Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume III

[Stone]

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

Contents

Introduction
I 1979 - A Year of Hope
II The Pope, the Bishops and the Priests
III Catholic Universities
IV A Condemnation and an Instruction
V Mgr. Lefebvre: Two Viewpoints
VI The Role of the Pope
VII Is Sunday Mass to be Suppressed?
VIII The Ecumenical Heresy
IX A Sermon at Albano
X The Condemnation of Küng
XI Letter of Mgr. Elchinger to Mgr. Lefebvre
XII The Dutch Synod
XIII On the Feast of the Purification
XIV A Day in the Life of Archbishop Lefebvre
XV Dominicæ Cenæ
XVI From the Superior General's Desk
XVII The Religious Life
XVIII Thirty Pieces of Silver
XIX An Encyclical from the Pope Tübingen
XX Inæstimabile Donum
XXI Archbishop Lefebvre in Venice
XXII A Meeting with Cardinal Seper
XXIII Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 18
XXIV Frequent Confession
XXV Archbishop Gerety
XXVI Letters to the Pope and Cardinal Palazzini
XXVII Archbishop Hunthausen
XXVIII Priests in Politics
XXIX Lourdes -1980
XXX The National Pastoral Congress
XXXI Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Palazzini
XXXII The 1980 Ordination Sermon
XXXIII Diverse Condemnations
XXXIV Archbishop Lefebvre is Not a Rebel
XXXV The Christian Family
XXXVI Our Lady Of Pointet
XXXVII Letters of Mgr. Lefebvre
XXXVIII Letter To Friends & Benefactors, No. 19
XXXIX Letter to the Sovereign Pontiff
XL Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre
XLI The Bishops' Synod - 1980
XLII We Are Not Rebels
XLIII The 1980 Bishops' Synod
XLIV "Liberalism has Penetrated the Church"
XLV Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper
XLVI Golden Jubilee of Mother Marie Christiane
XLVII Mgr. Lefebvre in Mexico
XLVIII Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre
XLIX Masonry Condemned
L Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 20
LI Letter to Friends and Benefactors of the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X No.1
LII Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper
LIII Persevering in Tradition
LIV The 1981 Ordination Sermon
LV What is the Priesthood?
LVI Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 21
LVII Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre
LVIII The Plight of the Papist Priest
LIX Mgr. Lefebvre, An Australian Viewpoint
LX Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre
LXI Rastafarianism
LXII Fasting and Abstinence
LXIII Letter to Friends and Benefactors, No. 22
LXIV Correspondence
LXV Pope John Paul II at Canterbury
LXVI A Sermon at Martigny
LXVII The 1982 Ordination Sermon
LXVIII Blessing of the Chapel of St Irenaeus
LXIX Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger
LXX Only the Latin Mass is Forbidden Today
LXXI The First General Chapter
LXXII A Courageous Bishop Dies

☩ ☩ ☩

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3

Introduction

VOLUME II of the Apologia took the story of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre up to the end of 1979, with the celebration of his Golden Jubilee providing a fitting climax. It has been suggested that I should have referred to another event which brought the year 1979 to a very encouraging climax for every faithful Catholic. This was, of course, the action taken by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in December 1979 to prevent Hans Kung from teaching as a Catholic theologian. This was only one of a series of actions to uphold orthodoxy occurring in the first full year of the pontificate of Pope John Paul II, actions which made 1979 a year of hope for those who had been praying for a pope who would initiate a return to Tradition.

It was further suggested that by documenting the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in isolation from these events, the account I had given lacked balance, and gave the impression that while the Vatican was taking action against traditional Catholics, epitomized by the Archbishop, it was ignoring the deviations from orthodoxy among Liberal or progressive Catholics. It was by no means my intention to give such an impression, and the explanation of my failure to refer to these events is simply that the book was concerned solely with the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, and not with presenting a generalized picture of events in the Church during the period that it covered. However, in this and subsequent volumes I shall broaden the scope of my account and refer to events not relating directly to the Archbishop. This should have the effect both of broadening the interest of the book and helping to place the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in its correct historical perspective. I shall begin this volume by listing some of the events which made 1979 a year of such hope.

This volume should be particularly useful in helping the reader to put the case of Archbishop Lefebvre in its correct historical perspective. It includes abundant documentation to prove that, as Pope Paul VI admitted, the Church is undergoing a process of self-destruction. Against a background of continual decline in every aspect of Catholic life subject to empirical verification, from baptisms to vocations, we see entire hierarchies acquiescing in, if not actively encouraging, the subversion of Catholic teaching on faith and morals among the flocks for whose pastoral care they are responsible. This volume will document frequent instances of excellent pronouncements from the Pope and the Holy See intended to halt the abuses and the decline, but, alas, no steps are taken to discipline the overwhelming majority of bishops who do not make even a pretense at implementing the papal directives. "The hungry sheep look up and are not fed." The most depressing incident narrated in this book is that of a visit by the Chief Shepherd of Christ's flock to Canterbury Cathedral where he behaved, to all intents and purposes, as if the Anglican sect and its invalidly ordained ministers form part of the one true Church founded by Our Lord.

This volume also documents the visits of a good shepherd, a bonus pastor, into the dioceses of shepherds who have opened the doors of the sheepfold to allow wolves to enter and ravage their flocks with impunity. Unfortunately, in the eyes of the media and of the Vatican, it is the good shepherd who must be censured and not the bad shepherds, the hirelings, who have abandoned their flocks. It cannot be denied that Archbishop Lefebvre breaches the letter of Canon Law; it cannot be denied that his judgments are sometimes hasty and expressed intemperately. Equally, it cannot be denied that he is motivated by a single desire - the salvation of souls: Salus animarum suprema lex - "The salvation of souls is the supreme law."

The most effective answers to the distorted and frequently vindictive accounts of the Archbishop which appear in the Catholic press can be found in his sermons, of which a good number appear in this volume. They are profoundly spiritual and totally Catholic. Their message is simple: "Let us keep the Faith - the simple and solid faith of the just and the faithful soul, according to the model of Mary and Joseph and all who have followed their example." This "simple and solid Faith" is expressed in beautiful and inspiring terms in the Profession of Faith of the priests of Campos, Brazil, which concludes this volume, as Appendix II. This is the Faith of our Fathers, this is the Faith that we must hold and we must cling to if we are to be saved. "Blessed be God!" wrote Cardinal Newman, "We have not to find the truth. It is put into our hearts, to preserve it in- violate, and to deliver it to our posterity." It is to this sublime task that Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests of his Society have dedicated their lives. May God bless them for it and sustain them in it.

I must offer my thanks to my friend, Norah Haines, without whose help this volume would not yet be complete. I cannot thank her sufficiently for all that she has done to help me with so many books, for so many years. I must also thank my son, Adrian, for translating the correspondence between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Holy See, and Father Philip Stark for translating the Archbishop's sermons and other items from the French. Finally, I must thank Carlita Brown for typesetting yet another of my books without complaining (too much) about the constant corrections and revisions.

Work on Volume IV is already well underway, but I cannot yet say when it is likely to appear.

Michael Davies

27 Apri11988

St. Peter Canisius

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter I

1979 - A Year of Hope
Laicization, Celibacy, Invalid Masses, Individual Confession


The Pope Condemns French Theological Work
The Remnant -30 Apri1 1979
POPE JOHN PAUL II, in his first such act as Pontiff, has approved a Vatican declaration stating that a book by a French Catholic theologian presents views which conflict with Catholic dogmas.

The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith released a carefully worded statement (3 April) which declares that Father Jacques Pohier's book Quand je dis Dieu (When I Say God), contains "affirmations which manifestly fail to conform to Revelation and the teaching of the Church."

The statement was signed by Cardinal Franjo Seper, Prefect of the Congregation and Archbishop Jérôme Hâmer, O.P., its secretary. Among its criticisms of the book, the Vatican agency said that it denies such tenets of the Faith as: "the Christian idea of a transcendent God; the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which was taught by the Council of Trent and, recently, by Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Mysterium Fidei; the specific role of the priest in the actualization of the Real Presence; and the exercise of infallibility in the Church." The declaration added further that ''as far as regards the divinity of Christ, Father Pohier expresses himself in so singular a manner that it is not possible to determine if he still possesses such truth in the traditionally Catholic sense."

Pope Rejects Laicization Trend: Strongly Reaffirms Priestly Celibacy
The Remnant - 30 April 1979
Pope John Paul II has strongly reconfirmed celibacy for Latin Rite priests and, in a major document, has indicated that he will not easily grant laicizations or special dispensations from priestly life from now on.

The document is a papal letter addressed "to all the priests of the Church on the occasion of Holy Thursday, 1979." In it the Pope said objections raised against priestly celibacy are based on arguments "whose anthropological correctness and basis in fact are seen to be very dubious and of relative value." The Church therefore urges "that all those who receive the Sacrament of Orders should embrace this renunciation (of marriage) for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven," the letter said.

In a shorter companion letter addressed to the world's bishops, the Pope asked them to, intensify " every possible effort" to encourage new vocations to the priesthood.

Both letters were linked in their titles to Holy Thursday, the day on which priests renew their promises to their bishops. In the 35-page letter to priests, the Pope placed strong emphasis on lifelong fidelity to the vows of their ordination, comparing their commitment at the time of ordination to the lifelong commitment made by married couples. "It is a matter of keeping one's word to Christ and the Church," he said. He rejected laicization as an easy answer to a crisis in one's vocation, although the words of the text do not rule out all possibilities of granting laicization in certain cases. The Pope did not say what he will do with laicization requests from now on, but his words indicated a "tough line" will be taken, according to the NC dispatch from Rome. He asked priests to re-read sections of Vatican II documents that highlight the "common priesthood" of the faithful and urged them to note the essential difference between this priesthood and the ordained priesthood under Holy Orders. "You priests," he noted, "are expected to have a care and commitment which are far greater and different from those of any lay person." He urged priests not to succumb to calls to be like other people, when in fact they are" always and everywhere the bearers of a particular vocation." " And this," he continues, "you can never forget; this you can never renounce; this you must put into practice at every moment, in every place and in every way." "Those who call for the secularization of priestly life and applaud its various manifestations will undoubtedly abandon us when we succumb to temptation. We shall then cease to be necessary and popular," he wrote. He conceded that although priests must be "close to the people and all their problems," their work must be done "in a priestly way" and they must be in first place men of prayer and must be especially devoted to the Mother of Christ, "who in a special way is the Mother of priests."

Besides rejecting the idea of the laicization process as simply an "administrative intervention," the Pope took pains to emphasize that priesthood and celibacy presume freely chosen, mature commitments for life, similar to the kind of permanent commitment given by a married couple.

During the fifteen years of Pope Paul VI's pontificate, an estimated 2,000 laicizations were granted per year, according to the NC dispatch. Then, after Pope John Paul II’s election last October, the processing of such cases came to an abrupt halt, the explanation being that the Pope wanted "to reconsider the question in its entirety." Several years ago, before Pope Paul VI sped up the laicization process and began granting requests more readily, the requests usually involved complex factors, such as serious psychological problems. More recently, however, the requests for laicization became a more or less routine matter, with not a few priests virtually demanding dispensations as a matter of "right."

