Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume II

[Stone]

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

Author’s Introduction

The first volume of the Apologia took the story of Archbishop Lefebvre up to the end of 1976. I had hoped to continue the account in this volume, but the amount of material I felt it necessary to include was such that it could cover only three more years, taking the story to the end of 1979. The last major incident in this book is the Archbishop's sacerdotal Golden Jubilee. I had also hoped, as I remarked in the Introdtiction to Volume I, to be able to give details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop in this volume. Alas, no final agreement has yet been reached, but negotiations are still continuing. Let us pray that Volume III will contain details of this greatly desired reconciliation.

The major part of this book is taken up with the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Holy See, principally with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre had long demanded that his case should he brought before this Congregation; his request was granted, and the resultant discussions are absorbing and of considerable historic interest. Unlike the treatment he received from the Vatican which was described in Volume I, I consider his treatment at the hands of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have been scrupulously fair. The story is told here principally through the original documents which are presented without comment. The discussions were by no means one-sided. The questions put to the Archbishop were very perceptive and clearly gave him cause to think deeply about the basis for his attitudes and actions. In some cases he has clearly vindicated his position, but in others his answers were not quite as convincing. These negotiations are, of course, continuing. Further documentation will be provided in Volume III.

I have followed a strict chronological sequence, and have interspersed documentation on the negotiations with some of the Archbishop's sermons and accounts of his activities. The schedule he undertakes is quite staggering for a man in his seventies. His travels take him all over the world, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the United States of America, South America, and many European countries. Wherever he goes, the faithful have high expectations of him, and despite his personal fatigue and the weighty problems with which he has to deal he rarely disappoints them. He is always ready with a friendly smile, a kindly word, and inspirational sermon. The progress made by the Society at this time would have been almost miraculous even had it enjoyed the full support of the Vatican. The number of ordinations increased steadily, new seminaries were opened; there are now three in addition to Ecône-in Germany, the U.S.A., and Argentina. Schools were founded, church buildings purchased, and new Mass centers opened at an astonishing rate.

But at the same time evidence of problems within the Society began to emerge. The Archbishop was attracting considerable criticism from the fringe of the traditionalist movement for his alleged moderation and willingness to "compromise." A good number of priests outside the Society claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, and that there had been no true pope since Pope Pius XII. Some priests in the Society became infected by these theories, particularly in France and the U.S.A. And, almost inevitably, some young Society priests began to show alarming signs of arrogance. The Archbishop had taken a calculated risk in sending young men out to do pastoral work without the benefit of guidance and supervision from mature priests. Some proved worthy of the trust he had placed in them, others did not. Needless to say, reports of these tendencies reached the Vatican and added to the Archbishop's problems in working for a reconciliation. This was why he found it necessary to clarify his position on the New Mass and the Pope on a number of occasions, as this book will show. These internal problems became more serious after 1979, and will be dealt with in Volume III. The Archbishop felt obliged to expel a number of priests in subsequent years, including nine in the United States in 1983. Others left of their own accord. Sadly, some of these priests have had no scruples about making vindictive attacks upon t lie bishop who had given them their priesthood.

In June 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre resigned as Superior of the Society, to be succeeded by Father Franz Schmidberger who had been Superior of the German District. The Archbishop will continue to carry out the ordinations and confirmations, but will at least be relieved of the administrative burdens.

This book, as was its predecessor, is not directed primarily to Catholics who support the stand Archbishop Lefebvre has taken. Its aim is to provide factual material for those interested in discovering the truth about a man and a movement of great significance in the history of the Church during the post-conciliar epoch. No individual has been as consistently mispresented in the official Catholic press as the Archbishop. When the three volumes of the Apologia are available it will at least be possible for fair-minded Catholics to judge him by what he has said and done, rather than what he is alleged to have said and done.

I do not expect every reader to agree with all the Archbishop's opinions, actions, and judgments. I do not necessarily do so myself. He has admitted that he sometimes speaks with excessive indignation (see p. 112), and that his addresses have included "exaggerated expressions" (p. 290). But, as I have endeavored to point out several times in the present volume, it is necessary to set the case of the Archbishop within the overall context of the Conciliar Church, a context of accelerating self-destruction, of doctrinal, moral, and liturgical degeneration, widespread anarchy, and apparent impotence on the part of the Holy See to take any effective measures to restore order. In the U.S.A., for example, respected Catholics unconnected with the traditionalist movement are speaking of a de facto schism. In an editorial in the January 1983 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Father Kenneth Baker, S. J., noted that in the United States: "We are witnessing the rejection of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ to be replaced by a Protestant American Church separate from Rome." This is a fact which must be kept in mind continually when passing judgment upon Archbishop Lefebvre. I would ask those readers who do not know him and are not familiar with his work to read his sermons carefully. How many bishops preach like this today? They disclose a man who has the Faith, loves the Faith, and lives the Faith.

I said earlier that the account of the negotiations with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is absorbing. There will be one exception for some readers. This is Chapter XV, a long chapter which contains the Archbishop's defense of his position concerning religious liberty. Those who are not familiar with the background to this controversy may well find Chapter XV complex and difficult to follow. I suggest that they omit it, at least on a first reading. Most readers will find it less difficult if they first study Appendix IV to Volume I of the Apologia, This provides a fairly brief and simple introduction to this question, which is probably the greatest obstacle impeding a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the Vatican. The Archbishop's insistence upon the Society being allowed to use the Tridentine Mass and pre-conciliar sacramental rites is a disciplinary matter, and could be conceded by the Pope without great difficulty; but the question of religious liberty involves a serious disagreement on a matter of doctrine.

I would like to draw the reader's attention to the list of abbreviations contained on page xvii. All the abbreviations used in the book are, I hope, included here.

I am grateful to a number of people who have given me considerable help with this volume. I must mention first Miss Norah Haines who provided the typescript, checked the proofs with meticulous care, and compiled the index. Without her help it would never have been completed. I am equally grateful to Mrs. Carlita Brown who set the type and submitted to numerous last minute amendments without complaining. I must also pay tribute to Father Carl Pulvermacher for printing and collating the book single-handed. This has been a real community effort in what I believe is supposed to be the "spirit of Vatican II." Archbishop Lefebvre was kind enough to read through the proofs and make a number of corrections. There are several others whose help I would like to acknowledge publicly, but who have asked me not to do so.

I would like to stress the fact that although both volumes of' the Apologia have been published by the English-language publishers to the Society of St. Pius X, The Angelus Press, I have written them with complete independence. No attempt has ever been made to influence what I wished to say.

