Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume I
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

Quote:Commentator: Was the prelate (Mgr. Lefebvre) an important person in the Church?

Fr. Cosmao: He had complete power in the Church in the whole of French Africa, from the Sahara to Madagascar. In the Africa which at that time was still French. And he was one of the most important personages in the Church at the end of Pius XII's pontificate.

Commentator: Did he do well, standing for the Church in Africa of that period?

Fr. Cosmao: He did indeed. Christians and priests thought of him as one of themselves. He really stood for that Church at the time. The fact is, it is the Church which has changed, not Mgr. Lefebvre. The Church has changed most profoundly and in particular because she has come to accept what has been happening in Europe since the end of the 18th century, in the train of the philosophy of illuminism and the French Revolution.

Commentator: What, in fact, has been happening?

Fr. Cosmao: Until then the Church made the kings, and by that made the organization of society sacrosanct. When that organization of society no longer corresponded to the actual relations between social groups, it was necessary, in order to transform that social organization, to take away its sacred character, and in so doing to tear the Church away from the position she held in European societies; and finally the Church, in the course of the decades, has come to understand that the criticism of her role under the Ancien Regime was justified, and that it was that very criticism which could renew her from top to bottom. I think that Vatican II, in large part, is the conclusion of that process of growing awareness; and it is that conclusion and the whole process leading it which Mgr. Lefebvre cannot accept, because, to my mind, he is really the representative of that Church which as sure of its truth, its right, its power, and which thought she alone had the power to say how society should be organized. And today Mgr. Lefebvre reproaches the Church not with no longer speaking Latin and no longer offering Mass in the rite of Saint Pius V but, as others put it, surrendering the World on the pretext of a desire to enter it, and subjecting herself to the new world. That is the reproach which issued logically from the Church of yesterday. It is he who is faithful, in a certain way; but his fidelity is to a Church whose attitude in history, as we have come to understand, some more quickly than others, is in contradiction with the demands of the Gospel.

Quote:"For Fr. Cosmao's candor there can be nothing but praise. In his opinion, it is not Mgr. Lefebvre who has changed but the Church. In a certain way it is Mgr. Lefebvre who is faithful. The fact is that Mgr. Lefebvre's reproach to the church of today concerns not Latin and liturgy primarily but her alliance with the World etc....

Nostalgia? Vague remorse? Provocation? Indifference? It hard to discover Fr. Cosmao's secret feelings. But he bears witness to a fact: the Church has changed, and changed ‘most profoundly,' on that fact we agree - everybody agrees. But we need to know how deep that profound change goes: or better, what is the nature of the change.

It was in 1950 that Teilhard de Chardin wrote to a priest who had left the Church: `Essentially I think as you do that the Church (like any living reality after a certain time) comes a period of "moulting", or "necessary reform." After two thousand years it is inevitable. Humanity is in process of moulting. How can Christianity avoid doing the same? More precisely, I think that the Reform in question (much more profound than that of the 16th century) is no longer a simple matter of institution and morals, but of Faith . . . .'

That conviction of Teilhard's is now widespread. Officially it is rejected, but semi-officially it is propagated in theology, liturgy, catechism, and the Catholic press, with an ambiguity less and less ambiguous-why bother, when you have the `machine' under your control? There is no need to recall the most striking examples: they have appeared time and time again in the Courtier de Rome, La Pensee catholique, Itineraires, the Courtier de Pierre Debray, and many other publications. That the Histoire des crises du clergé français contemporain of Paul Vigneron should, in spite of its moderation, have been passed over in silence or merely mentioned in the semi-official Catholic press, while Le christianisme va-t-il mourir? of Jean Delumeau, which condemns 1500 years of the Church's history and announces, as the Good News, the era of the Liberal Evangelical Church, should have received the Catholic Grand Prix de Littérature, is a 'sign of e times' of tragic dimensions. It is indeed a New Religion which the innovators are promising us. Fr. Cosmao bears witness to the fact. It is a pity he has not told us clearly what he thinks of it."

Quote:I took part in the preparations for the Council as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission. Thus, for two years I was present at all its meetings. It was the business of the Central Commission to check and examine all the preparatory schemata issued by all the committees. Consequently I was well placed for knowing what had been done, what remained to be examined and what was to be put forward during the Council.

This work was carried out very conscientiously and with a concern for perfection. I possess the seventy-two prepatory schemata and can state, speaking generally, in these seventy-two schemata the doctrine of the Church was absolutely orthodox and there was hardly any need for retouching. There was, therefore, a fine piece of work for presentation to the Council - schemata in conformity with the Church's teaching, adapted to some extent to our era, but with prudence and wisdom.

Now you know what happened at the Council. A fortnight after its opening not one of the prepared schemata remained, not one! All had been turned down, all had been condemned to the wastepaper basket. Nothing remained, not a single sentence. All had been thrown out.3

Quote:The Beginning of Ecône

My dear colleagues and Canadian friends, I am not going to talk abstractions. All I want to do is give my own testimony, for Providence willed that I should be the first eyewitness of what happened at Ecône.

Ecône will soon be known throughout the world
Ten years ago I was appointed parish priest of Riddes, in which Ecône is situated. That was in 1967. At that time Ecône was nothing in particular. Only one Canon of the Grand-Saint-Bernard remained, and he just looked after some dogs and a few calves. The place was up for sale. In 1968, on 31 May, the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary, one of my parishioners, M. Alphonse Pedroni (he has already been to Canada with me and also with Mgr. Lefebvre) overheard a member of the Communist Party say in a local café: "is for sale: we're buying it. And the first thing we'll do is destroy the chapel." Alphonse went home, took up the telephone, and called the Canon:

"Is it true that Ecône is for sale?"

"Yes, it's true."

"I'll buy it at the price you have been offered."

He found four friends to help him buy that house and insure that it kept its religious character. The property had belonged to the Canons of Saint-Bernard for over 600 years.

These five men improved the land (in our country it is all vineyards) and waited for the providential moment.

Then one day Mgr. Lefebvre appeared. He was in touch with some young men who wanted to become priests. He had tried opening a house in Fribourg, in Switzerland, but it had become too small. Providence led him to a meeting with these men who were happy to put the house they had bought at his disposal.

I shall always remember that visit of Mgr. Lefebvre's. We had a meal together in a local restaurant. He did not know us. He seemed perplexed at the attitude of M. Pedroni, who said not a word all during the meal. In the end Mgr. Lefebvre urged him to say something.

"Listen, Monseigneur. We are happy to entrust that house to you. I should just like to say this: Ecône will soon be known throughout the world."

During the difficult summer we have just lived through at Ecône, Mgr. Lefebvre reminded me of that: "Alphonse was a true prophet."

"No" to retraining
As for me, what opened my eyes was a retraining course for priests ten years ordained, at Montana in Switzerland. It was to last fifteen days, I stuck it for ten! Then I left and went on a pilgrimage to Fatima. Back home, I told myself I must do something: things could not go on as they were. The theories taught in the retraining were not the Catholic faith we were taught in the seminary. They were hazy theories leading nowhere.

So I thought: "You are no theologian; you are not going to write articles for the papers; you are just a parish priest. You must try to adopt at least two supernatural means to stem the damage and to restore to the parish - with the smallest proportion of practicing Catholics in the whole country - some enthusiasm and a little more love of God."