The NC noted that Vatican sources hold that the Pope can stop laicizations of priests without any change in Church law. The reason is that, under the law, dispensation from priestly duties or from the promise of celibacy is considered a "gift" or a "grace" from the Pope, not something to which a priest has a "right" under any and all circumstances. In other words, unless there is serious reason to doubt the validity of the ordination itself, normally there is no juridical process involved.

Pope John Paul II's newly evinced stance on the laicization and celibacy question was immediately criticized in certain quarters. Frank Bonnike, for instance, a facilitator for CORPUS, a U. S. organization for resigned priests, faulted the Pope. "It [the Pope's letter] may meet the needs in Poland," he said, "but not serve the Church elsewhere." Bonnike, himself a former priest of the Roc-ford, Ill. diocese, criticized the Pope for what he called his "hard-line" policy and said that the reaffirmation of priestly celibacy is "once again a put-down for women."

To take a "tough line" on granting laicizations "is like putting a pregnant woman on hold," Bonnike said. "If a person reaches that point in their life when they're recognizing their need to continue their work with a soul mate, I don't see how taking a tough line is going to stop that" (Catholic Bulletin, April 20, 1979).



Rome Acts Against Invalid Masses in the U.S.A.
9 May 1979

There is not the least doubt as to what constitutes valid matter for the Holy Eucharist. Where the bread is concerned, it must be pure wheaten flour kneaded with natural water. The bread must be unleavened in the Latin Church and leavened in the Eastern rites. If a Latin priest used leavened bread or an Eastern rites priest used unleavened bread the Sacrifice would be valid but illicit, unless it was a case of an emergency.1

The imposition of the New Mass in the United States was followed by widespread stress on the Mass as a meal. Less and less was heard of its sacrificial nature. In order to accentuate their belief that the "Sunday liturgy" is essentially a community meal, Liberal clerics began to encourage the preparation of altar breads by their parishioners. The very fact that the altar breads had been prepared by the local community was, in itself, supposed to make the celebration more "meaningful."

Many of the faithful began to wonder whether the altar breads used in their parishes constituted licit matter; and, in some cases, whether the validity of the sacrifice itself was endangered. Their fears proved to be only too well founded. An examination of some of the recipes used made it clear that they constituted cake rather than bread, 2and that those celebrations of Mass in which they were utilized were invalid. Worse still, when the indignant faithful complained to such prelates as Archbishop Bemardin of Cincinnati or Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle, their protests were received with reactions ranging from indifference to hostility. Not surprisingly, they complained to Rome. Many letters were received from American Catholics making the very modest request that they should be able to fulfill their Sunday obligation in their own parish, something which was not possible if their parish priest was celebrating invalid Masses. They were equally reasonable in suggesting that when they offered stipends for the celebration of Masses, then these Masses should indeed be celebrated for their intentions.

The Vatican eventually acted through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. On 11 May 1979 Pope John Paul II approved the text of a letter to be sent to the President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops requiring that the law of the Church be observed in the preparation of Eucharistic bread. Cardinal Seper concluded his letter as follows:

As Your Excellency is aware, it is particularly important to ensure careful observance of the traditional theological interpretation about the making of Eucharistic bread, so that the faithful can be assured that every Eucharist is celebrated with matter that is both valid and licit.

Cardinal Seper also stressed in his letter that: "There is an obligation in strict justice regarding the application of Masses for intentions promised by the stipend."

Since 1969, the American bishops have never shown a moment's hesitation in disciplining or even persecuting any priest who dared to say the Tridentine Mass, but in some cases they appeared totally indifferent to the fact that many of their priests were taking stipends for celebrating invalid Masses which involved material idolatry on the part of the congregation (as they were worshipping a piece of cake). The Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy referred the matter back to the Holy See and advised that "the present practice of many parishes not be disturbed until there are other directives from the Holy See."

Nine months after the letter from Cardinal Seper, Archbishop Bernardin conceded reluctantly that, where the Archdiocese of Cincinnati was concerned, "many - perhaps most - of the recipes in use will have to be rejected." He also expressed considerable concern, but not for those who had provided stipends for invalid Masses, nor for the faithful who had not, in some cases, assisted at Mass for several years as the celebrations at which they had been present were invalid. Archbishop Bernardin's concern was expressed as follows: "I realize, of course, that those people who have become accustomed to the newer breads will be disappointed. I ask you, therefore, to do all you can to help them accept this decision." In view of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre had been suspended a divinis for a disciplinary matter, it seems legitimate to wonder what adequate penalty might have been devised for Archbishop Bernardin. The answer is that he was eventually elevated to the rank of cardinal. One shudders to think that men such as this, who have clearly lost all sense of what being a Catholic means, will play a part in the election of the next pope!

Archbishop Hunthausen of Seattle carried his defiance of the Holy See to extraordinary lengths, and even claimed that the faithful owed their allegiance primarily to him rather than Rome. He could be induced to make at least a token gesture of compliance only after public protests and paid advertisements in newspapers protesting about his refusal to insist that valid Masses were celebrated in his archdiocese. The extent to which Archbishop Hunthausen was leading his flock out of the Church became so manifest and so notorious that in 1986 an auxiliary bishop was appointed for the Archdiocese of Seattle and given responsibility for certain aspects of its government. But in 1987 the Vatican surrendered to pressure from the Liberal hierarchy of the United States, removed the auxiliary bishop, and restored full authority to Archbishop Hunthausen. The case of Archbishop Hunthausen will be documented in due chronological order, and compared with that of Archbishop Lefebvre. It will be apparent that the difference in their treatment by the Vatican, and the sanctions imposed upon them, constitute a scandal of the first magnitude.


Pope Insists on Individual Confession
The Remnant - 16 May 1979
Pope John Paul II has again stressed the importance of individual or private confession and has again called for diligent observance of the strict Vatican norms governing general absolution in special circumstances.

In an address April 26 to various bishops who were making their official (ad limina) visits to Rome, the Pope recalled his first encyclical letter in which he had noted the "need to guard the Sacrament of Penance" and "stressed that the faithful observance of the centuries - old practice of individual confession with a personal act of sorrow and the intention to amend and make satisfaction (for sin) is an expression of the Church's defense of man's right to a more personal encounter with the crucified forgiving Christ." He pointed out that the documents cited in that encyclical "make reference to a point of capital importance: the solemn teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the divine precept of individual confession."

"Seen in this perspective," Pope John Paul continued, "the diligent observance by all the priests of the Church of the pastoral norms of Sacramentum Pænitentiæ (rules on Penance published by the Vatican's Doctrinal congregation in 1972) in regard to general absolution is both a question of loving fidelity to Jesus Christ and to His redemptive plan, and the expression of ecclesial communion in what Paul VI called' a matter of special concern to the Universal Church and of the regulation of her supreme authority' ." Pope John Paul also quoted Pope Paul's words last year to a group of U.S. bishops concerning priestly ministry: "Other works, for lack of time, may have to be abandoned, but not the confessional."


1. Valid: i.e., transubstantiation would take place and the bread would become the Body of Christ, Illicit: contrary to the law of the Church

2. Documentation concerning these recipes and all the points which follow concerning invalid eucharistic matter in the U.S.A. is provided in Appendix VI to Pope Paul’s New Mass

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter II

The Pope, the Bishops and the Priests
by Louis Salleron
L'Aurore --31 May 1979

On 8 April last, Palm Sunday,1 the Pope addressed a long letter to "all the priests of the Church" to remind them of the nature of their priesthood, and to exhort them to remain faithful to it.

On the same day, in another much shorter letter, he asked the bishops to help their priests fulfill their mission:

Have a special solicitude for their spiritual progress, for their perseverance in the grace of the priesthood. Since it is between your hands that they pronounce - and renew each year - their priestly promises, and especially their commitment to celibacy, do everything in your power to enable them to remain faithful to these promises which are demanded by the Holy Tradition of the Church.

These two letters, especially the one to priests, had a resounding impact. The immense majority of the faithful saw in them the first attempt to come to grips with the disorder and strife which had existed for far too many years. The attitude of John Paul II was all the more appreciated because he expressed himself so clearly, yet in simple, familiar words, even affectionate in tone - characteristic features of his government - which have so endeared him to everyone since the first day of his pontificate.

In France, however, there were - there are - waverings, counter-currents, grinding of teeth, the extent of which it would not be amiss to examine in detail.

On 18 April Cardinal Renard, Archbishop of Lyons, wrote to all the priests in his diocese informing them of the Pope's letter and adding a few personal comments, of which the following are essential:

Whatever position you may hold, parish priest, chaplain (to a hospital, to some movement, to a school, or to migrants), professor, a working priest, priest of Fidei donum, priest in a religious order, each one of you is, for us, a member of the presbyterium, engaged in a ministry which we have recognized and appreciated, even if it has not been possible for us to express it to you in a fraternal way, nor as often as we would have wished.

If, as the Pope now asks us, we must make every effort possible to encourage vocations, to train new generations of candidates for the priesthood, future priests, there can be no question of slowing down pastoral initiatives for the renewal of Christian communities large or small.

We hope that the baptized, in increasing numbers, will be witnesses of the Gospel in their entire lives, that they will accept responsibilities and prepare themselves for certain "ministries." A direct link must be seen to exist between our fidelity to this aim and the evangelical exhortation Evangelii nuntiandi on evangelization in the modern world (December 1975), and the duty we have to encourage entrants to the presbyterial ministry. The one cannot be achieved without the other. Vocations always come from fervent, open communities…

We do not want to end this letter without thinking of our brothers who, having married, no longer exercise the presbyterial ministry. Let us openly remain their brothers.

Elsewhere the Cardinal informed his priests that he was going to Rome at the end of April and could therefore inform the Pope of their comments and questions.

Many priests in the diocese of Lyons interpreted the letter from their Archbishop thus:

Here is the Pope's letter. If you do not agree with him write to me and I will inform him of your opinions. Do not be afraid that I shall let you down. The Pope must be obeyed, but as he is so far away he cannot clearly evaluate our pastoral initiatives. I will explain them to him. Have confidence in me as I have in you.

A familiar stance. I am their head, therefore I will follow them.

The priests, therefore, in their turn, wrote. They were not only those from the diocese of Lyons, but those (about 30) from regions to the east of the diocese, priests who represent the association of "married priests" (sic) and priests (87) who want to form a "collective" to fight all forms of oppression and repression in the Church and Society; those who, individually, had made their views known in various publications. In all, a small minority, but a minority which represents a widespread frame of mind, protected by bureaucrats and under the progressive wing of the French Episcopate.

The two most significant documents are (1) the call for the creation of a collective which is purely revolutionary (Marxist style), and (2) the letter to the Pope from the priests living east of the diocese of Lyons, a letter disarming in its puerile insolence, but revealing a typical post-conciliar mentality. Let the readers judge for themselves. These priests said to the Pope:

Your letter reads like a message from on high and is too much in keeping with a theology  which does not fully accept the orientations of the Second Vatican Council. In your letter you give the name "laicization" to what is, for us the wish to share in the lives of our people (…) We can already state that in this respect your declaration is being used by those in France who are opposed to Vatican II.

