necessary for life are put in danger in such a way that to come out of this state the violation of certain laws is inevitable.

Law of Necessity

The Code recognizes necessity as a circumstance which exempts from all penalties in case of violation of the law (1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1324, §4), provided that the action is not intrinsically bad or harmful to souls; in this latter case necessity would only mitigate the penalty. But no latæ sententiæ penalty can be incurred by anyone who has acted in this circumstance (1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 1324, §3).

State of Necessity in the Church

In the Church, as in civil society, it is conceivable that there arrive a state of necessity or urgency which cannot be surmounted by the observance of positive law. Such a situation exists in the Church, when the endurance, order or activity of the Church are threatened or harmed in a considerable manner. This threat can bear principally on ecclesiastical teaching, the liturgy and discipline.

Law of Necessity in the Church

A state of necessity justifies the law of necessity. The law of necessity in the Church is the sum total of juridical rules which apply in case of a menace to the perpetuity or activity of the Church.

This law of necessity can be resorted to only when one has exhausted all possibilities of re-establishing a normal situation, relying on positive law. The law of necessity also includes the positive authorization to take measures, launch initiatives, create organisms which are necessary so that the Church can continue its mission of preaching the divine truth and dispensing the grace of God.

The law of necessity uniquely justifies the measures which are necessary for a restoration of functions in the Church. The principle of proportionality is to be observed.

The Church, and in the first place its organs, has the right but also the duty of taking all the measures necessary for the removal of dangers. In a situation of necessity the pastors of the Church can take extraordinary measures to protect or re-establish the activity of the Church. If an organ does not carry out its necessary or indispensable functions, the other organs have the duty and the right to use the power they have in the Church, so that the life of the Church is guaranteed and its end attained. If the authorities of the Church refuse this, the responsibility of other members of the Church increases, but also their juridical competence.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-01-2022

June 30, 1988

Programs for Priestless Sundays Outlined in Vatican Document

As reported in The Beacon (July 7, 1988)

The document upon which this New Jersey (US) newspaper reports was issued on the same day as Archbishop Lefebvre was consecrating bishops at Ecône. While the Vatican was providing for the absence of priests, Archbishop Lefebvre was providing for the continuation of the priesthood.

Bishops with too few priests to celebrate the necessary Sunday Masses should develop programs by which deacons or appointed lay people lead Sunday prayer services, according to a new Vatican document.

The most preferable service is a Liturgy of the Word followed by distribution of Communion with previously consecrated hosts, says the document, prepared by the Vatican Congregation for Divine Worship.

The phenomenon of parishes and church centers without a priest to celebrate Sunday Mass is worldwide and affects mission countries as well as developed countries, said Msgr. Pere Tena, undersecretary of the congregation, at a June 30 Vatican press conference. The document, issued in Italian, was dated June 2.

Msgr. Tena said the directory was prepared at the request of numerous bishops’ conferences asking for guidelines in the preparation of their programs.

It codifies programs already in existence in many countries. In the United States the situation is known as “priestless Sundays.”

The 18-page directory gives local bishops or bishops’ conferences the power to determine whether in their jurisdictions the priest shortage is leaving church communities without Sunday Masses for long periods of time. It is also up to the bishops to determine if the distance to the nearest Sunday Mass is too great for their priestless parishes and church centers.

The local bishop is also authorized to appoint and train lay people as acolytes, readers and special ministers of the Eucharist to aid the deacon or to conduct the service if no deacon is available.

Under the Vatican rules, lay people are not authorized to preach a homily. However, they can read homilies prepared by priests, the directory says.

People attending the service must be made aware that the Mass is still the primary church liturgical ceremony and that they should make every effort to attend Sunday Masses, the directory says.

To avoid confusion between the prayer service and the Mass, “there can be no insertion in the celebration of that which is proper to the Mass, above all the presentation of gifts and of the eucharistic hosts,” it says.

The laity must be aware that the hosts distributed were consecrated by a priest during a Mass, it adds.

The Liturgy of the Word should use prayers and Bible readings from the corresponding Sunday Mass, it says. Bishops may substitute other church-approved prayer services such as vespers and have the power to make modifications in prayer services, but this should be kept to a minimum, the directory says.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-01-2022

July 3, 1988

Extracts from The Letter of Mother Anne Marie Simoulin to Msgr. Jacques Despierre, Bishop of Carcassonne, France

I thank you for your letter of June 24....On my own, I read it with great attention and read it publicly to all the sisters of our congregation. But one letter, though it purports to be well-meaning, cannot blot out at once 25 years of silence, contempt, and condemnation on the part of our bishops.

We are not leaving the Church, Monseigneur, I mean the Catholic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ; we are just set apart by those who have left it years ago, because they departed from the communion of the Church.

We acknowledge the Pope as legitimate...and we pray daily for him and for our bishops. You ask us “to renew our confidence in him.” What confidence can we have in a Pope who:...

has dealings with Communist heads of state, and shakes their hands instead of denouncing them, reminding all that “Communism is intrinsically evil.”...
presides over Lutheran ceremonies, and who, at Munich, just a few days ago, publicly asked for forgiveness from the Protestants for their being excluded from the Church.
received the red mark on the forehead from a Hindu priestess in India.
in Africa, had a priestess/sorcerer spread ashes or dust over his head, during a witchcraft service, or a fetishistic cult.
organizes, sometimes presides over, and always encourages scandalous ecumenical congresses such as Assisi, Kyoto, Rome...113
opens his heart and door to everyone except faithful Catholics.

I could go on with this list of public scandalous actions of the present Pope. I abridge it voluntarily because these examples suffice. Only those who work to safeguard and defend the Catholic Faith, who live a blameless life, are condemned, rejected, publicly declared schismatic and excommunicated. This is derision, Monseigneur, and it puts great shame on the visage of the Church.

We were surprised yesterday to read in the newspaper, Midi-libre of July 1, 1988, under the photograph of Archbishop Lefebvre that “Lutherans and Calvinists did not create a schism, properly speaking.” What, then, did they do?

