Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

[Stone]

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

Author’s Introduction

I must begin my introduction with an explanation of the title of this book. Many of those who read it will know little or nothing about Archbishop Lefebvre when they begin. If they are Catholics they will have gathered from the official Catholic press that he is a French bishop who refuses to use the new rite of Mass and has a seminary in Switzerland where he trains priests in defiance of the Vatican. He will have been presented to them as an anachronism, a man completely out of step with the mainstream of contemporary Catholic thought, a man who is unable to adapt, to update himself. He is portrayed as little more than an historical curiosity, of no significance in the post-conciliar Church, a man whose views do not merit consideration. The Archbishop is often subjected to serious misrepresentation; he is alleged to have totally rejected the Second Vatican Council or to be linked with extreme right-wing political movements. A sad example of this form of misrepresentation is a pamphlet published by the Catholic Truth Society of England and Wales in 1976. It is entitled Light on Archbishop Lefebvre and the author is Monsignor George Leonard, at that time Chief Information Officer of the Catholic Information Office of England and Wales. I wrote to Mgr. Leonard pointing out that he had seriously misrepresented the Archbishop and suggested that he should either substantiate or withdraw his allegations. He answered in strident and emotive terms refusing to do either. I replied to Mgr. Leonard's attack on the Archbishop in a pamphlet entitled Archbishop Lefebvre - The Truth. This evoked such interest that several reprints were necessary to cope with the demand and it gained the Archbishop much new support. In this pamphlet I explained that the only way to refute the type of attack made by Mgr. Leonard was to present the entire truth - to write an apologia. The early Christian apologists wrote their "apologies" to gain a fair hearing for Christianity and dispel popular myths and slanders. It is in this sense that the word "apologia" is used in my title, i. e. as "a reasoned explanation" and not an "apology" in the sense of contemporary usage.

The classic apologia of modern times is the Apologia Pro Vita Sua of Cardinal Newman. Newman had been seriously misrepresented by Charles Kingsley who refused to provide the unqualified public apology which was requested. Newman's reply proved to be one of the greatest autobiographies in the English language and almost certainly the greatest prose work outside the realm of fiction to appear in English during the nineteenth century - and ironically our thanks for it must be directed to an implacable opponent of Newman and Catholicism.

My own Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre may be devoid of literary merit but it is certainly not without historic interest and those who appreciate its publication must direct their thanks to Mgr. Leonard without whom it would never have been written.

Incidentally, my pamphlet replying to Mgr. Leonard proved so popular that the publisher followed it up with others and thus began the Augustine Pamphlet Series which now has sales running into tens of thousands and includes works by theologians of international repute.

Although this book certainly would not have been written had it not been for Mgr. Leonard it could not have been written had it not been for Jean Madiran, the Editor of Itinéraires. Itinéraires is certainly the most valuable Catholic review appearing in the world today. It contains documentation that would not otherwise be published together with commentaries and articles by some of France's most outstanding Catholic intellectuals; men, alas, who have no counterpart in the English-speaking world. The debt my book owes to Itinéraires is incalculable. It provides the source for most of the original documents included together with the articles by Jean Madiran and Louis Salleron which I have had translated. Some of the material in my commentaries on the documents also originates with Itinéraires. A detailed list of sources for all the material in the Apologia will be provided in Volume II.

The scope of the Apologia is limited. It deals principally with the relations between the Archbishop and the Vatican. It does not deal with the activities of the Society of Saint Pius X in any individual country. I am certainly not committed to the view that every action and every opinion of the Archbishop, still less of every priest in the Society, #4, rue Garanciere, 75006, Paris, France is necessarily wise and prudent. I mention this because the reader who is not familiar with the "Écône affair" may consider that my attitude to the Archbishop and the Society is too uncritical and therefore unobjective. My book is objective but it is not impartial. It is objective because I have presented all the relevant documents both for and against Mgr. Lefebvre, something his opponents have never done. It is partial because I believe the evidence proves him to be right and I state this. However, the reader is quite at liberty to ignore my commentary and use the documentation to reach a different conclusion. Clearly, the value of the book derives from the documentation and not the commentary.

I am convinced that the Apologia will be of enduring historical value because I am convinced that the Archbishop will occupy a major position in the history of post-conciliar Catholicism. The most evident trend in mainstream Christianity since the Second World War has been the tendency to replace the religion of God made Man with the religion of man made God. Although Christians still profess theoretical concern for the life to come their efforts are increasingly taken up with building a paradise on earth. The logical outcome of this attitude will be the discarding of the supernatural element of Christianity as irrelevant. Since the Second Vatican Council this movement has gained considerable momentum within the Catholic Church, both officially and unofficially, and, during the pontificate of Pope Paul VI, appeared to be sweeping all before it. No one was more aware of this than Pope Paul VI himself who made frequent pronouncements condemning this tendency and stressing the primacy of the spiritual. But in practice, Pope Paul VI did little or nothing to halt the erosion of the traditional faith. He reprimanded Modernists but permitted them to use official Church structures to destroy the faith, yet took the most drastic steps to stamp out the Society of St. Pius X. At the time this introduction is being written, June 1979, there are signs of hope that Pope John Paul II will be prepared not simply to speak but to act in defense of the faith. This is something we should pray for daily. It hardly needs stating that the criticism of the Holy See contained in this first volume of the Apologia applies only to the pontificate of Pope Paul VI. Not one word in the book should be construed as reflecting unfavorably upon the present Holy Father. It is my hope that in the second volume I will be able to give the details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop. This is also something for which we should pray.

The reason I believe that Archbishop Lefebvre will occupy a major position in the history of the post-conciliar Church is that he had the courage and foresight to take practical steps to preserve the traditional faith. Unlike many conservative Catholics he saw that it was impossible to wage an effective battle for orthodoxy within the context of the official reforms as these reforms were themselves oriented towards the cult of man. The Archbishop appreciated that the liturgical reform in particular must inevitably compromise Catholic teaching on the priesthood and the Mass, the twin pillars upon which our faith is built.1 The sixteenth-century Protestant Reformers had also realized that if they could undermine the priesthood there would be no Mass and the Church would be destroyed. The Archbishop founded the Society of St. Pius X with its seminary at Écône not as an act of rebellion but to perpetuate the Catholic priesthood, and for no other purpose. Indeed, as my book will show, the Society at first enjoyed the approbation of the Holy See but the success of the seminary soon aroused the animosity of powerful Liberal forces within the Church, particularly in France. They saw it as a serious threat to their plans for replacing the traditional faith with a new ecumenical and humanistically oriented religion. This is the reason they brought such pressure to bear upon Pope Paul VI. There is no doubt that the demands for the destruction of Écône emanated principally from the French Hierarchy which, through Cardinal Villot, the Secretary of State, was ideally placed to pressurize the Pope.

A number of those who have reviewed my previous books have been kind enough to say that they are very readable. Unfortunately, the format of Apologia is not conducive to easy reading. My principal objective has been to provide a comprehensive fund of source material which will be useful to those wishing to study the controversy between the Archbishop and the Vatican. After various experiments I concluded that the most satisfactory method was to observe strict chronological order as far as possible. This meant that I could not assemble the material in a manner that was always the most effective for maintaining interest. The fact that I had to quote so many documents in full also impedes the flow of the narrative. However, if the reader bears in mind the fact that the events described in the book represent not simply a confrontation of historic dimensions but a very moving human drama, then it should never appear too dull. Mgr Lefebvre's inner conflict must have been more dramatic than his conflict with Pope Paul VI. No great novelist could have a more challenging theme than that of a man whose life had been dedicated to upholding the authority of the papacy faced with the alternative of disobeying the Pope or complying with an order to destroy an apostolate which he honestly believed was vital for the future of the Church. Let no one imagine that the decision the Archbishop took was taken lightly or was easy to make.

The reader will find frequent suggestions that he should refer to an event in its correct chronological sequence and to facilitate this a chronological index has been provided. If this page is marked it will enable the reader to refer to any event mentioned in the book without difficulty.

As the reader will appreciate, I could never have written a book of this extent without considerable help - particularly as I was working on two other books simultaneously. Some of those who gave their help unstintingly have expressed a wish to remain anonymous, including the individual to whom I am most indebted for help with the translations. I must also thank Simone Macklow-Smith and my son Adrian for assistance in this respect. I must make special mention of Norah Haines without whose help the typescript would still be nowhere near completion. I am indebted to David Gardner and Mary Buckalew whose competent proof-reading will be evident to the discerning reader. Above all I must thank Carlita Brown who set the book up single-handed and had it ready for publication within three months. She would certainly wish me to mention all the members of the Angelus Press who have contributed to the publication of the Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Despite all our efforts, a book of this size is certain to contain at least a few errors and I would appreciate it if they could be brought to my attention for correction in any future printing or for mention in Volume II. I can make no promise regarding the publication of the second volume of Apologia beyond an assurance that it will appear eventually. It will almost certainly be preceded by a book on the treatment of the question of religious liberty in the documents of Vatican II. The Archbishop's stand on the question of religious liberty is less familiar to English-speaking traditionalists than his stand on the Mass but it is no less important as it involves the very nature of the Church. He refused to sign Dignitatis Humanae, the Council's Declaration on Religious Liberty, because he considered it incompatible with previous authoritative and possibly infallible papal teaching. My book will provide all the necessary documentation to evaluate this very serious charge which is also examined briefly in Appendix IV to the present work.

Finally, I would like to assure the reader that although I have written much that is critical of the Holy See and Pope Paul VI in this book this does not imply any lack of loyalty to the Church and the Pope. When a subordinate is honestly convinced that his superior is pursuing a mistaken policy he shows true loyalty by speaking out. This is what prompted St. Paul to withstand St. Peter "to his face because he was to be blamed" (Galatians 2:11). The first duty of a Catholic is to uphold the faith and save his own soul. As I show in Appendices I and II, there is ample precedent in the history of the Church to show that conflict with the Holy See has sometimes been necessary to achieve these ends. Archbishop Lefebvre has stated on many occasions that all he is doing is to uphold the faith as he received it. Those who condemn him condemn the Faith of their Fathers.

Michael Davies

20 June 1979
St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr.

Si diligis me, Simon Petre.
pasce agnos meos,
Pasce oves meas.
Introit.

_________

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 1

Who is Marcel Lefebvre?

MARCEL LEFEBVRE was born at Tourcoing in northern France on 29 November 1905. His parents were exemplary Catholics. His father owned a textile factory and was a daily communicant who would assist at Mass at a quarter past six each morning and recite his rosary before arriving at the factory to begin work ahead of his employees. Each evening he would be the last to leave. The welfare of his employees was always a primary consideration for him. The textile industry was to a very large extent dependent upon fluctuations of the market and in 1929, the year of Marcel's ordination, Monsieur Lefebvre was declared bankrupt and the family suffered financial ruin. But with characteristic resolution he set to work and succeeded in building up his business again.

From the age of eighteen he had been a brancardier at Lourdes, work to which he remained faithful throughout his life. He was also a tertiary of the Third Order of St. Francis. When the First World War broke out he joined a society dedicated to saving wounded soldiers and he made frequent trips to Belgium, passing through the crossfire of the French and German armies to bring back wounded soldiers to hospital in Tourcoing. When Tourcoing came under German occupation he organized the escape of British prisoners. He later escaped to Paris and worked for the French Intelligence Service under the name of Lefort for the rest of the war, frequently undertaking the most dangerous missions. All this became known to the Germans who kept his name on record. When Tourcoing was occupied during the Second World War he was arrested and sent to prison at Sonnenburg where he was confined in the most degrading conditions and treated with extreme brutality His companions in prison have testified to his extraordinary courage, his complete resignation to the decisions of divine Providence, and the inspiration he imparted to them all in the midst of terrible suffering. His greatest sorrow was that he had to die without seeing his children again.