For lay Catholics who are constantly accused of being against the Council and the post-conciliar orientations, it is gratifying and consoling to discover that the Pope shares this disgrace It is nonetheless disturbing that so many stupidities can be published with so much assurance.



The Heart of the Debate

But is it a question only of stupidities? No, the debate is far more serious. It is a completely new doctrine of the priesthood which, today, is poisoning "The Church of France." According to this doctrine, the priest is no longer a man set apart and endowed, by the Sacrament of Orders, with the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, with the special mission to preach the Gospel and to teach the truths to be believed. He is now only a member of the faithful, man or woman, married or celibate, chosen by the community to serve them and give thanks to God.

The French Episcopate as a body, if not as individual members, subscribe to this subversive theology imposed upon it by its bureaucrats. Hence the inertia.

It is to the joint problems of the Mass and the priesthood that the crisis in the Church in France is due. The Pope will need all his patience and all his energy to end it.

* * * *

Louis Salleron's article helps in several ways to put the case of Mgr. Lefebvre in its correct perspective. Pope John Paul II's letter on the priesthood provides an excellent and even inspiring evocation of the true nature of the Catholic priesthood. Archbishop Lefebvre might well be the only French bishop who would give it unqualified acceptance and support, and insist that all the priests subject to him did likewise. The Pope's ideal of the priesthood is precisely the ideal proposed to the seminarians at Econe. It was noted and documented in Apologia I that the Holy See's Basic Norms for Priestly Training are observed more faithfully at Ecône than almost any other seminary in the West (see pages 69-70). Despite this, Mgr. Lefebvre is the only French bishop who is suspended a divinis. The other French bishops are all in good standing with the Holy See, even though, as a body, they subscribe to the revolutionary doctrine of the priesthood which is poisoning "The Church of France." It must also be noted that the catechetical instruction which they impose upon Catholic children in France is among the worst in the entire world.

Professor Salleron's article also illustrates the extent to which the Catholic ethos of the French Church has disappeared almost entirely outside traditionalist groups. Once this ethos is lost it is rarely regained. And those who have repudiated Tradition flaunt their revolutionary new religion before the Pope himself with what Professor Salleron terms aptly "puerile insolence." It must be one of the great ironies of Catholic history that in the post-conciliar era the epithet "rebel bishop" is retained for Mgr. Lefebvre alone. No doubt the English hierarchy under Henry VIII would have used the same epithet for St. John Fisher.


1. Novo incipiente nostro, 8 April 1979. Frequently referred to as the “Holy Thursday Letter to Priests." (Full text available in Flannery, Vol. II.)

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter III

Catholic Universities

POPE WARNS CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS
The Remnant – 31 May 1979
ACCORDING to a St. Paul Pioneer Press/Dispatch report of May 26, Pope John Paul II decreed last week that professors at Catholic universities "should refrain from challenging basic Church doctrine or face dismissal from their posts." The report went on to say that the Pontiff's warning is contained in an 87-page " Apostolic Constitution" and that it "tightened Vatican control over some 126 Church-run universities around the world." The decree reportedly puts an end to a controversial experimental period which Pope Paul VI had launched in 1968 in the wake of Vatican II. The present Holy Father insists that "new research (experimental or otherwise) should never be at the expense of the Church's Magisterium."

Meanwhile, in the current issue of Our Sunday Visitor, appears the report that the anti-papalist Hans Kung has again placed himself squarely in opposition to yet another Pope, this time Pope John Paul II. During an interview regarding his notorious views, Kung is said to have proposed that inter-communion begin at once, saying: "I would first start by giving a general permission to Catholics – especially those in mixed marriages, but others also –to go to other churches for the eucharistic meal. And we should open our doors for others to come to us."

As Our Sunday Visitor observed editorially, "Küng's 'one eucharist is as good as another' is directly contrary to Catholic teaching and is in direct opposition to what Pope John Paul II told Catholic bishops from the Caribbean, where occasionally ecumenical activity has gone beyond good sense. "Sharing the Eucharist presupposes unity in faith," the Pope declared. "Inter-communion between divided Christians is not the answer to Christ's appeal for greater unity."

It will be interesting to see how Pope John Paul II reacts to Hans Kung's latest defiance of papal teaching and whether the University of Tübingen, where Kung still holds forth, will feel free to dismiss this unorthodox gad-fly. Also, whether the Catholic University of America, where the notorious heresiarch, Father Charles Curran, still holds forth, will take such disciplinary action as Pope John Paul has now prescribed.

* * * *

The reaction to Küng's defiance was to deprive him of the right to teach as a Catholic theologian, a step which would be taken before the end of the year. The same decision would be taken in the case of Father Curran, but not until 1986.



DECLINE IN PRIESTS AND SEMINARIANS IN ITALY

The Remnant – 31 May 1979
The number of Catholic seminary students in Italy has dropped from 30,595 in 1962 to 9,953 in 1978. During the same 16-year period, the number of priests in Italy dropped by more than 2,000 – from 43,538 to 40,866.

The figures were disclosed by Bishop Attilio Nicora, an Auxiliary Bishop of Milan, at a plenary meeting in Vatican City of the Italian Catholic Bishops' Conference.

To put the numbers in clearer perspective, Bishop Nicora pointed out that Italy's population had increased by six million between 1961 and 1977. Italy has a current population of 56,675,000, with Catholics constituting 97.5% of the total.

Bishop Nicora called the figures "objectively serious and worrisome."

* * * *

The decline in the numbers of both priests and seminarians is common to all Western countries. It might have been hoped that the bishops of these countries would have noted the success of the seminaries founded by Mgr. Lefebvre, and followed his example by introducing a traditional formation in their own seminaries; but, alas, most would prefer to cease ordaining priests rather than admit that the policies they have adopted have been disastrous. This is also true of their equally disastrous policies in such spheres as religious education and the liturgy. The prestige of the bishops depends upon the success of these new policies, ergo the policies are successful.


CARDINAL OTTAVIANI DIES AT 88
The Remnant – 17 August 1979

Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, a major spokesman for traditionalism during the Second Vatican Council and one of several cardinals responsible for the so-called "intervention" against the New Mass brought into being by that Council, 1 died on 3 August in his apartment after a long illness, Vatican Radio reported.

The Cardinal, who together with the late Cardinal Bacci, protested against what they called the "theological deviation" of the New Mass from the position taken by the Council of Trent, held the honorary title of Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department concerned with guarding the Church's doctrine on faith and morals.

It was Cardinal Ottaviani, who, in his letter to His Holiness Pope Paul VI (3 September 1969), pleaded with the Pope "not to deprive us of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the fruitful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply loved and venerated by the whole Catholic world… The Cardinal was an uncompromising defender of theological orthodoxy and an unyielding foe of Modernist trends which have swept through the Church for the past many decades. His loss to the Church is great. He will be sorely missed. R.I.P.


Cardinal Wright Dies

The same issue of The Remnant reported the death of Cardinal John Wright who, as Prefect for the Congregation for the Clergy, had initially given wholehearted support to Mgr. Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X, but then succumbed to pressure from Liberal forces within the Vatican and became a member of the commission of three cardinals which condemned the Archbishop and demanded the closure of the seminary at Ecône.2


1. A fully documented account of the “Ottaviani Intervention” is available in chapter XXIII of Pope Paul’s New Mass. It is explained there that fifteen Cardinals had agreed to sign a covering endorsing the critique of the New Mass sent to Pope Paul VI, but, for reasons which are explained in this chapter, thirteen of them lost their nerve and the covering letter was signed eventually only by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci. This does not detract in any way from its historic importance, or from the fact that Mgr. Lefebvre’s misgivings charged with upholding the orthodoxy of Catholic doctrine.

2. See Apologia, Vol. I, Index: Wright, John Joseph, Cardinal.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter IV

A Condemnation and an Instruction

Vatican Condemns the Book Human Sexuality
The Remnant – 17 August 1979

The Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a letter to the U.S. bishops, has declared that the notorious book, Human Sexuality, contains fundamental errors that cannot be reconciled with traditional Catholic teaching.

The book was edited by the Rev. Anthony Kosnik and commissioned by the Catholic Theological Society of America. It was published in the U. S. in 1977.

In a letter to Archbishop Quinn, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, Franjo Cardinal Seper, head of the Vatican office responsible for defending the Faith, also criticized the prestigious Catholic Theological Society that commissioned the book published by the Paulist Press. "The Congregation," Cardinal Seper said, "cannot fail to note its concern that a distinguished society of Catholic theologians would have arranged for the publication of this report in such a way as to give broad distribution to the erroneous principles and conclusions of this book and in this way provide a source of confusion among the people of God."

The book in question is said to have been sold in the tens of thousands of copies. Written by five Catholic theologians, it purports to offer "guidelines" for sexual morality differing from the Church's familiar "thou-shalt-not" approach. It recommends that faithful Catholics, in judging what constitutes appropriate sexual behavior, should try to determine whether their acts and attitudes are "self-liberating, other-enriching, honest, faithful (emphasizing stable relationships), socially responsible, life- serving and joyous."

Cardinal Seper's letter criticizes these "purely subjective criteria…that yield no manageable or helpful rules for serious conscience-formation in matters of sexuality." Similarly, the Vatican document takes issue with the book's tendency to subject "theological and scientific arguments…to criteria derived from one's present experience of what is human or less than human. This gives rise to a relativism in human conduct which recognizes no absolute values. Given these criteria, it is small wonder that this book pays such scant attention to the doctrine of the Magisterium, whose clear teaching and helpful norms of morality it often openly contradicts."

* * * *

Cardinal Seper rightly stressed the fact that this degrading book was produced by a distinguished society of Catholic theologians.” There is little doubt that these theologians, distinguished principally by their un-catholicity, represent mainstream thinking on moral theology within the Catholic establishment in the United States today. This thinking has been described aptly by Msgr. John McCarthy as “pornology."1 While it is true that the book was criticized by the American Bishops' Committee on Doctrine in November 1977, it cannot be denied that the Theological Society could not have become dominated by Liberals or have published this book without at least the passive acquiescence of the hierarchy. It is certainly arguable that no criticism would have come from the bishops had it not been for widespread public protests by lay groups and journals such as The Wanderer.

What is astonishing is that, to the best of my  knowledge, no disciplinary action was taken against the priests responsible for a book which pays “such scant attention to the doctrine of the Magisterium." Not one of them was suspended a divinis, despite their cooperation in publishing a book which undermined the entire basis of Catholic morality. Surely, even the sternest critic of Archbishop Lefebvre would have to agree that the offense for which he was suspended, ordaining priests who would uphold Catholic moral teaching, is totally insignificant when set beside that of these theologians. Such critics would also have to agree that the action taken against these theologians, a reprimand accompanied by no sanctions, is ludicrously inadequate. Having said this, the fact that the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did at least condemn the book is something for which we should be grateful.2


Catechesi tradendæ
Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul II
16 October 1979

One of the greatest causes of concern among the faithful since the Second Vatican Council has been the deterioration in the standard of religious education (catechesis) given to Catholic children in schools and catechism classes. In the years immediately following the Council parents began to notice that the content of what their children were taught was being continually diluted. Little emphasis, if any emphasis at all, was placed upon memorizing fundamentals of the Faith, such as the Seven Sacraments or the Ten Commandments. Considerable stress was laid upon the children's own experience of life. A great deal of time was devoted to such activities as drawing a map of the route the child took to school, or making lists of things he liked or did not like. Parents who voiced their anxieties were told that this was meaningful, in accordance with modern educational methods, or in the "spirit of Vatican II" – possibly a combination of all three.