Finally, I would like to answer a question concerning which I receive a considerable amount of correspondence. Has Archbishop Lefebvre been excommunicated? No, he certainly has not. Statements claiming the opposite have been made in several countries. In order to settle the matter once and for all I wrote to the Vatican in April 1983, and received a letter signed by Cardinal Oddi, dated 7 May 1983, stating that Archbishop Lefebvre has not been excommunicated. However, those who would like him to be excommunicated will no doubt continue to insist that he has been, no matter what evidence to the contrary can be brought forward, which is just one one indication of why I consider it to have been so necessary to write Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Michael Davies,
7 August 1983,
St. Cajetan, Confessor.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume II

List of books cited

AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH


M. Davies        *Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Vol. I (Dickinson, 1979).

G. Kelly          The Battle for the American Church (New York, 1979).

J. Twyman      *The Betrayal of the Citadel (Oregon, 1978).

M. Lefebvre    *A Bishop Speaks (Edinburgh, 1976).

Y. Congar        Challenge to the Church (London, 1977).

G. Kelly          The Crisis of Authority-John Paul II and the American Bishops (Chicago, 1982).

M. Lefebvre    *I Accuse the Council (Dickinson, 1982).

M. Davies (Ed.)*Newman Against the Liberals-Twenty-five Sermons of Cardinal Newman (Devon, 1978).

M. Davies        *Partisans of Error-St. Pius X Against the Modernists (Minnesota, 1983).

M. Davies        *Pope John’s Council (Dickinson, 1980).

M. Davies        *Pope Paul’s New Mass (Dickinson, 1980).

R. Wiltgen      *The Rhine Flows into the Tiber (Devon, 1978).

A. Flannery      Vatican II – the Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents (New York, 1975).

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume II, Chapter I

Lefebvre: Rebel or Restorer of the Roman Church?

January 1977

The Dispute between Pope and Archbishop in Ecumenical Perspective
by Mgr. Klaus Gamber, in Katholilcher Digest

MUCH IS BEING WRITTEN about the Lefebvre case, but little by theologians-and then only from the "Roman" side. He is regarded as the rebel against Vatican II and against Paul VI. The Lefebvre case is certainly not-as it might appear-a personal quarrel of a headstrong, spiritually inflexible old man against a Head of the Roman Catholic Church who is open-minded to modern times. Neither may the case be reduced to a mere dispute about liturgical rites. The positions held by the Church leaders and by Mgr. Lefebvre seem to be unbridgeable. They concern matters that constitute the inmost being of the Church: in the last analysis, what is at stake is the Faith that has been transmitted to the Church.

The gist of the conflict is the spirit of Liberalism which is spreading more and more in Catholic Church since the Council. It is a pluralism which tolerates all opinions and endeavours which are not directly contrary to the Christian Weltanschauung (the Christian outlook and attitude to life)-except those that aim at the restoration of the Church to its former state.

The same Church authorities that persistently show leniency towards heretics, even those who deny fundamental dogmas such as the Divinity or Resurrection of Christ and the existence of the devil-show a severity, which hardly differs from that meted out to dissidents in past ages of intolerance, towards the orthodox (unbeirrbaren-unable to be led into error) defenders of the Council of Trent, and the liturgical books promulgated in obedience to it.

It must be clear to everyone who knows the mutual connection between Faith in God and Worship of God as expressed in the axiom lex orandi, lex credendi, that the Liturgical Reform which doubtlessly contains some positive elements, must play an important role in that struggle. The official Church is silent about almost all, even the most daring experiments in the liturgical field, but forbids-and this with great severity-the Rite that has been celebrated in the Western Church for 1,500 years until recently, and had been codified by the order of the Council of Trent. The Catholic people do not understand this schizophrenic attitude of the ecclesiastical authorities.

The Reformers appeal to the right of the Pope to revise the totality of the (liturgical) rites-a right that, in my opinion, has by no means been proved, and which, moreover, no single pope has ever claimed for himself nor exercised in a complete reform of the Liturgy. Until Pope Paul, the popes have made only minor adaptations of the traditional rites to the needs of the times. Even the Tridentine Missal of Pope Pius V does not constitute an innovation. It was merely an improved edition of the Missal then in use in Italy and in Rome. According to the will of Pius V it was in no way to replace the various local Missals provided they had been in use for at least 200 years.

However, as I said before, it is not primarily the Liturgy that is at stake today, but the traditional Faith of the Church.

Had you asked a Catholic ten years ago what he regarded as the essential points of his Faith, he might probably have mentioned the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity or belief in eternal life. Are these articles of the Faith and other dogmas defended with the same emphasis as before? Certainly not! There has, however, been no lack of protestations of obedience to Paul VI when he meted out high ecclesiastical censured to his disobedient son Lefebvre. No word of understanding for the real issues that most deeply move that man! Without intending it, the Archbishop has now become the opponent of the Pope.

The number of his supporters, especially the secret ones, increases from day to day.

Lefebvre is not a rebel. In his sermon at the Ordination of priests, 29 June 1976, at Ecône, he said:

We regret infinitely, it is an immense, immense pain for us, to think that we are in difficulty with Rome because of our faith! How is this possible? It is something that exceeds the imagination, that we should never have been able to imagine, that we should never have been able to believe, especially in our childhood-then when all was uniform, when the whole Church believed in Her general unity, and held the same Faith, the same Sacraments, the same Sacrifice of the Mass, the same Catechism. And behold, suddenly, all is in division, in chaos.

An individual believer does not have the right to judge the Pope, who is certainly motivated by the best intentions to solve the problems of the Church today. But a glance back into history clearly shows that not all popes have always acted prudently in all decisions. Even saintly popes have made serious errors of judgment, e.g., St. Pius V when, in 1570, he excommunicated Elizabeth I and released her subjects from their oath of allegiance to her, which caused a most bloody persecution of Catholics in England. That was a clear misuse of papal power-to the detriment of the Church.1

That and the case of Lefebvre, opens up the question, whether the fulness of power, which the popes have had since the Middle Ages, and which is in no way founded on Holy Scripture nor on the early Tradition of the Church, does not constitute a danger for the Church? History teaches us, as we all know, that not only pious and wise popes have ascended the Chair of Peter; she knows of many false decisions made by supreme shepherds of the Church.

Not everybody is competent to judge the Pope: but there must be bishops who have the courage to climb the barricades in case of need as St. Paul did in a decisive case at Antioch when he “withstood Peter to the face” (Gal. 2: 11). Archbishop Lefebvre is of the opinion that decisions of the Pope concerning vital problems of the Church do not bind in conscience if they are contrary to the centuries-old Tradition of the Church, when, for instance, the Pope forbids something which had until then been the universal and unopposed usage of the Church; or when he orders something that constitutes a radical change of direction in the attitude of the Church and a clear turning away from Tradition. It is precisely this that Paul VI is reproached for doing-notwithstanding his repeated professions of the traditional Catholic Faith.