The mother of the Archbishop was born Gabrielle Watine. All who knew her considered her to be a saint. The story of her life was written by a French priest in 1948. Gabrielle was celebrated not simply for sanctity but for strength of character. During the absence of her husband in the First World War she directed the factory, looked after her children, cared for the wounded, found time to visit the sick and the poor, and organized resistance against the Germans. She was arrested and subjected to an extremely harsh imprisonment, was distraught at the separation from her children, and became gravely ill. The German Commandant, anxious and embarrassed, promised to release her if she would write a note begging him to pardon her. She refused to do so, being prepared to die rather than compromise on a matter of principle. Fearing the consequences of her death, the Commandant ordered her release and she returned to her children broken in health but unbroken in spirit. When she eventually died after long years of suffering all who knew her testified that her death was the death of a saint, and there are numerous testimonies to favors obtained through her intercession.

Marcel was brought up in a family characterized by the highest standards of piety, discipline, and morality - and it was the example of the parents which above all formed the characters of the eight children. Five of them are now priests or religious and the entire family still remains closely united. As a child Marcel was always good humored and industrious with a particular love of manual work. While a seminary student he installed an electrical system in his parents' home with all the skill of a professional electrician.

After his vocation to the priesthood became apparent he studied in his own diocese and then in the French Seminary in Rome. He obtained doctorates in philosophy and theology. He was ordained priest on 21 September 1929.

His first appointment was to the working-class parish of Marais-de-Lomme, where he was extremely happy and well loved by the parishioners. The impact he made is well illustrated by an incident involving the death of a virulent anticlerical. This type of person is virtually unknown in English-speaking countries, where those who are not religious tend to be indifferent. In most Catholic countries there are people possessed by a fierce hatred for the Church and above all for the clergy, whom they associate with everything that is retrogressive and repressive in life. This particular individual remained inflexible until the end, but just before his death he said that he would see a priest - but it would have to be the young curate as he at least wasn't "one of them"!

In 1932 Father Lefebvre joined the Holy Ghost Fathers and was sent to Gabon as a missionary, where he remained throughout the war. This was, he testifies, one of the happiest periods of his life.

In 1946 he was recalled to France to become Superior of a seminary at Mortain, but he returned to Africa when he was appointed Vicar Apostolic of Dakar on 12 June 1947. On 22 September 1948 he was appointed Apostolic Delegate (the Pope's personal representative) for the whole of French speaking Africa - a mark of the great confidence placed in him by Pope Pius XII. He was appointed as the first Archbishop of Dakar on 14 September 1955.

Even Mgr. Lefebvre's most severe critics have been forced to testify to the efficacy of his apostolate in Africa. In 1976, a Swiss priest, Father Jean Anzevui, who had been welcomed as a guest at Ecône on a number of occasions, published a most distasteful attack upon the Archbishop, entitled Le Drame d’Ecône. Father Anzevui's assessment of Mgr. Lefebvre's apostolate is all the more remarkable from an avowed opponent. He states:

During his thirty year apostolate in Africa the role of Mgr. Lefebvre was of the very highest importance. His fellow missionaries still remember his extraordinary missionary zeal which was revealed in his exceptional abilities as an organizer and a man of action. He persuaded a number of congregations which had previously shown no interest in the missions to undertake work in Africa. He was responsible for the construction of large numbers of churches and the foundation of charitable works of every kind . . . . they are all agreed in recognizing his magnificent career, his courtesy, his affability, his natural and simple distinction, the dignity of his perfect life, his austerity, his piety and his absolute devotion to any task which he undertook.1


The Testimony of Father Cosmao

On 8 September 1977 Suisse Romande Television devoted a long programme to the Ecône seminary and Mgr. Lefebvre. During the programme there was a discussion between the commentator and Father Cosmao, a Dominican who had been Superior of the house of his order in Dakar for several years while Mgr. Lefebvre was Apostolic Delegate and Archbishop of Dakar. The testimony of Father Cosmao carries considerable weight and it is included here in full together with some comments by Louis Salleron.

Text and commentary appeared in the Courrier de Rome, No. 175, p. 12.

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

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

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

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

Commentator: What, in fact, has been happening?

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

Professor Salleron comments:

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

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

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

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

Vatican II and Retirement

Mgr. Lefebvre was appointed to the Central Preparatory Commission of the Second Vatican Council in 1960 by Pope John XXIII - proof that the confidence placed in him by Pope John was no less than that of Pope Pius XII.

On 23 January 1962 he resigned his archbishopric in favor a native African, now His Eminence Cardinal Hyacinthe Thiandoum, who had been ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre, who regards himself as his spiritual son, and who did all in his power to effect a reconciliation between the Archbishop and Pope Paul VI.

On 23 January 1962, Mgr. Lefebvre was appointed Bishop of Tulle in France, upon the personal insistence of Pope John XXIII, despite opposition from the already Liberal-dominated French hierarchy. Then, in July 1962, he was elected Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers (the world's leading missionary order). After some hesitation he accepted this post upon the insistence of the General Chapter and the advice of Pope John. It involved him in travelling all over the world to visit the various branches of the order. There were few other prelates on the eve of the Council with his first-hand experience of the state of the Church throughout the world.

A series of draft documents for the Council Fathers to discuss had been drawn up by scholars selected from the entire world. These draft documents (schemata) were the fruit of an intensive two year effort by 871 scholars ranging from cardinals to laymen. Mgr. Vincenzo Carbone, of the General Secretariat, was able to claim with perfect accuracy that no other Council had had a preparation "so vast, so diligently carried out, and so profound."2 Mgr. Lefebvre writes:

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

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

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

During the course of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), Mgr. Lefebvre was one of the leaders of the International Group of Fathers (Coetus Internationalis Patrum) which sought to uphold the traditional Catholic faith. The role of Mgr. Lefebvre during the Council will not be discussed in this book as it is fully documented in his own book, A Bishop Speaks, and in my own account of Vatican II, Pope John's Council. The texts of Mgr. Lefebvre's interventions, and a good deal of supplementary information, are now available in French in his book, J'Accuse le Concile. An English translation of this book is pending. All that needs to be stated here is that Mgr. Lefebvre, in his criticisms of the reforms which have followed the Council, and of certain passages in the documents themselves, is not being wise after the event. He was one of the very few Fathers of Vatican II who, while the Council was still in progress, had both the perspicacity to recognize deficiencies in certain documents and the courage to predict the disastrous results to which these deficiencies must inevitably give rise.

By 1968 the General Chapter of the Holy Ghost Fathers had become dominated by a Liberal majority which was determined to reform the Order in a sense contrary to Catholic tradition. Mgr. Lefebvre resigned in June of that year rather than collaborate in what would be the virtual destruction of the Order as it had previously existed. He retired to Rome with a modest pension which was just sufficient to rent a small apartment in the Via Monserrato from some nuns. After a full and active life devoted to the service of the Church and the glory of God he was more than content to spend his remaining years in quietness and prayer. In the light of subsequent events, Mgr. Lefebvre's unobtrusive retirement is a fact upon which considerable stress must be laid. Some of his enemies have accused him of being proud and stubborn, a man who could not accept defeat. He is portrayed as a proponent of an untenable theological immobilism totally unrelated to the age in which we are living. Although this untenable theology was defeated, discredited even, during the Council, Mgr. Lefebvre's pride would not allow him to admit defeat. The Seminary at Ecône, it is maintained, is his means of continuing the fight which he waged so unsuccessfully during the conciliar debates.

But Mgr. Lefebvre's retirement proves how baseless, malicious even, such suggestions are. Those who have met him know that he is not a man who will fight for the sake of fighting - he has always been a realist. No one could have compelled him to resign as Superior-General of the Holy Ghost Fathers - he had been elected for a term of twelve years. But he could see quite clearly that the Liberals dominated the General Chapter; that they were determined to get their way at all costs; that resistance on his part could only lead to unedifying division. "Je les ai laissés à leur collégialité," he has remarked. "I left them to their 'collegiality'."4

1. J. Mzevui, Le Drame d'Ecône (Sion, 1976), p. 16

2. See The Rhine Flows into the Tiber, p. 22.

3. A Bishop Speaks, p. 131. The story of how the Liberals managed to consign a preparation "so vast, so diligently carried out, and so profound" to the wastepaper basket is told in detail in Chapter V of Pope John's Council.

4. J. Hanu, Non, Entretiens de Joss Hanu avec Mgr. Lefebvre (Editions Stock, 1977), p. 189 (161). Now available in English as Vatican Encounter (Kansas City, 1978), available from the Angelus Press and Augustine Publishing Co. Wherever this book is referred to the page reference will be to the French edition with the equivalent page in the English translation following in parentheses.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

Volume 1, Chapter 2

A New Apostolate

Archbishop Lefebvre would have earned a distinguished and honored place in the history of the Church even if he had retired finally from public life in 1968, as he had intended. No one had done more for the Church in Africa in this century; no one had done more to uphold the true faith during Vatican II. But the most important task for which God has destined him had not even begun. When he retired in 1968 he could not have imagined that God had reserved for him what was possibly the most important role assigned to any prelate during this century. An exaggeration? Mgr. Lefebvre was to be given the task of preserving the Catholic priesthood in the West during what is proving to be a period of universal apostasy. But he did not seek to undertake this task. He was sought out by the young men who proved to be the first seminarians of Ecône - but when they came they were quite unknown to him and, as for Ecône, he did not know of its existence.

The young men had been sent to the Archbishop because they wished to become priests but could find no seminary offering a truly traditional Catholic formation. They had asked older priests for advice and had been told to go to Mgr. Lefebvre. He was reluctant at first but they insisted. He told them that if he undertook their direction their studies would be long and intense and they would lead a life of prayer and sacrifice, the formation necessary to prepare them for the priesthood in these times. They insisted that this was what they wanted. But where could they study? Unfortunately, nowhere suitable could be found in Rome itself; but an old friend, Mgr. Charrière, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, suggested that the students pursue their studies at the University of Fribourg. The Fraternité Sacerdotale de Saint Pie X was established in his diocese on All Saints' Day, 1970, with all the necessary canonical formalities.1

Alas, it soon became clear that this university was infected with Modernism and Liberalism. With the approval of Mgr. Nestor Adam, Bishop of Sion, Mgr. Lefebvre obtained a large house which had belonged to the Canons of St. Bernard in this diocese. The house was at Ecône, no more than a hamlet near the small town of Riddes in the Catholic Canton of Valais. The name of Ecône is now known throughout the world, and thousands of visitors from all over the world come there each year. But until the foundation of the Seminary of St. Pius X it is doubtful whether the name would have meant anything to anyone not living in the immediate vicinity.

The Seminary was formally opened on 7 October 1970. A fascinating account of the events leading up to its acquisition by Mgr. Lefebvre was provided by Father Pierre Épiney, Parish Priest of Riddes, in an address which he gave at the opening of the Priory of St. Pius V at Shawinigan-Sud, Quebec, on 19 March 1977. Father Épiney spoke from his heart as a priest and pastor.2 The circumstances in which this saintly young priest was deprived of his parish are described under the date 15 June 1975. Father Épiney's account follows:

The Beginning of Ecône

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

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

"Is it true that Ecône is for sale?"

"Yes, it's true."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who founded the major seminary?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who made the Archdiocese of Dakar?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

-Eminence, who made the Dakar Carmel?

-Mgr. Lefebvre.

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

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

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

(That made him weep.)