As the years passed what purported to be Catholic catechesis often degenerated to the lowest common denominator Christianity, or even humanism. This consisted principally of loving one's neighbor, being kind to animals, and helping the "third world." A stage was reached when children not only failed to receive systematic instruction in the truths of their Faith, but were actually being taught error.

Many orthodox priests and teachers joined parents in protesting at the travesty of the Faith which was being foisted upon Catholic children. The tactic employed against them most frequently was the argument from authority. Diocesan bishops had appointed catechetical directors to ensure that catechetical instruction within their dioceses was effectively "renewed." These men were "experts," and those who had the temerity to criticize them must, ipso facto, be doing so from either ignorance or malice. These catechetical II experts" had, in most cases, spent time in catechetical institutes where they had been indoctrinated in Modernism. They emerged as men with a mission, the mission of teaching a new religion under the guise of new teaching methods.

In the late sixties and the early and mid-seventies, most diocesan bishops, at least in English-speaking countries, tended to be men who were basically orthodox and who had been appointed before or soon after the Second Vatican Council. But, nonetheless, they almost invariably sided with their catechetical directors when these men were criticized, no matter how justified or how well documented these criticisms were. The reason for this attitude is simple. The catechetical directors had been appointed by the bishops. The programs they had introduced were imposed with the authority of the bishops. If these programs were defective or harmful, then the prestige of the bishops was involved. It is not exaggerating in any way to claim that most diocesan bishops would have preferred to have all the children in their dioceses leave Catholic schools totally ignorant of the Faith rather than admit that they had made an error of judgment.3 The fruits of this attitude were made clear in a survey carried out in one English diocese in 1985 which revealed that only 10% of the pupils from Catholic schools had an adequate level of belief, practice and knowledge. The rest were likely to lapse before or soon after leaving school. The survey also found that as the children moved upwards through the school system their knowledge of the Faith did not increase, and their level of practice decreased, In the language of post-conciliar Catholicism, this situation is referred to as a catechetical "renewal."


Canon George Telford

England was fortunate in having one very orthodox catechetical director who made a courageous public defense of the right of Catholic children to be taught the Catholic Faith in Catholic schools. The priest in question is Canon George Telford who was Catechetical Director of the Archdiocese of Southwark and Vice-chairman of the Department of Catechetics for the entire country. He eventually resigned from both positions when he found that, within the catechetical establishment, he was waging an almost single-handed fight for orthodoxy, and was receiving no support whatsoever from the bishops as a body, although some of them gave him their support privately. Canon Telford concluded that it was pointless continuing what was evidently a hopeless struggle. He wrote a very forceful letter which he sent to every member of the hierarchy. This letter was published in the April 1977, issue of Christian Order, and it summarized exactly the type of religious instruction which was being imparted at that time in most Western countries:

Modern catechetics is theologically corrupt and spiritually bankrupt. Its structures and innovations are irrelevant and unmeaningful for the Catholic Faith, and can achieve nothing but its gradual dilution. The authentic renewal of catechesis will come not from them but from the faithful.


Catechesi tradendæ

In October 1979, the second year of his pontificate, Pope John Paul II certainly gave considerable cause for hope to all those who had been involved in the fight for orthodox catechesis. In his Apostolic Exhortation, Catechesi tradendæ, he appeared to be echoing the anxiety and indignation which so many of the faithful had been expressing in so many countries. Their complaints had not simply been rejected, but often ridiculed. But now the Supreme Pontiff himself made it clear that this anxiety and indignation had been amply justified.

The Holy Father claimed that many good and successful new catechetical books had been produced. Then he continued:

But it must be humbly and honestly recognized that this rich flowering has brought with it articles and publications which are ambiguous and harmful to young people and to the life of the Church. In certain places, the desire to find the best forms of expression or to keep up with fashions in pedagogical methods has often enough resulted in certain catechetical works which bewilder the young and even adults, either by deliberately or unconsciously omitting elements essential to the Church's faith, or by attributing excessive importance to certain themes at the expense of others, or, chiefly, by a rather horizontalist overall view out of keeping with the Church's Magisterium.

The Pope also stated that it is quite useless "to campaign for the abandonment of a serious and orderly study of the message of Christ in the name of a method concentrating on life experience." He advocated memorization and insisted that children should be taught the Faith "not in mutilated, falsified or diminished form, but whole and entire, in all its rigor and vigor…Thus, no true catechist can lawfully, on his own initiative, make a selection of what he considers important in the Deposit of Faith as opposed to what he considers unimportant, so as to teach one and reject the other.” The Pope condemned teachers who trouble the minds of children with" outlandish theories, useless questions, and unproductive discussions"- terms which are very reminiscent of Canon Telford's strictures.

Pope Paul VI had also been very concerned at the extent to which unorthodox catechesis had become apparent early in his pontificate. He responded to this with two key documents. The first was his Credo of the People of God (30 June 1968), which reaffirmed the principal doctrines of our Faith using, in many instances, the terminology of the Council of Trent. The second was the General Catechetical Directory (11 April 1971), which listed the basic doctrines which every Catholic child was entitled to know.4

In Catechesi tradendæ, Pope John Paul II specified these documents as basic sources for the doctrinal content of religious instruction. This was precisely what orthodox parents, teachers, and priests had been demanding. Thus; this apostolic exhortation, together with other acts of the Pope in 1979, gave good reason for hope that there might at last be a return to sound religious instruction for Catholic children.



1. Living Tradition, January, 1987, p. 7.

2. The condemnation of the book Human Sexuality by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is dated 13 July 1979. The full text is available in Flannery, Vol. II.

3. In August 1974 a 96-page dossier I had written concerning the catechetical director of the Archdiocese of Liverpool was published by Approaches. It consisted principally of a series of statements of fact. It was sent to the Archbishop of Liverpool and to every head teacher and parish priest in his diocese. The Archbishop's reaction was to express his total confidence in the catechetical director despite the fact that he was unable to refute a single statement in the Dossier which was entitled appropriately, The Fort Betrayed. This was a reference to the remark made by St. John Fisher concerning the apostate hierarchy of England during the reign of Henry VIII: "The fort is betrayed even of them that should have defended it."

4. These two documents, together with Catechesi tradendæ, are available in Flannery, Vol. II.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter V

Mgr. Lefebvre: Two Viewpoints

The Historical Significance of Mgr. Lefebvre
by Dr. Greorg May

The British1 Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, penned the beautiful sentence: “The most important and the most necessary characteristic of a politician is courage.” The office of a bishop is related to the activity of a politician insofar as they are both concerned with taking care of public business and furthering the common good. For this reason as well as others a bishop needs courage just as much as a politician. There are few things we miss in most present-day bishops as much as this particular quality. Nothing is done against well-known false teachers simply because they are public opinion and the mass media on their side. They are able to proceed energetically only when someone stands consistently for the preservation of the spiritual treasures of the Church; for such a one stands alone today; his disciplining provokes no contradiction from the leaders of public opinion. Then suddenly, one hears pithy words, then ecclesiastical penal law is appealed to, which they have otherwise forgotten about; then sanctions are imposed which they want to forget about in other connections. To cite a scandalous example of this conduct: the Bishop of Augsburg suspended a thirty-two-year-old priest because the latter could not in good conscience give Communion in the hand.

We of the Una Voce movement work for the recovery of the Church independently of Archbishop Lefebvre. But in view of the bedevilment of this man, on grounds of justice, I cannot withhold some comment. They say that Lefebvre challenges the Second Vatican Council. I know bishops who challenge a great many more councils than just this one. They say Lefebvre divides the Church. I know bishops who protect and favor schismatics. They say that Lefebvre is disobedient. It is strange that the very ones who accuse Lefebvre of disobedience are the ones who haven't done their duty for fifteen years, who encourage or tolerate insubordination, and even in numerous cases have not concerned themselves with law and order in the Church. I do not understand the accusation of disobedience cast at Lefebvre who protects, upholds and defends values which the Pope and bishops have protected, upheld and defended insufficiently or not at all. He is therefore not disobedient. For years the bishops have invoked conscience, and referred the faithful to conscience. But when someone moved by conscience stands up and takes a stand against innovations, then all of a sudden conscience is not worth considering.

The historical significance of Archbishop Lefebvre lies in his carrying, in a way, the care of millions of the best Catholics who can no longer be ignored. Without his public protest, the concerns of orthodox believers would have been poo-pooed and dismissed with a wave of the hand, the way we were used to it from Herr Döpfner,2 for example. Before Archbishop Lefebvre arrived on the scene the hierarchy of the Church passed over them carelessly or cynically; since his appearance they must at least take note of them, and perhaps even concern themselves with them.3

* * *

Dr. May's remarks coincide very closely with the opinion of Dr. Urs von Balthasar, a moderately conservative Swiss theologian, as expressed in a lecture he delivered at St. Gallen in Switzerland on 13 June 1977. An English translation of his lecture appeared in the 30 June 1979 issue of The Remnant.



The True Background to Ecône
by Dr. Urs von Balthasar 4

We are all aware of the disgraceful state of the French seminaries: nearly all of them have been closed down. There are no university faculties (for clerical students) except in the Instituts Catholiques. The rector of the faculty in Paris complained to me recently, "Why is my school in this state?" The reason is that the Jesuits and Dominicans no longer supply professors. One group is Marxist, the other is inclined towards atheism. You have only to read Etudes or the books published by these gentlemen. All that we can hope for is that some of them, at any rate, will soon get out of their Orders. And these were the Orders which once upon a time furnished men for the great faculties. Not long ago the former Revue ascétique et mystique, later changed to the merely historical Revue de Spiritualité, ceased publication because the Jesuits refused to support it financially any longer.

It has been found impossible to set up a seminary which – though in no way on traditionalist lines – is yet conformed to Christian and Catholic tradition in its lecture courses and general condition. The last attempt was made at Paray-Le-Monial – all previous attempts were failures – and it is uncertain whether it will have any better fate. There is no lack of candidates. But unless they are sufficiently imbued with psychology, psychiatry, sociology, etc., they are not accepted. Great Jesuit colleges have been closed and sold. Even the Dominican Le Saulchoir has been sold…

My beloved friend, Daniélou,5 who was a fellow student of mine, has turned some young men away from the idea of joining the Jesuits – at least in France. This is important to note because there, over the heads of the bishops, and whether they agree or not, a systematic destruction of the Faith is in progress. I have in my hands a booklet called Foi à l’épreuve produced by a group who call themselves Animateurs de catéchèse région ouest. In volume two it is stated that the former dogmatic beliefs can no longer be accepted because there is now a completely different approach to truth. As a basic concept Truth comes into being, "happens," when people come into contact with one another. Each time they do so truth is, of course, new truth. The old dogmas, at best, represent a theory. Les données de la révelations répètent donc une thérie. Another booklet poses the question: Is Jesus present in the Eucharist? The answer is: Yes, but this ancient manner of presence can no longer be held literally as though we were talking of a local presence. In some way Christ is present everywhere by means of the idea of Him. These booklets carry the imprimatur of the Bishop of Angers.