But we—who neither tear apart the Faith nor the charity of holy Church—are schismatic! Who is mocked, and who is mocking whom?

And behold, you push the irony, after the condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre which was so much hoped for by the French episcopate, to grant us the same “just requests of the traditionalists” according to the very words and actions of falsely benevolent Cardinal Decourtray and Cardinal Lustiger.

Now, for which reason have we been rejected, condemned, treated as black sheep for the past 20 years by Rome and by our bishops, if not for our fidelity to these “just requests.” If we had not resisted, would they ever offer us these requests now?

May those conservative Catholics who rejoice at the promises of more Indult Masses after Ecclesia Dei meditate upon these words. The Vatican, through the intermediary of our bishops, is trying to work out, not a reconciliation, but recuperation. Well, Monseigneur, we shall not be “recuperated,” [because we are not ill], but just faithful!

His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre is almost the only prelate who courageously stood up against the “auto-destruction of the Church.” All his brothers in the episcopate have cowardly abandoned him. We have been with him for a long time, with admiration and veneration, in the same fidelity and in the same fight for the honor of God and His Church. Today, we share his trials, since, though the penalty imposed by Rome is of no value, it hits us in the heart, because it comes from those who ought to be our shepherds and who became our torturers. However, our soul is in deep peace because we are sure to do the will of God, and desirous to obey and please God rather than men. We shall continue to pray for all those who have the duty to lead the flock towards the true pastures and who are leading it astray in poisonous prairies.

It is not the first time, and perhaps not the last time, that Rome condemns innocence. We are sure that our determination is pleasing to God; we shall hold to it, asking Him to protect us from bitterness and hatred against those who treat us so unjustly.

The glory of the Church is in the fidelity and resistance of Archbishop Lefebvre. May the Churchmen realize it before it is too late. We pray for this intention and, as you exhort us, we pray St. Dominic, our blessed Father, to slay the heretics.

Deign to receive, Monseigneur, our most profound and religious respect.

Mother Anne Marie Simoulin
Superior of the Dominican Sisters
Fanjeaux, France

113. Full documentation of the foregoing scandals is in, Peter, Lovest Thou Me? available from Angelus Press.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

July 9, 1988

The Roman Commission

L’Osservatore Romano, (July 11, 1988)

The Holy Father has named His Eminence Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer,114 previously Prefect of the Congregation for the Sacraments and of the Congregation for Divine Worship, President of the Commission instituted in accordance with the terms of the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei (§ 7, a.b.) of July 7, 1988.

It is significant that the President of this Commission is not Cardinal Gagnon, who was better disposed toward the Society of Saint Pius X, but rather the former Prefect of the Roman Congregation who participated in the recent degradation in the liturgy in his capacity as former Prefect of the Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship.

It is also significant that the three members who prepared the May 5th Protocol are in this Commission. Archbishop Lefebvre said, in his interview with 30 Days,115 that during the discussions preparing this Protocol there was no real collaboration but the only way to progress in the discussions were by threats of the consecration: “It was necessary to continually threaten in order to obtain something. No collaboration was any longer possible.”

His Holiness has named as permanent experts of the Commission the Reverend:

Msgr. Peter Tena Garriaga, Undersecretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship;
Msgr. Milan Simcic, Undersecretary of the Congregation for the Clergy;
Msgr. Jesus Torres Llorente, C.M.F., Undersecretary for Religious of the Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes;
Msgr. Frantisek Rypar, Head of the Office for Seminaries in the Congregation for Catholic Education;
Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
Fernando Ocariz, Consultor for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith;
Benoît Duroux, O.P., Professor in the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas.

The Holy Father has named Secretary of the said Commission Rev. Msgr. Camille Perl, official of the Congregation for Divine Worship.

Fr. Tarcisio Bertone, of the Commission applies the detailed prescription of the law without reference to the prescriptions of law, the consideration of which is necessary to resolve particular cases in exceptional circumstances. This is the true letter and spirit of the law which legalists fail to see.116

Such a canonist can never understand the canonical principle of the actions of Archbishop Lefebvre and of traditional priests in the past 25 years, that is, the rules of the Church in exceptional cases. He does not understand that the masterstroke of Satan is to have led souls into disobedience to Tradition in the name of obedience. The enemies of the Church have infiltrated and climbed to its highest places to destroy it from the top. The presence of a canonist like Fr. Bertone and confreres of similar ilk on the Ecclesia Dei Commission is not a good sign.

114 . A German Benedictine, Cardinal Mayer was born in Altötting, Germany on May 23, 1911. He studied Philosophy in Salzburg and Theology at Sant’ Anselmo in Rome. He was ordained on August 25, 1935. In 1939 after earning his doctorate, he became a professor at Sant’ Anselmo. He remained for 27 years, from 1940 to 1966 as Rector. Mayer’s fame as a scholar led first Pope John XXIII, then Pope Paul VI to make him secretary of the Preparatory Commission for Vatican II. Named in 1965 Ecclesiastical Delegate for the Focolare Movement and in 1966 Abbot of Metten (Germany), he was recalled to Rome in 1971 to become Secretary of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. Later, Mayer became Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Wor¬ship and President of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei.” He was named a titu¬lar Archbishop on January 6, 1972 and was elevated to the cardinalate by John Paul II during the Consistroy of May 25, 1985. (Inside the Vatican, Jan. 1997, p.55.)
115. July August 1988, p.13.
116. See Texas Catholic Herald, July 22, 1988.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

July 13, 1988

Some Lessons to Be Learned from the Lefebvre Schism

The following is the text of an address by Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, given on July 13, 1988, in Santiago, Chile, before that nation’s bishops. In the address, His Eminence comments on the “schism” triggered by Archbishop Lefebvre’s illicit ordination of four bishops and reflects upon certain internal weaknesses in the Church which have provided fertile ground for the development of the Lefebvre phenomenon. The text of Cardinal Ratzinger’s significant address appeared in Italian in the July 30-Aug. 5 edition of Il Sabato. This English translation is reprinted from The Wanderer.