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

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

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

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

The Seminary Expands

It soon became known that there was an orthodox seminary in Switzerland. More young men with vocations came forward and financial support began to arrive, first from Switzerland and France, then Germany, then Britain, Australia, the U.S.A. and now from all over the world. Mgr. Lefebvre has rejected as totally false the claims that Ecône relies for its support on rich European industrialists or American millionaires. There are a few large donations (which are very welcome, and why not?) but the major part of the financial support for Ecône is made up of tens of thousands of small gifts, the sacrifices mainly of Catholics of modest means or even the very poor.3 The Archbishop has made St. Joseph responsible for the financial support of the Seminary - and has had no cause for complaint. The number of vocations was so great that an ambitious building program was undertaken. Three new wings have been added and the Seminary is now able to house 140 seminarians and their professors in accommodation of high quality - in fact all the facilities of the Seminary, lecture hall, kitchen, dining hall, and living accommodation are almost certainly of a far higher standard than those of any other seminary in Europe. This was, to a certain extent, a matter of necessity as the standards demanded by the Swiss planning authorities are very high. It was even necessary to incorporate - at very great cost - an atomic bomb proof shelter, a feature which is obligatory in all new public buildings in Switzerland.

I have tried to evoke the spirit of the Seminary, and life there, in Chapter VI, which includes an account of my first visit to Ecône in 1975.

In its early years the Seminary received the enthusiastic support of at least some sections of the Vatican, that of Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, in particular. A letter which he wrote in 1971, expressing his satisfaction at the progress of the Seminary, is reproduced in Appendix V. He was still recommending young men with vocations to apply for admission to Ecône as late as 1973. I possess the written testimony of one of the seminarians to this effect.

Houses have also been opened in a number of other countries, one of them at Albano, near Rome. This house at Albano was obtained with all the authorization required by Canon Law. It is being used at present for the religious order for women founded by the Archbishop but will eventually be used for sixth year training for the newly ordained priests of the Society. This will not only free accommodation at Ecône for new entrants but, in Mgr. Lefebvre's own words, will also "enable our young priests to draw upon all the resources of the eternal Rome, its Tradition, its martyrs, its magisterium, its monuments, and also to deepen their attachment to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. "4

The aim of the Seminary is to form good and true priests, devoted to Our Lord, to Our Lady, to the Church, and to the Mass; men burning with pastoral zeal.

The Archbishop is convinced that such a formation can be achieved only by means of a traditional seminary formation based, above all, on Thomism and the traditional Latin Liturgy.

This view certainly seems to be confirmed by the position in France, where half of the major seminaries have already been closed. In France, between 1963 and 1973 there was an 83 per cent drop in the number of men studying for the priesthood. In 1963 there were 917 seminary entrants. In 1973 there were only 151.5 So great indeed is the excess of priests who die or abandon the priesthood over the number of new ordinations to replace them that a spokesman for the French Bishops' Conference has gone so far as to suggest the ordination of married men as a possible solution.

There is, incidentally, a very high "drop-out" rate in the remaining French seminaries, 422 students having "dropped out" in 1973.6

Should this trend continue it is quite within the bounds of possibility that within ten years the Society of St. Pius X could be ordaining more priests than all the seminaries in France put together.

There can be no doubt that it was the escalating success of Ecône in the face of the accelerating decline in the French seminary system which initiated the campaign against Ecône.

It will be shown in Chapter III that Mgr. Lefebvre was far from popular with the more Liberal French bishops even before the Council. As Appendix VIII to Pope John's Council makes clear, the post-conciliar "renewal" in France had proved to be a débâcle almost as catastrophic in its dimension as that in Holland. The success of Ecône provided so dramatic a contrast to this débâcle that its very existence became intolerable for some French bishops. They referred to it as Le Séminaire Sauvage - the Wildcat Seminary - giving the impression that it had been set up illegally without the authorization of the Vatican. This appellation was seized upon gleefully by the Liberal Catholic press throughout the world and soon the terms "Ecône" and "Wildcat Seminary" became synonymous.

The Canonical Status of Ecône
In view of the frequency of the allegation that Mgr. Lefebvre established his seminary without canonical authorization, the canonical status of the Seminary at Ecône is examined in some detail in Appendix V. At this point I will refer briefly to some of the evidence which makes it quite clear that the Seminary was established legally. Firstly, at no stage in the campaign against Ecône did any Vatican spokesman ever allege that the canonical basis of the Seminary was in doubt. Had there been any weakness in the canonical status of Ecône the Vatican would certainly have used this in its campaign to discredit the Archbishop. On the contrary, in 1974 two Apostolic Visitors were dispatched by the Vatican to conduct an official inspection of the Seminary (see the entry for 11-13 November 1974). The letter of condemnation sent to Mgr. Lefebvre by the Commission of Cardinals stated that the Society "no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence." Obviously, the Vatican would not conduct an official inspection of an unofficial seminary nor would it withdraw the right to exist from a seminary which had never possessed such a right. (The Cardinals' letter is included under the date 6 May 1975.)

Definite proof that the Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary enjoyed Vatican approval well after the foundation of Ecône is provided by the fact the members of three religious orders were transferred from their own orders to the society of St. Pius X by the Sacred Congregation for Religious. I have documentary proof that this was done in 1972 before me as I write. The Vatican would hardly have allowed members of religious orders to be transferred to a Society which had established a "wildcat seminary." Again, in February 1971, Cardinal Wright wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre expressing his pleasure at the progress and expansion of the Society and mentioning that it was receiving praise and approval from bishops in various parts of the world (this letter is reproduced in full in Appendix V). It has been alleged that this letter could not have involved praise for the Seminary as it had not yet been founded in February 1971.7 On the contrary, it was formally opened on 7 October 1970. On 6 June 1971 the Archbishop blessed the foundation stone of the new buildings, an event which some of his opponents have confused with the foundation of the Seminary.

Finally, bishops from a number of countries incardinated priests from Ecône into their dioceses, observing all the required canonical procedure. This could not have taken place had the canonical basis of the Seminary not been sound.

The Importance of  Cardinal Villot
The French bishops held what they believed to be a trump card - Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State and the most powerful man in the Vatican, in de facto terms probably even more powerful than Pope Paul VI himself. As well as holding the all-powerful office of Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot controlled twelve other key Vatican positions.8 Ecône could not be allowed to survive if the French bishops were to retain any credibility. They could count on Cardinal Villot - and with his support there was no hope for the Seminary. It had been sentenced to death. Before examining the campaign designed to implement this death sentence it will be of considerable value if readers are enabled to form an impression of Mgr. Lefebvre for themselves. Ideally they should meet him, but short of doing this the best alternative is to read what he has to say about himself. Chapter III is an account of his life given in his own words - but this should obviously be supplemented by reading his book A Bishop Speaks.9 Indeed, it is presumed throughout the present work that the reader already has a copy of this fundamental text.

1. The text of the Decree of Erection is contained in Appendix V.

2. Father Épiney's account was published in the French-Canadian traditionalist journal Le Doctrinaire, No. 30, April 1977.

3. Hanu, p. 194 (165-166).

4. See Ecône Newsletter No. 5.

5. Report issued by the French National Center for Vocations and cited in the Irish Catholic, 20 March 1975.

6. The Tablet, 27 January 1973 and 1 June 1974. The same reports reveal that in 1971, for example, the excess of deaths over ordinations was 465 and that in the same year almost 200 priests left the priesthood. In 1967 there were 40,994 priests in France. The French Bishops' Conference estimated that by the end of 1975 there would be only 21,820. The number of actual ordinations has declined as follows; 1966-566, 1970-284, 1973-219, 1976-136.

7. See Father Milan Mikulich's Orthodoxy of Catholic Doctrine, April 1977, p. 4.

8. Hanu, p. 238.

9. Available from The Angelus Press in the U.S.A. and in Britain from The Augustine Publishing Company.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 3

Archbishop Lefebvre in His Own Words

The address given by His Grace, the Most Reverend Marcel Lefebvre, Titular Archbishop of Synnada in Phrygia and Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, on the occasion of the community celebration of his seventieth birthday, 29 November 1975, at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X, Ecône, Switzerland:

"During the course of my life, I have had many consolations, in every position given to me, from young curate at Marais-de-Lomme in the Diocese of Lille, to the Apostolic Delegation of Dakar. I used to say when I was Apostolic Delegate that, from then on, I could only go downwards, I could go no higher; it was not possible. Obviously, they could still have given me a cardinal's hat! Probably God wanted me to do something else...to prepare His ways.

And if in the course of my missionary life I had real consolations, God always spoiled me...always. He spoiled me in my parents, first of all, I must say, who suffered greatly from the war of 1914-18. My mother died from it, in fact. And my father, having helped Englishmen, especially, to escape from the zone occupied by the Germans, had his name put on the German lists, and when the last war came, his name having been carefully recorded, he was arrested and died in a German jail. Both my parents were models for me and certainly I owe much to their virtue. If five out of eight children in the family are religious priests or sisters, it is not without reason.

So I was spoiled in my parents; spoiled also in my studies at the French Seminary, in having as Superior and Director of the French Seminary the venerated Père Le Floch, who was a man of great kindness and of great doctrinal firmness, to whom I owe much for my formation as a seminarian and as a priest. They reproached me for having spoken of Père Le Floch at my consecration. It seemed to me that I could not do otherwise than to thank those who had formed me and who were, in fact, indirectly the cause of my nomination and my selection as a bishop.

But I was openly reproached with that simply because Père Le Floch was a traditionalist. I was not supposed to speak of this man, who had even been discussed by the French Parliament, because he wanted to form his seminarians in complete conformity to Tradition and to truth. He too was accused of being an 'integrist.' He was accused of involving himself in politics. He was accused of being with Action française, whereas never, in any of his spiritual conferences, had Père Le Floch spoken to us of Action française. He spoke to us only of the encyclicals of the Popes; he put us on our guard against Modernism; he explained to us all the encyclicals and especially those of Saint Pius X; and thus he formed us very firmly in doctrine. It is a curious thing - those who were on the same benches as myself, many of whom later became bishops of France, did not follow the doctrine that Père Le Floch had taught them, although it was the doctrine of the Church.

So I was spoiled during my seminary training, then spoiled even as curate at Marais-de-Lomme, where I spent only one year, but where I had such joy in taking care of a working-class parish, and where I found so much friendliness. Then I spent fifteen years in the missions in the bush, as well as at the mission seminary for six years, then again in the bush in Gabon. I became so attached to Africa that I had indeed resolved never to return to Europe. I liked it so well there and was so happy - a missionary in the midst of the Gabonese jungle - that the day I learned that they were recalling me to France to be Superior of the seminary of philosophy at Mortain, I wept, and I would indeed have disobeyed, but that time my faith was not in danger!1

I was obliged to obey and to return, and it was at Mortain, after two years as Superior of the seminary of philosophy, that I was called to be Vicar Apostolic of Dakar. I spent very happy years at Mortain. I have the best memories of the seminarians of that time and I think that they too, many of whom are still living, those who are now priests and missionaries, also have happy memories of that period. When I learned that I was named to Dakar, it was a heavy blow for me, for I knew nothing of Senegal, I knew none of the Fathers there, and I did not know the language of the country, while in Gabon, I knew the language of the country, I knew all the Fathers, and I would certainly have felt much more at home. Perhaps I would even have been capable of a better apostolate toward the missionaries and the Africans of Senegal.

I did not know that a year later yet another nomination awaited me, which was that of Apostolic Delegate. That increased the crosses a little, but at the same time the consolations, because I must say that, during the eleven years from 1948 to 1959 that I was Apostolic Delegate, God filled me with joy in visiting all those dioceses with which I had been charged by the Holy Father. I had to visit them, send reports to Rome, and prepare the nomination of bishops and Apostolic Delegates.