I have a sister who is the superior general of a Congregation of Franciscans who have their mother-house in Angers. She tells me that the sisters there object to making their hour of adoration before the Blessed Sacrament because the theologians have told them that they were no longer sure about the Real Presence.

Such, then, is the true background to the long, drawn-out saga of Archbishop Lefebvre. None of those who have reported the case in Switzerland have told us who are the true guilty parties in the case. Beyond all doubt it is the French clergy, or indeed the French bishops who, as long as fifteen years ago, excluded Lefebvre from the Bishops’ Conference on the ground that he was too right-wing while they were left-wing. So since there are no seminaries in France where men can study proper theology they will go to Ecône. Now that Rome has joined the fight and it has become so easy to attack this man, I find that the French bishops have very hypocritically – I am bound to say – suddenly become pro-Roman. For a long time they were so anti-Roman, as I saw for myself during the Bishops’ Synod in 1971 in Rome, where I acted as secretary. The French were the leaders of the opposition and constantly gained the votes by getting the better of the black cardinals and bishops. All this sounds not very pretty and even a bit primitive. But I think it must be admitted that such a background is really present in what I can only call a bitter and altogether primitive Gallicanism…

We received the other day a letter from the bishops warning us about the extreme conservatism of Mgr. Lefebvre and his followers. We were informed that they celebrate irregular Masses which many people attend. This is to stop and these men must not be allowed in our churches. All very well, but why don't they tell us about the other side of the coin, too? Why do the French bishops say nothing, too? I am thinking of such excesses as those crazy Eucharistic celebrations where lay people are invited to join in the words of consecration; or, of those ecumenical services where one man says the words over the bread, another over the wine, and then the mixed assembly receive what I might call the end-product. This sort of thing happens too in our own country. There are fancy liturgies with all sorts of changes and inventions: new canons and readings from non-scriptural works. The clergy have run amuck. I imagine that clericalism never before bore such fruit.

Nowadays the celebrant has so much to say and the lay folk present don't get much of a look in; perhaps they are allowed to sing a bit here and there. But the celebrant goes on as though he were the boss of the service and arranges it completely as he wishes, as though it were a work of art to be exhibited on Sunday. There are churches in Basle that many of my friends refuse to attend, because in them Mass is quite unrecognizable. You can make a good guess when the consecration takes place, but everything else is changed. I myself was asked to say Mass in two churches, ordinary ones. But I was told, "We don't have the Epistle any more, we have organ music instead." Surely the Council had no idea of all this, even if it did introduce four Eucharistic canons and a Eucharistic service people could understand. These fancy services produce a feeling of frustration in the minds of people. No wonder that, according to French statistics, attendance at Mass sank from 25% to 12% in two or three years.

Much more could be said of the same matter, as, for instance, when a parish priest from near Zurich invited the parents of those to be confirmed, and told them that "Essentially confirmation is all about acceptance of your own life," and that "the death of Jesus is heaven's cry that man must be anxious about his own life." But what I have said so far is only because, though we have heard all about Lefebvre, they haven't uttered a syllable about things like this. Why? Is it lack of courage?



1. Extract from a lecture given to the German Branch of Una Voce Association. Dr. May is Professor of Canon Law at the University of Mainz.

2. i.e., Julius Cardinal Döpfner of Munich.

3. This extract was taken from a translation of Dr. May’s lecture which was published in the 30 June 1980 issue of The Remnant.

4. Father von Balthasar was to have been created a cardinal by Pope John Paul II, but died in June 1988, before the Consistory.

5. Jean Cardinal Daniélou, S.J.
us about the other side of the coin, too? Why do the French bishops say nothing, too? I am thinking of such excesses as those crazy Eucharistic celebrations where lay people are invited to join in the words of consecration; or, of those ecumenical services where one man says the words over the bread, another over the wine, and then the mixed assembly receive what I might call the end-product. This sort of thing happens too in our own country. There are fancy liturgies with all sorts of changes and inventions: new canons and readings from non-scriptural works. The clergy have run amuck. I imagine that clericalism never before bore such fruit.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter VI

The Role of the Pope
21 October 1979

IN his 21 October lecture, cited on page 27, Dr. May made some very perceptive comments concerning Pope John Paul II. The beginning of his pontificate has given traditional Catholics grounds for considerable optimism, and this explains why 1979 could be termed legitimately a year of hope. But in his lecture Dr. May sounded a note of caution, a warning which proved to be only too prophetic. Dr. May warned that words must be matched by deeds, and before the end of the year the condemnation of Hans Kung and news of the forthcoming "Dutch Synod" in Rome gave the impression that this was precisely what was about to happen. But throughout the West entire national hierarchies ignored the Pope, and failed to implement his directives. In his turn, the Pope was unwilling to risk a confrontation with any national hierarchy, perhaps through a fear of provoking a formal schism. This has meant that his instructions in such matters as religious education or the liturgy have had little if any impact at the parish level. Dr. May's comments concerning Pope John Paul II are as follows:


The Role of the Pope

I turn, then, in first place to the Pope. I need not mention that we allow no one to surpass us in loyalty to the papacy. For us the Pope is always the Vicar of Christ, who possesses primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. We love the Pope and are devoted to him. We wish to do everything that facilitates his office and helps him attain his desired ends. But our devotion to the successors of Peter is not bovine servility, but responsible service. We feel ourselves duty-bound to serve him not only with our lips and in our heart, but also with our thought and actions.

The pontificate of Paul VI was, as a whole and aside from a few decisions and deeds, disastrous for the Catholic Church. He brought about and saw to it that there advanced in the Church and succeeded to positions of power those forces which paralyzed and undermined it. In all of history I know of no Pope in whose reign such an unheard-of collapse from purely internal causes was to be seen as under the pontificate of Montini. Paul VI left his successors a frightful legacy: a Church in ruins.

The successor of Paul VI, Pope John Paul I, was received with a wave of enthusiasm. The hopes of innumerable Catholics rose that he might end the increasingly untenable conditions and usher in a turning point. These expectations were not without foundation. Much could be expected of a Pope who had subscribed to a newspaper such as Der Fels, who read it regularly, agreed with most of what was contained in it and even cited some of it. Whether Luciani would have been in a position to fulfill all the expectations placed in him is, of course, difficult to judge. He did not have to undergo the test; God determined it otherwise.

His successor is Pope John Paul 11, for the first time in the history of the Church a Pole and, for the first time in over 450 years, a non-Italian. He, too, has been received with broad agreement in the Church and in society. A comprehensive judgment of his tenure is not yet possible. Immediately after his election he spoke words which disappointed the supporters of a genuine renewal in the Church; I refer to the three catchwords: New Rites, Collegiality, and Ecumenism. For the supporters of a real renewal see the mischief in the Church as proceeding from the things these words signify. Meanwhile, John Paul 11 has said much, too, that is welcome. We are grateful for the defense which he has made of the great heritage and values of the Church, and we rejoice over the courage with which he stood up for Catholic sexual morality and the celibate form of life for priests. But these are for the time being only words. Paul VI spoke out too, but all too seldom were the words followed by deeds. We all know that the Church is no longer to be helped by speeches and appeals. What we need today are deeds, decisive deeds proceeding from an iron will, to save the Church.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter VII

Is Sunday Mass to be Suppressed?

By Michel de Saint Pierre
L'Aurore – 1 November 1979

My parish in Normandy was recently visited by the “priest in charge of the region." He had been sent by the diocese. What was the purpose of his visit? To instill in our minds and to put into effect the famous "Sunday assemblies without a priest.”

We were told, in a most official manner, that our parish priest could not serve his three parishes, and that we must therefore, at regular intervals, manage without him. But how? Simply by learning to celebrate a Sunday “service” without a priest.

The “priest in charge of the region" was, needless to say, dressed in civilian clothes. He explained that the shortage of priests in France was posing problems, and the solution of the problem was being offered to us: the laity must take turns to officiate. To begin with, on one Sunday out of two we would recite the prayers of the Mass under the direction of one of the parishioners – and we could even receive Communion at the hands of the laity present, as “sufficient number of consecrated Hosts would be provided for us.”

Now in our part of Normandy the parishes are small and not far apart, and until now our priests, each of whom has a car, had no difficulty in serving each Sunday the two or three churches in their charge. Moreover, each farming family has a car: the majority of the younger generation has either a motorcycle or a motor scooter. So, in a case of necessity, nothing could be easier than to attend a neighboring church to hear Mass. I pointed this out to the "priest in charge of the region," who merely shook his head.

"It is a question of knowing," he told me, "whether you want to be scattered in various churches or whether you want to retain your identity as a parish."

"No," I replied. "It is a question of whether Rome has decided, yes or no, that assisting at Sunday Mass is no longer obligatory. What you are offering us is merely a prayer meeting of the laity. Will you therefore kindly tell those listening to us that Sunday observance at a prayer meeting without a priest does not absolve us from the obligation of attending Mass in a neighboring parish?"

Not only did the "priest in charge of the region" refuse to do this, but he began extolling the necessity of a truly parochial community, etc. In other words, I heard with my own ears a diocesan priest inviting a group of rural laity to cease celebrating the Lord's Day by their presence and by their participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.

However, the following Sunday the first attempt was made in our parish: we had our little gatherings without a priest, but I categorically refused to attend. But good sense and loyalty prevailed and these Sunday gatherings soon stopped: they have never re-started. Nevertheless, doubt had been sown in innocent souls who no longer quite understand what the Curé d' Ars had so accurately described as the "Sublime Mass."

An enquiry I later made among the members of the Credo Society indicated that this was no isolated case, nor an attempt which would not be followed up. Is this practice, of members of the laity replacing the priest, not, in fact, an excellent pretext for the French Episcopate to cover up the decline in the number of seminaries, and the growing lack, in France, of vocations to the priesthood? I now know that in many dioceses attempts had been made to introduce these pitiful celebrations without a priest – thus making our churches more and more like Protestant temples: heaven grant that these attempts may fail! For my part, I beg all those reading this article to refuse to attend these so-called Masses, these ceremonies lacking both meaning and substance – ceremonies without the anointed hands of the priest, which alone have the power to transform the bread and the wine, each day and in every church, throughout the world, into the Body and Blood of Our Savior, Jesus Christ.

But this is not the end of the affair. Today, at the Jean-Bart Centre, the pastoral, sacramental and liturgical center of the Archdiocese of Paris, a most strange booklet was published entitled "The Sunday of Yesterday and the Sunday of Today." While insisting that Sunday Mass remains obligatory, the content of this brochure is admirably summarized by Father Auvray:

• To be able to replace the obligation of personally attending Mass by sending a representative.

• To disassociate Sunday from the Lord's Day, which must become a moveable feast during the week.