I decided to begin with the Rosary: the Rosary every day, and on Thursday evenings before the Blessed Sacrament. I decided to go back to the traditional Mass, but with the Epistle and Gospel in French, and every Friday to hold catechism classes for adults. I was astonished at the graces received. The people came. I had a hundred to a hundred and fifty at catechism. I was amazed; and preparing catechism did me a lot of good, because it made me go back over the whole of traditional doctrine. People came to say the Rosary, including a good pagan.

I had to build a church, but I had nothing. I turned to St. Joseph. (I thanked him specially this morning, on his feast day: he has given me such help.) We managed to overcome all difficulties so well that the bishop himself, the day he came to consecrate the church, said to me: "You can thank God. I know this parish - there were not even two men who came to Mass." (He was himself a Canon of Saint-Bernard, and had been parish priest at Ecône. He knew the people.) "You can thank God. What I have seen this morning is beyond anything I could have imagined."

The seminary at Ecône: What will happen?
So I am telling you that I have been well rewarded spiritually and materially. And then Providence pitched the Ecône Seminary into my parish. You can imagine how interested I was, seeing what was going on (for these newcomers do exactly the opposite of what the retrainees are doing). Mgr. Adam, my bishop, was also interested. He twice asked me to pick him up and bring him to the Seminary. He was delighted with what he saw there. Of course there were others, incited by the French progressives, who took a poor view of it. But at last the enterprise started, and I saw the seminarians arriving one by one.

The first week at Ecône they had nothing, so they came to eat at my table. For example, I witnessed the arrival of Denis Roch, a converted Protestant, an engineer. I shall not forget his first visit. After we had talked for an hour he said to me: "Father, Providence arranged for us to meet today. If you please, shall we say a decade of the Rosary together?" We knelt down in the room. It is not every day that you meet a young man like that, a convert from Protestantism, who says to his parish priest after a conversation: "Shall we say a decade of the Rosary?"

So, I witnessed the birth and the growth of this great work. I had the good fortune to be close to Mgr. Lefebvre and to learn much from him. I can therefore tell you without fear of being mistaken: He is truly a man of God; he is a good and a great missionary. Someone said to me one day: "He makes me think of Saint Pius X." Yes, that is so. He has only one desire: that Our Lord Jesus Christ shall reign over all hearts, over all families, over all nations, and that souls shall be saved - for he is a missionary. He does not theorize; he can talk very simply to people because his purpose is the conversion of people: he wants all souls to go to heaven.

I remember one day, a year ago, Cardinal Thiandoum, Archbishop of Dakar, was with me. He had come to topple me into the New Mass. I let him talk; and then I said:

"Listen; Eminence. Do you know who Mgr. Lefebvre is? Must I, a simple parish priest, remind you what he has done for you in Dakar? Eminence, who made you a priest?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who founded the major seminary?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who made the Archdiocese of Dakar?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who made the Dakar Carmel?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who made the monastery of Vieta in Dakar?

-Mgr. Lefebvre. He is my father, I am his son. You are right.

-Well then, Eminence, now that Mgr. Lefebvre finds himself in a situation like this, attacked, calumniated, ridiculed, dare you let your father be so defamed, and say nothing?

(That made him weep.)

Then it is your duty to defend your father and to defend Holy Church. You are too afraid. You must not be afraid, especially when you are invested with authority. What do you risk? - losing your position? losing your life? Good! you will go to heaven."

As for Mgr. Lefebvre, he has no fear. Yet his temperament is very gentle. There is nothing swaggering or bellicose about him. But I have rarely in my life met a man with such courage, such strength of will, such firmness in decision, such persistence and perseverance. And I can say - for I lived with him, at his side, this difficult summer - that he has come to the fight, this year, with redoubled courage. Providence has blessed him with extraordinary powers, for, humanly speaking, he should have been crushed. That proves we have to do with a man of God. I think Providence has made us a great present in giving us this missionary.

That is just what the opposition is now most afraid of, for the missionary in Mgr. Lefebvre has set about "having children." You may laugh at that, but it is true. It was thought that "Vatican II" had won. A few old priests were still resisting, but they would die off. The matter was clear: the whole post-conciliar renewal would be put into effect, as well in the great cities as in the African bush. Fine! - and they were already rubbing their hands. Then, all of a sudden, in a tiny corner of Switzerland, an Archbishop appears who sets about "having children," giving to the Church priests who celebrate the traditional Mass. So the enemy, occupying a strong position in the Vatican, saw red and trained all its guns on Ecône; and Ecône, till then unknown, became famous the world over.

Last year, because of the ordinations, the Vatican launched a press campaign to discredit Mgr. Lefebvre and his young priests, to have them taken for schismatics and rebels. But that very press campaign turned against the Vatican; for when people have been able to see and hear Mgr. Lefebvre their Catholic Faith has revived, and they have said: "He is the one who is right. He, at least, can be known for what he is. We can see that he is an archbishop and that his priests are priests. As for the others, we just do not know what they are." So a large part of public opinion turned in favor of Mgr. Lefebvre and his work.

Quote:

The Declaration of 21 November 1974

We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to the maintenance of this faith, to the eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

We refuse on the other hand, and have always refused, to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, in all the reforms which issued from it.

In effect, all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to a naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the universities, in the seminaries, in catechetics: an education deriving from Liberalism and Protestantism which had been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or to diminish our Catholic Faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

"Friends," said St. Paul, "though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we have preached to you, a curse upon him" (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the acts of the dicasteries,2 then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church.

It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying the Lex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new catechism, the new priesthood, the new seminaries, the new universities, the "Charismatic" Church, Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to orthodoxy and the never-changing Magisterium.

This reformation, deriving as it does from Liberalism and Modernism, is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.

It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation.

That is why, without any rebellion, bitterness, or resentment, we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never-changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to posterity.

That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church, until such time as the true light of tradition dissipates the gloom which obscures the sky of the eternal Rome.

Doing this, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all of Peter's successors, and of being the Fideles Dispensatores Mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi In Spiritu Sancto.

†Marcel Lefebvre

Quote:After telling me of the favorable impression the Seminary had made on the Apostolic Visitors no further reference was made to the Society or to the Seminary either on 13 February or 3 March. It was exclusively a question of my Declaration of 21 November 1974, which had been made as a result of the Apostolic Visitation.

Quote:Your Excellency,

Their Excellencies Cardinal Wright, Cardinal Tabera and I have studied the result of the visit to the Ecône Seminary by His Excellency Mgr. Descamps. We are grateful to you for having given him every facility to accomplish the mission on behalf of the Holy See.

We would now like to discuss with you some points which leave us somewhat bewildered following his visit, and concerning which, among others, we must report to the Holy Father.

Can you arrange to be free for this meeting at 10:00 a.m.6 on the morning of 13 February next in the premises of our Congregation?

Thanking you in anticipation in the name of the three Cardinals entrusted with this question and assuring you of my respectful and fraternal sentiments.

Quote:

The Statement of Mgr. Lefebvre

It should be remembered that even before the proceedings opened, the Seminary of the Society, from the moment of its very foundation, had been the victim of a campaign of denigration in the press, more especially when its attraction for the young and its world-wide reputation became evident. This campaign of denigration included the odious calumny that Ecône was a wild-cat seminary.7

Calumnies such as these were re-echoed first by the French episcopate, in spite of the fact that the Bishop of Fribourg knew perfectly well that they had no foundation in fact.

It was obvious that steps had been taken in Rome to obtain our suppression. On 9 November we received a letter from a Nunciature of Berne, informing us that a Commission, nominated by the Pope, and consisting of three Cardinal Prefects of the Congregations involved - Religious, Catholic Education, Clergy - was sending us two Apostolic Visitors: His Excellency Mgr. Descamps and Mgr. Onclin.