The dioceses confided to me at that time numbered thirty-six, and during the years that I was Apostolic Delegate they increased to sixty-four. What I mean is that it was necessary to divide the dioceses, to name bishops, to name Apostolic Delegates, and then to visit the dioceses, to settle the difficulties that might exist in those territories, and at the same time to get to know the Church. This missionary Church was represented by her bishops, who accompanied me on all the journeys that I made in their dioceses. I was received by the Fathers, and by those who were in contact with the apostolate, with the natives, with the different peoples, and with the different mentalities, from Madagascar to Morocco, because Morocco was also dependent upon the Delegation of Dakar; I travelled from Djibouti to Pointe Noire in Equatorial Africa.

All these dioceses that I had the occasion to visit made me conscious of the vitality of the Church in Africa, for this period between 1948 and 1960 was a period of extraordinary growth. Numerous were the congregations of Fathers and the congregations of Sisters that came to help us. That is why I also visited Canada at that time, and many of the countries of Europe, to attempt to draw men and women religious to the countries of Africa to aid the missionaries, and to make the missions known.

And each year I had the joy of going to Rome and approaching Pope Pius XII. For eleven years I was able to visit Pope Pius XII, whom I venerated as a saint and as a genius - a genius, humanly speaking. He always received me with extraordinary kindness, taking an interest in all the problems of Africa. That is also how I got to know very closely Pope Paul VI, who was at that time the Substitute2 of Pope Pius XII and whom I saw each time that I went to Rome before going to see the Holy Father.

So I had many consolations, and was very intimately involved, I would say, in the interests of the Church - at Rome, then in all of Africa, and even in France, because by that very fact, I had to have relations with the French government, and thus with its ministers. I was received several times at the Elysée, and several times I was obliged to defend the interests of Africa before the French government. I should also say that at that time the Apostolic Delegate, of whom I was the first in the French colonies, was always considered as a Nuncio, and thus I was always given the privileges that are given to diplomats and to ambassadors. I was always received with great courtesy, and they always facilitated my journeys in Africa.

Oh, I could well have done without the detachments of soldiers who saluted me as I descended from the airplane! But if it could facilitate the reign of God, I accepted it willingly. But the African crowds who awaited the Delegate of the Holy Father, the envoy of the Holy Father - in many regions it was the first time that they had received a delegate of the Holy Father - now that was an extraordinary joy. And the fact that the government itself manifested its respect for the representative of the Pope increased still more, I would say, the honor  given to the Pope himself and to the Church. All that was, as you can imagine, a great source of joy for me, to see the Church truly honored and developing in an admirable manner.

At that time the seminaries were filling and religious congregations of African Sisters were being founded. I regret that the Senegalese Sister is not here today. She is at St-Luc, but she was unable to come. I know that she would certainly have been happy to take part in this celebration. Yes, the number of Sisters multiplied throughout Africa. All this is to show you once more how God spoiled me during my missionary life.

And then there was the Council, the work of the Council. Certainly it is there, I should say, that the suffering begins somewhat. To see this Church which was so full of promise, flourishing throughout the entire world...I should also add that, from 1962 on, I passed several months in the Diocese of Tulle, which were not useless for me because I was able to become familiar with a diocese of France and to see how the bishops of France reacted and in what environment they were.

I must say that often I was somewhat hurt to see the narrowness of mind, the pettiness of their problems, the tiny difficulties which they considered enormous problems, after returning from the missions where our problems were on a much greater scale, and where the relations between the bishops were much more cordial. In the least matters, you could sense how touchy they were; that was something which caused me pain.

And I was also surprised at the manner in which I was received into the French episcopate. For it was not I who had asked to be a bishop in France. It was Pope John XXIII at that time who obliged me to leave. I begged him to leave me free, to leave me in peace and to let me rest for a while after all those years in Africa. But he would hear nothing of it and he told me, ‘An Apostolic Delegate who returns to his country should have a diocese in his country. That is the general rule. So you should have a diocese in France, so I accepted since he imposed it upon me, and you know what restrictions were placed upon me by the bishops of France and particularly the assembly of Archbishops and Cardinals, who asked that I be excluded from the assembly of Archbishops and Cardinals, although I was an archbishop, that I should not have a big diocese, that I should be placed in a small diocese, and that this would not be considered a precedent. This is one of the things that I found very painful, for why should a confrère be received in such a way, with so many restrictions?

No doubt the reason was because I was already considered a traditionalist, even before the Council. You see, that did not begin at the Council! So in 1962 I spent some time in Tulle. I was received with great reserve; with cordiality, but they were also afraid of me. The Communist newspapers already spoke of me obviously in somewhat less than laudatory terms. And even the Catholic papers were very reserved: what is this traditionalist bishop coming to do in France? What is he going to do at Tulle? But after six months, I believe that I can say that the priests whom I had the occasion to see, to meet...I had the occasion to give Confirmation in almost all the parishes, and our relations were truly excellent. I admired the clergy of France, who were often living in poverty, but who constituted a fervent, a devoted, a zealous clergy, really very edifying.

Then I was named Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, and there again, I had occasion to travel, this time not only to Africa, but South America, North America, and everywhere where there were Holy Ghost Fathers...the Antilles, all the English territories of Africa and all the English-speaking territories; the Belgian Congo; South Africa; and so on - all of which obviously permitted me to become more familiar with all these missions, and I really believed that God was everywhere pouring forth extraordinary graces on His Church. At that time the effects of the Council, and all this degradation, had not yet begun. So it was a very happy period, very consoling.

Then came the Council and the results of the Council, and, I must say, it was an immense pain for me to see the decline of the Church, so rapid, so profound, so universal, that it was truly inconceivable. Even though we could foresee it, and those who worked with me in the famous Coetus Internationalis Patrum (the International Group of Fathers) did foresee it, the assembly of two hundred and fifty Fathers who strove to limit the damage that could be foreseen during the Council, none of us, I think, could have foreseen the rapidity with which the disintegration of the Church would take place.

It was inconceivable, and it obliged us to admit in a few years how much the Church was affected by all the false principles of Liberalism and of Modernism, which opened the door to practically every error, to all the enemies of the Church, considering them as brothers, as people with whom we had to dialogue, as a people as friendly as ourselves, and thus to be placed on the same footing as we, in a theoretical manner, and even in practice. Not that we do not respect their persons; but as for their errors, we cannot accept them. But you have all been familiar with this portion of history for some time now.

Indeed, I suffered terribly. Imagine if I had remained with the Holy Ghost Fathers where, in theory, I should have stayed until 1974. I could have stayed until 1974 as Superior General. I had been named for twelve years in 1962. But I submitted my resignation in 1968 and, in fact, I was glad to do so, because I did not want to collaborate in the destruction of my congregation. And had I remained Bishop of Tulle, I cannot very well imagine myself at present in a diocese of France! In an environment like that, I should probably have had a nervous breakdown!

It seemed that God intended my apostolic life to end in 1968, and I foresaw nothing else than simply to go into retirement at Rome; indeed, I rented a small apartment at Rome from some Sisters in Via Monserrato, and I was very happy there. But I think that God decided that my work was not yet finished. I had to continue. Well, I could never have imagined - because there I was in a small apartment, which M. Pedroni and M. Borgeat know well - I could never have imagined at that time that God was reserving for me such profound joys and such immense consolations.

For could there be, in my last years, a consolation greater than to find myself surrounded by such faithful collaborators, faithful especially to the Church and to the ideal which we must always pursue; than to find myself surrounded by such devoted, such friendly, and such generous lay people, giving their time and their money and doing all that they can to help us? And besides them, I should recall, we must think of the tens of thousands of benefactors who are with us and who write to us - we receive their letters all the time. Now that is obviously for us and for myself an immense consolation. It is truly a family that has been created around Ecône.

And then, to have such good seminarians! I did not expect that either. I could never imagine or really believe that, in the age in which we live, in the environment in which we live, with all this degradation that the Church is undergoing, with all this disorganization, this confusion everywhere in thought, that God would still grant the grace to young men of having this desire, a profound desire, a real desire, to find an authentic priestly formation; to search for it, to leave their countries to come so far, even from Australia, even from the United States, to find such a formation; to accept a journey of twenty thousand kilometers to find a true Seminary. It is something I could never imagine. How could you expect me to imagine such a thing? I like the idea of an international Seminary and I am very happy with it, but I could never imagine that the Seminary would be what it is and that I would find young men with such good dispositions.

I believe that I can say, without flattering you and without flattering myself, that the seminary strangely resembles the French Seminary that I knew, and I believe that I can even say that it is of a quality even more pleasing to God...more spiritual, especially, and it is that which makes me very happy, because it is the character that I very much desire to give to the Seminary. It is not only an intellectual character, a speculative character - that you should be true scholars...may you be so, certainly, it is necessary - but especially that you should be saints, men filled with the grace of God, filled with the spiritual life. I believe that it is even more essential than your studies, although the studies are indispensable.

For this, then, and for all the good that you are going to do, how can you expect me not to thank God? I ask myself why God has thus heaped His graces upon me. What have I done to deserve all these graces and blessings? No doubt God wished to give me all these graces and blessings so that I could bear my cross more easily.

Because the cross is heavy, after all...heavy in the sense to which I made allusion this morning. For it is hard, after all, to hear oneself called, and to be obliged in a way to accept that people call you, disobedient. And because we cannot submit and abandon our faith. It is a very painful thing, when you love the Church, when you love obedience, when for your entire life you have loved to follow Her leaders and Her guides. It is painful to think that our relations are so difficult with those who ought to be leading us. And all that is certainly a heavy cross to bear. I think that God gives His blessings and graces in compensation, and to strengthen us in our work.

For all this, then, I thank God, first of all, and I thank all of you, and may God do as He pleases. If He wishes me to be at your service yet for some time, let it be so. Deo gratias! If on the other hand He wishes to give me a small reward somewhat sooner, more quickly, well, let it be Deo gratias also. As He wishes. I have worked only in His service and I desire to work to the end of my days in His service and in yours also. So thank you again and let us ask God to grant that this seminary may continue for His glory and for the good of souls."

1. Every Catholic, including priests and members of religious orders, must refuse to obey even the order of a lawful superior if complying with that order could endanger his faith.

2. The assistant to the Vatican Secretary of State is known as the "Substitute".

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 4

The Campaign Against Écône

The campaign against Ecône is documented here in chronological order. The source of most of the information in this chapter is La Documentation Catholique No.1679 but Mgr. Lefebvre's account of his "trial" is taken from Itinéraires of July 1975.

On 26 March 1974 a meeting was convened in Rome to discuss the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (which will be referred to hereafter simply as the Society of St. Pius X) and its principal foundation, the Seminary at Ecône.

Present at this meeting were Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; Mgr. Mayer, Secretary of the Congregation for Religious; Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg - the diocese in which the Society first obtained canonical authorization; Mgr. Adam, Bishop of Sion – the diocese in which Ecône is located. It was decided that a report on the Society and Seminary should be compiled.

With surprising speed the requested report was dispatched within four days, on 30 March 1974. It had been compiled by Mgr. Perroud, Vicar-General of the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg. This report, accompanied by a letter from Bishop Mamie, was sent to Cardinal Garrone.

On 30 April 1974 Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Mamie met at Fribourg.

At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, that when a Commission of Cardinals was convoked to examine the case of Fr. Louis Coache, a traditionalist priest who had been deprived of his parish for his defense of the traditional Mass and catechism, great care was taken to leave no legal loopholes. The text of this document will be cited under the date of 10 June 1975. It will also be made clear that not one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church.

On 23 June 1974 the Commission of Cardinals met and decided upon a canonical visitation of the Seminary.

The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.1

On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. "This," he said, "was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.”

In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity.

In this Declaration, he stated:

    ...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...

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

It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration "seemed unacceptable to them on all points."

It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X.