• To disassociate Mass from Sunday and invent another type of celebration, not solely the Mass.

So much ought to be quoted but only one passage will have to suffice: "To be a practicing Catholic would no longer necessarily mean attending Mass each Sunday, but being always most careful to attend, either in person or by representative, each weekly religious assembly.”

Thus the bonds of solidarity and representations would replace loyalty and culpability.

In the customary jargon used for such commentaries and with the customary pretentious verbal diarrhea, the Jean-Bart Center presents us with sixty-five pages of the same style, causing mental confusion and casting doubt on teachings which Rome never ceases to re-affirm. Rome, whose traditional loyalty the Center would appear to doubt: "The present rigidity," the brochure informs us, “permits nothing whatsoever.”

In my view, nothing could be added to this admission – if not this: that this terrifying document produced by Jean-Bart Center be brought without delay to the notice of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter VIII

IThe Ecumenical Heresy
9 November 1979

This is a slightly abbreviated version of the full text of address which I gave at the Remnant Forum III at Tarrytown, New York. It appeared in the 20 November and 30 November 1979 issues of The Remnant. It has been included here in spite of its length to assist in the purpose for which it was originally delivered, that is, to set the case of Archbishop Lefebvre within its correct historical context The alleged offenses of Archbishop Lefebvre, which have been documented in Volumes I and II, were only disciplinary, and they were prompted, as even his most implacable opponents would concede, by his resolve to uphold Tradition no matter what the consequences. But, as Cardinal Newsman insisted, if a Catholic is convinced that a command from a superior, including the Pope, is displeasing to God, then "he is bound not to obey",1 It will be evident, to those possessing even a modicum of theological knowledge, that the actions of prelates referred to in the address which follows undermine the Faith itself. This is a fact which must be borne in mind continually when reading the attacks made upon  Mgr. Lefebvre by such prelates as Archbishop May of St. Louise or Bishop Sullivan of Kansas City. These men not only ignore the scandalous actions of their fellow conciliar prelates, but wholeheartedly endorse them. Their attacks upon Archbishop Lefebvre cannot possibly be prompted by a love of the Faith, as they manifestly do not have the Faith. While their contemptible behavior quite naturally evokes a response of anger, upon reflection it is evident that they are pathetic creatures who should be pitied and who need our prayers. When one thinks back to the hierarchy of King Henry VIII, there can be no doubt that St. John Fisher was the one bishop who should not evoke feelings of pity .Our pity and contempt must be reserved for those who, as St. John Fisher remarked, betrayed the fort which they should have defended. In choosing death rather than compromise, St. John Fisher won a victory in the tradition of his Divine Master. His apostate colleagues, who saved their lives and their positions by compromise, were undoubtedly the vanquished



The Ecumenical Heresy of Our Times

We hear a great deal about the ecumenical movement. Today I am going to speak to you about the ecumenical heresy. The theme of this forum is "Fidelity to the Catholic Tradition." Catholic tradition has been challenged in many ways since the Second Vatican Council, but no challenge has been more blatant, more widespread, and more dangerous than that of those who wish the Church to deny her very nature in the interests of a spurious ecumenism. Before examining false ecumenism, the ecumenical heresy, we must be clear about true Catholic ecumenism. Dietrich von Hildebrand tells us in The Devastated Vineyard that: "The attitude which goes with true ecumenism involves sympathetically emphasizing the elements of truth in other religions while clearly rejecting the errors they contain." "While clearly rejecting the errors they contain"-I would like you to keep this phrase in mind. It is fundamental to the thesis I shall put before you and I shall be returning to it again.

And what is the aim of ecumenical dialogue pursued in the spirit proposed by von Hildebrand? The only acceptable aim for a Catholic ecumenist is that proposed by Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos; that is, to bring our separated brethren to realize that: "The unity of Christians cannot be otherwise obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that, by the will of its Founder, will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind.”

The late Cardinal Heenan warned: "It is dishonest to dissemble…The ultimate aim of ecumenism is the reunion of all Christians under the Vicar of Christ."

Having established the nature and purpose of true Catholic ecumenism we shall proceed at once to examine the ecumenical heresy not in theory but in practice. On Friday, 14 September this year, a letter from Father Henry Haacke appeared in The Catholic Telegraph. I am surprised that The Catholic Telegraph printed his letter. You will be surprised when I read it to you. Here it is:

I was startled at the news that the Roman Catholic Cathedral of Hartford, Connecticut, has been loaned to the Protestant Episcopal Church for the "consecration of a bishop.” In an effort – no doubt well intentioned – to be understanding to non-Catholics, has not the Archbishop of Hartford gone much too far? Why not invite the Chinese “bishop” recently elected by the people, and rebuked by the Vatican…or even Archbishop Lefebvre to the broad-minded Cathedral in Hartford? Subjective good faith does not ensure the validity of the Sacrament of Orders or the Eucharist. Should a Catholic cathedral be exposed to the possible “simulation” of these most sacred rites of our Holy Faith? This can only confuse and scandalize laity and clergy. Thomas More and John Fisher, have you died in vain?

My first reaction to this letter is to say "God bless you, Father Haacke.” I have never met Father Haacke, I have never correspond with Father Haacke, I had never heard of Father Haacke, until a reader of The Remnant sent me a copy of his letter. This letter reveals that despite the devastation in the vineyard of the Lord which has followed the Second Vatican Council, Father Haacke has retained the sense of what it means to be a Catholic. He is a priest who has retained the ability to think with the Church, sentire cum Ecclesia. He has a ground grasp of theology and a profound love of the Church. He also has courage. I do not know if Father Haacke ever entertained any hope of advancement in the Church. I do not know if he hoped that one day he might be Monsignor Haacke, and need to purchase a cassock with red button-holes. If he has put any money aside for this purpose he need not hesitate about withdrawing it, because there is certainly no hope whatsoever of any advancement in the Conciliar Church, the American Church, the Ecumenical Church, for a priest who is still imbued with the Catholic ethos. Father Haacke has committed the sin against ecumenism for which there is no forgiveness – he has spoken the truth. He is a true disciple of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who came into the world to bear witness to the truth.

The first reaction of an ecumenical heretic to Father Haacke’s letter would be to say that it is uncharitable, but the correct reaction to his letter is to ask whether what it states is true. If it is true it cannot be uncharitable. There can be no conflict between veritas, truth, and caritas, charity.

If Father Haacke’s criticisms are justified then it is Archbishop Whealon of Hartford, Connecticut, who is being uncharitable – for what is contrary to Christian truth is clearly contrary to Christian charity. If an act is contrary to Christian truth and charity it is an anti-Christian act. I submit to you that Archbishop Whealon has committed an anti-Christian act by allowing his cathedral to be used for the so-called consecration of a so-called bishop – to be used, as Father Haacke expressed it, for the “simulation” of the most sacred rites of our Holy Faith. Archbishop Whealon is acting contrary to the will of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

When He offered Himself as a perfect Sacrifice upon the Cross, Our Lord atoned for the sins of all men and won sufficient grace to save all men – which does not mean that all men will be saved, as we have an obligation to cooperate with divine grace in order to achieve our salvation. Our Lord willed, I repeat, Our Lord willed that His Church should be the ordinary  means by which divine grace is mediated to men. The Catholic Church is His Mystical Body, an extension of the Incarnation throughout the nations and throughout the centuries. Our Lord willed that divine grace should ordinarily be mediated to men through His Church by means of the Seven Sacraments which He instituted. God is not bound by His Sacraments. Where necessary He will bestow grace directly upon individual men – but this is an extraordinary means of salvation. The ordinary means of salvation is His Mystical Body, which alone has a mandate to preach the Gospel, offer public worship, and administer the Sacraments. The power He bestowed upon His Church is indeed awe-inspiring, terrifying.

“He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me” (Luke 10:16).

Our Lord could scarcely have been more specific – to reject the authority of the Church which He founded is to reject Father, Son and Holy Ghost. This is not a personal opinion which I am expressing. I am quoting the words of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Our Lord founded one Church and one Church only, which was to be the ordinary means of salvation for mankind and outside which there is no salvation. Writing in 1968, Bishop B.C. Butler, subsequently an ardent ecumenist, still had sufficient sense of being a Catholic to write:

Ours is the one true Church; the only body in the world which has an unconditional mandate to preach the Gospel. Outside this Church there is no salvation. According to the primary divine intention there are, outside the full, visible Catholic communion, only individual human being (I exclude from consideration those who are not yet morally adult), of whom entry into the guaranteed sphere of salvation is by the unique door of personal adhesion to the one Catholic communion. Moreover, the only authorized form of public worship is that of the Catholic Church, performed under her own mandate. Her claims are not of her own making; they are an expression of immutable divine law. She cannot compromise.

Those who accept what I have said so far, that the Catholic Church is indeed the one true Church founded by Our Lord, have certain duties incumbent upon them. They have the duty of making a response which von Hildebrand describes as "purely positive and morally called for." He explains: "One cannot find the truth and grasp it clearly as such, without seeing through errors. Knowledge of truth is inseparably linked with the knowledge of error, with the unmasking of error. In other words, possession of truth is a privilege, it is a sacred trust which involves duties and these duties are not fulfilled simply by refraining from a formal denial of the truth, these duties demand that we do not behave in practice as if truth does not exist, as if there is no distinction between truth and error. This duty is demanded not simply by truth but by charity. Archbishop Lefebvre has pointed out frequently that those imbued with true charity towards our separated brethren will be concerned to bring them from the error of heresy to the truth of Catholicism.

Let us now examine the Episcopalian Church in the light of what I have established. The first point to make is that it is not a Church at all, there is only one Church and, as Bishop Butler stated with admirable clarity, outside the Church there are only individual human beings. The so-called Episcopalian Church is, therefore, no more than a sect, a group of individuals who have set themselves up in opposition to the Church of Christ, in opposition to the will of Christ. They have taken it upon themselves to preach their own gospel in opposition to the Gospel of Christ and to offer public worship in opposition to the Church of Christ. Unlike the Orthodox churches, Episcopalians do not have valid orders. They have no priesthood, no bishops, and no valid Eucharist – valid, that is, in the sense understood by the Catholic Church. The Bull Apostolicæ Curæ is as applicable today as it has been since Pope Leo XIII promulgated it in 1896:

Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decree of the Pontiffs, Our predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican Rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void.

In the light of all this, what should our reaction be to Archbishop Whealon's decision to loan his cathedral to the Episcopalians? I submit that unless it is a reaction of horror, scandal, and outrage, then we are in danger of losing the sense of what being a Catholic means. Von Hildebrand has warned us that such is the devastation in the vineyard of the Lord that we are losing our capacity to be scandalized:

We have to realize that our time is like the time of Arianism, and so we have to be extremely careful lest we be poisoned ourselves without noticing it! We must not underestimate the power of those ideas which fill the intellectual atmosphere of the time, nor the danger of being infected by them when we are daily breathing this atmosphere. Nor should we underestimate the danger of getting used to be evils of our times, and then becoming insensitive to them.