Far more important than the Pope's profession of faith, however, is what is actually done in the Church without the intervention of the Magisterium: heretical teaching on the part of several heretical professors going on unchecked; the doubt wherewith the faithful are being poisoned from numerous pulpits; the disastrous new books of religion which carry the spirit of religious indifference among the young generation now growing up. Church authorities do nothing or next to stem this creeping decomposition of the very substance of the Faith.

Such a situation necessarily calls for a courageous man such as Lefebvre, for a defender of the traditional Faith of our fathers and the long-established forms of worship. Perhaps, at times, he and his community of Ecône overstate the emphasis on ancient forms of piety in their fight against the changes in the Church: but any damage done thereby is certainly not as great as that caused by the continual experimentation which the faithful have to endure today.

It is also true that the salvation of the Church does not lie in rigid adherence to partially outdated forms, but in faithfulness to Tradition as such. This faithfulness does not exclude an organic development such as has taken place in the Church in the past. In this, a constant, meditative glance back to the origins is important. What we are experiencing today, however, is not organic development, but a landslide.

The real problem seems to lie deeper. It has its cause in the unhappy Schism between East and West, in the breaking away of the great patriarchates from Rome: the Patriarchates of Byzantium, Antioch, and Alexandria. That division of Ancient Christendom into two halves was formally completed by 1054 when legates of Pope Leo IX placed the Bull of Excommunication on the High Altar of Santa Sophia Basilica in Constantinople. The actual estrangement had already begun centuries before.

Contact with Orthodoxy was also lacking in the years that followed. Both the Eastern and Western Churches have suffered from this in their later development. A rigidity of forms soon developed in the East; a further division occurred in the West through the Reformers, a division that was much deeper that the break with the East. Later came the time of the Enlightenment in the West with all its revolutionary ideas.

These could indeed be pushed into the background during the Restoration, but they continued to thrive underground and came to the surface again after the Council (Vatican II). In addition to that, we have today a one-sided ecumenism which primarily consists in adapting the Catholic Church to the concepts of the Protestant world while the latter has not made one single essential step nearer Catholicism.

A simple Restoration, as in the 19th century, and as Lefebvre seems to want, is not enough. This might be his tragedy. He may perhaps eventually fail on account of his immobility. On the other side is the exterior submissiveness of the bishops towards the Pope while in practice they still do as they please. This we can see today again and again.

The Roman Catholic Church will overcome modern errors and gain new vitality only when she succeeds in being united again- to the supporting powers of the Eastern Church, to its mystical theology based upon the Great Fathers of the Church and to the piety pervading its culture (Kulturfrom-migkeit). This cannot be achieved simply by an embrace of the Greek Patriarch by the Pope.

One thing seems certain: the church's future does not lie in a rapprochement with Protestantism, but in a rapprochement with the Eastern Church-the bearer of the unabridged Christian Tradition. In a Church-thus re-united-the Protestant Christians will-as we hope-one day also find their home, bringing with them all the positive values they undoubtedly possess.

Can Lefebvre renew the Catholic Church? He can be the impetus for a renewal. Or will there be a new schism? Nobody knows. A schism would certainly be a disaster. The Church of Christ needs unity, the all-embracing unity in Faith and in Charity.



Two Weights and Two Measures

In the article which has just been cited, Mgr. Gamber contrasted the leniency shown by Church authorities towards heretics with their severity where traditional Catholics are concerned. When considering the treatment accorded to Archbishop Lefebvre during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI it is important never to lose sight of the historical context. This context, it must be stated with sadness, was of a Church a state of de facto anarchy. There were rare instances of sanctions being applied to a particularly outrageous Liberal, e. g., the Marxist Abbot Franzoni, but, in general, anyone was free to undermine the Church in any way he pleased without fear of sanctions, providing he was not a traditionalist. The most scandalous and evident example was the retention in positions as official teachers of the Church of priests who had publicly rejected the Encyclical Humanae Vitae, among the most notorious of these is the Professor of Moral Theology at the Catholic University of American, Father Charles Curran. He still retained this post in August 1983.

The following report from the 17 December 1976 issue of Universe is particularly valuable in setting the case of the Archbishop in its proper perspective. What was his crime? He believed and taught all that was believed and taught by the Church prior to Vatican II. Could this be a cause of scandal? He offered Mass and administered the sacraments in the liturgical forms utilized before Vatican II, in most cases forms based firmly upon traditions dating back a thousand years or more. Could this be a cause of scandal? Meanwhile, in Holland, priests by the hundred were violating their solemn vow of celibacy. Was this a cause of scandal? One would hope so. These included professors in Catholic colleges of theology. Incredible as it may seem, many of these continued to occupy their posts after their marriages, and, what is more, were teaching not Catholicism but theological Modernism. The Vatican acted. How could it not do so? It commanded that these married priests be dismissed, otherwise, the institutions which employed them would no longer receive Vatican recognition for the degrees they conferred. To cut a long story short, these institutes in Holland replied: “To hell with Pope.” Now, please bear in mind the inflexible and censorious attitude adopted by Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre before reading the relevant report which follows, a report of abject capitulation on the part of the Vatican which constitutes a “scandal" in the fullest theological sense of the word. Because the institutions would not dismiss the married priests the Vatican agreed that they could remain, "so as not to disrupt syllabuses," but requested that no more such priests should be employed. Here is the text of the Universe report:

EX-PRIESTS STILL TEACH THEOLOGY AT COLLEGES...

Thirty priests who have been laicised and have since married are still teaching at five of the Church’s colleges of theology- four in Holland and one in Canada.

They have been allowed to continue so as not to disrupt syllabuses. But the Vatican is said to insist that no more such priests be employed.

The facts were disclosed during the second International Congress of Catholic Universities and Faculties of Ecclesiastical Studies in Rome.