However, the Declaration was leaked without Mgr. Lefebvre's permission, and because the text, or extracts from it, were being used in a manner which he could not condone, he authorized Itinéraires to publish the full and authentic French text in January 1975. An English translation of this Declaration was published in Approaches 42-3 and The Remnant of 6 February 1975.

It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals.

The full text of the Declaration follows.

The Declaration of 21 November 1974

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

Public Defamation

A statement condemning those who adhere to the Old Mass made by the French episcopate on 14 November 1974 was certainly aimed against Ecône, for at the same time the bishops let it be known that they would not accept any priests from Ecône in their dioceses.3

A campaign against the Seminary was then launched laying great stress on the Archbishop's refusal to use the New Mass. He, on the other hand, is adamant that no legal obligation to do so exists.

Examples of this preparatory stage of the offensive can be found in La Croix of 17, 18, 21,and 22 January and 1 February 1975. A change of tactics can be discerned from 8 February onwards, clearly resulting from a realization that proving the Archbishop wrong with regard to the legal position of the Mass would not be easy. From 8 February 1975, the charge against Ecône was one of a "Refusal of the Council and the Pope." Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration of 21 November 1974 was cited in order to try to justify this charge.

The Commission of Cardinals met on 21 January 1975 to discuss the Report of the Apostolic Visitors.

However, the Report of the Visitors (who seem to have been honest men though far from impeccably orthodox) was not only favorable to the Seminary but even flattering. It was therefore quite unusable as a basis for the condemnation of Ecône.

In the words of Mgr. Lefebvre:

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

The Commission of Cardinals therefore seized upon the only supposed evidence to hand - the Declaration of 21 November 1974.

In this connection, it is important to repeat that, in the opinion of most well-informed commentators, the action taken against Ecône by the Swiss bishops, in conjunction with Rome, had been instigated by the French hierarchy, with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, acting as its instrument.4

As Mgr. Lefebvre points out, the Apostolic Visitation was the first step towards the suppression of the Seminary. And this action was taken only after a prolonged press campaign in which the Seminary had been subjected to the most odious calumnies, which had been taken up first by the French bishops and then by the Swiss episcopate. One French Archbishop had indeed been reported as stating that he would have "the scalp of the Seminary" before 1975 was out.5

But the most convincing evidence that the Commission of Cardinals was determined at all costs to close the Seminary was the fact that nothing more was heard of the Apostolic Visitation after its report was found to be favorable.

In a letter dated 21 May 1975, accompanying his appeal which was lodged at the Apostolic Signature on 5 June, Mgr. Lefebvre demanded that, if there was anything in his Declaration which should be condemned, the Commission of Cardinals should condemn him personally rather than suppress the Society of St. Pius X, the Seminary, and the other houses which had been founded by the Society.

The Archbishop has yet to be given one word from the Commission specifying anything in the Declaration which is alleged to deviate from orthodoxy. He insists that should such an allegation be made he must be tried by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the only tribunal competent to decide in such a matter.

Certainly to close down the most flourishing and the most orthodox seminary in the West on the basis of alleged but unspecified unorthodoxy found in a single document is an unprecedented enormity. It is all the more outrageous, given the total inactivity (if not the connivance) of the Vatican concerning the travesty of the Catholic Faith and priestly formation that has for long been perpetrated in so many other seminaries, above all in French seminaries.

Indeed, one would have to go to Soviet Russia to discover a comparable caricature of justice. But concerning even the worst travesties of justice behind the Iron Curtain, it can at least be said that they are not perpetrated in the name of Christ's Church, let alone during a Holy Year of Reconciliation!

On 24 January 1975, Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, wrote to Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious. In this letter he stated that, following the meeting of 21 January and having made a careful study of Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration, he considered it a sad but urgent necessity to withdraw the approval given by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X. More and more people, he said, were refusing the Mass of Paul VI throughout French and German Switzerland and it had even been alleged that Mgr. Adam (Bishop of Sion) was mistaken in claiming that Pope Paul had abrogated the Missal of Pius V. In such a situation the Seminary could do no good.

At the same time he felt bound to admit the existence of certain unlawful aberrations instigated by those who used the Council as an excuse for withdrawing themselves from the Hierarchy, the Magisterium, and the Truth. This problem was preoccupying the Swiss bishops as gravely as the question of Ecône. They were working daily to rectify what needed rectifying. They also encouraged those who needed encouraging.

There are several points in this letter to which attention should be drawn.

Firstly, its date, 24 January 1975, and Mgr. Mamie's admission that he had been present at the meeting on 21 January when the Cardinals decided to invite Mgr. Lefebvre to Rome. It is quite clear that Mgr. Mamie's letter of 24 January had been decided upon during the 21 January meeting. In other words, the suppression of Ecône was agreed upon on 21 January 1975, more than three weeks before the discussion with Mgr. Lefebvre took place.

Secondly, however sincere Mgr. Adam and Mgr. Mamie might be in their belief that the Pope had abrogated the Old Mass with all the necessary legal formalities, they both refrain from stating when and in what terms this abrogation was made public.

Thirdly, while Mgr. Mamie concedes that, in Switzerland as elsewhere, many of those responsible for grave aberrations use the Council to justify their defiance of the Magisterium, documented evidence of sanctions being taken against such people by the Swiss (or any other) Hierarchy is very hard to come by. The frequent references to the existence of such abuses and the insistence that steps are being taken to correct them, included (even by Pope Paul VI himself) in public attacks upon Mgr. Lefebvre, indicate the unease felt by the Archbishop's critics in the face of their evident observance of double standards. There are in the Church today two weights, two measures - one for Mgr. Lefebvre and other traditionalists who wish to uphold the Faith and one for the Liberals who wish to destroy it.

On 25 January 1975, Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, sent the following letter to Mgr. Lefebvre - on behalf of the Commission of Cardinals. All three signed the letter. A close study of this letter reveals how carefully the Cardinals have concealed the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre is being convoked before a tribunal which, it would be claimed later, had been constituted by express mandate of the Holy Father. Nor does the letter give the least indication that it is the Declaration of 21 November 1974 which is in question. It is simply a request for a discussion with the Archbishop - "Nous voudrions maintenant nous entretenir avec vous..." The text of the letter follows:

Your Excellency,

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

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

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

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

On 13 February, Mgr. Lefebvre met the Commission of Cardinals as arranged. There was a further session on 3 March.

The following is Mgr. Lefebvre's own account of the methods adopted by the Commission of Cardinals in their search for an excuse to suppress the Society of St. Pius X and its various establishments including the Ecône Seminary. This statement was published in Itinéraires No. 195, July-August 1975.

The Statement of Mgr. Lefebvre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

On 15 April 1975, through the medium of Itinéraires, Mgr. Lefebvre published the text of his reply to the Abbé de Nantes concerning two articles in the February and March issues of the Abbé de Nantes' newsletter, La Contre-Réforme Catholique, which appeared to implicate him.9 All traditionalists would do well to emulate Mgr. Lefebvre's exemplary restraint and his respectful attitude to the Holy Father, as well as his uncompromising fidelity to the Eternal Rome, as expressed not only in the following letter but also in his Declaration of 21 November 1974.

Dear Father,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is the significance of my Declaration.

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

19 March 1975

The Feast of Saint Joseph.

In a letter to Mgr. Mamie dated 25 April 1975 , Cardinal Tabera stated that the Commission of Cardinals not only agreed with the request made by Mgr. Mamie in his letter of 24 January (to withdraw canonical approval from the Society of St. Pius X), but also urged him to do so without further delay. Mgr. Mamie was assured by Cardinal Tabera that his invaluable collaboration in the service of the Lord and His Church was greatly appreciated.

On 6 May 1975 Mgr. Mamie wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre stating that after long months of prayer and reflection he had reached the sad but necessary decision that he must withdraw all the acts and concessions granted by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X. He also stated that Mgr. Lefebvre would soon receive a letter from the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals confirming that this action had been taken in full agreement with the Holy See. It was the Declaration of 21 November 1974, he said, which had finally confirmed him in this course of action. Mgr. Mamie considered the Archbishop to be manifestly opposed not only to Vatican II but also to the person and the acts of the successor of St. Peter , His Holiness Pope Paul VI, and he therefore could not allow him to continue to claim that the Society had the support of the Bishop of Fribourg. He therefore could no longer allow the authority of the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg to continue to provide the canonical basis of Mgr. Lefebvre's institutions.

This decision (he said) took effect immediately and he had informed the relevant Roman Congregations of his action by the same post, as well as the Apostolic Delegate and Mgr. Adam, President of the Swiss Episcopal conference.

The two concluding paragraphs of his letter read as follows:

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

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

The penultimate paragraph of this letter merits particularly careful study.

Why this exclusive preoccupation only with all of the orientations and decisions of Vatican II and the teachings of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI?

Does Mgr. Mamie have no interest in previous Councils? After all, they were of far greater status than Vatican II. For whereas they were dogmatic, Vatican II was merely pastoral - whatever pastoral may mean.10

And what about Pope Pius XII? Is he already forgotten in Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg?

It is not difficult to understand why Mgr. Mamie prefers not to remember Pope Pius XII, who would certainly not have permitted a Roman Congregation to issue directives permitting laywomen to give Communion in the hand to standing communicants. In fairness to Pope John, it must be stressed that neither would he have tolerated such practices. Did he not dismiss Mgr. Bugnini, who, more than anyone else, has been responsible for stage-managing the liturgical revolution which the Congregation for Divine Worship proceeded to impose on the Church?

It is also not difficult to see why Mgr. Mamie is so determined to condemn Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration, which insists that the only attitude which a faithful Catholic can possibly have to this kind of Reformation is to refuse categorically to accept it.

It is true that not even the most ardent Liberal would dare to suggest that any previous Pope would have tolerated the kind of directives now being issued by some of the secretariats instituted in the wake of Vatican II. It is interesting to note that in the very year when the New Order of the Mass was foisted on the Church in the name of the Pope by the Congregation for Divine Worship, even Cardinal Gut, the then Prefect of that Congregation, admitted that the Holy Father had frequently yielded against his own better judgment in sanctioning various kinds of unlawful liturgical initiatives undertaken by priests determined to impose their will on the Church.11

It is also relevant to note that Mgr. Bugnini is reported to have told one of his friends that  "he had all the difficulty in the world" in getting Pope Paul to authorize the New Mass.12 It must also be noted that a mere two months after Cardinal Villot had successfully contrived to have Ecône suppressed, Pope Paul VI at long last dismissed Archbishop Bugnini, the moving spirit behind the New Mass, by suppressing the Congregation for Divine Worship, merging it with the Congregation for the Sacraments, and excluding Mgr. Bugnini from any position in the new Congregation.13

As for Mgr. Mamie's much vaunted loyalty to Pope John and Pope Paul, this is, to say the least, of a very selective nature.

Mgr. Mamie has no right whatsoever to claim that he implements all the teachings of John XXIII and Paul VI. For example, in his encyclical Veterum Sapientia (1962) on the importance and value of Latin in the life of the Church, Pope John stated, inter alia, that the major sacred sciences must be taught through the medium of Latin in Catholic universities and seminaries.

Pope John insisted that bishops and superiors-general of religious orders "shall studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these our prescriptions most carefully", and added:

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

Needless to say, Mgr. Mamie's zeal to crush the Seminary at Ecône, where Latin textbooks are still used, is not matched by an equivalent zeal to insure that this particular teaching of Pope John is observed in the seminaries of which he approves.

As for Mgr. Mamie's obedience to Pope Paul, although it was made clear in Memoriale Domini that the Holy Father wished the traditional method of receiving Communion to be maintained, Communion in the hand is now widespread throughout Switzerland, not excluding the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg.