Unless we have become insensitive to the truth, we can criticize Father Haacke on only one count; he has put the case against Archbishop Whealon far too mildly. What the Archbishop’s conduct amounts to in practice is a denial of the true nature of the Catholic Church. I asked you to keep in mind a definition of true ecumenism made by von Hildebrand, which involved emphasizing the elements of the truth possessed by other religions while clearly rejecting the errors they contain. Archbishop Whealon is not simply failing to reject the errors of Episcopalianism, he is not simply remaining silent concerning them, he is, in practice, endorsing them. The ceremony for which he has loaned his cathedral amounts in practice to a public denial that Our Lord Jesus Christ has founded one true Church to which alone He has given a mandate to teach, to sanctify, and to offer public worship. Archbishop Whealon is not to be commended for an act of Christian charity – he is to be condemned for a denial of Christian truth. His action is an anti-Christian action. It constitutes his public acceptance of the existence of some amorphous entity called the Christian Church of which Catholicism and Episcopalianism are both branches. Episcopalians cannot possibly be blamed for taking this act as acceptance that they constitute a church, or at least constitute part of the Catholic Church. It would be an outrage to lend them a Catholic church for any form of service – but to lend it to them for what Father Haacke correctly describes as the simulation of the most sacred rites of our church is an act of sacrilege. The man who was to be consecrated is not even a priest, he is a layman, and after the ceremonies he will have remained a layman. Nothing will have happened. But, no doubt, Archbishop Whealon will have been among the first to come forward with an effusive ecumenical smile, to offer him a prolonged ecumenical handshake, and to congratulate him upon being made a bishop. Note well, I am not condemning the Episcopalians concerned. Charity demands that, without evidence to the contrary, we must presume that they are acting in good faith and are saved from sin by invincible ignorance. But no such excuse can be used to defend Archbishop Whealon who, presumably, was taught the true faith in the days before Vatican II and, as a bishop, has a duty to die for the faith if necessary.

It is fashionable today to praise the Church of the first four centuries, to extol primitive practice. How would the Church of the first four centuries have regarded Archbishop Whealon? Anyone who is remotely acquainted with Church history can give one answer and one answer only. Archbishop Whealon would have been regarded as an apostate; he would have been anathematized, and every true Catholic bishop would have broken off communion with him.

I believe that the Church of the first four centuries was right. I believe that Archbishop Whealon is at least a de facto apostate. It seems a harsh thing to say. It may make me appear harsh and intolerant – but nonetheless it is the truth. Cardinal Newman has a magnificent sermon upon this very point, "Tolerance of Religious Error." He castigates those whose concern is not to uphold truth but to avoid the appearance being intolerant. Once again I must repeat, those who possess the truth, those who love the truth, cannot tolerate error. In another fine sermon, "Many Called, Few Chosen," Newman warns that: "Those who serve God faithfully must ever look to be accounted, in their generation, singular, intemperate, and extreme."2 In his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, he characterized the Church of the first four centuries by its intolerance towards error, its exclusiveness, its ceaseless war with all other bodies called Christian, its naming them as heretics, warning them of coming woe, and calling them to forsake their errors and enter the one fold of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, I submit that Archbishop Whealon's conduct would have been considered incompatible with Catholicism not only by the Church of the first four centuries – it would have resulted in his immediate excommunication by every Roman Pontiff up to and including Pope John XXIII. I accept that what I am saying will make me appear singular, intemperate and extreme in the ecumenical climate of the Conciliar Church, but the view-point I am putting forward would have been accepted by 99% of Catholics up to Vatican II. Read the encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI, read the relevant encyclicals of Pope Pius XII. If Archbishop Whealon is right, then the Church has been wrong for 2,000 years.

I am sure that no one here today imagines that Archbishop Whealon represents an isolated act of infidelity to the teaching of Our Lord. He is simply reflecting the prevailing climate of the ecumenical heresy. In England we have shared churches – can you believe it? We have shared churches and shared tabernacles, and public campaigns of joint evangelization endorsed by our bishops. Can you imagine the reaction of St. Athanasius or any other Father of the Church to a proposal to share churches or engage in campaigns of joint evangelization with the Arians or any other heretical or schismatic sect? To ask this question is to answer it. Bishop Walter F. Sullivan of the Catholic Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, has established at least one joint parish. Can you believe that? It is called the Anglican-Roman Catholic Church of Tidewater. A Catholic priest and an Episcopalian minister are acting as joint pastors. This is not simply an outrage, it is lunacy. There is no Anglican-Roman Catholic Church. There is only one Church, the one, holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and I submit that not only is the Anglican-Roman Catholic Church of Tidewater not a part of that Church but that Bishop Sullivan of Richmond can no longer be considered a member of it.

And what of the campaigns of joint evangelization I have mentioned as taking place in England? Evangelization means preaching the Gospel. Well, what gospel is being preached in these campaigns? It is certainly not the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Our Lord did not command His Apostles to cooperate with heretics in preaching an amorphous lowest common denominator message of philanthropy and good will to all, or to let those evangelized in this way make up their own minds whether to join His Church or one of the heretical sects with which it was cooperating. The idea is outrageous, it is lunacy, it is diabolic.

Worst of all, the Vatican now allows Protestants to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches on certain occasions. Admittedly, strict conditions are imposed in theory, but in practice bishops have been given the discretion to ignore these conditions with impunity .The get-out clause, published in a letter from Cardinal Willebrands' Unity Secretariat in 1973, states:

Nevertheless, the bishops can in the various situations decide what are the needs that make exceptions applicable, that is to say, what constitutes a special case…

This gives the bishops carte blanche to allow Protestants to receive the Catholic Sacrament on any occasion. Thus  Father John Dietzen, in his question and answer column in The Catholic Telegraph on October 6, 1978, included the following in his reply to a questioner who was perturbed at the fact that Methodists has received Holy Communion at a wedding celebrated in a Catholic Church:

We must note…that the bishop of a diocese (or a national conference of bishops) may allow Communion by non-Catholics in certain other "urgent necessities." I know of instances in which bishops have, for example, allowed non-Catholic parents to receive Communion at the marriage of their Catholic son or daughter; non-Catholic spouses to receive at the funeral of their Catholic husbands or wives, non-Catholic graduates to receive with their classmates at a baccalaureate Mass, and so on. In all such cases, however, only the bishop has the right and responsibility to judge whether inter-communion should take place. Of course, the conditions concerning faith in the sacraments and proper disposition must always be present. You ask about Methodist parents receiving Communion at the marriage Mass of their son. From what I've already said, you can see that if the proper conditions were fulfilled, and if the permission of the bishops was obtained, neither the priest nor the couple did anything wrong.

Thus speaks the Conciliar Church.

Great scandal was caused in 1967 when the late Pope Paul VI authorized Barbara Olson, an American Presbyterian, to receive Holy Communion at her marriage to a Catholic. A lengthy correspondence followed in the London Tablet, with a very fine English theologian, Father Edward Carey, firmly maintaining that such an act could not be justified under any circumstances whatsoever, as it was contrary to the nature of the Eucharist. Despite the fact that the Vatican has since legalized the practice, Father Carey still upholds his original position – and he is right. Catholics rightly show great devotion to the Eucharist as the Body and Blood of Our Lord, but have paid less attention to the ultimate signification of the act of Holy Communion – and this signification is the unity of the Mystical Body. St. Augustine pointed out that we become what we receive; therefore it can never be legitimate to give Holy Communion to anyone outside the unity of the Mystical Body.

This is, as Father Carey has maintained so courageously, contrary to the nature of the Eucharist. Remember, every non-Catholic has the option of receiving the Catholic Sacrament by becoming a Catholic. There is no injustice in refusing the Catholic Sacrament to those who refuse to enter into the unity of the Mystical Body.

There is no doubt whatsoever that Vatican authorization permitting Protestants to receive Holy Communion in Catholic churches is the greatest scandal of the Conciliar Church – and that is really saying something! It is now widespread. The Sydney Morning Herald of 3 May 1979, gave a whole catalogue of examples in a report of a tour of the South Pacific by Dr. Coggan, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury .It cites an occasion when, in the presence of a Catholic bishop, he gave Holy Communion to a combined congregation of Catholics and Anglicans, and also names areas in which, where the clergy of both communions are not regularly present, Catholic priests administer Communion to Anglicans and vice-versa. The French bishops have issued an open invitation to Anglicans visiting France to receive Communion in Catholic churches. I have had this confirmed by an official Anglican source.

Rather than list numerous cases of Catholic Holy Communion being given to Protestants, I will refer to just one more, one that should certainly shock anyone still capable of being shocked. The Rev. Lord George McLeod is a dignitary of the Church of Scotland, a Presbyterian body. A letter from him was published in Faith magazine in November 1976. It includes the following:

On the Friday in the Cathedral we gathered together for Holy Communion. A Protestant from Northern Ireland read from St. John's Gospel: Tom Smail, a Presbyterian, preached a mighty word. The Cardinal broke the bread and wine. In that service there was prophecy, tongues and interpretation, open and free prayer, singing in and with the Spirit, and we concluded by singing and dancing up and down the aisles – professors, priests, pastors and the Cardinal, hands joined and hearts united… The Cardinal was Cardinal Suenens.

There is much talk of the need for traditionalists to maintain a moderate approach. Who can be moderate in the face of such an outrage? The great danger at present is not that traditionalists will become immoderate, but they will succumb to the temptation against which I have already cited von Hildebrand's warning – that we can become so used to the evils of the day that we grow insensitive. I have always maintained that the entry of pentecostalism into the Catholic Church is the work of the devil. Can we describe the antics of Cardinal Suenens as anything but diabolic? And yet he is a prelate in good standing with the Vatican. This is a very serious matter. It is one about which we must think carefully and deeply. The situation in the Conciliar Church is as follows: Cardinal Suenens is free to desecrate his beautiful old cathedral in the manner I have just described and to remain in good standing with the Vatican, but under no circumstances whatsoever would permission be given for the very Mass for which that ancient cathedral was built to be celebrated in it.3 And for the crime of continuing to celebrate that Mass, Archbishop Lefebvre is the victim of sanctions and is not in good standing with the Vatican. I put it to you that this is also an outrage. Make no mistake about it, as I have shown clearly in my book, Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, this great prelate has been treated in the way he has been treated for remaining faithful to the Mass of his ordination and for no other reason. All the other excuses given for the campaign against him are simply a pretense. "Why not invite Lefebvre to the broadminded Cathedral in Hartford?” asked Father Haacke in the letter with which I began this talk. “That,” as popular song puts it,” will be the day!” Consecrations of Protestant bishops in catholic cathedrals, yes. Communion for Protestants and dancing in the aisles in Catholic cathedrals, yes. Archbishop Lefebvre and the Tridentine Mass – “No, no, no!” replies the Conciliar Church. When the Archbishop came to dedicate the foundation stone of the Immaculate Chapel at St. Mary’s Kansas, this year, the local bishop forbade any of the faithful to be present – but more than two thousand crammed themselves into the temporary chapel for the Mass of the Assumption. I was there myself. I am glad I was there. I was proud to be there, and I hope to be there again. Was I disobedient? I am sure not and I am comforted that I can now cite the authority of Dietrich von Hildebrand in support of this view.