1.FOOTNOTE BY MICHAEL DAVIES. Some readers who not familiar with the background to the Bull Regnans in exelsis may be rather surprised at the severity with which Mgr. Gamber criticizes St. Pius V. It is certainly true that the vast majority of historians regarded the Pope's action as ill-judged. A standard history of the Popes, published in England, comments: "The Pope, ill advised on the situation of the English Catholics, encouraged Philip II of Spain to invade England and depose Elizabeth. He issued a famous Bull, Regnans in excelsis, 1570, intended to help the Catholic claimant, Mary Queen of Scot, then an English prisoner, which deposed Elizabeth and released her English subjects from their allegiance to her. The English saw in this an attempt to promote Spanish political advantage. Had Mary become queen, her rule would have been supervised by Spain at least. In the event all the Bull did was to secure the execution of Mary and provide the English government with an excuse for increasing the severity of its persecution of Catholics, on political as well as religious grounds" (E. John, The Popes, London, 1964, pp. 349-350). The case of St. Pius V and the Bull, Regnans in excelsis, is certainly pertinent to the case of Pope Paul VI, the reform of the Missal, and Archbishop Lefebvre. In both cases the popes did not exceed their legal authority, but in both cases it is legitimate to ask whether they acted prudently and in the best interests of the Church. In the case of St. Pius V, I am inclined to believe that a better case can be made out for Regnans in excelsis than is generally done.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter II

Lefebvre: Rebel or Restorer of the Roman Church?

27 February 1977

ON SUNDAY, 27 February 1977, the Church of Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris was "occupied" by Catholic traditionalists, or "liberated" as they prefer to express it. The church was still firmly under their control in 1983, and is certainly the most popular and thriving parish in Paris. Melodramatic stories of the event have been circulated by progressives; there have even been accounts giving the impression that it fell to a squad of fascist militia using rosaries as knuckledusters! When the Pope visited France in 1981 an appeal was made to him to celebrate Mass with ousted parishioners in the schoolroom which they have to use since they have no church. The Pope declined the invitation. As the article which follows makes clear, Saint Nicholas was operating as joint-parish with the parish of Saint Sévrin, literally a stone’s throw away. There is ample room in this huge church for a hundred times the number of the parishioners of Saint Nicholas, or alleged parishioners of Saint Nicholas, who do not wish to worship there now that the Tridentine Mass is offered once more. Although, strictly speaking, the occupation of Saint Nicholas does not form part of the story of the breach between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, which is the subject of this book, it must be set within the historical context of this breach-particularly where the French situation is concerned. It was certainly the most dramatic event in the centuries-old conflict between Tradition and Liberalism to have occurred in France since the triumphant Mass at Lille just over six months before (see Vol. I, pp. 253-271).

I had the good fortune to visit Saint Nicholas on 12 April 1977. The account which follows is one which I wrote for The Remnant of 30 April 1977.

The date: Tuesday, 12th of April, 1977. The place: Paris-more precisely, the métro station Maubert-Mutualité. The time: about 6.15 in the evening. I emerge from the métro station, and the first thing I note is the sound of the church bell sounding triumphantly, imperiously over the noise of the rush hour traffic and the homeward hurrying crowds. Within moments I see the church from which the bell is sounding-it is the Church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, the church where a miracle has taken place. A miracle? Il ne faut pas exagérer say the French. "One must not exaggerate." But this is no exaggeration. Up till the first Sunday of Lent it had been typical of most parish churches in Paris. Less than 100 of the faithful attended all the Masses celebrated on Sunday. The once beautiful church had a grubby, dilapidated look. The Sunday assemblies, as the Mass is now termed in France, were celebrated on a table placed upon a podium covered in extremely tatty purple material. The altar had been abandoned-apparently forever.

During the final Mass of the morning on the First Sunday of Lent the miracle began. The handful of worshippers started to grow. Slowly but surely the church began to fill. Before long it was full. The faithful were standing in the aisles. One of the parish clergy could not restrain his astonishment.

"Who are you? Why are you here? We're overcome with delight."

"Let's hope you're still delighted in a few minutes' time," answered a layman.

“Why, what do you mean?" asked the cleric.

He soon found out.

Through the main door of the church a triumphal procession entered. Preceded by a cross came a long line of the faithful headed by a good number of priests, three of whom were vested ready for Mass-let their names be known and venerated. M. l'Abbé Juan, sub-deacon; M. l'Abbé de Fommevault, deacon; Monsignor Ducaud-Bourget, celebrant-a priest of more than eighty years of age, a patriarchal figure with long white hair , a priest who appeared to be a reincarnation of the Curé d'Ars. Among the other priests was M. l'Abbé Coache, hounded from his parish for the crime of organizing a procession in honor of the Blessed Sacrament.1

For years now these holy priests had been celebrating a series of Masses each Sunday in the Salle Wagram, a rather dilapidated hall near the Arc de Triomphe. They had begged and pleaded, used every possible approach to the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to be allowed the use of a church to celebrate their Mass-but to no avail. The Mass which they wished to celebrate was the Mass codified by Pope St. Pius V –and the celebration of this form of Mass is the one and only form of activity which is totally and absolutely verboten in the French Church. The present situation was perfectly expressed by Fr. Henri Bruckberger, Chaplain-General to the French Resistance. “Today a priest is permitted to lend his church for use by Moslems or Buddhists, Tibetans or Patagonians, hippies, Papuans, non-Papuans, boys, girls, by the ambiguous, the ambivalent, the ambidexterous, amphibians or nomads-but if a poor priest wishes to celebrate the Mass for which the very Church was built (and not by the hierarchy but by the people themselves), and if the French people wish to go there to assist at the same Mass that has been said in the place for centuries, then the full fury of the French episcopate falls upon them.”

But by the First Sunday of Lent 1977 the faithful had had enough-more than enough. Attendance at the Salle Wagram -8,000 each Sunday-more than surpassed any other place of worship in Paris, not excepting the Cathedral of Notre Dame. Why, they asked themselves, priests and people alike, why should they have to worship in a public hall for the sole crime of remaining true to the faith of their fathers?

"By what right do you come here?" asked one of the parish clergy.

"We come ," replied Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget (and is it unreasonable to claim that he was inspired?) "in Nomine Domini."

The apostles of progress are temporarily nonplussed; before they realize what is happening their podium and table have been relegated to a transept, and a Solemn High Mass is being celebrated on the altar. But the apostles of progress do not remain nonplussed for long. Militant campaigners against oppressive social structures, advocates of lay participation- what can they do? The answer is simple. Call the police. They do so without hesitation. The police arrive. "Expel those people from the church."

"But they're saying Mass and praying. That's what a church is for! " Exit the police. The apostles of progress are nonplussed once more.

And that was that.

The traditionalists came; they prayed; they stayed. And they are there still.

The progressives clung on to the sacristy for some days, and on one occasion made a determined counter-attack which was unsuccessful. The resulting violence did, for a time, cast a shadow over what had been a very joyful event. But now they have given over the church entirely to the traditionalists. The faithful have a church in which they can assist at the Mass which was celebrated in all the churches of Paris before the "liturgical renewal" which has been followed, on the admission of Cardinal Marty, Archbishop of Paris in 1977, by a 54% decline in Mass attendance by Parisians. But no one is as determined as a stubborn Liberal, and the Cardinal would quite clearly prefer not to have a single Catholic assisting at Mass on Sundays rather than allow a single celebration of the traditional Mass.