The liturgy provides yet another example of Mgr. Mamie's selective obedience. In 1974, the Holy Father sent a copy of Jubilate Deo, a book containing all the more common Latin chants, as a personal gift to every bishop in the world. He did so in the hope that this would impress upon them his concern that the specific teaching of Vatican II concerning the liturgical use of Latin should be implemented. At the same time he made it clear that he wanted all the faithful to be familiar with these Latin chants. Yet despite Mgr. Mamie's professed loyalty to the teaching of Paul VI, it would be difficult to find many parishes in his diocese where the Holy Father's wishes have been respected.

Clearly, it is to Mgr. Mamie rather than to Mgr. Lefebvre that the Commission of Cardinals should have addressed the words: "It is inadmissible that each individual should be invited to submit papal directions to his private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them."

As for the specific teachings of the promulgated documents of Vatican II - which must not be confused with the innumerable orientations imposed on the Church in the name of Vatican II, as has already been pointed out - these are more faithfully observed at Ecône than any other seminary in the Western world.

1. Hanu, pp. 206-207

2. i.e. the Roman Congregations (Departments) presided over by cardinals which govern the life of the Church, e.g. the Congregation for the Clergy.

3. Courrier de Rome, No. 140, February 1975, p. 4.

4. Vide Mgr. Lefebvre's letter of 15 July 1975 to the editor of Approaches. It is reproduced below under this date.

5. Courrier de Rome, no. 146, p. 1.

6. The time of the meeting was later changed to 9:00 a.m.

7. This was also the description used in the headline above a most misleading and slanted report in the English Catholic weekly The Universe of 6 June 1975. This report would have disgraced any newspaper, let alone a "Catholic" paper which boasts on its masthead of Pope Paul's prayerful concern for its efficacy as an instrument of truth. Moreover, even when the false nature of the entire report was drawn to the editor's attention, The Universe refused to print any correction.

8. Mgr. Lefebvre has never, at any time, compared himself with St. Athanasius. The fact that a sound basis for such a comparison exists is made clear in Appendix I.

9. "Abbé" is a common title given to the clergy in France. Father Georges de Nantes is one of the best known figures in the French traditionalist movement. He has been much criticized by other traditionalists in recent years due to his public criticism of Mgr. Lefebvre. He is mentioned in Pope John's Council, (pp. 187-188). He is referred to incorrectly in Vatican Encounter as "the abbot of Nantes."

10. The authority of the documents of Vatican II is explained in Chapter 14 of Pope John's Council.

11. La Documentation Catholique, No.1551, (16 November 1969), p. 1048.

12. Rev. L. M. Barielle, La Messe Catholique, Est-Elle Encore Permise? (Editions Saint-Gabriel).

13. The background to Archbishop Bugnini's dismissal is explained in Pope John's Council, Chapter XII. A more detailed treatment will appear in Pope Paul's New Mass.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 5

The Condemnation

On the same day that Mgr. Mamie wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre, 6 May 1975, the Commission of Cardinals also pronounced their condemnation.
The complete text of this condemnation is as follows:

Your Excellency,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an exercise in public relations on behalf of Mgr. Lefebvre's persecutors, the Cardinals' letter is indeed a superb performance. The image it evokes is clear. It is of three very moderate, reasonable, and supremely charitable cardinals doing everything in their power to save a well-intentioned but hopelessly intransigent and unenlightened pre-Vatican II Archbishop from the tragic consequences of his own invincible folly. But he refused to be saved!

The crucial phrase in this letter reads as follows, and its significance could not possibly be overstressed:

...the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Ecône (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light.

The Cardinals admit quite openly that the Apostolic Visitation had been unable to bring to light any excuse for closing the Seminary - and, as was stated earlier, it was clearly to find an excuse that the Visitors were sent in the first place. It will be necessary for the reader to pause for a few moments and consider the precise import of what the Cardinals are actually saying here if its full enormity is to be appreciated. When carefully analyzed the following conclusions are not simply obvious but inescapable.

1) The Visitors were sent to the Seminary to find a pretext for closing it but could not do so.

2) During their Visitation they made statements which outraged the Catholic sensibilities of the seminarians.

3) In order to insure that the scandal caused did not result in any seminarians confusing Rome itself with the persons of the Visitors representing it, Mgr. Lefebvre made his Declaration affirming his faith in the Eternal Rome.

4) This Declaration, provoked by the Visitors, is now to be used as the sole, I repeat, the sole justification for closing the Seminary in place of the evidence the Visitors could not find because it did not exist. This is the "Conciliar Church" with a vengeance!

In order to alienate traditionally-minded Catholics from Mgr. Lefebvre it was necessary to invoke papal authority for the action taken against him. But in their anxiety to involve the Pope the three Cardinals only succeed in contradicting themselves and adding to the confusion and legitimate suspicion surrounding the whole process against the Archbishop. Firstly, they claim that their unanimous conclusions (not decisions) and the complete dossier have been passed to the Pope so that he can "judge for himself."

Secondly, they claim that "it is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the following decisions to you." This makes it clear that the decisions are not those of the Pope; they are the decisions of an unspecified authority which the Pope is alleged to have approved. The obvious solution would be that the decisions are those of the three Cardinals themselves but this possibility is ruled out by an explicit statement referring to the third decision: "we are invited to notify it clearly.”

It will also be noted that the three decisions are included within quotation marks and so the cardinals are definitely communicating a decision of someone other than themselves who is not the Pope. Thus, the dubious legality of the procedure used against Mgr. Lefebvre is highlighted by the fact that he has been condemned by an anonymous judge.

Another significant point is that when quoting the decision of this anonymous judge within the quotation marks, the Declaration of Mgr. Lefebvre is misrepresented by the use of the term "Manifesto." The Cardinals themselves use the same term as Mgr. Lefebvre - "Declaration." "Manifesto" is also the term used in a contentious report which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano two days later, 8 May 1975, which will be discussed in chronological sequence under that date. As L'Osservatore Romano traditionally reflects the mind of the Secretary of State it is at the very least a reasonable hypothesis that the anonymous judge of Mgr. Lefebvre was none other than Cardinal Villot himself. It is also of very great significance that when the Cardinals' letter appeared in the official French Catholic daily, La Croix, on 5 June 1975, the tell-tale quotation marks had conveniently vanished.

Nor can it be concluded with any certainty that these decisions were approved by the Pope simply on the word of the Cardinals concerned. As the case of Father Coache, cited on pp.108-109 proves, it can no longer be presumed that any statement coming from the Vatican is true. In this case, it will be noted that in the letter they refer to their discussions with Mgr. Lefebvre taking place "in such a fraternal atmosphere that on no occasion did our difference of opinion compromise the profound and serene communion which exists among us." Yet, as Mgr. Lefebvre's account of the discussions revealed, Cardinals Garrone and Tabera treated him with considerable acrimony and even accused him of being a lunatic.

Further, when considering the integrity of these Cardinals it must be noted that in 1976 the transcript of the discussions which had been refused to Mgr. Lefebvre was leaked to the press in what Mgr. Lefebvre claims is definitely a "doctored" version.1

The first documentary evidence of papal approval of the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre was the letter from the Pope of 29 June 1975, which will be discussed under that date, and which appears suspiciously like an attempt to impart retroactive legality to a totally illegal process.

One thing is at least certain:

It is obvious that Mgr. Lefebvre and the three Cardinals do not seem to be speaking of the same Church. As the French canonist, Fr. E. des Graviers, said in the 1 July 1975 issue of the Courrier de Rome, with reference to Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration:

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

Finally, it is necessary to point out that much of Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration is concerned with judgments on the present state of the Church. These are statements of fact and must be accepted or refuted on empirical grounds. The Archbishop alleges that the present reforms "have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, etc. etc." It is ludicrous to claim that such statements cannot be reconciled with "an authentic fidelity to the Church." Pope Paul VI himself admitted that the Church was undergoing a process of "self-destruction" as early as 1968.2 Was Pope Paul's assessment accurate or not? Are the reforms which have followed Vatican II contributing to this process or not? These are not questions of doctrine but questions of fact which the Cardinals and all the other opponents of Archbishop Lefebvre did not dare to answer.

On 8 May 1975 it became clear that the campaign against Ecône was moving to a climax when L'Osservatore Romano intervened with an unsigned article, A proposito di un Manifesto, indicating its origination in the Secretariat of State.3

The Secretary of State in question was Cardinal Villot, who exemplified, and exercised continual pressure on behalf of, episcopal Neo-Modernist influences within France.

In his book, Catholiques et Socialistes (Editeur: Grasset), Georges Hourdin, the doyen of French Neo-Modernism, has publicly boasted:

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

The dishonesty of the L'Osservatore Romano article of 8 May 1975 can be seen from the following facts:

First, the article was tendentiously entitled "Concerning a Manifesto." Thus what had been essentially a declaration of basic principles was subtly presented as though it were something in the nature of a defiant political program.

This impression was reinforced by stating in the text of the article simply that it had been published by the French review Itinéraires, without any indication that its author was Mgr. Lefebvre and that he had signed the Declaration. To still further emphasize this impression, the article appeared on page two, which in the daily Italian edition, is where the editor customarily takes issue with the press or publishes mises au point of this kind directed against publications of one kind or another.

Secondly, although L'Osservatore Romano published most of the Declaration, it omitted the key paragraph at the very end where Mgr. Lefebvre made clear his fidelity "to the Catholic and Roman Church " and "to all of Peter's successors."

Thirdly, although Mgr. Lefebvre had made his attitude to Rome and to the Holy Father clearer still in his further statement of 19 March 1975 (see pp. 49-51) which was published in the 15 April Supplément-Voltigeur of Itinéraires and published once again in the May 1975 issue of Itinéraires, the readers of L'Osservatore Romano were kept in total ignorance of this further clarification of Mgr. Lefebvre's position.

Fourthly, although L'Osservatore Romano admitted that there have been all kinds of abuses and excesses, that "it has been possible to speak of the 'decomposition' of the Church," and that "defensive measures have not been in proportion to the dangers (which is precisely what Mgr. Lefebvre has been saying all along)," the article then proceeded, not to suggest that certain measures should be taken without delay to remedy this catastrophic state of affairs, but to suggest that the (apparently anonymous) author of the Declaration was objectively schismatic and in revolt against the authentic Magisterium of the Church.

Towards the end it asked the following questions (which are numbered here for ease of reference):

1. Under such conditions, is there still any real, and not just verbal communion with the living Church?

2. Whom will they obey, ultimately, those who recognize themselves in this document? Who will be the interpreter of this Tradition to which reference is made, when the interpretation of the living Magisterium is suspected a priori?

3. What are we to think of those who will be formed in this spirit?

4. How is it possible, without an extraordinary presumption, to conceive such a completely negative appreciation of the Episcopate and of all those working in the service of Christ in Seminaries and Universities?

Immediately afterwards there followed the insinuation:

5. One hesitates to speak of a sect, but how can one avoid thinking of it at least?

That such attitudes can develop in the Church today, that they can be publicly expressed and sweep along people in good faith, cannot but make us reflect seriously. The appearances must be grave indeed for people to be able to lose the sense of the Church to such an extent, on the pretext of saving her.

The significance of these questions and insinuations can be properly appreciated only when one asks what "Living Church," what "Living Magisterium" is under suspicion? For whereas one must indeed be uncompromisingly respectful towards the authentic Magisterium of the living Church, this certainly does not mean that one must accept heresy simply because it has been proposed for acceptance by false shepherds of episcopal rank.

And this is precisely what is being done by the French Hierarchy (not that it is alone by any means), with the connivance of the Secretariat of State, which acts in the name of the Pope but in effect is an instrument of French Neo-Modernism.