I submit to you that in the American Church today there is absolute pluralism in questions of theology – excluding only those who wish to uphold the Catholic Faith. I submit to you that, while Father Charles Curran, the high priest of pornology, holds a chair in the Catholic University, no American Catholic need have the least compunction about ignoring the directions of his bishops where these directions are intended to stamp out the last vestiges of the traditional faith among the remaining members of the faithful remnant.4

Furthermore, I extend this claim to the Vatican itself. I have already mentioned the fact that Paul VI sanctioned the practice of Eucharistic hospitality for Protestants. I know that the immediate reactions of many conservative Catholics will be to say  that if a Pope authorized it it must be right. This is nonsense. In their confusion, in a no doubt sincere effort to be loyal to the Pope at all costs, they are committing intellectual suicide. If they justify Pope Paul VI they are condemning all his predecessors. Such a practice was regarded as unthinkable until the pontificate of Paul VI. Do we serve the papacy better by admitting that one Pope made a serious and culpable error of judgment or by insisting that every other Pope from St. Peter onwards has been in error.

I am firmly convinced that a future Pope will have the unwelcome task of condemning many of the acts of Pope Paul VI – remember that Pope Honorius was condemned by a successor. As the Pope who sanctioned the liturgical reforms, he must accept responsibility for them – and it is in the liturgical reforms that we see the ecumenical heresy at its most blatant.

All the liturgical changes which have modified or eliminated prayers making Catholic teaching on priesthood, sacrifice, and the Real Presence explicit, were made with the authority of Paul VI. This is a fact. It is an unpleasant fact and, like most unpleasant facts, it is not easy to face up to. Then we have the Agreed Statements on the Eucharist and Ministry produced by the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission. These Statements represent a straightforward betrayal of the Catholic Faith, though perhaps “straightforward” is not the right word. They are a very devious betrayal of the Catholic Faith – the Agreement on the priesthood in particular. In not one instance where an aspect of Catholic teaching is denied by Protestants is that teaching affirmed in this Statement. It is true that Pope Paul did not ratify these Agreements, but neither did he condemn them, nor did he take any action against the Catholic prelates who signed them. He received these men with smiles, warm embraces, and hearty congratulations. His condemnations were reserved for Archbishop Lefebvre.

Now that I am coming to the end of this talk I will refer once more to the magnificent letter by Father Haacke, which I quoted at the beginning. "Thomas More and John Fisher, have you died in vain?" he asked. Obviously, nothing done for the love of God is ever done in vain, but, if the ecumeniacs are correct, St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, and all other Welsh and English martyrs, certainly died unnecessarily. I will repeat once more that what is at stake here is a question of truth. If it is true that Our Lord founded one Church which alone was authorized to preach the Gospel, offer public worship, and administer the sacraments, then the martyrs were right to die rather than compromise this principle. Before St. Margaret Clitherow was martyred, Protestant ministers announced that they would pray for her. "I will not pray with you, nor shall you pray with me," she replied. "Neither will I say Amen to your prayers, nor shall you to mine." That is the voice of a true Catholic.

Listen now to the voice of Thomas Colton, a teen-aged boy who endured terrible suffering for his faith. He refused to reduce those sufferings by so much as setting foot inside a Protestant church:

If I should go to your church, I should sin against God and the peace and unity of the whole Catholic Church, exclude myself from all the holy Sacraments and be in danger to die in my sins like a heathen. But, although I am but a poor lad, I have a soul to save as well as any other Catholic.

Isn't that beautiful? Isn't that heartening? Doesn't it make you proud to be a Catholic? And what do Cardinal Suenens, Archbishop Whealon and Bishop Sullivan have in common with St. Margaret Clitherow and Thomas Colton? Nothing, absolutely nothing! St. Margaret Clitherow and Thomas Colton were Catholics. These three prelates and hundreds like them are not. It is as simple as that.

And what of the ecumenical movement, what should our attitude be? I believe that it has become so contaminated with the ecumenical heresy that the Catholic Church must withdraw from it completely and return to the pre-conciliar position of exclusiveness and insistence upon her position as the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ. However, I am advocating only what theologians term dogmatic intolerance – not personal intolerance towards our Protestant friends and relations. I am not advocating burning our Protestant neighbors at the stake – I would have no such scruples as regards a good number of Catholic bishops, but that's another matter. All that I am advocating is that, if we believe that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, if we accept her claims as the one true Church, then there can be no compromise with error.

The only true Catholic attitude to ecumenism is that set out by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos:

Let these separated children return to the Apostolic See established in this city which the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, consecrated with their blood, to the See, "the root and matrix of the Catholic Church," not indeed with the idea or hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of truth" will abandon the integrity of the Faith and bear their errors, but to subject themselves to its teaching authority and rule.

That was the true voice of Catholic tradition. Let us remain faithful to it no matter who asks us to do otherwise.

* * * *

Addendum: The 17 October 1979 issue of The Advocate, a secular journal published in Stamford, Connecticut, provided an ironic footnote to this account of Archbishop Whealon’s action in loaning his cathedral for an Episcopalian “consecration.” The Advocate reported that the ceremony was to be boycotted by conservative Episcopalian clergy because the Eucharist was to be celebrated by an Episcopalian priestess. Any comment would be superfluous beyond adding that, of course, Archbishop Whealon was not suspended a divinis for allowing the profanation of his cathedral in such a manner.



1. Apologia, Vol. I, p. 408.

2. These sermons are included in Newman Against the Liberals, a collection of twenty-five sermons by Cardinal Newman, available from The Angelus Press.

3. This criticism has ceased to apply, Deo gratias, since the indult of October 1985 authorizing the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, but although the Tridentine Mass is now authorized by the Vatican, very few bishops in the English-speaking world would permit it in their cathedrals.

4. Father Curran no longer holds the chair, Deo gratias, thanks to the intervention of the Vatican in 1986.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter IV

A Sermon at Albano
8 December 1979

A Sermon Delivered by Archbishop Lefebvre To the Seminarians of Albano, Italy
On their Entrance into the Society of St Pius X


In the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

My dear brethren:

I would like first all to say a few words to you on the occasion of your entrance into the Society of St. Pius X; to try and give you some kind of definition of this Society.

I refer to St. Matthew’s Gospel, where the master, in the parable of the talents, says these words, so full of significance: Euge, serve bone et fidelis, quia super pauca fuisti fidelis, super multa te constituam; intra in gaudium domini tui – “Well done, thou good and faithful servant; because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many: enter thou into the joy of thy lord" (Mt. 25: 21).

If the Society has one feature it is precisely that of fidelity and I think that the Society can be defined as that which will help you to remain faithful to your personal sanctity and for the sanctification of souls. This faithfulness in the Church, faithfulness in the entire history of redemption fulfilled by Our Lord Jesus Christ, is perhaps the most essential and necessary quality. How can we define faithfulness? I think it could be said to be consistency and precision in the transmission a message – the faithful and exact handing down of a treasure, of a testimony, and of a spiritual testimony, in particular. To be faithful, therefore, is to hand down in a precise manner that which has been put at our disposal to be handed down to future generations. And I think that this is the principal role of our Society. In these times when fidelity actually seems to be a fault, there seems to be a break in the transmission of this message:; nothing is more useful to the Church and the salvation of souls than to remain faithful; in others words, to hand down faithfully the testament that Our Lord left us.

As the Old Testament also insisted on the handing down of a message which was the coming of the Messiah, so they awaited this Messiah. Since that time it is no longer a promise which we have to transmit – it is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and we have to hand down this admirable treasure – a treasure so extraordinary that it transcends our capabilities. It is our duty to hand down this message faithfully, in imitation of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Pius X, our patrons. If there is anyone who has handed down Our Lord Jesus Christ faithfully in this world, it is the Blessed Virgin Mary. She received Him by the grace of the Holy Ghost; she who was immaculate in her conception, which great privilege we celebrate today. Our Lord Jesus Christ was truly handed down to humanity by the Blessed Virgin Mary, until His last breath on the Cross, when she too was present; she fulfilled her role perfectly. And that is why she can truly be called Virgo Fidelis – Virgin Most Faithful. She was faithful to all the details of her duties as mother, of her duty to hand down Jesus to us for our redemption. In the midst of the upheavals of history, in the midst of the errors which appeared right at the beginning of this century, and which had their roots at the beginning of this century, and which had their roots in the century which came before, a Pope also arose. God gave us an admirable Pope in the person of St. Pius X, the last Pope to be canonized. St. Pius, too, was faithful; he, too, wanted to transmit the message which Our Lord entrusted to him. And he expressed it in a wonderful manner in these words: “Instaurare omnia in Christo – Restore all things in Christ.”

This is the message handed down to us by Pope St. Pius X, and with these examples before you-the Blessed Virgin Mary and Pope Pius X – you, too, will be faithful.

Throughout your years at the seminary, during your entire priestly formation, you will receive Our Lord Jesus Christ in your minds, your hearts, your very souls. You will learn to know Him, to deepen your knowledge of Jesus, the knowledge of the great mystery of Christ, of which St. Paul speaks; and you, in turn, will have to pass on this knowledge faithfully. This is what the faithful ask of us; the souls who are seeking you are seeking Our Lord Jesus Christ, they are seeking in you a genuine transmission of the Faith.

Nowadays we see transmitters on the hills everywhere which relay messages and pictures throughout the entire world, and which transmit them faithfully. By these transmitters, men try to relay pictures and messages as clearly as possible. We, too, are transmitters, intelligent transmitters, who tune in to the message on the wave lengths, who receive it in our minds, and who have to relay it in as faithful a manner as possible. This is what people expect from you. Let us, therefore, be like these transmitters – receiving with love and devotion and endeavoring to pass it on as exactly and perfectly as possible.

How will you transmit this message faithfully? First of all, in preparing yourselves in silence, the recollection, the prayer, the studies of the seminary; this is how you will record the message given to you as perfectly as possible. And then, you will pass it on to the faithful by preaching the Gospel as your predecessors have done; all the priests, missionaries, bishops, and godly Popes. You will also bear witness by your example and by your attitude. The message is in a way imprinted on you so that those faithful whom you meet realize that you are bringing Our Lord Jesus Christ to them. In you, they expect and want to see the image of Jesus Christ. In each of you they want to see an alter Christus – another Christ: this is what you are, this is what you will be for many, and this is proven by the experiences of those already ordained. Your predecessors in the ministry are much loved, and how many times in the past few weeks, no matter where I go – Berlin, Hamburg, Vienna, Brussels – everywhere people ask me to send them our priests. Certainly, they also love the priests who have remained faithful to the teaching of Jesus Christ, faithful to their vocation, but it seems to them that this renewal which the young priests of Ecône bring, gives them confidence, a profound confidence; a feeling of security that the message continues to be passed on. Young men are continuing the transmission of this traditional message, and this is what encourages the faithful, this is what gives them confidence that the Church cannot disappear, that the Church has to continue for the salvation of souls.

These, then, are the dispositions in which I would like you, my dear seminarians, to make your entrance, in a way which will bear fruit for yourselves and will profit your future apostolate amongst the souls of the faithful.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.