Since the occupation, the Liberal establishment, led by Cardinal Marty himself,has engaged in a series of grotesque posturings for the benefit of the media-posturings which could only evoke amusement but for the distaste aroused by their cynical hypocrisy. Messages of sympathy have gone out to the poor pastor of Saint Nicholas and his distressed congregation (all sixty or seventy of them) who now have nowhere to worship, nowhere to hold meetings, religious instruction, or for their scout troop to meet. The Cardinal is united with them in their hour of sorrow and persecution, etc., etc., as are innumerable Liberal stalwarts who have expressed their solidarity effusively and very publicly. Yet only a stone’s throw from Saint Nicholas is the huge church of St. Sévrin-in fact, the two were already some sort of joint parish before the occupation. Once again, as a result of the decline in Mass attendance, there has been no difficulty in squeezing the handful of parishioners from Saint Nicholas, who have opted for the new Mass, into the ample space available for the new Masses celebrated in this church. But, and this is very important, now more than two hundred parishioners of Saint Nicholas are attending Mass in their parish church each Sunday-and the traditionalists can prove this. Cardinal Marty claims to have the signature of 2,000 outraged inhabitants of the parish who are consumed with impatience for the return of their church! When I mentioned this figure to those organizing the occupation it evoked extreme hilarity. To put it mildly (which they did not), they suggested that the Cardinal’s figures might be somewhat (and more that somewhat) exaggerated. In their own case, they are keeping a list of parishioners who have expressly signed a petition asking that the church be left in traditionalist hands, and in each case a photocopy of the signatory’s identity card has been obtained to prove that the person concerned is a genuine parishioner. The petition has now been signed by more than 50,000 symathizers-not just from Paris but from all over the world. I was most honored to add my own on April 12th.

Now surprisingly, Cardinal Marty is not content to leave the situation as it is. A court order has been obtained stating that the traditionalists can be expelled by a bailiff, by the police, and by the military if necessary .A date was given, but was followed by a stay of execution until after Easter, so that all the Holy Week services could be held (perhaps the judge wished to attend himself). This stay of execution expired on Monday 11 April, and it had been with some trepidation that I made my first visit to the church at about 8:15 a.m. on the morning of 12 April after an all-night journey from Switzerland. Upon entering the church I thought that the worst had happened as I heard a priest speaking in French-but all was well, he was simply reading the Gospel. It was a great joy to assist at Mass in a beautiful old church exactly as it had been celebrated before the Council.

After the Mass I had a talk with the celebrant and some of the young men who are guarding the church. They then invited me to share their very simple breakfast of bread and butter dipped in coffee. It would be hard to imagine more pleasant and courteous young men; to discover such fervor and dedication for the traditional faith among young people brought up in the "Conciliar Church" is certainly a sign of great hope. All the doors of the church but one have been locked, and at least two or three young men always remain on duty here. They work in shifts-some remaining on duty all night while the others sleep in a makeshift dormitory. It is a monstrous calumny to suggest, as some Liberal papers (Catholic and secular) have done, that these are young men with a predilection for violence. If an attempt is made to expel them from the church by force they will resist-but if they are not attacked there will be no violence. Those I spoke to also assured me that they would not resist the police-only a physical attack by progressive laymen.

But the police and the courts have made it quite clear that they are most reluctant to take any direct action. Monsieur Jean Guitton, a prominent Catholic writer, member of the French Academy, and a close friend of Pope Paul VI, has been appointed as mediator. But the traditionalists will not leave unless they are offered a church of their own. After eight years of exile they are determined that they will worship in Churches from now on. If they are expelled they will simply occupy another church, and the legal process will have to begin again-the Cathedral of Notre Dame has been mentioned.

I was assured that if I wished to experience the true atmosphere of the traditionalist parish I should return in the evening-which explains why, at 6.15p.m., I emerged from the métro station Maubert-Mutualité to hear the bell of Saint Nicholas summoning the faithful to worship. Even on weekdays there is Mass at 0800, 1200, 1700 (followed by Vespers Benediction) and at 1830. I entered the church during Benediction just in time to hear Pope Paul being prayed for by name. This had also been done during the Good Friday services at Ecône where I had been four days before. A truly superb choir was singing-I discovered later it had come together spontaneously; it sings at Vespers, Benediction, and Mass each day and on Sundays at several Masses. Each evening its members remain behind to practice and expand their already impressive repertoire-the most remarkable aspect of the choir (apart from its talent) is its youth.

The grubby and dilapidated church which has existed before the occupation has been transformed-lovingly and thoroughly. The church has been washed and scrubbed-marble statues that seemed almost black with grime are now positively gleaming with whiteness. There are flowers in every side chapel, candles burning before the statues, the high altar in particular is ablaze with candles and almost smothered with flowers. The high altar in every church is the symbol of Christ, and in this Easter Week it is the most dramatic possible symbol of the resurrection of the faith of Christ’s Church in Saint Nicholas. The altar had indeed seemed to be dead, abandoned forever, never to be used again, and here it was, triumphantly resurrected, radiant with light and Easter joy-with the Cranmerian table and its tatty podium, cast inside, aptly symbolizing a defeat for the Conciliar Church.

The Mass began. It was celebrated by Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget himself. It was sung, and sung beautifully. At the Sanctus in particular the timeless chant filled and echoed through the arches of this ancient church as it had done for centuries. The Council might never have taken place.

A lady moved from chapel to chapel watering the potted flowers with loving care. Every few seconds an individual or a' group of people came into the church. Some stayed for the Mass, others just prayed for a few moments before leaving. Many were young, but some were old-and how happy these old people were. Here was the faith they had been brought up to know and love; here were their traditional devotions quite unchanged. Inside the Church of Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet it is as if time had stood still in 1962. A group of seminarians from Écône came in for a few minutes. They had left the seminary for their Easter break. They were a heartening reminder that the traditionalist resurgence in France is not a temporary phenomenon dependent on a few elderly priests. For every older priest who has remained faithful to the Mass of his ordination there is a young priest or a seminarian ready to join him, and eventually replace him. And for every old person who clearly regards Saint Nicholas as heaven on earth there is a teenager who has discovered what the Catholic faith once was, and is determined to accept it in no other form.

And the miracle of Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet - will it "continue? "You must pray for us. You must pray for us that it will continue," said one lady, gripping my arm in her fervor. "Tell everyone to pray for us."

As an ironic footnote to this report, and a significant sign of the times we live in, I discovered upon reading the 9 April issue of The Tablet, after my return to London, that Cardinal Mart)' has invited any Anglicans visiting France to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches if they cannot get to an Anglican one. It would seem that the Cardinal Archbishop of Paris needs our prayers far more than the traditionalist members of his flock.