In recent months we have put a lot of work into the case of Lefebvre, with the sincere intention of creating for his movement a space within the Church that would be sufficient for it to live. The Holy See has been criticized for this. It is said that it has yielded to blackmail; that it has not defended the Second Vatican Council with sufficient energy; that, while it has treated progressive movements with great severity, it has displayed an exaggerated sympathy with the traditionalist rebellion. The development of events is enough to disprove these assertions. The mythical harshness of the Vatican in the face of the deviations of the progressives is shown to be mere empty words.117

Up until now, in fact, only warnings have been published; in no case have there been canonical penalties in the strict sense. And the fact that when the chips were down Lefebvre denounced an agreement that had already been signed, shows that the Holy See, while it made truly generous concessions, did not grant him that complete license which he desired. Lefebvre has seen that, in the fundamental part of the agreement, he was being held to accept Vatican II and the affirmations of the post-conciliar magisterium, according to the proper authority of each document.

There is a glaring contradiction in the fact that it is just the people who have let no occasion slip to allow the world to know of their disobedience to the Pope, and to the magisterial declarations of the last 20 years, who think they have the right to judge that this attitude is too mild and who wish that an absolute obedience to Vatican II had been insisted upon. In a similar way they would claim that the Vatican has conceded a right to dissent to Lefebvre which has been obstinately denied to the promoters of a progressive tendency. In reality, the only point which is affirmed in the agreement, following Lumen Gentium, §25, is the plain fact that not all documents of the Council have the same authority. For the rest, it was explicitly laid down in the text that was signed that public polemics must be avoided, and that an attitude is required of positive respect for official decisions and declarations.

It was conceded, in addition, that the Society of Saint Pius X would be able to present to the Holy See—which reserves to itself the sole right of decision—their particular difficulties in regard to interpretations of juridical and liturgical reforms. All of this shows plainly that in this difficult dialogue Rome has united generosity, in all that was negotiable, with firmness in essentials. The explanation which Archbishop Lefebvre has given for the retraction of his agreement, is revealing. He declared that he has finally understood that the agreement he signed aimed only at integrating his foundation into the “Conciliar Church.” The Catholic Church in union with the Pope is, according to him, the “Conciliar Church” which has broken with its own past. It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II also belongs to that.

Without any doubt, the problem that Lefebvre has posed has not been concluded by the rupture of June 30. It would be too simple to take refuge in a sort of triumphalism, and to think that this difficulty has ceased to exist from the moment in which the movement led by Lefebvre has separated itself by a clean break with the Church. A Christian never can, nor should, take pleasure in a rupture. Even though it is absolutely certain the fault cannot be attributed to the Holy See,118 it is a duty for us to examine ourselves, as to what errors we have made, and which ones we are making even now. The criteria with which we judge the past in the Vatican II decree on ecumenism, must be used—as is logical—to judge the present as well.

One of the basic discoveries of the theology of ecumenism is that schisms can take place only when certain truths and certain values of the Christian Faith are no longer lived and loved within the Church. The truth which is marginalized119 becomes autonomous, remains detached from the whole of the ecclesiastical structure, and a new movement then forms itself around it. We must reflect on this fact: that a large number of Catholics, far beyond the narrow circle of the Fraternity of Lefebvre, see this man as a guide, in some sense, or at least as a useful ally. It will not do to attribute everything to political motives, to nostalgia, or to other cultural factors of minor importance. These causes are not capable of explaining the attraction which is felt even by the young—and especially by the young—who come from many quite different nations, and who are surrounded by completely distinct political and cultural realities. Indeed they show what is from any point of view a restricted and one-sided outlook; but there is no doubt whatever that a phenomenon of this sort would be inconceivable unless there were good elements at work here, which in general do not find sufficient opportunity to live within the Church of today.

For all these reasons, we ought to see this matter primarily as the occasion for an examination of conscience. We should allow ourselves to ask fundamental questions, about the defects in the pastoral life of the Church, which are exposed by these events. Thus we will be able to offer a place within the Church to those who are seeking and demanding it, and succeed in destroying all reason for schism. We can make such schism pointless by renewing the interior realities of the Church. There are three points, I think, that it is important to think about.

While there are many motives that might have led a great number of people to seek a refuge in the traditional liturgy, the chief one is that they find the dignity of the sacred preserved there. After the Council there were many priests who deliberately raised “desacralization” to the level of a program, on the plea that the New Testament abolished the cult of the Temple: the veil of the Temple which was torn from top to bottom at the moment of Christ’s death on the cross is, according to certain people, the sign of the end of the sacred. The death of Jesus, outside the city walls, that is to say, in the public world, is now the true religion. Religion, if it has any being at all, must have it in the non-sacredness of daily life, in love that is lived. Inspired by such reasoning, they put aside the sacred vestments; they have despoiled the churches as much as they could of that splendor which brings to mind the sacred; and they reduced the liturgy to the language and the gestures of ordinary life, by means of greetings, common signs of friendship, and such things.

There is no doubt that with these theories and practices they have entirely disregarded the true connection between the Old and the New Testament: It is forgotten that this world is not the Kingdom of God, and that the “Holy One of God” (Jn. 6:69) continues to exist in contradiction to this world; that we have need of purification before we draw near to Him; that the profane, even after the death and the Resurrection of Jesus, has not succeeded in becoming “the holy.” The Risen One has appeared, but to those whose heart has been opened to Him, to the Holy; He did not manifest Himself to everyone. It is in this way that a new space has been opened for the religion to which all of us should now submit; this religion which consists in drawing near to the community of the Risen One, at whose feet the women prostrated themselves and adored Him. I do not want to develop this point any further now; I confine myself to coming straight to this conclusion: we ought to get back the dimension of the sacred in the liturgy. The liturgy is not a festivity; it is not a meeting for the purpose of having a good time. It is of no importance that the parish priest has cudgeled his brains to come up with suggestive ideas or imaginative novelties. The liturgy is what makes the Thrice-Holy God present amongst us; it is the burning bush; it is the Alliance of God with man in Jesus Christ, who has died and risen again. The grandeur of the liturgy does not rest upon the fact that it offers an interesting entertainment, but in rendering tangible the Totally Other, whom we are not capable of summoning. He comes because He wills. In other words, the essential in the liturgy is the mystery, which is realized in the common ritual of the Church; all the rest diminishes it. Men experiment with it in lively fashion, and find themselves deceived, when the mystery is transformed into distraction, when the chief actor in the liturgy is not the Living God but the priest or the liturgical director.