The two Visitors arrived at 9:00 a.m. on Monday, 11 November. For three days they questioned 10 professors, 20 of the 104 students, and myself. They left at 6:00 p.m. on 13 November without having signed any Protocol of Visit. We have never been given any information concerning the contents of their Report.

Convinced that this was the first step towards the suppression of our Seminary, which for long had been the aim of the progressives, and realizing that the Visitors had come with the aim of bringing us into line with the changes that had taken place within the Church since the Council, I decided to make my position clear to the entire Seminary.

I could not adhere to the Rome represented by Apostolic Delegates who considered the ordination of married men both normal and inevitable; who could not accept the idea of immutable Truth, and who expressed doubts concerning the traditional concept of Our Lord's Resurrection.

This was the origin of my Declaration, which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtless excessive indignation.

Two and a half months passed without any news. Then on 30 January 1975, I received a letter, signed by the members of the Commission, inviting me to Rome "to discuss" with them "some points which leave us somewhat bewildered."

Accepting this invitation, I went to Rome, to the Congregation for Catholic Education, on 13 February 1975. Their Eminences Cardinals Garrone, Wright, and Tabera, accompanied by a secretary, invited me to join them at a conference table. His Eminence Cardinal Garrone asked me whether I had any objection to the discussion being recorded and the secretary proceeded to install a recording machine.

After telling me of the favorable impression received by the Apostolic Visitors, no further reference was made either to the Society or to the Seminary either on 13 February or on 3 March. It was exclusively a question of my Declaration of 21 November 1974, which had been made as a consequence of the Apostolic Visit.

Cardinal Garrone vehemently reproached me on account of this, even going so far as to imply that I was a "lunatic," that I imagined myself to be an Athanasius.8 This tirade lasted for some 25 minutes. Cardinal Tabera, going one better, said: "What you are doing is worse than what is being done by all the progressives." He also said that I had severed communion with the Church, etc.

Was I taking part in a discussion? Or was I rather facing judges? What was the competence of this Commission? I had merely been told that it had been mandated by the Holy Father and that it was he who would judge. But it was clear that judgment had already been passed.

I tried in vain to formulate arguments or explanations giving the true meaning of my Declaration. I made it clear that I respected and would always respect the Pope and the Bishops but added that to me it was not an evident fact that to criticize certain texts of the Council and the Reforms which derived therefrom was equivalent to breaking with the Church. I said that I was making every effort to discover the deeply rooted causes of the present crisis in the Church and that everything I had done proved that my desire was to build the Church, not to destroy it. But not one of my arguments was taken into consideration. Cardinal Garrone insisted that the cause of the crisis lay in the media of social communications.

At the end of the meeting of 13 February as at the end of that of 3 March, my impression was that I had been deceived. Whereas I had been invited to a discussion, in fact I was facing a tribunal which had already decided to condemn me. Nothing was done to help me towards a compromise or towards an amicable solution. Nothing in writing was given to me specifying the accusations; no written monition. Nothing but the argument of authority, accompanied by invective and threats, was presented to me in the course of five hours of discussion.

After the end of the second session, I asked for a copy of the recording. Cardinal Garrone replied that it was only right that I should have a copy, that I had a right to it, and he informed his secretary accordingly.

That very evening I sent a man with all the necessary equipment to make a recording from the original tape. But the secretary stated that there was no question of my having more than a transcription. I went myself next day to ask for a copy (of the recording). The secretary went to consult the Cardinal and returned to inform me that it was indeed a transcription I was to get. This was promised for the following evening. To be certain that it would be ready I telephoned the following morning. The secretary then told me that there was no question of my being given a transcription, but that I could call between 5:00 p. m. and 8:00 p.m. to see it. Faced with this kind of behavior I let the matter drop.

So then, after this mockery of a trial concerning a supposedly favorable Visitation about which there were only some slight reservations, and after two sessions which concentrated exclusively on my Declaration in order to condemn it totally, without reservation or nuance whatsoever, without its being concretely examined and without my being given anything in writing, one after the other I received first a letter from His Excellency Mgr. Mamie suppressing the Society and the Seminary with the approval of the Commission of Cardinals, and then a letter from the Commission confirming Mgr. Mamie's letter. All this without the formulation of a formal and precise accusation concerning what had been discussed. And this decision, declared Mgr. Mamie, came into effect immediately ("immédiatement executive").

I was therefore expected immediately to dismiss from the Seminary 104 seminarians, 13 professors, and other personnel. And this, two months before the end of the scholastic year! One requires only to write all this down in order to know the reactions of anyone who still retains a little common sense and honesty. And all this on 8 May of the Year of Reconciliation !

Does the Holy Father really know of these things? We find it difficult to believe he does.

†Marcel Lefebvre

Quote:Dear Father,

You will admit, I think, that it is not I who wished that our correspondence should become public. I have already told you so in writing. Controversy such as this cannot but weaken the spiritual forces which we require to combat error and heresy.

The indelicacy of your action is such that I would have kept silent if you had not written most insidious articles prejudicing me personally in your last two issues (of La Contre-Réforme Catholique).

The first concerned a Bishop's breaking with Rome - which you deemed to be desirable. Undoubtedly, no explicit allusion was made. However, in the next few lines you mentioned my name in connection with the Credo Pilgrimage (to Rome), and uninformed readers automatically linked the person named with the preceding lines. This kind of thing is odious. I would have you know that if a Bishop breaks with Rome it will not be me. My Declaration (of 21 November) stated this explicitly and emphatically enough.

And it is in this connection that I must also tell you of my utter disagreement with the commentaries further to this in your last issue, which say what you wish, what you would like to see, but not what is.

We think that when the Apostle Paul reproached Peter he kept and even showed towards the head of the Church the affection and respect due to him. St. Paul was at one and the same time with Peter, head of the Church, who at the Council of Jerusalem had given clear directions, and against Peter, who in practice acted contrary to his own instructions. Are we not sometimes tempted to feel similarly today? But this does not authorize us to despise the successor of Peter. It must make us pray for him with ever increasing fervor.

With Pope Paul VI, we denounce Neo-Modernism, the self-destruction of the Church, Satan's smoke in the Church, and consequently we refuse to cooperate in the destruction of the Church by the propagation of Modernism and Protestantism, by involvement in the reforms which are inspired by these errors, even if they come to us from Rome.

As I had occasion to say recently in Rome concerning the Second Vatican Council: Liberalism has been condemned by the Church for a century and a half. It has found its way into the Church via the Council. The Church is dying of the practical consequences of this Liberalism. We must therefore do everything to help the Church and those who govern it to free themselves from this Satanic influence.

That is the significance of my Declaration.

As for your illogicalities and the fact of your not having met me at Ecône, I shall not speak of these. They are trifles compared with the main problem to which I have just referred.

Please accept, dear Father, my respectful and cordially devoted greetings in Christ and Mary .

†Marcel Lefebvre

19 March 1975

The Feast of Saint Joseph.

Quote:As for us, we shall continue to demand that the faithful as well as the clergy accept and apply all the orientations and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, all the teachings of John XXIII and of Paul VI, all the directives of the secretariats instituted by the Council, including the new liturgy. This we have done and this we shall continue to do, even in the most difficult of days and with the grace of God, because for us it is the only way to edify the Church.

It is therefore with great sadness, Monseigneur, that I assure you of my prayers and most fraternal sentiments, in union with Christ Jesus, His Church, and the one who has received the divine powers of confirming his brothers, the Sovereign Pontiff, the Successor of Peter.