A Report in The Times

By an interesting coincidence a reporter from The Times visited Saint Nicholas on the same day. I was shown a copy of his report some days after mine had been dispatched to The Remnant. This report refers to the attempt at mediation by Monsieur Jean Guitton of the French Academy. It appeared in the 13 April 1977 issue

Church Occupiers Ignore Order

From Charles Hargrove
Paris, April 12.

The Roman Catholic traditionalists occupying the church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, in the Latin quarter, since February 27, expected to fight eviction today. But no police turned up to enforce the decision of the Paris court of April 1, which gave them 10 days to leave voluntarily or be expelled by force if necessary.

The main doors were shut against any surprise attack. A few determined looking young men, wearing a Sacred Heart badge, controlled admittance through a side door.

Inside the dimly lit church there was no sign of tension. A couple of dozens faithful, old, and a few seminarians from Ecône, seminary of Mgr. Lefebvre, the former Archbishop of Dakar, knelt in prayer before the high altar, reinstated in its pre-conciliar role. The host was exposed on it in a monstrance amid a profusion of flowers and tapers.

The “Kitchen table" in the transept, which had displaced the high altar in the new liturgy, had been removed.

A steady stream of people came in, asking for information about services, and putting their names down on the rolls of watchers or donors of offerings in support of the traditionalist cause.

Chairs were being arranged in rows in one of the side chapels for a lecture in theology to denounce the ways of the modern church, which was to follow the evening Mass, at which Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget, the instigator and organizer of the occupation of St. Nicholas, preaches.

There has never been any real likelihood of force being used to put an end to the occupation of the church. The Paris court which ruled it illegal and authorized the parish priest, Father Bellego, to call on the police to enforce the judgment, also indicated its distaste for such a solution.

This, the court's president said, "would create an unpleasant situation for all concerned." He appointed mediator, M. Jean Guitton, of the French Academy, the Catholic philosopher, who was given three months to produce a report.

After meeting Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget, Father Bellego, and the Archbishop of Paris, Cardinal Marty, M. Guitton was in Rome last week to obtain the approval of the Vatican for a compromise solution, which Cardinal Marty refuses to contemplate.

The Cardinal has said recently that to allow the traditionalists to have a church of their own where they could worship as they pleased would amount to giving official approval to a schism.

A lover of tradition, M. Guitton is also a close friend of the Pope, who publicly wished him prompt success in his efforts on Easter Monday.

Father Serralda, one of the four or five traditionalist priests who minister to the needs of the new congregation, told me: "Many Catholics today are in deep distress. They do not understand what is happening in their Church. The conciliar texts are like the decisions of Pope Paul VI-they are ambiguous. All we ask is that all the rites and teaching of the Church should respect Catholic doctrine.

"We are not a party in the Church. We are battling for the Church, not for ourselves. The obligation to say the New Mass is based on an abusive interpretation. It attributes to papal decrees the same authority as to Church laws, like the Bull of 1570 of Pius V laying down irrevocably for all time the liturgy of the Mass."

Facts and the Truth

The reporting of events at St. Nicholas which appeared in The Times was generally fair and factual, it was evident that its reporter, Charles Hargrove, was making every effort to be objective. But the report which follows indicates the extent to which a factual report does not necessarily convey the truth of a situation. Why this is so will be explained after reproducing the report which appeared in the 23 April 1977 issue.

Offer to Occupiers of Church is Rejected

From Charles Hargrove
Paris, April 22.

Cardinal Marty, the Archbishop of Paris, has made a gesture of conciliation to the traditionalists who have occupied the church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet since the end of March.

He has offered them another place of worship until July 4, when M. Jean Guitton, the Roman Catholic philosopher appointed as mediator by a Paris court on April 1, will submit his report. He added that this offer in no way implied a recognition of their claims.

The church, appropriately St. Marie-Médiatrice, is on the outer boulevards, near the Porte des Lilas, north of Paris. It has been out for use for more than five years, since the construction of the Paris ring motorway. It was built by Cardinal Suhard, the archbishop at the time of the German occupation, as a result of a vow to erect a place to worship if Paris were spared destruction.

Cardinal Marty announced the granting of this church to the traditionalists after reaching an agreement with M. Guitton, who recalled in a statement last night that the dead-line set for the evacuation of St. Nicholas by the court had been prolonged by a week until yesterday, at his request.

But the offer was rejected last night by Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget, one of the leaders of the traditionalists, who said he would sue the cardinal before the ecclesiastical authorities.

"For 10 years we have been treated with contempt," he said. “The faithful from at least five parishes come to our services. There is no question of our transferring to one of the outlying churches of Paris. Let the forces of law and order come and throw us out."

At a press conference this morning at the offices of the archbishop, Mgr. Georges Gilson, an auxiliary bishop, expressed regret that this "generous offer" had been rejected. The cardinal had made it in a "spirit of peace."

Over and above the juridical problem raised by the occupation of St. Nicholas, the cardinal was much more concerned with the religious conflict in which the traditionalists' leaders were opposed to the Catholic hierarchy, the Pope and the Council.

If Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget persisted in his refusal to leave the church, justice would take its course. A bailiff would come to record the fact and the secular arm would then act as it thought fit. But it seems hardly likely that force will be used to expel the traditionalists.

Mgr. Gilson said the leaders of the traditionalists would have to face up to their responsibilities.

The Truth behind the Facts

The reason that the traditionalists declined the "generous offer" of Cardinal Marty was that it was not a generous offer at all, and he must have realized that they would find it totally unacceptable before making it. The church, as the report notes, had been out of use for five years since the construction of the Paris ring motorway. It could only be reached by crossing a very busy motorway (freeway) on foot. The area around the church also happens to be one of the least salubrious in Paris, one where mugging is prevalent. It was also in a most inconvenient location, right on the north side of Paris rather than being central as St. Nicholas is. A good number of elderly Catholics now worship at St. Nicholas, and to have asked them to switch to St. Marie-Médiatrice was a totally impractical proposition, so unrealistic that it could not possibly have been made with any expectation that it would be accepted. This is the truth that the facts quoted in the report did not reveal.


Restored Tradition and the New Mass
By Louis Salleron2

The French newspaper Le Monde of 22 April 1977 published this among other letters which it said it had received concerning the “occupation” of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet Church in Paris. Le Monde said that these letters "are particularly revelatory of the viewpoint of certain Catholics who have so far had little opportunity to express themselves in public.” Professor Salleron’s letter follow:

The arguments brought forward by opponents of the Mass of St. Pius V can be reduced in the last analysis to a single point: St. Pius V, they say, established a rite by his Bull Quo Primum of 1570. What one Pope has done another Pope can undo; consequently, the new rite approved by Paul VI in his Constitution Missale Romanum of 1969 has abrogated the earlier rite.