Aside from the liturgical question, the central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attacks on the decree which deals with Religious Liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi. Here is where Lefebvre fixes the boundaries between his position and that of the Catholic Church today.

I need hardly say in so many words that what he is saying on these points is unacceptable. Here we do not wish to consider his errors, rather we want to ask where there is a lack of clarity in ourselves. For Lefebvre, what is at stake is the warfare against ideological liberalism, against the relativization of truth. Obviously we are not in agreement with him that— understood according to the Pope’s intentions—the text of the Council or the prayer of Assisi were relativizing.

It is a necessary task to defend the Second Vatican Council against Archbishop Lefebvre, as valid, and as binding upon the Church. Certainly there is a mentality of narrow views that isolates Vatican II and which has provoked this opposition. There are many accounts of it which give the impression that, from Vatican II onward, everything has been changed, and that what preceded it has no value or, at best, has value only in the light of Vatican II.

The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular Council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of super-dogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.

This idea is made stronger by things that are now beginning. That which previously was considered most holy—the form in which the liturgy was handed down—suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited. It is intolerable to criticize decisions which have been taken since the Council; on the other hand, if men make question of ancient rules, or even of the great truths of the Faith—for instance, the corporal virginity of Mary, the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, the immortality of the soul—nobody complains or only does so with the greatest moderation.120

I, myself, when I was a professor, have seen how the very same bishop who, before the Council, had fired a teacher, who was really irreproachable, for a certain crudeness of speech, was not prepared, after the Council, to dismiss a professor who openly denied certain fundamental truths of the Faith.

All this leads a great number of people to ask themselves if the Church of today is really the same as that of yesterday, or if they have changed it for something else without telling people. The one way in which Vatican II can be made plausible is to present it as it is: one part of the unbroken, the unique Tradition of the Church and of her Faith.

In the spiritual movements of the post-conciliar era, there is not the slightest doubt that frequently there has been an obliviousness, or even a suppression, of the issue of truth: here perhaps we confront the crucial problem for theology and for pastoral work today.

The “truth” is thought to be a claim that is too exalted, a “triumphalism” that cannot be permitted any longer. You see this attitude plainly in the crisis that troubles the missionary ideal and missionary practice. If we do not point to the truth in announcing our faith, and if this truth is no longer essential for the salvation of Man, then the missions lose their meaning. In effect the conclusion has been drawn, and it is being drawn today, that in the future we need only seek that Christians should be good Christians, Moslems good Moslems, Hindus good Hindus, and so forth. If it comes to that, how are we to know when one is a “good” Christian or a “good” Moslem?

The idea that all religions are—if you talk seriously—only symbols of what ultimately is the Incomprehensible, is rapidly gaining ground in theology, and has already deeply penetrated into liturgical practice. When things get to this point, faith as such is left behind, because faith really consists in the fact that I am committing myself to the truth so far as it is known. So in this matter also there is every motive to return to the right path.

If once again we succeed in pointing out and living the fullness of the Catholic religion with regard to these points, we may hope that the schism of Lefebvre will not be of long duration.

In this long conference of Cardinal Ratzinger we can distinguish few accusations and many admissions.

He accuses Archbishop Lefebvre of two things. First, he says: “It seems indeed that he is no longer able to see that we are dealing with the Catholic Church in the totality of its Tradition, and that Vatican II also belongs to that.”

Archbishop Lefebvre has always recognized the Pope as Pope, and wished to be able to have normal relations with him. The obstacles were not placed by Archbishop Lefebvre; he did his best to avoid them, fighting the introduction of new doctrines at the Council while the then Rev. Fr. Ratzinger was pushing for their introduction as a peritus. He did his best to prevent the Pope from calling the meeting at Assisi. [See his “Open Letter to the Pope,” jointly signed with Bishop de Castro Mayer—The Angelus, Jan. 1984.] In spite of these new doctrines which entered the Church as a virus, he did his best to keep a relationship with the Pope. It makes no sense to admit that within the Church new values which “originated outside the Church,” among the enemies of the Church, as Cardinal Ratzinger admits in The Ratzinger Report,121 and then pretend that the whole of Vatican II still belongs to the totality of Tradition: “The central points of conflict at present are Lefebvre’s attacks on the decree which deals with Religious Liberty, and on the so-called spirit of Assisi….[W]hat he is saying on these points is unacceptable.”

We take note that Cardinal Ratzinger accepts the spirit of Assisi and Dignitatis Humanæ as perfectly acceptable. But he himself says that “this particular Council defined no dogma at all.” That being so we are not obliged to accept it.

Cardinal Ratzinger makes three admissions: the complete lack of sacredness in the modern liturgy, the raising of the Council as a super-dogma erasing all the past, and an obliviousness or even a suppression of the issue of truth. We are pleased to see these admissions, but what is he going to do to correct the situation? The Popes Paul VI and John Paul II have oftentimes spoken conservative words but their actions opened the doors to all kinds of abuses. For instance, on Wednesday, September 14, 1988, the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship published a document allowing priests and faithful in Zaire to dance during the Mass: the priest will be able to accompany his prayers “with corporal movements according to the traditional rhythms of his people”; the faithful are authorized to accompany the priest “while remaining at their place.”122

How can Cardinal Ratzinger then complain about loss of sacredness in the liturgy? Who is responsible?

Cardinal Ratzinger several times makes another kind of admission: that the reason why the Protocol failed was that Rome “defended the Second Vatican Council against Archbishop Lefebvre as valid and as binding upon the Church.” He is not ready to abandon the principles which have borne so many bitter fruits in the past 30 years. He wants to cure the external symptoms of the crisis in the Church but wants to protect the virus inside!