Quote:In the exercise of their paternal care they shall be on their guard lest anyone under their jurisdiction, being eager for innovation, writes against the use of Latin in the teaching of the higher sacred studies or in the liturgy, or through prejudice makes light of the Holy See's will in this regard or interprets it falsely.

Quote:Your Excellency,

It is in the name of the Commission of Cardinals and by the express mandate of the Holy Father that we write to you.

We remain deeply grateful to you for enabling our recent discussions to take place in such a fraternal atmosphere that on no occasion did our differences of opinion compromise the profound and serene communion which exists among us. But this only increases our sorrow at the apparent intransigence of your views, with the consequences that cannot but derive from them.

Our discussions were concerned principally with your public Declaration published in the review Itinéraires. It could not be otherwise in view of the fact that the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Ecône (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light. He suggested that we clear this up in a discussion with you.

Now such a Declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points. It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations contained in this document with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for Her, and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed. It is inadmissible that every individual should be invited to submit papal directives to his own private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them. This is nothing less than the customary language of those sects which appeal to the popes of yesterday in order to refuse obedience to the Pope of today.

Throughout our conversations, our desire was to lead you, Your Excellency, to recognize the cogency of such objections and to withdraw your own affirmations. You told us that you found this impossible. "If I had to rewrite this text," you said, "I would write the same things."

Under such circumstances the Commission was left with no alternative but to pass on its absolutely unanimous conclusions to the Pope together with the complete dossier of the affair so that he could judge for himself. It is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the following decisions to you:

1) "A letter will be dispatched to Mgr. Mamie according him the right to withdraw the approval which his predecessor gave to the Fraternity and to its statutes." This has been done in a letter from His Excellency Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious.

2) Once it is suppressed, the Society "no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence."

3) It is obvious - we are invited to notify it clearly - that no support whatsoever can be given to Mgr. Lefebvre as long as the ideas contained in the Manifesto of 21 November continue to be the basis for his work."

We cannot communicate these decisions to you without profound sadness. We know the generous perseverance with which you have worked and the good which in consequence has been accomplished. We can well imagine what a cruel predicament you will find yourself in. But we are sure that all those who have read or wish to read your Declaration, without gratuitously suspecting any motives other than the Declaration itself for the actions which have been taken, will concede that, in the face of the evidence, matters could not have been resolved differently, given your refusal to withdraw this text. No Church institution, no priestly formation can be built upon such a foundation.

We hope, Your Excellency, that the Lord will give you the light and enable you to find the path that conforms with His will, in the confidence of the one to whom as bishops we owe a sincere and effective obedience.

As for us, we can only assure you of our fraternal attachment and our prayers.

Gabriel-Marie Cardinal Garrone,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education
President of the Commission of Cardinals

John Cardinal Wright,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy

Arturo Cardinal Tabera,
Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for Religious
and for Secular Institutes

This letter is being sent to Their Excellencies Mgr. Mamie and Mgr. Adam.

Quote:What reproach can be made against such a text, against such a declaration of fidelity to the Catholic faith and to the Church? In our view none at all....And yet our three Cardinals find such a declaration unacceptable on all points! They must therefore be opposed to the Tradition of the Church, to Her traditional teaching and to the Councils. It is not Mgr. Lefebvre who should be criticized but rather the letter of the three Cardinals - and if it expresses their innermost convictions, one has a right to ask if they are worthy to wear the purple...."

Quote:Paul VI would indeed be astonished, perhaps even shocked, if he were told that he is the Pope of the transition to Socialism. Yet this statement may well prove to be historically true. In any case he is certainly the Pope who recognized the legitimacy of the transition. Many of the texts he has written or signed prove this. These texts can be said to be French in inspiration.

Quote:Behind the very pronounced attachment of this fraternity (and in particular of the Seminary at Ecône) to the traditional liturgy and the Latin language, and its determination to defend tenets of faith and discipline which are essential to the Church against certain current fashions of thought and action, lay in actual fact a considered and explicit rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and of the authority of Pope Paul VI. This became evident soon enough. A declaration by Mgr. Lefebvre dated 21 November 1974, and widely circulated since, provided clear expression of this rejection and gave us the painful evidence that it was henceforth impossible to approve this institution and its orientations.

Quote:In the midst of the trials which the Church is undergoing today, our modest initiative pursues its course with the blessing of God and even with a flattering report from the Visitors sent by Rome last November.

Quote:There is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but the usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obduracy.

Quote:I have told you this so that your faith may not be taken unawares. They will forbid you the synagogue; nay, the time is coming when anyone who puts you to death will claim that he is performing an act of worship to God.

Quote:We admire this Seminary because of its fidelity to the doctrine of the Church, to the Chair of Peter, and to the totality of Catholic Tradition to which you so often draw our attention, most Holy Father.

Quote:21 May 1975 - Letter to Cardinal Staffa from Archbishop Lefebvre

Eminence,

Please find herewith the documents which support, or which are the cause of, my appeal to your Department.

I am drawing up an appeal:

1. Against the form in which the decisions were taken expressed in the letter of the 6 May 1975 as well by His Excellency Monseigneur Mamie, Bishop of Fribourg, as by the three Cardinals who signed the letter addressed to me from Rome.

This form of procedure is contrary to Canon 493 of the Codex Juris Canonici.7

2. Against the competence of the Commission of Cardinals which condemns me on a matter of faith, because of my Declaration which appeared in the review Itinéraires and which I wrote on 21 November 1974. I demand to be judged by the only Tribunal competent in these matters, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

3. Against the sentence pronounced by Monseigneur Mamie and approved by the Cardinals of the Commission: in fact, my Declaration, if it deserves condemnation, should condemn me personally and not destroy the Fraternity, nor the Seminary, nor the houses that have been erected, the more so as the Cardinals assured me that the Apostolic Visitation had passed a favorable judgment on the work of the Seminary, the Visitation which took place on 11, 12, 13 November 1974.

In virtue of this appeal, and in virtue of the law (this appeal being suspensive), I consider that, until proof to the contrary, my Fraternity and and that depends on it keep their canonical existence.

I remain at the disposal of your Eminence for further information, and I beg you to accept the expression of my respect in Our Lord and Our Lady.

†Marcel Lefebvre

Quote:

The One True Religion

My dear brethren:

If there is one day on which the Church's liturgy affirms our Faith, that day is the Feast of the Blessed Trinity. This morning, in the breviary which the priest formerly had to recite, he had to add to the psalms of Prime the Creed of St. Athanasius. This is the creed which affirms clearly, serenely, but perfectly, what we are bound to believe concerning the Blessed Trinity, and also concerning the divinity and the humanity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Indeed, all our faith is summed up in our belief in the Most Holy Trinity and in Our Lord Jesus Christ, God made Man. The whole of our Creed, which we shall sing in a few minutes, is focused, as it were, on the very person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He it is who is our God, He our Savior; it is through Him that we shall enter Heaven. He is the door of the sheep-fold, He is the Way, the Truth, the Life. There is no other name on earth by which we may be saved: the Gospels tell us all this.