How indeed could anyone not suspect the orthodoxy of the French Hierarchy when, in addition to having been a party to the falsification of Scripture in its catechetical texts and also in its Lectionary for Sunday Masses, it has gone so far as to define the Mass in the very terms anathematized by Trent (stating in the Sunday Missal that "at Mass it is simply a question of commemorating the unique sacrifice already accomplished"), and even to encourage Sunday assemblies without a priest, justifying this (in the words of Mgr. Derouet, Bishop of Sées) on the pretext that "the Christian Sunday is not primarily a gathering around a priest. It is the meeting of Christians who wish to celebrate together the Resurrection of their Lord, to nourish themselves with His word and His body."4

There are two points concerning this stage of the anti-Ecône campaign which are particularly worthy of attention.

Firstly, the 8 May 1975 article in L'Osservatore Romano was simply the opening salvo of a press barrage which had been carefully prepared and directed by the Secretariat of State.5

Secondly, the basic theme of the campaign was that Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration and Ecône's existence represented "a considered and explicit rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and of the authority of Pope Paul VI."

This was made particularly obvious when on 9 May 1975, the day after the publication of the L'Osservatore Romano article, Mgr. Mamie announced that he had withdrawn episcopal approval from the Priestly Society of St. Pius X with the agreement of the three Roman Congregations (Clergy, Religious and Secular Institutes, and Catholic Education).6 Mgr. Mamie explained:

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

It was subsequently revealed that on 6 May 1975 a commission composed of Cardinals Garrone, Wright, and Tabera had informed Mgr. Lefebvre "by express mandate of the Holy Father" that it had authorized Mgr. Mamie to withdraw the approval granted by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X, and that its various establishments, in particular the Ecône Seminary, had no longer any right to exist.

There were two significant omissions in Mgr. Mamie's statement.

Although the Old Mass could almost be said to be Ecône's raison d’ être, there was no reference by Mgr. Mamie to Ecône's refusal to use the New Order of the Mass. This would seem to have been an implicit admission that fidelity to the Old Mass cannot be called in question canonically, or be cited to justify disciplinary action.

It was no less significant that the Report of the Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary by two representatives of the Holy See in November 1974 was not mentioned. This, however, was scarcely surprising, for as Mgr. Lefebvre had stated on 16 April 1975:

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

The fact that the only evidence that Mgr. Mamie could adduce was Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration demonstrated that there was in fact no case whatsoever against Ecône. For Mgr. Mamie's statement distorts Mgr. Lefebvre's 21 November 1974 Declaration and also entirely ignores his supplementary statement of 19 March 1975 in the same way as did the L' Osservatore Romano of 8 May 1975.


Who is Rejecting Vatican II?

The injustice of the attack against Mgr. Lefebvre and Ecône is made very clear when some examination is made of precisely what is meant by a "rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council." I have provided considerable documentation in my book Pope John's Council to prove that what are often passed off as decisions of the Council are, in fact, aberrations emanating from the post-conciliar commissions invested with the power to implement the conciliar documents. Only too often it will be found that not a single word can be quoted from any Council document authorizing these aberrations, which are justified by the commissions either on the grounds that the Council did not actually forbid them or by a very liberal interpretation of one of the ambiguous phrases which had been inserted in the documents precisely to justify such aberrations after the Council. In the Constitution on the Liturgy, for example, there is not a single word ordering the use of the vernacular. The celebration of Mass facing the people is not even mentioned. Nor does it anywhere recommend Communion in the hand, Lay Ministers of Communion, or the composition of new Canons. But the Constitution does specifically state that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them."

However, there were some specific instructions in the Constitution. For example, it was insisted that Gregorian chant should be "given pride of place in liturgical services. "

This instruction is obeyed in Ecône. But how many other seminaries obey it?

The same Constitution ordered that "in accordance with centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in reciting the Divine Office".

This instruction is obeyed in Ecône. But how many other seminaries obey it?

The Council also ordered members of religious orders to wear their habit; it also recommended a year of spirituality at the commencement of seminary studies; it demanded that a key place should be given to the teaching of St. Thomas during seminary training.

Ecône obeys the Council faithfully in all these respects. But how many other seminaries do?

It is indeed no exaggeration to claim that the Holy See's Basic Norms for Priestly Training, issued in 1970 along the lines suggested by Vatican II, are observed more faithfully at Ecône than at almost any other seminary in the West.

The fact of the matter is that there is not one hierarchy in the West which is making any attempt to enforce the teaching of Vatican II, even where this teaching is quite unequivocal and explicit.

As for the sudden concern on the part of the Secretariat of State for "the authority of Pope Paul VI" - where was this concern at the time of Humanae Vitae? It is worthwhile examining the statements of the Western Hierarchies and seeing just how many have honestly attempted to insist upon the clear and uncompromising condemnation of contraception demanded by the Pope. There were a few which did so in words (e.g., India, Ireland, and Scotland), but they were very few. And even in Ireland there has been a notorious refusal by Authority to discipline rebellious theologians and academic clerics who have continued to defy the Church's authoritative teaching on marriage and the family with impunity.

It may also be asked how many hierarchies have attempted to enforce the Eucharistic teaching given by Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei, or to insure that catechetics in Catholic schools are based on Pope Paul's Credo of the People of God?

How many hierarchies take any action to discipline priests and institutions which do not simply ignore but even ridicule the authoritative teaching of the Holy Father? To ask such questions is also to answer them. It can thus be seen that the alleged respect for the decisions of Vatican II and for the authority of the Holy Father professed by Mgr. Mamie, the Commission of Cardinals, and the Secretariat of State is hypocrisy of the most blatant variety.

The true significance of the action taken against Ecône was given in an article by Edith Delamare in the French daily L'Aurore on 14 May 1975, in which she said:

The action taken by Rome against a flourishing Seminary, which is flourishing because it is traditional, is an historic act in the already two-centuries-old struggle between Liberal and conservative Catholicism.

In his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Saint Pius X, the Patron of Archbishop Lefebvre's Society and Seminary, pointed out that the conserving force in the Church is Tradition and that Tradition is represented by religious authority. But the appalling seriousness of the present crisis can be gauged from the fact that religious authority is being used to suppress those who uphold Tradition, not those who have contempt for Tradition.

Saint Pius X wrote:

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

That, alas, is what was being done by the Vatican secretariat of State in the name of Pope Paul VI.


Reaction to the Condemnation

Following the withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (and from its establishments, which include Ecône) there was much sympathy expressed for the Seminary and for Archbishop Lefebvre in both Switzerland and France.

In Switzerland, the news of the action taken by Mgr. Mamie with the support of Cardinals Wright, Garrone, and Tabera was reported in the press of 10 May. On the following day, 11 May, the Sunday after the Ascension, the number of layfolk at the principal Mass at the Seminary rose from 150 to 300, despite Mgr. Mamie's insistence that no faithful Catholic could continue to support the Seminary.

The congregation could not but feel that the Gospel for the day was particularly appropriate, especially the passage (St. John 16: 1-2):

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

A number of Swiss papers published a statement by leading personalities in Valais, the Canton in which Ecône is located. This statement, which had been issued earlier with a view to preventing the action since taken, was the reproduction of a letter to Pope Paul in which these leading public figures affirmed their total support for the work for the renewal of the priesthood being accomplished at Ecône. They insisted that the Seminary had brought honor to their country and they deplored the campaign of denigration against it by all kinds of subversive elements.

They stated:

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

The signatories included a recent President of Switzerland.

On 15 May 1975, Mgr. Mamie wrote to the priests of his diocese. His aim was obviously to reconcile his failure to discipline his own refractory clergy (concerning whom he complained at some length) with his suppression of Ecône, which exemplified obedience to Tradition.

It was a singularly unconvincing exercise. Its most bizarre feature was the contrast between his call for unbounded charity, his recognition of the difficulties felt by those who preferred the Old Mass and his response - an absolute prohibition of the public celebration of the Old Mass in his diocese!

21 May 1975 - Letter to Cardinal Staffa from Archbishop Lefebvre

Eminence,

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

I am drawing up an appeal:

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

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

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

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

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

Footnotes

1. Hanu, p.214 (183).

2. "La chiesa si trova in un momento...si potrebbe dire di autodistruzione." L'Osservatore Romano, 8 December 1968.

3. This article was reproduced under the title Concerning a Manifesto in the 12 June issue of the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano.

4. In the absence of the priest, there can of course be no Sacrifice of the Mass, no Real Presence and consequently no Body (of Christ) with which the faithful can nourish themselves. This can be seen to be particularly ominous when it is borne in mind that the original Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis defined the Mass as "a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." For with the function of the priest thus presented by the authors of the New Mass as being essentially presidential, his role as priest was already implicitly dispensable.

5. Consider for example the Report from Rome dated 11 May 1975, obviously based on briefing by a spokesman of the Secretariat of State, which appeared in the Milan newspaper Corriere Della Sera under the headline, CONSERVATIVE BISHOP NEAR TO EXCOMMUNICATION.

6. Since the Society had been established canonically outside Mgr. Mamie's diocese it could not be suppressed without the approval of Rome.

7. Canon 493 stipulates that canonical authorization given by a bishop for a foundation cannot be withdrawn except by the Holy See (and not by that bishop or his successors).

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 6

The Credo Pilgrimage

On 25 May 1975, Mgr. Lefebvre, the Seminary professors, and the students of Ecône went to Rome to lead the Credo Holy Year Pilgrimage. The account of this Pilgrimage which follows was originally printed in The Remnant of 23 June 1975. It was entitled "Lauda Sion."

"The Pilgrimage to Rome in May, 1975, led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, is of such historic significance in so many respects that it appears almost impossible to present any of them adequately. There are four major basilicas in Rome at which pilgrims for the Holy Year of 1975 can gain their indulgence - St. Peter's, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, and St. Paul's Without-the-Walls. During the weekend of 24-26 May, Holy Year pilgrims from all over the world were astounded to see an event which took place at each of these basilicas in almost identical circumstances. A venerable prelate in full episcopal robes, a prelate whose very being radiated holiness, serenity, and Christian joy, entered each basilica followed by a procession of a nature sufficient to convince any spectator that far from being in a process of self-destruction or 'auto-demolition' as Pope Paul has expressed it, the Church must be entering upon a period of renewed vigor, the kind of second Spring which Cardinal Newman had promised. The prelate, Archbishop Lefebvre, was followed by what seemed an endless double file of priests and seminarians. There were, in fact, about 120, but they seemed to be far more. Behind the seminarians came a group of nuns in an unfamiliar habit, the postulants of the new order founded by the Archbishop. Then came the faithful in their thousands, faithful Catholics from countries as far apart as Australia and Argentina - and as they entered the basilicas, they sang.

Lauda Sion Salvatorem,
lauda ducem et pastorem,
in hymnis et canticis.

This sublime hymn of praise to Christ our God, present in the Blessed Sacrament, surged up to the bright blue sky above the basilicas as the pilgrims filed in, and then filled the basilicas with praise after they entered. Pilgrims with other groups and the Roman clergy as well were quite overwhelmed by the scale and fervor of this Pilgrimage. Nothing like it had been seen before during this Holy Year, nothing like it will be seen again. It had not been the largest pilgrimage to come - although it would seem blasphemous to describe the group which had taken over St. Peter's exactly one week before as a pilgrimage. Indeed, the appearance in St. Peter's Basilica of about 9,000 charismatics, some of whom danced and some of whom gibbered, brings immediately to mind St. Matthew's warning concerning the 'abomination of desolation which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place.' Indeed, if the Mass concelebrated by Cardinal Suenens and five hundred Pentecostal priests was valid, then the passing of Hosts from hand to hand, to be broken in pieces by the congregation and offered even to tourists of any belief or none, was in truth an abomination!