However, we agree with his conclusion, that once he (and all the bishops to whom he was speaking) returns to “the fullness of the Catholic religion,” then there will be no more problems with the bishops, priests and faithful attached to Tradition with Archbishop Lefebvre! Let us pray that Our Divine Savior may help the Pope, the Cardinal and all these bishops to return to this “fullness of the Catholic religion.”

117. What an admission. How then can he use canonical penalties against those who just keep the Faith? By his own words, he is convinced of double standards. Let Cardinal Ratzinger first fulfil his duties as Prefect of the Congregation in charge of keeping the purity of the Faith, by applying the proper ecclesiastical laws and penalties against the many wolves in the Church. Then there will be no need of any severity towards the Traditional Catholics, since he would have corrected the situation. He would even find in them his best allies! As long as he does not fulfil his duty, he is not entitled to apply any penalties against those who defend the Faith.
118. Who is, by their own admission, letting the wolves go unpunished in the flock of Christ? Who has tried to “assimilate values which originated outside the Church” in 200 years of Liberal culture, i.e., of humanism? Who is responsible for Assisi? Who is responsible for the new catechisms, new sacraments, new canon law, etc.? Take these away and there would be no “rupture.” Therefore, whose fault?
119. What a scandalous view of schisms, which despises the history of the Church. Was Luther defending “a truth which was marginalized?” Were Photius, or Döllinger, or the Communist National Chinese bishops defending “a truth which was marginalized”? Those who had been defending the truth, and who were marginalised for a while by a bad shepherd have, rather, been the saints such as St. Athanasius, St. Joan of Arc, etc.
120. At the beginning of his talk he himself admits that he falls under his own criticism
121. See above, p.152ff.
122. See Notre Vie, Sept. 15, 1988.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

July 18, 1988

Declaration of the German-speaking Superiors of the Society of Saint Pius X

Regarding the Treatment of Archbishop Lefebvre

On July 1, 1988, the Roman Congregation for Bishops declared Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer and the bishops consecrated by them on June 30, excommunicated for lack of the required pontifical mandate. Many people, Catholic or not, are speaking of schism. The Society of Saint Pius X rejects this inexact presentation of the facts. It recalls the canon law which presupposes, for the validity of an ecclesiastical penalty such as excommunication, a grievous fault (delictum) which does not exist when, among other circumstances, the person considers himself bound in conscience not to follow the letter of the law in order to safeguard a greater good. (Case of necessity: see Canon 2205, §2, §3 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law; Canon 1323, §4 and Canon 1324, §1, 5 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.)

Now the Universal Church finds herself today—to our greater sorrow—in a case of necessity that far surpasses all the precedent vicissitudes of her history, because of the falsehood of the official fundamental orientation of the pontificate of John Paul II. His guiding light is the doctrine of Assisi—which dissolves the First Commandment of God—a mixture of all religions, in its ideological conception as well as its socio-political realization. This doctrine fulfils in this end of the century the Modernist program condemned by St. Pius X under the name of “Organized Apostasy” in his Apostolic Letter Notre charge apostolique of August 25, 1910.

A good example of this extreme situation among the bishops is the “final report of the mixed ecumenical commission for the revision of the anathema of the 16th century” in which the German Episcopal Conference falls eleven times into heresy and thereby ipso facto into excommunication (1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 2314). Indeed, contrary to the dogmatic condemnation by the Council of Trent of eleven heresies in the Protestant doctrine on the Last Supper, they declare that “it must not be automatically considered as heretical.” The German Episcopal Conference has thereby separated itself from the Church because the integral Catholic Faith is the first and decisive condition of belonging to the Church. Given similar situations in all the episcopal conferences of the West, the future Cardinal Gagnon acknowledged on August 27, 1983, the existence of “a schism in the United States and European countries.”

Numerous statistics and polls show that due to twenty-five years of Modernist domination over theology and in the hierarchy, between 90-95% of the Catholic population is now separated from the Church by heresy or apostasy; 93% of German Catholics no longer go to confession, according to Cardinal Höffner; 86% of religion teachers (priests or laymen) in the Diocese of Trèves challenges the duty to accept the totality of the Deposit of Faith according to a 1977 poll; 94% of the population in the strongly Catholic area of Tyrol have, in 45 years, rejected the Catholic teaching on the prohibition of contraception (Loewit-Studie, Herderkorrespondenz, Mar. 1984).

This data and these official facts illustrate the rapid and almost total destruction of the authentic life of faith, reduced to a small number of priests and laymen attached to the Faith who address themselves to Archbishop Lefebvre. In the face of the present situation they find in the Society of Saint Pius X and its environment the only means of serving the Church and the Pope according to the Catholic Faith. They are strengthened in this conviction by “the very positive report” of the Apostolic Visit of November-December 1987, re-affirming that “the Church must be re-built on this basis.”

The present extreme necessity imposes upon Archbishop Lefebvre (and upon Bishop de Castro Mayer), the only bishop recognizable as fully Catholic, some special duties. Indeed, he is, “as successor of the Apostles, jointly responsible for the common good of the Church” (Pius XII, Encyclical Fidei Donum, Apr. 21, 1957). This joint responsibility in regard to the whole Church was fulfilled by Archbishop Lefebvre by the episcopal consecrations of June 30, performed in closest union with the Church and her law. Indeed, “the ultimate end, the supreme principal and the superior unity of the juridical life and of all juridical function in the Church is the solicitude for souls” (Pius XII, Oct. 2, 1944, Allocution to the Roman Rota).

Lastly, the immediate reason for the by-passing of the rule of the apostolic mandate on the consecrations of June 30 consists in the fact that the negotiations with Rome throughout the first half of 1988, in spite of a few concessions, demonstrated more and more strongly the following: Rome, because of its false modernist orientation, is not ready to guarantee in the long term, the freedom and vitality of Catholic Tradition.