Therefore, when our Faith is being attacked from all sides we must hold steadfastly and firmly to it. We must never accept that there can be any compromise in the affirmation of our Faith. Herein, I think, lies the drama through which we have lived for the last ten, perhaps fifteen years. This drama, this tragic situation we are going through, lies in seeing that our Faith is no longer affirmed with certainty: that through a false ecumenism we have, as it were, reached the point of putting all religions on the same footing, of granting what is called "equal rights" to all religions. This is a tragedy because it is all entirely contrary to the truth of the Church. We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ is our God, our Savior, our Redeemer; we believe that the Catholic Church alone has the Truth, thus we draw the proper conclusions, by respecting in our personal lives the Religion which Our Lord Jesus Christ founded. For, if other religions are quite prepared to admit that there can be other beliefs and other religious groups, we cannot do so. Why do other religions admit this? Because their religions are religions which have been founded by men and not by God. Our holy and beloved Religion has been founded by God Himself, by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

He it is who has given us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, He who died upon the Cross. Already on the day of the Last Supper He wished, in a certain manner, to enact in advance what was to take place on the Cross, commanding us to do likewise continually to the end of time, thus making priests of those to whom He gave the power to consecrate the Eucharist. He did this by His own Will, His Will as God, because Jesus Christ is God; He has, thus, given us the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which we love so much, which is our life, our hope, and our salvation. This Sacrifice of Calvary cannot be transformed, the Sacrifice of the Last Supper cannot be transformed - for there was a Sacrifice at the Last Supper - we cannot transform this Sacrifice into a simple commemorative meal, a simple repast at which a memory is recalled, this is not possible. To do such a thing would be to destroy the whole of our Religion, to destroy the most precious thing which Our Lord has given us here on earth, the immaculate and divine treasure which He put into the hands of His Church, which He made a priestly Church. The Church is essentially priestly because she offers the redemptive Sacrifice which Our Lord made on Calvary, and which she renews upon our altars. For a true Catholic, one who is truly faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ, anything which touches what He Himself established moves him to the very depths of his heart, for he loves it as the apple of his eye. So, if it comes, in any way, to the point of destroying from within what Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us as the source of life, as the source of grace, then we suffer, we suffer dreadfully, and we demand absolutely that this spring, this fountain of life, this fountain of eternal life, this fountain of Grace be preserved for us whole and entire.

And if such is true of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, it is also true of the Sacraments. It is not possible to make any considerable changes in the Sacraments without destroying them, without running the risk of rendering them invalid, and consequently without running the risk of drying up the grace, the supernatural and eternal life which they bring to us. It is again Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who established the Sacraments; it is not for us, we are not the masters of the Sacraments: even the Sovereign Pontiff cannot change them. Without doubt he can make changes in the rites, in what is accidental in any Sacrament; but no Sovereign Pontiff can change the substance of a Sacrament, for that was established by Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself who took such care in the founding of our holy Religion, Who left us directions as to what we must do, Who gave Himself to us in the Holy Eucharist through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. What more could we ask? What other religion can lay claim to possess such a thing? And why? Because the only true religion is that of the Catholic Church.

This is a matter of fundamental importance, fundamental for our behavior, fundamental for our religion, and fundamental also for the way we should behave towards those people who do not believe in our holy Religion. This is extremely important, because it is precisely towards those who do not believe, those who do not have our Faith, that we must have immense charity, the true charity. We must not deceive them by telling them that their religion is as good as ours - that is a lie, that is selfishness, that is not true charity. If we consider what profound riches have been given to us in this Religion of ours, then we should have the desire to make it known to others, and share these riches and not say to them: "But you already have all you need! There is no point in your joining us, your religion is as good as ours." See how this matter is one of paramount importance, for it is precisely such false ecumenism which makes the adherents of all the other religions believe that they have certain means of salvation. Now this is false. Only the Catholic Religion, and only the Mystical Body of Christ, possesses the means of salvation. We cannot be saved without Jesus, and we cannot be saved without grace. "He who does not believe," said Our Lord, "will be condemned." We must believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ in order to be saved. "He who believes shall be saved; he who obeys My commandments shall have eternal life; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood shall have eternal life." Here is what Our Lord taught us. Therefore, we should have a tremendous desire, a really tremendous desire, to communicate our Faith to others. And this is exactly what made the missionary spirit of the Church. If the strength, the certainty, of our faith is weakened, then the missionary spirit of the Church also diminishes, since it is no longer necessary to cross the seas, to cross the oceans, to go and preach the Gospel, for what is the good of it? Let us leave each man to his own religion, if that religion is going to save him.

Therefore, we must hold fast to our Faith, we must adhere strictly to its affirmation, and we must not accept this false ecumenism which makes all religions into sister-religions of Christianity, for they are nothing of the kind. It is very important to state this nowadays, because it is precisely this false ecumenism which had too much influence after the Council. False ecumenism is the reason why the seminaries are empty. Why is this so? Why are there no more vocations for the missionary orders? Precisely because young men no longer feel the need to make the Truth known to the whole world. They no longer feel the need to give themselves completely to Our Lord Jesus Christ simply because Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Truth, the only Way, the only Life. What attracts the young to preach the Gospel is that they know they have the Truth. If vocations are withering away, it is due to this false ecumenism. How we suffer at the thought that, in certain countries, people speak of "eucharistic hospitality," of "inter-communion" - as if one could give the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ to those who do not believe in the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, consequently to those who do not adore the Holy Eucharist, because they do not believe in it! Without sacrilege, without blasphemy, the Body and Blood of Our Savior cannot be given to a person who denies His Real Presence in the Eucharist. On this point, therefore, we must have a firm and solid faith, a faith which does not compromise. This is entirely in keeping with the tradition of the Church.

Thus the martyrs believed who lie buried everywhere in this basilica, and in all the churches of Rome, who suffered here in this forum of Augustus, who lived among pagans for three centuries and were persecuted as soon as they were known to be Christians. They were thrown into prison...our thoughts turn to the Mamertine prison, so close to us here, where Peter and Paul were put in chains because of their faith: And shall we be afraid to affirm our faith? We would not in that case be the true descendants of the martyrs, the true descendants of those Christians who shed their blood for Our Lord Jesus Christ in affirmation of their faith in Him. They, too, could indeed have said, "But, since all religions are of equal value, if I burn a little incense before an idol, what does that matter? My life will be saved." But they preferred to die, they preferred to be thrown to the beasts in the Colosseum, quite close to us here. So many, many martyrs were thrown to the beasts, rather than offer incense to pagan gods!

So, may our presence here in Rome be an occasion for us to strengthen our faith, to have, if necessary, the souls of martyrs, the souls of witnesses (for a martyr is a witness), the souls of witnesses of Our Lord Jesus Christ, witnesses of the Church. Here is what I wish you, my most dear brethren, and in this we must be unflinching, whatever happens. We must never agree to diminish our faith; and if by misfortune it were to happen that those who ought to defend our Faith came to tell us to lessen or diminish it, then we must say: "NO." Saint Paul put this very well: "Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Well, that, I think, sums up clearly what I wanted to say to you, so that when you return to your homes you may have the courage, the strength, despite difficulties, despite trials, to remain true to your Faith, come what may, to uphold it for yourselves, your children and future generations, the Faith which Our Lord Jesus Christ gave to us; so that the pathway to heaven may still have many pilgrims, that it may still be crowded with people on their journey upwards, that it may not be a deserted byway, while on the other hand, the road leading to hell is filled with those who did not believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, or who rejected Him. We must think on these things, because it is what Our Lord told us: "If we do not believe, we shall be condemned."

Quote:31 May 1975 - Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI


Most Holy Father,

Prostrate at the feet of Your Holiness, I assure you of my entire and filial submission to the decisions communicated to me by the commission of Cardinals in what concerns the Fraternity of St. Pius X and its Seminary.