To present the question thus is to be wrong all along the line. To start with, there is an essential difference between St. Pius V's Bull and Paul VI’s Constitution. Pius V did not set up a new rite. What he did was to authorize a text based on the researches of scholars over many years, and which thus seemed to him to carry the best guarantee of authenticity. It was the traditional rite in all its purity that he restored, after centuries during which faulty versions had become current in a number of dioceses. So great was his respect for tradition, that, although in his Bull he formally prohibited the use of the faulty rites, he expressly recognized and permitted the use of any rite which could prove a certain tradition of at least 200 years. In a word, his intention and his achievement was the restoration of the traditional Mass rites and, in particular, of the first among them, the Roman rite. By contrast, what Paul VI has done is to give his approval to a new rite-Novus Ordo Missae-which is a totally different thing.

Paul VI, it is said, had the right to do this. Of course he did. And therefore (the argument continues) the old rite has been abolished. This is not so. For in his Constitution the Pope does not abrogate the tradition rite; he does not forbid its use any more than he makes the new rite mandatory.

Is it the Pope's will that the new rite should replace the old one and that the latter should disappear? There is no doubt that this is his own wish, but it is not (in the legal sense) his WILL as Pope, which he could only express in and through a solemn Constitution, such as Missale Romanum. Moreover, even in the most urgent of his addresses (Allocutions), he has never invoked his authority as supreme legislator, nor applied this to give effect to his will in respect to the Mass; such an exercise would in any case require a different form than that of an Address. The most "imperious" of his texts on the subject is his Consistorial Address of 24 May 1976, and this merely refers one to the Instruction (or rather, Notification) of 14 June 1971. Now, in this context, an Instruction has no more weight than a Notification or an ordinance; none of them have the authority of an "Apostolic Constitution" or have the power to modify it. (To do so would be rather as though, in French political terms, an executive decree or even a Bill passed by Parliament were to modify the Constitution of the Republic.)

One may add that in the Bull Quo Primum St. Pius V granted an individual indult to all priests, permitting them to celebrate the rite that he had just authorized, despite any ruling to the contrary, even by competent juridical authorities. This perpetual indult can only itself be abrogated by a new and equally authoritative ruling specifically directed to that end.

Cardinal Ottaviani was thus fully justified when he said to me personally at Whitsun 1971-many months after the promulgation of the new rite: "The traditional rite of Mass, according to the Ordo of St. Pius V, has not to my knowledge been abolished. Consequently, local ordinaries (i.e., bishops) especially if they are concerned to protect the rite and its purity , and even to make sure that it continues to be understood by the body of those attending Mass, would do well, in my humble opinion, to encourage the permanent retention of the rite of St. Pius V. .." Note that he does not say "would do well ...to authorize the rite," but "encourage the. ..retention of the rite;" the rite, having been neither abolished nor forbidden, has no need of authorization.

In actual practice, the bishops do forbid the use of the rite of St. Pius V. But their prohibition is itself illegal, and this illegality would be proclaimed as such openly if it were not that the Roman legal structures are in full decomposition.

Rank-and-file priests and layfolk do not look so far. What they can see is that anything, absolutely anything, is permitted in the way of "celebrations"-anything, that is, except the Mass of St. Pius V. As they know, too, or as their instinct tells them, that the new Mass was constructed in an ecumenical intention: that is to say that in it the notion of Eucharistic Sacrifice is played down as far as possible, so as to make it acceptable to Protestants, they are in revolt.

Behind the affair of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet (in Paris) looms the whole problem of the Catholic Mass. This problem is still to be resolved.

St. Nicholas du Chardonnet - Two Months Later

Despite the fact that Monsignor Ducaud-Bourget was sagacious enough to evade the trap set for him by Cardinal Marty’s “generous offer," he soon found that remaining at St. Nicholas brought its problems, namely that despite the fact that is a very large, it was soon unable to accommodate the thousands who wished to worship there each Sunday. The result was that Mass had to be celebrated once more in the Salle Wagram. This is referred to in an extract from an article by Professor Thomas Molnar which follows. Professor Molnar also mentions the sympathy shown by the police for the traditionalist clergy and parishioners of St. Nicholas. It appears that on one occasion a delegation of progressive clerics (in civil costume, naturally) went to the principal police station of the area to demand that the officer in charge should explain why no action had been taken to evict the traditionalists from the church. They were informed by the sergeant on duty: "You can't see him now, he's assisting at Mass at St. Nicholas."

Professor Molnar's account of his visit to St. Nicholas appeared originally in the New Oxford Review and was reprinted in The Remnant of 17 January 1978.

An Interview with Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget

Last April Ecône received some important allies, one in the person of Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget the priest-poet, and the thousands of people who helped him take over the Church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet in one of the Paris’s oldest quarters. The reader may now speak of “violence.” But this is France. St. Bernard was violent, so was Joan of Arc and Bossuet and Bernanos. So was Jesus Christ in chasing the money changers from the temple. For years, the "traditionalists" have begged Cardinal Marty for a church where the Mass of Pius V (Tridentine Mass) could be celebrated; the Cardinal, closing his eyes to the desecration of Rheims Cathedral by copulating hippies and to the Buddhist celebration in the Cathedral of Rennes, left the petitioners without an answer. Last Easter they moved into St. Nicholas, made it clear that only the old Latin Mass would be celebrated, and that they would not leave before a church is officially offered them as a permanent abode. For more emphasis, they set up a permanent guard of several dozen young men to keep out troublemakers. These young people, all of them making financial sacrifices by leaving their jobs or studies for the duration of the "siege," canalize the worshippers, keep a watch on the street, and provide protection to the half dozen priests celebrating Mass.

I visited St. Nicholas on Sunday, 12 June of this year. It was 11 o'clock, people were coming out en masse, their way practically blocked by a similar mass of people waiting to enter for the next celebration. The crowd in the square in front of the church was enormous, waiting for the 12 o'clock Mass. Before entering, I talked to several policemen in the vicinity. Without exception they sympathized with the "occupants," partly on the old religious grounds, partly on political grounds. "It is doubtful," a young police officer told me, "that if ordered to evacuate the church, my men would obey. But at any rate, what politician would dare give such an order, and certainly not Chirac, the new mayor? Besides, if Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget personally stands in our way, we would not touch him or whatever or whomever he protects."