Given all this, Archbishop Lefebvre has never wanted a schism, i.e., a fundamental rupture with the papacy, but he acted according to the guidelines of Catholic theology, according to which “it is legitimate not to obey the orders of a pope and even to prevent the execution of his will if he puts souls in danger, especially if he strove to destroy the Church” (St. Robert Bellarmine, de Romano Pontifice, 2, 29). Archbishop Lefebvre, since June 30, follows the same path as the holy bishop and confessor Athanasius, who, in times of similar general blindness in heresy (Arianism), was one of the few bishops to refuse with vigor to take any part in the politics of Pope Liberius, who was favoring heresy: for this motive he was excommunicated by this Pope in 357 AD, a penalty as invalid as the excommunication of July 1, 1988.

† Bishop Bernard Fellay
Fr. Franz Joseph Maessen
Fr. Paul Natterer
Fr. Georg Pflüger

Stuttgart, Germany
July 18, 1988

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

July 25, 1988

Letter of Cardinals Ratzinger and Mayer to Dom Gérard Calvet

Cardinals Ratzinger and Mayer wrote this letter in response to one written to Cardinal Ratzinger by Dom Gérard Calvet, superior of the Benedictine Monastery of St. Madeline at Le Barroux, France. To our knowledge, Dom Gérard’s original letter was never released to the public, yet Cardinal Mayer disclosed parts of it in his interview with 30 Days magazine. (See following chapter, p.204.)

The apostolate of Dom Gérard’s Monastery of St. Madeleine was affiliated with that of the Society of Saint Pius X until shortly after Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops. Dom Gérard himself assisted at the episcopal consecrations, but then broke his association with the Society. He himself has since concelebrated the New Mass with Pope John Paul II, thus consumating his compromise and that of his monastery. His community now publicly defends the Second Vatican Council’s idea of Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) as being in accord with Catholic Tradition which it manifestly is not.

Reverend Father,

In response to the letter which you addressed to the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on July 8, last, and to the petition addressed to the Pope on the same date, the Cardinal Prefect of that Congregation and the Cardinal Prefect of the special Commission instituted by the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, are happy to communicate together the following.

During an audience granted to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger on July 23, 1988, the Sovereign Pontiff deigned with goodness:

1. To lift all censures and irregularities incurred due to the fact of the reception of sacred Orders from the hands of His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre, then suspended a divinis, all the members of the communities of St. Madeleine of Le Barroux, and Santa Cruz de Nova Friburgo, who are in this case.
2. Grant to these same communities the full reconciliation to the Holy See under the conditions already offered by Cardinal Paul Augustin Mayer during his visit to the Monastery of Le Barroux on June 21, 1988, and according to paragraph 6 (a) of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, that is:
3.

the use in private and in public of the liturgical books in force in 1962, for the members of the communities, and those who frequent their houses.
the possibility of asking a bishop, according to the existing canonical rules, for conferring the Orders according to the Pontifical cited above, the superior of each autonomous house granting the necessary dimissorial letters.
the right of the faithful to receive the sacraments according to the books cited above in the houses of the communities, taking into account the Canons 878, 896 and 1122 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.
the possibility to develop a pastoral influence through apostolic works and to keep the present ministries assumed by the communities, according to Canons 679-683.123

These measures shall take effect with the reception of the present letter. Other possible juridical problems will have to be submitted to the competence of the special Commission in charge of the application of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei.

Concerning the insertion of these two communities in the Benedictine Confederation, the Cardinal President of the special Commission asks the Most Reverend Abbot Primate to take, in union with him, the necessary dispositions, given the wishes expressed in your letter of June 8, 1988, on this subject.

We must add that the Holy Father, touched by the expression of your sentiments of fidelity and attachment to him, does not doubt your sincere desire to contribute to the good of souls through your apostolate in communion with him and with all the Shepherds of the Church and relies especially upon your prayers and of your brethren.

Deign to accept, Reverend Father, our religious and devoted feelings in the Lord.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Paul Augustin Cardinal Mayer

123. These canons all stress that this pastoral work is to be “under the authority and direction of the local bishop.”

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

July 28, 1988

Creation of the Society of Saint Peter

Despite the hopeful tone of this communique, by the end of October (1988), three months after its foundation, the new Society of Saint Peter was facing the difficulties and dangers which continue to haunt it. The Society of Saint Peter falls entirely at the mercy of the local modernist bishops.

For Archbishop Lefebvre, the essential problem with the May 5 Protocol was its failure to promise a bishop for the Society of Saint Pius X with unobstructed power to protect the faithful from modernist influences. On the contrary, the Protocol offered, for mere psychological reasons, a single bishop purposely lacking this power. In over a decade since its foundation the Society of Saint Peter still does not even have one traditional bishop, powerless or otherwise.

Communiqué of the Founding Members from la Documentation Catholique, No. 1969.

In the aftermath of the rupture consummated by Archbishop Lefebvre on June 30 at the Seminary of Ecône, Switzerland, eight traditional priests from different movements went to Rome on July 5 and 6. They met with the Sovereign Pontiff as well as with Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, and Cardinal Mayer, new president of the Roman Commission instituted by the Pope to solve the questions concerning Catholic Tradition.

They were strongly encouraged in their project to found a priestly society allowing them to keep “the traditions of spirituality and apostolate” (motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, July 2, §5a) to which they, as well as a great number of faithful, are attached. Such a society concretely fulfils the hopes raised by the Protocol signed on May 5 last between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre.

This Society was founded on July 18 at the Cistercian Abbey of Hauterive (Canton of Fribourg, Switzerland), under the name of “The Society of St. Peter.” The founding members, priests and deacons, have canonically elected as their Superior General Fr. Joseph Bisig (Swiss), and as his two assistants Fr. Denis Coiffet (French) and Fr. Gabriel Baumann (Swiss). All three are former members of the Society of Saint Pius X. Fr. Joseph Bisig, 36, had been First Assistant of the Superior General of this Society for six years (1982-1988), and had been Rector of the Seminary of Zaitzkofen, Germany, for seven years (1979-1986). Fr. Gabriel Baumann, 35, had been its Vice-Rector for four years.