However, Your Holiness will be able to judge by the enclosed account1 if, in the procedure, Natural and Canon Law have been observed.2 When I think of the toleration Your Holiness shows with regard to the Dutch bishops and theologians like Hans Küng and Cardonnel, I cannot believe that the cruel decisions taken in my regard come from the same heart.

If it is true that the only ground of accusation against me that is retained is my Declaration of 21 November 1974, I beg Your Holiness to refer me to the competent Congregation: the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Oh, how I wish Your Holiness would deign one day to welcome the members of the Sacerdotal Fraternity of Saint Pius X and its seminarians, with their poor superior! Your Holiness would see at once their deep devotion to, and veneration of, the Successor of Peter and their unique desire to serve the Church under his shepherd's crook.

There is no doubt that their concern to preserve a pure and full faith in the midst of the confusion of this world's ideas joins us with Your Holiness's concern, and if, at times, they express it in a somewhat impassioned way, I ask Your Holiness to pardon a zeal which is excessive but which comes from generous souls ready to give even their blood in defense of the Church and her Head, like the Machabees and all the martyrs.

May Mary the Queen, whose feast we keep today, bring Your Holiness the assurance of our filial affection.

And may God...

†Marcel Lefebvre.

Quote:With Mgr. Lefebvre's reply to the Abbé de Nantes known in Rome, the article in L'Osservatore Romano {8 May 1975, p.63-67} stands revealed as a deliberate calumny.3 But this "Reply," Mgr. Lefebvre had given an answer to all L'Osservatore Romano's rhetorical questions even before they were formulated. To raise them all the same, in the Vatican's official newspaper, and without breathing a word about the "Reply," is rank dishonesty.

The Cardinals' letter shows the sanctions now imposed on Mgr. Lefebvre to be based solely on the accusation that his Declaration is "incompatible with authentic fidelity to the Church, the Pope and the Council." Implied in this reproach is the accusation of a schismatic intent. It is not suggested that the Declaration is in any way incompatible with the "authentic doctrine concerning the Church, the Pope and the Council" - the Cardinals know that they cannot fault the text of the Declaration on doctrinal grounds. And no proof is offered for the "schismatic intent" other than that strange reference to the "traditional language of the sects." One would like to know what sects the Cardinals were thinking of and one would ask them the following question: what about those who invoke the "Church of today" in order to shirk obedience to the "Church of all the ages"? Is that not much more typically a sectarian line of thought and argument?

More profoundly though: what are criteria for "authentic fidelity"? Surely the chief criterion is that of total acceptance and public profession of the Church's own doctrine concerning Herself and particularly Her supreme hierarchical authority, i.e. the Pope and any legitimate council whose decisions the Pope has endorsed? In that case the accusation of "lack of authentic fidelity" would have to be made in the first place against those who, like Professor Küng, have openly attacked this doctrine. And if the Cardinals have found it necessary, in the case of Mgr. Lefebvre, to withdraw the ecclesiastical approbation which makes Ecône a proper "seminary," then Professor Küng should have long since been deprived of his missio canonica, i.e. the authority by virtue of which he instructs future priests in fundamental theology.

Nothing can be more arbitrary than the Cardinals' decision - and this notwithstanding the fact that it is said to be fully endorsed by the Holy Father himself. There is no evidence of this endorsement, to begin with. Moreover, it is unheard of that a senior member of the episcopal hierarchy (Mgr. Lefebvre has been a bishop for nearly 30 years and has held high Curial offices as Apostolic Delegate for the French-speaking parts of Africa) should be "disciplined" without due process - before either the Congregation for Bishops or the Congregation for the Faith - and that sentence should be passed in the name of the Holy Father without the "accused" having appeared before his judge: since he founded the Fraternity in 1969 Mgr. Lefebvre has twice made a formal request to be received in audience by His Holiness and in both cases no audience was in fact granted.

Suffering from so many defects, both as regards form and equity, the decisions of the Cardinals' Commission cannot bind anyone in conscience - least of all the Archbishop himself. Life at Ecône is continuing without change and Mgr. Lefebvre is consulting his many friends in Rome as to the proper procedure with which to appeal against the Roman judgment.

Quote:On 1 March 1975 there was a meeting of the Commission of Cardinals which the Holy Father had designated by a letter of the Secretariat of State No. 265 485 of 4 November 1974 to re-examine ex novo etc. The above-mentioned decree was submitted to the consideration of Pope Paul VI who, re mature pensa, approved it in omnibus et singulis on 7 June 1975, and ordered that it should be notified as soon as possible to all the parties concerned.4

Quote:Has anyone ever seen, in Canon Law, or in other legal systems, a law, a decree, a decision endowed with a retroactive effect? One condemns and then judges afterwards.5

Quote:SACRA CONGREGATIO
PRO CLERICIS
Prot. 124205

Romae, 6 Junii 1969.

Excellentissime Domine,

Examini subiecto recursu Reverendi sacerdotis Coache Aloisii, istius dioeceseos, haec Sacra Congregatio respondit: "Recursum esse reiciendum."
Velit Excellentia Tua de hac responsione certiorem facere recurrentem, qui pareat praeceptis Ordinarii sui.
Dum haec Tecum communico cuncta fausta Tibi a Domino adprecor ac permanere gaudeo.
Excellentiae Tuae Rev. mae addictissimus.

P. Palazzini, a Secretis.

Excellentissimo ac Rev. mo Domino,

D. NO STEPHANO DESMAZIÉRES

Episcopo
Bellovacen.

Quote:Excellentissime Domine,

Having examined Fr. Coache's Appeal, our Sacred Congregation has decreed: "The Appeal is rejected."
Please have the goodness to communicate this decision to the plaintiff in order that he may obey the orders of his Bishop, etc. etc.

Quote:The present position of the Catholic seems to be this: If he wants to attend a Tridentine Mass, the priest who proposes to say the Mass has first to receive permission from a bishop; if, on the other hand, the Catholic wishes to attend a non-conformist service, at the heart of which may be a denial of the Real Presence, he does not have to seek permission at all. Indeed, some priests positively encourage the faithful to attend the services of other denominations. This may be a good thing. At the same time it adds up to a nice irony.

Those who wish to attend the Tridentine Mass as a matter of course - while not wishing to deprive others of the New Order - do not do so necessarily because they love Latin. Many of them, for instance, find the new Latin Mass tiresome. And many of those who wish to see a return of the Tridentine rite cannot utter a word of Latin (though they are perfectly capable of reading the crib in their missals). They wish merely to see the old Order permitted because it had a dignity and beauty they find lacking in the New Order.

Clearly, at any rate, the reforms have gone far enough. The time has come for Catholics to cry: "An end to it." Perhaps then the bickering will stop.

Quote:29 June 1975 - Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

To our Brother in the Episcopate, Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle.

Dear Brother,

It is with sorrow that We write to you today. With sorrow because We appreciate the interior anguish of a man who sees the annihilation of his hopes, the ruin of the initiative which he believes he has taken for the good of the Church. With sorrow because We think of the confusion of the young people who have followed you, full of ardor, and now find themselves in a blind alley. But Our grief is even greater to note that the decision of the competent authority - although formulated very clearly, and fully justified, it may be said, by your refusal to modify your public and persistent opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed - that this decision should still lend itself to discussion even to the extent of leading you to seek some juridical possibility of invalidating it.

Quote:Although, strictly speaking, it is not necessary to recapitulate, We do however deem it opportune to confirm to you that We have insisted on being informed concerning the entire development of the inquiry concerning the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, and from the very beginning the Cardinals' Commission, which We set up, regularly and most scrupulously rendered an account of its work. Finally, the conclusions which it proposed to Us, We made all and each of them Ours, and We personally ordered that they be immediately put into force.