After Mass, I was received by the Monsignor in a room of the sacristy .We are in France! He is 84, as alive as an eel, white hair to his shoulders, long nails like a mandarin, and a pipe between his lips. His manners and speech could be placed somewhere between the eras of Louis XIV or Louis XV. First we spoke of doctrine and philosophy, which was made easier by the fact that we had read some of each other's writings, I his poetry-poetry which had just been given an enthusiastic review in the Osservatore Romano where the editors had not realized that the poet Ducaud-Bourget and Mgr. D-B are the same person! Huge embarrassment a few days later and repulsive back-tracking. So much for pettiness...

The Monsignor had just arrived from the Salle Wagram where he said Mass before the 800 people who could not get into St. Nicholas that morning. In other areas of France churches are similarly occupied by those whom the new inquisitors contemptuously describe as a few old people and some reactionaries. I had carefully scrutinized the crowd in and outside the church: all age groups were represented; of course, whether they were reactionaries, I had no way of discerning.

The Monsignor told me of the endless lies, unkept promises, threats, and vexations on the parts of Cardinal Marty, his bureaucrats, and the Vatican. Thank God for the brutal anti-church laws of 1905: all ecclesiastic property was then confiscated by the State, so that the Cardinal is today unable to send his shock troops to reoccupy St. Nicholas; and as we saw, the Government and the Municipality prefer not to touch this hot potato, for fear of dividing their electorate. Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget is consequently confident that nothing will happen. We then spoke of the recent court decision (lawsuit by the regular curé of the church) to ask the Roman Catholic philosopher, Jean Guitton, supposedly impartial, to mediate between the Archdiocese and the occupants. Guitton is a soft man and an opportunist, Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget told me; he does not wish to jeopardize his status as a biographer of Paul VI. With all that-I was shown letters-Guitton expressed his “déférence sympathique” to Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget, and called his own role as a mediator a wonderful opportunity to meet him. Therefore I was surprised to read in the Express interview with Guitton (late July) his disparaging comments on Lefebvre’s position vis-à-vis the Pope to that of an Algerian O.A.S. General vis-à-vis De Gaulle. A ludicrous and not even flattering comparison-after which one may speak disparagingly of Guitton’s intelligence too.

Anyway, the “mediation” is off, but meanwhile the “Case” is expanding and more “allies” are joining Lefebvre. In early June the Princess Pallavicini opened her palazzo in Rome for 1,500 guests to hear the Archbishop re-explain very simply that he would not renounce the faith of 2,000 years. “I do not want to die a Protestant,” he said. There was an indescribably fervent ovation, not only by the guests in the salons, but also by people sitting on the stairs and the multitude outside who listened through loudspeakers to Lefebvre's words.

The Vatican took this as a further provocation - to carry the "opposition to the Pope" to within the latter's earshot. The Pope's vicar (as Bishop of Rome), Cardinal Ugo Poletti, attacked the Princess in a press statement-to which he received a responding statement amounting to "mind your own business, I receive in my home whom I wish." The "mind your own business" is quite an appropriate warning, since Rome now has a fellow-travelling mayor elected on the Communist list.

Saint Nicholas Today

Readers who wish to participate in the "miracle of Saint Nicholas" during a visit to Paris should take the metro to the station Maubert-Mutualité, which is adjacent to the church. All the old churches and cathedrals in France belong to the State, which is responsible for the upkeep of their exteriors. It is very significant that since the liberation of St. Nicholas a great deal of work has been done to the outside of the building, by the civil authorities, to complement the internal renovation carried out by the parishioners. Although the diocesan authorities will not accept the legality of the present situation, or that it has any permanent basis, it is clear that the civil authorities have no intention whatsoever of evicting the traditionalists. St. Nicholas now stands as an island of Catholic tradition, and, indeed, of sanity, in a sea of Modernism and liturgical banality.


1. See Vol.I,pp.108-109

2. Well-known writer and journalist

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume II - Chapter III

Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 12
19 March 1977

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

We are going on with our work and with God's blessing we will continue to go on, for Tradition cannot cease to transmit Revelation until the end of time. God has revealed Himself to us in Our Lord Jesus Christ. This Revelation is today what it was in the past and what it will always be. We must receive it such as it has been given to us.

The Revelation was brought to an end with the last of the Apostles in order that we might fix our gaze on Jesus Who is “the author and finisher of faith" (Heb. 12: 2).

Saint Paul summarizes this Revelation which he himself also received in these words: "I judged not myself to know anything among you but Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (I Cor. 2:2).

The Cross of Jesus summarizes the whole of our faith and therefore the whole of our conduct, all of our attitudes, our interior and exterior life. It not only teaches us the truths necessary for our salvation, but also the way to salvation and the combat, which must be waged to achieve it. It shows the way to wage this combat against all that is opposed to our salvation, whether it be within or around us. The Cross is therefore the leaven and the law of Christian civilization which is that of the salvation of souls by Jesus crucified.

To attempt to diminish in one way or another the teachings revealed by the Cross under the pretext of the historical development of society, of historical conscience, evolution, etc. is to close the way of salvation and deliver men up to other men, with no divine hope, light or life. It is to make this world the antechamber of hell.

This is what is being prepared for us by the elimination of any idea of combat against error due to religious liberty, or against atheism, laicism, and communism. Likewise by an ecumenism which delivers the Church into the hands of her enemies, and lack of opposition to sin by wiping out law in favor of conscience.

This new attitude of the Church authorities is a negation of the Cross of Our Lord. To ask us to follow this attitude, which lay under the surface during the Council, and which is clearly expressed in the reforms and practice of the Conciliar Church, is as much as to ask us to deny Christ crucified. We cannot do so .

By the grace of God our seminarians and young priests understand these things well and do not wish to abandon the crucified Jesus either. They demonstrate this by their dress, their daily lives and their preaching: but essentially and above all by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Once again this year we have numerous candidates for the seminary and our novitiates to the Brotherhood and Sisterhood. The number of our houses continues to multiply as we now have one in the province of Quebec in Canada and another in Geneva. To satisfy all the requests for priests which we receive it would be necessary to ordain a hundred a year! This year, God willing, fourteen priests and twenty subdeacons will be ordained. Five brothers as well as five nuns will receive the habit. Three of the sisters will make their profession.

We hope that we will soon be able to announce that the foundations of the seminary chapel at Ecône have been laid! This will be a very important enterprise. We know that we can count on you to help the seminary with a chapel worthy of the honor and adoration that we must give to Our Lord.

Above all we must pray and do penance to ask Our Lord, by the intercession of the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, to deliver Holy Church from those who wish at all costs to ruin her and arrive at the great apostasy.

In gratitude for all that you are doing in favor or our work for a true renovation of the Church, may God bless you!

+Marcel Lefebvre
Feast of St. Joseph, 1977.