The Society of St. Peter wishes to welcome into its bosom any priest desirous of serving the Church in a traditional spirit (motu proprio Ecclesia Dei, §5a, b; §6a). It takes as its first goal the urgent creation of an international seminary in Europe to welcome seminarians desiring a solid theological formation, based on St. Thomas, a traditional spirituality and liturgy, and wishing not to cut themselves off from the Church.

Msgr. Camille Perl came to support the founders of the Society of St. Peter gathered at Hauterive, with the encouragement of the Roman Commission of which he is the secretary.

In virtue of the agreement of May 5, and the motu proprio of July 2 (§5), the priests of the Society of St. Peter shall willingly offer their apostolic services to the dioceses and bishops.

Some modernist bishops have been very clear regarding their intentions to stifle the Society of Saint Peter. The now-deceased Cardinal Albert Decourtray, Archbishop of Lyon, France (in whose diocese one of the priests of the Society of Saint Peter is located), added his own condition for the Society of Saint Peter to minister in his diocese. He required acceptance not only of the validity of the Latin Editio Typica,124] but also of its vernacular translations, suppressing the mention of “certain points taught by Vatican Council II, or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and the law which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition.” He and Bishop Raymond Bouchex, Bishop of Avignon (in which diocese Le Barroux is situated), insist on “a strong attachment to the Second Vatican Council, to the whole Council.”125

Moreover, Church authorities have said to Fr. Bisig, “Oh, we have no objection to the opening of a seminary—provided you have professors with the proper degrees.” Now, the “proper degrees” can only be obtained in modernist universities. This is the reason why the professors in the seminaries of the Society of Saint Pius X refuse to pursue “proper degrees.” This requirement obliged Fr. Baumann and Fr. Prösinger to go and study in a modernist university to obtain a “proper degree,” and obliged Fr. Bisig to accept on the faculty of his seminary some other teachers who celebrate the New Mass.

Who can guarantee to ordain these seminarians? Local modernist bishops? How much leverage does the Society of Saint Peter have to insist in which rite they will be ordained? For the first ordinations, Cardinal Mayer agreed to ordain some of them with the traditional Mass. But this raises another question. Some conservative monasteries who accepted the Novus Ordo out of “obedience” have been begging for the traditional Mass and ordinations for many years. They are still denied their requests. The new rites of ordination were imposed on Dom Augustin when he made his own accord with the Vatican in 1985. [Dom Augustin was superior of a Benedictine monastery in Flavigny, France, founded in cooperation with Archbishop Lefebvre. Since Dom Augustine’s compromise in 1985, his community is obliged to celebrate the New Mass.] It seems that Rome characteristically grants requests for the traditional Mass and rites, not to promote Catholic Tradition, but only to divide traditional Catholics.

Moreover, this first ceremony of ordination by Cardinal Mayer was not without difficulty. Strong protests from the German bishops prevented him from performing it in Germany. At the last minute, after invitations were sent, the place of ordination had to be changed to Rome. Stronger protests from the French bishops have prevented him from ordaining some monks of the Society of St. Vincent Ferrer126 in Fontgombault. The ceremony was performed by a visiting bishop. If Rome gives in to such pressures of diocesan bishops now, how much more later!

124. Official Latin text.
125. Documentation Catholique, No. 1969.
126. Fr. de Blignières left the Society of Saint Pius X as a seminarian and was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1977 under the condition of remaining under obedience to Dom Gèrard (of Le Barroux), who at the time was both fully traditional and support¬ive of the Society of Saint Pius X. But he later violated this condition, and in 1979 started a religious community on his own, modeled after the Dominican life. This community was openly sedevacantist from the beginning. For that reason, Archbishop Lefebvre always refused to ordain the members of that community, even though it cel¬ebrated the Latin Mass.

RE: Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988] - Stone - 08-04-2022

August 18, 1988

Declaration of Dom Gérard

By this declaration which follows, Dom Gérard, superior of the Benedictine Monastery of St. Madeleine of Le Barroux, France, publicly explained the reasons why he signed the Protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected and the conditions he included with his signature.

I deny, first of all, as absolutely unfounded, the rumor that was spread that I would have been chosen to be consecrated bishop.127

Why have I accepted the Protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected just after he signed it? This is a long story, for which I ask a few minutes of attention. For the past 15 years we asked to be relieved from our suspension, and to be re-integrated into the Confederation of the Benedictine Monasteries; but since the conditions were unacceptable (renouncement of the traditional Rite) we refused, resigned to remain in the illegality rather than to lack the Truth. Then, a long time after these efforts, on Friday, June 17 of this year, a phone call from the Vatican asked for the Prior. Cardinal Mayer asked to pay us a visit. He would arrive on Monday, June 20, at 6:30pm with Msgr. Perl in order to propose on behalf of the Holy Father, the Protocol signed [by Archbishop Lefebvre] on May 5, and rejected [by His Grace] on the night of May 5-6.

The next day, we gathered ten fathers around the Cardinal to study the proposal of the Pope; thus there were morning and afternoon meetings of intense discussion where no aspect of the question was ignored. The adaptation of the Protocol that was offered to us represented the total of our requests submitted to the Holy See since 1983. What we asked from the beginning (Mass of St. Pius V, catechism, sacraments, all in conformity to the centuries-old Tradition of the Church), were granted to us, without doctrinal counter-part, without concession, without denial.128

The Holy Father was thus offering us to be integrated into the Benedictine Confederation as we are.

Our Reasons

After having weighed everything, after several meetings of the council of the fathers, I have thus accepted the proposal and explained to our faithful at the Sunday Mass the reasons which, in our case, support our acceptance:

a) That the tradition of the Church be pushed out of her official, visible perimeter brings prejudice to it. This is contrary to the honor of the Spouse of Christ. The visibility of the Church is one of its essential marks.

b) It is sad that the only Benedictines who are put aside from the great Benedictine family are precisely those who keep its liturgical tradition. Isn’t this a proper mark of the Benedictine Order?

c) All things being equal, i.e., the Faith and the Sacraments being intact, it is better to be in agreement with the laws of the Church rather than contravene them.

Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspens a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop? I think, especially, of some young college students, scouts and seminarians who have never seen a traditional Mass.

It seems that we would be guilty if, because of our refusal to take the occasion, thousands of young people would be forever deprived of the Latin Gregorian Mass, of the Mass facing God, where the Canon is surrounded by silence, where the Holy Host, Center of adoration for the faithful, is received on the tongue, kneeling.

The stakes are not small, as one can see.

Our Conditions

We have placed two conditions on the signing of this agreement.

1) That this event be not considered as a discredit on the person of Archbishop Lefebvre: this was brought up several times in the course of our discussion with Cardinal Mayer, who agreed to it. Indeed, isn’t it thanks to the tenacity of Archbishop Lefebvre that such a status is being granted to us?

2) That no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be requested from us and that no silence be imposed on our anti-Modernist preaching.

The Reactions

Many of our uninformed correspondents had fears and suspicions. We hoped to have appeased their worries. We regret, here or there, certain bitter reactions, which come more from a partisan spirit than from the sense of the Church. They summoned the faithful to choose their camp, disregarding the respect due to the souls, which is the first condition of any apostolate. It would be a grave error to constitute within the Church a sort of great unified party, choosing at its head a leader who maneuvers his troops at will. Forced by the events, the faithful attached to Tradition were placed in a posture of resistance. We, ourselves, remain strongly attached to the requirements of an integral Faith and to the immutable Tradition of the Church, but our legitimate resistance should not become resistentialism, where suspicion and purges are the law: the holy liberty of the children of God would be the first victim of this, and many other precious virtues would suffer too—charity, in the first place.

Our Three Wishes

I would like to finish with three wishes which I hold dear to my heart.

1) That rash judgment on complex situations, without having all the elements in hand, be avoided. Precipitation and ill will work for the enemy. With a little patience one will be able to judge the tree by its fruits—Isn’t this the evangelical criterion?

2) That we do not exhaust ourselves in quarrels among ourselves, rivalry of clan or jurisdiction. On the contrary, let all those who fight for Tradition, doctrine, preaching, Mass and Sacraments, remain attached in fraternal charity. Who can divide us if we all fight for Christ the King?

3) Lastly, I wish that we all profit from the passage in the Gospel where St. John says to Our Lord: “Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in Thy Name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not for he that is not against you is for you” (Lk. 9:49).

Dom Gérard, O.S.B.

Fr. Schmidberger’s Remarks on Dom Gérard’s Declaration

Rev. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X from 1983-1994, responded to Dom Gérard’s Declaration (of August 18, 1988) by rebutting individual citations. These citations from the Declaration (see pp.199ff.) appear indented while Fr. Schmidbergers remarks are not.

“a) That the tradition of the Church be pushed out of her official, visible perimeter brings prejudice to it. This is contrary to the honor of the Spouse of Christ. The visibility of the Church is one of its essential marks.”

It seems rather contrary to the plan of Divine Providence that the Catholic Tradition of the Church be re-integrated into the pluralism of the Conciliar Church, as long as the latter dishonors the Catholic Church and scandalizes its unity and visibility. “Jesus…suffered without the gate” of Jerusalem, says St. Paul, “let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13).

“b) It is sad that the only Benedictines who are put aside from the great Benedictine family are precisely those who keep its liturgical tradition....”

On the contrary, it is an honor for Le Barroux to have been rejected by the other Benedictines for its integral fidelity to the Mass of All Times, and thus to have become a wonderful sign of contradiction.

“c) All things being equal, i.e., the Faith and the Sacraments being intact, it is better to be in agreement with the laws of the Church rather than contravene them.”

On the contrary, when the laws of the Church are abused everywhere, in such a way as to desiccate the living sources of Faith and grace, it is better not to succumb to this scheme.

“Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspens a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop?”

If the priests of Le Barroux considered that they were validly suspended, they have been living for 15 years in mortal sin. If they think that the so-called suspens a divinis merely damages their apostolic influence, they are wrong. The hard way of the Cross is more fruitful than the easy way. Moreover, they should have placed the missionary influence of the whole of Tradition in its necessary cohesion above the influence of their own monastery alone. The common good should be given pride of place over the individual good.

“It would be a grave error to constitute within the Church a sort of great unified party, choosing at its head a leader who maneuvers his troops at will.”

The truly Catholic faithful have acknowledged in Archbishop Lefebvre the good shepherd that the Good Lord provided to them when they were scattered by the modernists. Neither on May 6 nor on June 30 has the grace of his mission left this good shepherd. Much to the contrary! The fidelity of the sheep to the shepherd is a grace for the sheep. The infidelity is first of all an ingratitude and, in the end, a great tragedy.

“We, ourselves, remain strongly attached to the requirements of an integral Faith and to the immutable Tradition of the Church, but our legitimate resistance should not become resistentialism, where suspicion and purges are the law: the holy liberty of the children of God would be the first victim of this,....”

It is not “suspicion,” it is a fact. It is the height of the battle; friends are struck by the enemy. Is it the opportune moment to negotiate private peace with the enemy? There is only one name for such an attitude.

“On the contrary, let all those who fight for Tradition, doctrine, preaching, Mass, and Sacraments, remain attached in fraternal charity. Who can divide us if we all fight for Christ the King?”

For 15 years [i.e., since the early 1970’s], there had been a wonderful covenant of charity between all the traditional communities. All that was needed was to continue it through June 30 in doctrinal and prudential unanimity. This was needed to continue the fight for Christ the King. The one who had broken this covenant now was calling for a new covenant!

Fr. Franz Schmidberger
Superior General,
The Society of Saint Pius X

127. On the question of bishops, it must be noted that a very important point of the May 5 Protocol was the granting of a bishop from those attached to Tradition. Cardinal Mayer, President of the new Commission, himself admits that. “The question of a specific bishop is no longer being posed”—much less solved! (See 30 Days, October 1988).
128. Note Cardinal Mayer’s comment on Dom Gérard’s statement at the end of this chapter (see p.204)!