Quote:Thus, dear Brother, it is in the name of the veneration for the successor of St. Peter that you profess in your letter of 31 May, more than that, it is in the name of the Vicar of Christ that We ask of you a public act of submission, in order to make amends for the offense which your writings, your speeches, and your attitudes have caused with regard to the Church and its Magisterium.

Quote:Such an act necessarily implies, among other things, the acceptance of the measures taken concerning the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and all the practical consequences of these measures. We beseech God that He may enlighten you and lead you thus to act, despite your present disinclination to do so. And We appeal to your sense of episcopal responsibility that you may recognize the good that would thereby result for the Church.

Certainly, problems of another order entirely preoccupy Us equally - the superficiality of certain interpretations of conciliar documents, of individual or collective initiatives deriving sometimes rather from arbitrary wilfulness (libre arbitre) than from confident adhesion to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, of initiatives which arbitrarily evoke the faith to justify them. We know them, We suffer because of them, and for Our part, We strive in season and out of season to remedy them.

Quote:But how can one use things such as these to justify oneself in committing excesses which are gravely harmful?

Quote:Such is not the right way to do things, since it makes use of ways comparable to those which are denounced. What can one say of a member who wishes to act alone, independently of the Body to which he belongs?

Quote:You permit the case of St. Athanasius to be invoked in your favor.

Quote:It is true that this great Bishop remained practically alone in the defense of the true faith, despite attacks from all quarters. But what precisely was involved was the defense of the faith of the recent Council of Nicea. The Council was the norm which inspired his fidelity, as also in the case of St. Ambrose.

Quote:How can anyone today compare himself to St. Athanasius in daring to combat a council such as the Second Vatican Council, which has no less authority, which in certain respects is even more important than that of Nicea?

Quote:We beg you therefore to meditate concerning the warning which We address to you with firmness and in virtue of Our Apostolic authority. Your elder (brother) in the faith, He Who has received the mission of confirming His brothers, addresses you, His heart full of hope.

He wishes He could already rejoice in being understood, heard and obeyed. He awaits with impatience the day when He will have the happiness to open to you His arms, to make manifest a refound communion, when you will have replied to the demands He has just formulated. At present He confides this intention to the Lord, who rejects no prayers.

In veritate et caritate,
Paulus PP VI
The Vatican 29 June 1975

Quote:What is most tragic, in the second phase of this deplorable business, is that the Pope has been prevailed on to condemn the one bishop who is a genuine defender of pontifical authority, and to condemn him precisely for that.

Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration of November 1974, which is in all points Catholic, has been condemned by the Holy See "in all points," including the first.

"We cleave with all our heart and soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to maintain that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth."

To succeed in getting the Pope to condemn the only bishop in Europe, as far as we know, who speaks publicly in such terms, and to condemn him precisely for that, is indeed a masterpiece of self-destruction of the Church.

On the other hand, those who make themselves out to be supporters of "obedience" - and who practice it now and then - destroy authority when they preach and put into effect an arbitrary, blind, and servile concept of obedience. Those who "obey the Church" when she condemns Joan of Arc, those who "obey the Pope" when he signs and promulgates the first version, unacceptable, of Article 7, destroy, by making a hateful caricature of it, the very authority to which they pretend to appeal. It is only the Catholic idea of obedience which gives a safe and legitimate foundation for pontifical authority. They are not defending pontifical authority but destroying it - those who say Paul VI must be obeyed because he is a man of progress, a truly modern pope, a progressive democrat, an open and collegial spirit, and the like: for those standards are matters of opinion, debatable, changeable, and at the mercy of the manipulators of public opinion with their subjective evaluations and their presentation of them on radio and television.

Today Mgr. Lefebvre is the only bishop in Europe and perhaps in the whole world who proclaims aloud, and openly preaches, the true doctrine of authority in the Church. He is disowned and attacked by the present holders of that authority: which amounts to attempted suicide.

Pontifical authority has only one foundation: Catholic tradition, the first monument of which is the New Testament. All motives for obeying the Pope which are outside Catholic tradition are false, deceptive and fragile. Servile obedience seems for a time to insure for those who benefit from it the enjoyment of a comfortable despotism. But it is only an artificial construction, which sows disorder and is doomed to destruction.

In any case, we are not taken in! Most of those who demand from us unconditional obedience to the spirit of the Council and to the Pope who appeals to it are just those who, until the Council, provided the theory and gave the example of systematic non-obedience. Those Modernists and progressives, the theorists and practiced exponents of disobedience to the Church, are suspect when they start crying up obedience; and it is at once likely that the obedience they recommend is not good.

And when the disobedience they promote is an obedience at one and the same time unconditional and based on worldly motives ("Paul VI is a modern Pope, a true democrat who understands his times and is open to evolution"), evidently that is not Catholic.

Mgr. Lefebvre states in his Declaration that: "If there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds (the Pope's) as well as in the acts of his dicasteries,7 then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church."

That is Catholic truth, immediately recognized as such, with no hesitation or uncertainty, by any heart inhabited by theological faith.

Moreover, Mgr. Lefebvre has proclaimed that truth with great moderation, and with great delicacy towards the very controversial figure of the reigning pontiff.

Quote:

The Cambridge Review Speaks Out

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's stand against the new form of the Roman Mass has finally assured full publicity to the arguments of the Catholic traditionalists. There is one aspect of his position, however, that has received almost no attention from the press, and which is, of course, determinedly played down by his ecclesiastical opponents: and that is the strength of his position in Canon Law. In what follows we shall investigate some of the legal arguments, and in so doing we shall notice that the vaunted "reforms" of the Second Vatican Council have done almost nothing to reduce the Vatican 's preference for administrative despotism over legal procedures.

Let us take, in the first place, the attempt by the Bishop of Fribourg to suppress Lefebvre's Fraternity of St. Pius X and hence, of course, the famous seminary at Ecône. The position in Canon Law is this: A Bishop has authority to suppress a religious house when it is one that he has erected within his own diocese. But if the order to which the house belongs extends beyond the boundaries of his own diocese, he has no such authority, since he would be trespassing on the jurisdiction of other bishops. Only the Holy See can suppress a congregation that exists in more than one diocese. In fact, the Bishop of Fribourg erected Lefebvre's Fraternity in his own diocese at Lefebvre's request. The Fraternity is now a religious congregation, duly set up, existing in a number of countries. In Canon Law this makes it a persona moralis, that is to say, a legal person or corporation - similar in this respect to an Oxford or Cambridge College.

But although the Bishop had no authority himself to suppress the order, he was given Vatican permission to revoke the decrees by which the order had been established. Does this mean that the Vatican empowered the Bishop to use the full authority of the Holy See to suppress the Fraternity in toto - or only as it existed in his diocese? The words of the Vatican decree leave it ambiguous. Such (no doubt deliberate) ambiguity, and the fact that the Bishop was merely empowered and not instructed to carry out the act of suppression indicates that the Vatican does not wish to take responsibility for an act which it instigated. Furthermore, according to canon lawyers, ambiguity in such a case usually allows of a strict construction of the decree - i.e., that only the order within the diocese of Fribourg was allowed to be suppressed. Such shiftiness on the part of the Vatican is not attractive.

The point of investigating the legality of the purported suppression of Lefebvre's order is that it illuminates the whole course of subsequent events. What was the Archbishop to do faced with his suppression? Since the Roman Church does, in fact, possess legal procedures, the proper and normal course was for him to appeal against the decision to the Administrative Section of the Signatura Apostolica - the highest Papal court. This he duly did, after taking legal advice. Yet while his appeal was actually before the court, a letter arrived from the Secretariat of State which announced that the decision taken against Lefebvre was a Papal one, against which no appeal was possible. Hence every legal recourse by the Archbishop was blocked, and he had been denied any hearing. The Papal action was, of course, valid in law, given the ample authority of the Roman Pontiff; but it can be considered illicit in its violation of natural justice, which is, after all, supposed to be one of the foundations of Canon Law. Morally such an attempt to deny a man's rights and frustrate his life's work, while refusing him any legal recourse, is (to an Englishman at least) appalling.

But these legal questions raised in the treatment of Lefebvre are of secondary interest. What really matters is his refusal to accept the New Mass. Here again, the press have laid heavy stress upon his "defiance of the Pope", etc., and no doubt the average English Catholic, brought up on exaggerated notions of the deference due to all Papal acts, however foolish, assumes that that is the end of the matter. Indeed, Catholic newspapers have already resorted to the formula that Lefebvre has "placed himself outside the Church even without being formally excommunicated" - which neatly avoids the embarrassment of finding grounds on which he could properly be excommunicated. In fact the misrepresentation has been almost scandalous; and of course the strength of Lefebvre's case in Canon Law has gone entirely unnoticed.

It is remarkable that many Catholics are under the impression that the Second Vatican Council went some way towards abrogating the Latin Mass, merely tolerating it in certain circumstances. The words of Hans Küng are relevant here:

"It could and should be recognized that Mgr. Lefebvre is right in one aspect. There is no doubt that post-conciliar development in a number of cases has gone far beyond what was agreed at the Council, not only de facto but also de jure, with the agreement of the Church leaders. According to Vatican II, for example, Latin was to be retained in principle as the language of the Church of what is known as the Latin rite; the vernacular was permitted only exceptionally in individual parts of the Church. Today with Rome's consent the whole Catholic liturgy, even in Rome itself, is overwhelmingly in the vernacular."

The proponents of the new forms never tire of asserting - quite falsely - that this is somehow an outcome of the Council. This falsehood is encouraged by no less a body than the Sacred Congregation of Rites. This body - the supreme authority, under the Pope, in liturgical matters - has been issuing legislation enforcing the new rite, and regularly claiming that its decrees embody the "norms" of the Council. It has, for instance, authorized Bishops to prescribe a purely vernacular Mass on Sundays. This is completely opposed to the decision of the Council that the vernacular may be permitted in certain parts of the Mass, and that "in ritibus latinis usus linguae Latinae servetur". The claim of the Sacred Congregation of Rites to be carrying out decisions of the Council in thus allowing Bishops to force priests to say vernacular Masses is entirely spurious.

But the Catholic traditionalists can derive further support from Canon Law. It is almost universally assumed that the Tridentine Mass has been abolished and that Lefebvre and his are followers acting illegally in continuing to celebrate it. But is this so? Here again the legal position is extremely interesting and provides support for Lefebvre.

The Tridentine rite was not invented by Pius V. It is rather the freezing of the Roman rite at one particular stage of its development. This rite, which was the "local" rite of the whole Western Church (with some variants, like the Ambrosisan and Sarum rites) was in immemorial use in the Roman Church: what is called a consuetudo immemorabilis et particularis. This ancient consuetudo was given the force of law by Pius V after the Council of Trent; and he decreed that his law must never be abrogated. It is worth noting that Pius V's legislation was the first such interference in the Liturgy by a Pope in the whole history of the Church. Hitherto a rite was deemed to derive its legitimacy from its "immemorial" use as a particular tradition. Tradition, not legislation, was the claim to legitimacy - as it still is in the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Now according to almost all canon lawyers, if a piece of Papal legislation enforcing an already existing rite (like Pius V’s enforcement of the Tridentine rite) is subsequently abrogated, then the rite itself reverts to its former status: it remains a valid and licit rite unless it is itself specifically abrogated. (An analogy would lie in the relation of Common Law to Statute Law.) And in fact the Pope did not abrogate the consuetudo immemorabilis of the Latin Church, but only Pius V's legislation. Therefore the Tridentine Mass remains entirely licit, and no Bishop, of Northampton or elsewhere, can properly dismiss a priest for saying it.

These are juridical arguments, and they help one to see that the Vatican has been behaving evasively and (one is tempted to say) dishonestly towards the traditionalists. They do not touch those features of the new rite that for many Catholics made their remaining in the Church merely a matter of grim loyalty. For them the loss of any numinous quality in favor of a superficial notion of "participation" has been most painful. Then there are the many absurdities of the new arrangements - the handshake which is supposed to be the equivalent of the Kiss of Peace, a liturgical form found previously only amongst the Mormons; the odd gesture of consecration made by priests "concelebrating" Mass - a son of Fascist salute at half-cock. These and other attempts to adapt the liturgy to a bourgeois imagination have wrought a serious impoverishment.

But of course the objections of the traditionalists are not fundamentally "aesthetic" (if that is the right word for their sense of such impoverishment). Lefebvre's final objection to the new rite is that its formulations are ambiguous, that it makes a heterodox interpretation of the doctrine possible. (An heretical interpretation of the Tridentine rite would require the ingenuity of the Newman of Tract XI). Contrary to popular impression, Lefebvre has never denied the validity of the new rite itself.

For the Archbishop and his followers, the changes in the Mass are central examples of what they see as stealthy attempts to alter doctrine. Indeed the offense which brought down the whole apparatus of Vatican censure upon Lefebvre was his famous Declaration that he and his seminarians were loyal to Rome, "but to the Rome of tradition, not the Rome of Modernists." It is asserted by Ecône seminarians that this Declaration was provoked by an address that one member of an Apostolic Visitation delivered to the Ecône students, in which he was understood to deny both the Virgin Birth and the immortality of the soul.

This Declaration led to Lefebvre's being interrogated by an ad hoc committee of three Cardinals (Garrone, Wright, and Tabera). Partial transcripts of these strange proceedings have been published, and make it clear what a travesty of any judicial proceeding it was. Garrone, who emerges as an unintelligent man lacking self-control, hectors and shouts down the Archbishop. At the same time it emerges that he is judge, prosecuting counsel, and tale-bearer to the Pope. During this interrogation Lefebvre asks that he be judged by the Holy Office, which is alone authorized to pronounce that his declaration was heretical. This request is, of course, refused, since no grounds could possibly be found for an adverse judgment. Once again an avenue of appeal is blocked; the Vatican is clearly determined that there shall be no legal process. All this is done in the name of the Pope, and through his authority.

Quote:Dear Mr. Hamish Fraser,

I have read with much interest your brochure on the war against Ecône and I thank you for it with all my heart, for it indeed throws light on our problems and you do so dispassionately and with an exactitude that I like very much. It is my wish that this brochure may have a really wide distribution.

For the moment, I have been refused an audience with the Holy Father.

It is Cardinal Villot himself who intervened and it is he also who nullified the appeal to the Apostolic Signature. It is he, personally, who took things in hand and who seems determined to encompass our disappearance.

But we have such a volume of support from thousands and thousands of people that we have decided to continue despite everything, persuaded as we are that we are doing the work desired by the Church and by the Pope himself.

Thanking you again for your faithful friendship, I assure you of mine and of my prayers.

†Marcel Lefebvre