Here then is one aspect of great significance: the Pentecostals received special papal authorization to use the Main Altar of the Confession of St. Peter; Cardinal Suenens was warmly embraced by the Pope; and the Pope addressed the charismatics - certainly with some words of caution and admonition, but also with a great deal of warmth and praise. There was, on the other hand, no papal welcome for Archbishop Lefebvre; he would not have been given the High Altar to celebrate Mass for his Pilgrimage, because the Mass he would have celebrated would have been the Mass codified by Pope Saint Pius V, Mass as it was said in Rome during his pontificate, virtually the only form of Mass to be celebrated in St. Peter's Basilica from the time it had been built. But such is the state of the Church today that it is this form of Mass, arguably the supreme achievement of Western Christianity, which is now regarded, practically speaking, as an abomination. The Pentecostals with their guitars, their dancing, their gibberish, are acceptable. The age-old Mass is not.

Thus the presence of the Archbishop and his pilgrims in Rome so soon after the Pentecostals both symbolized and manifested the two-centuries-old struggle between Liberal and traditional Catholicism, which reached its climax on the ninth of May in this Holy Year of 1975, when canonical approval was withdrawn from his Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary at Ecône.

Here, then, is the next aspect of great significance with regard to this Pilgrimage: it was remarked above that anyone seeing the great procession led by the Archbishop entering one of the Roman basilicas would have concluded that the Church could not be undergoing a process of self-destruction or 'auto-demolition.' When it is realized that those in authority in the Church at present are intent upon destroying the Seminary which is forming such holy and such fervent young priests, then self-destruction is the only term applicable. It is no wonder that, as the great procession entered St. Peter's Basilica, it sang the Parce Domine.

Traditional Catholic devotions took place in all the basilicas visited by the Credo pilgrims - and, in addition to the four major basilicas mentioned, these included St. Sebastian, St. Lawrence, and the ruins of Maxentius. The traditional Roman Mass was sung for huge congregations in St. Mary Major, Maxentius, and St. Lawrence. At least one hundred more must have been said during the course of the Pilgrimage by the many priests who took part, from both the Ecône Seminary and the groups which came from different countries. Some of these Masses were offered at side altars in St. Peter's, including that of St. Pius X. L'Osservatore Romano had published an expression of 'pained surprise' at the fact that all the Masses for the Credo pilgrims were to be Tridentine Masses and thought this inappropriate in a year of  'reconciliation.'

The fact of the matter is that precisely in this year of  'reconciliation'  the prime aim of the Church ought to be to reconcile herself with her own traditions - the abandoning of which has caused nothing but disaster. Veneration for her traditions was once the prime characteristic of the Church of Rome, yet today the official Vatican newspaper can express regret at the celebration of the Mass of St. Pius V - the greatest of these traditions. However, with or without the approval of the Vatican, the Mass which had been the only Mass for Roman-rite pilgrims in the Holy Year 1950, and for its predecessors for centuries before, was celebrated with due ceremony and due honor once again in this Holy Year of 1975. It was the fervent prayer of all present that it will be the only Mass permitted for Roman-rite pilgrims in the year 2000.

Most of the pilgrims considered the Pontifical High Mass sung in the ruins of the ancient Basilica of Maxentius to have been the most memorable of the entire Pilgrimage. Loud speakers insured that the words and music of this ancient Mass echoed across Rome, the Mass whose origins reach back to the time of the martyrs with whom this basilica has such poignant associations, and so many of whom lie buried in its precincts. Many pilgrims and citizens who were not taking part in the Credo Pilgrimage were overjoyed to discover a celebration of the traditional Mass and swelled the ranks of a congregation which certainly exceeded three thousand in number. The Mass ended with the singing of the Te Deum, and all knelt on the stony ground while His Grace passed along giving his blessing.

The Mass which ended the 'official' Pilgrimage in the Basilica of St. Lawrence was equally impressive. The great basilica was literally packed to the doors and, despite the fact that a good number of priests helped to distribute Holy Communion, this still took almost twenty-five minutes, during which time the pilgrims waited with patience and sang with devotion. Archbishop Lefebvre preached very important sermons during Mass in the basilicas of Maxentius and St. Lawrence.

The all-night vigil for this Pilgrimage was held in the Church of San Girolamo della Carità. Some of those who had been on previous traditionalist pilgrimages regretted the fact that it was not held in St. Peter’s square, and indeed those who have had the grace to take part in these vigils had good reason for doing so. However, the fact that this Pilgrimage was led by the Archbishop made it necessary to make its essentially religious character clear throughout - anything which could give the appearance of a demonstration or a confrontation had to be avoided. It is likely that the timing for the withdrawal of canonical approbation from the Society of St. Pius X was designed to provoke some form of violent or intemperate reaction during the Pilgrimage. There was no such incident; the dignity and restraint shown by all present was as remarkable as their fervor. It would, of course, be argued by the Liberal establishment that the celebration of the traditional Mass was in itself an act of provocation, hence the admonition in L'Osservatore Romano. But any Catholic, whatever his position or rank, who would consider the celebration of the traditional Mass 'provocative' has reached a stage where we can only say, 'God help and forgive him', and breathe a prayer on his behalf.

During the all-night vigil, an unceasing stream of hymns and prayers was offered up to God, above all for the restoration to our altars of the traditional Mass, which was celebrated every two hours throughout the night by one of the priests present. One of the most impressive sights was the entry of the pilgrims into the indescribably beautiful Basilica of St. Paul's Without-the-Walls on Monday morning. The clergy of the Basilica gave their fullest cooperation and put every facility at the disposal of the pilgrims, including their loudspeaker equipment. As in all the basilicas, the three Paters, Aves, and Glorias necessary for gaining the indulgence were recited, and Credo was sung and the general atmosphere was such that it really did seem hard to believe that anything had changed since 1950 - that these fine young seminarians, who are the pride and joy of hundreds of thousands of the faithful, will never be ordained if the present 'parallel magisterium' has its way.

During the weekend innumerable prayers and acts of penitence were offered up by the pilgrims, in groups or as individuals. Some made the ascent of the Scala Santa on their knees on three or more occasions - not the least among them being the English-speaking pilgrims. It seems permissible to wonder whether, if the New Mass should be abolished and the old one restored, a single Catholic would ever get down on his knees and make the slow and painful journey up the Scala Santa in the interests of Archbishop Bugnini's Novus Ordo Missae.

The traditionalist Pilgrimage for the Holy Year of 1975 was, then, a great success in every way. It was a success for the honor and glory offered to Almighty God and the graces it brought down on the pilgrims; it was a success for the way in which the strength and resilience of the traditional Faith were made clear to the Vatican and, equally important, to the traditionalists themselves. There was not one who did not leave full of hope and encouragement."

The sermon which Mgr. Lefebvre preached in the Basilica of Maxentius on 25 May 1975 was published in The Remnant of 6 March 1976. It was entitled "The One True Religion."

The One True Religion

My dear brethren:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Visit to Ecône

After the Credo Holy Year Pilgrimage I returned to Ecône with the seminarians, travelling on the all-night train from Rome and arriving on the morning of Tuesday, 27 May. The account which follows is my personal impression of Ecône. It will, I hope, convey however inadequately something of the spirit of the Seminary. The train in which we were travelling continued on to France with large numbers of French pilgrims on board.

Tuesday, 27 May

The train stops at about 10:00 a. m. The whole platform is soon full of seminarians in their long black soutanes. Their fellow pilgrims lean from every window in the train laughing, talking, shouting, gesticulating - some are weeping and smiling at the same time. Everyone seems in the best of good humor - and what a lot of young girls there are! One might imagine that there was a pop-group on the platform! The train begins to move. The passengers lean even further out. "Adieu! Au revoir!" They wave. They smile. They weep. "Merci pour tout - Thank you for everything!" cries one of the girls. "Merci pour tout!" Her farewell is echoed from other windows. Some of the seminarians watch the train as it vanishes from sight; others begin stacking the luggage. I have the feeling I am back in the army again and have just piled out of a troop train; the atmosphere is almost identical. There is a great deal of laughter, and a tremendous atmosphere of comradeship; but, unlike the army, there is no one giving orders. In fact, no one ever appears to give any orders. The seminarians and their professors seem to form a corporate entity - an impression that will be strengthened throughout my stay at the Seminary. Everyone knows what he should be doing, how he should be doing it, and when.

"Come along, we've been invited for a beer." We all troop out of the station to a local restaurant. The seminarians are tremendously popular wherever they go. We can't all fit inside. There are more than a hundred seminarians, about twenty priests, myself, and a young American who will be entering the Seminary in September. Some of us sit at the tables on the pavement. Everything is "on the house."

It is soon time to take another train along the branch line to Riddes; then follows a walk of several kilometers to the Seminary at Ecône. Fortunately a Volkswagen bus is available to take the luggage. We approach the Seminary through extensive vineyards which belong to it and are tended by the students. Manual work forms an important item in their training. Ecône is situated among scenes of breath-taking natural beauty. Great snow-capped mountains rise up on every side. A gigantic waterfall tumbles down the mountainside behind the Seminary. The buildings themselves consist, firstly, of a large and very Swiss-looking house - formerly belonging to the Canons of St. Bernard and about three hundred years old. Archbishop Lefebvre had begun his work of priestly formation with a few students in Fribourg. The numbers expanded immediately and this building with the surrounding land was put at his disposal. The influx of new seminarians was soon so great that it was inadequate almost at once. New wings stretch off in all directions and their effect upon the visitor, the British visitor at least, is staggering. I would not have believed that any Catholic institution could be so ultra-modern. Truly, where the buildings are concerned, it is the space-age seminary. But there is no time to look around; lunch is being served immediately. I am taken to the bursar together with my American friend and we are shown to guest rooms in the old house. The rooms are furnished comfortably but simply; nothing useful is missing and everything works perfectly - and what a view from the window! We are asked to come down for lunch at once. The refectory is a huge room, clean, cheerful, and full of light; for there are large windows looking out onto the mountains on one side, and the other wall, alongside which there is a corridor, is made entirely of great glass bricks. I am astonished to find a case for my table-napkin with my name typed on a card inserted into a plastic socket - and I can scarcely have been in the building for five minutes! When I return to my room after lunch there is an identical card on the door. I had heard of Swiss efficiency - but really!

Every meal begins with a short grace (in Latin, naturally). There is reading from the Bible (which is always in French) and this is heard throughout the refectory by means of a superb amplification system which functions faultlessly. The same is true of a loudspeaker system which reaches every part of the building and the grounds. This is all operated by nuns in the most traditional habits who sit in a room surrounded by the most sophisticated electronic equipment, from which they summon "Monsieur the Abbé This" to answer a telephone call from Germany or "Monsieur the Abbé That" to come to Parlor Number Two where a visitor awaits him. The same system is used to rouse the community each morning in a very gentle manner with a series of soothing chimes. Similar chimes indicate the beginning or end of a lecture, a service in the chapel, or a mealtime.

The meals are simple but nourishing. The food is cooked by brothers of the order in a kitchen that looks like something out of the twenty-first century. It is served by the seminarians, who take it in turns to wait at table. Almost all the work in the Seminary is carried out by the seminarians, including such tasks as cleaning the corridors and stairs; but as these are all covered in thick hard - wearing carpet it is easily done.

When lunch is over it is announced that the community Mass will be at 17:00. In view of the exacting pilgrimage they have just completed, the afternoon will be free. During this time I am shown around the Seminary. My stock of superlatives is inadequate to express the impression it makes on me. The light and airy lecture rooms, the large and comfortable study-bedrooms for the students (the professors have a study, a separate bedroom, and a private bathroom). The library in the newest wing is already well stocked but with row after row of new and empty shelves to allow for expansion. There is a music room with the latest stereo equipment and an extensive collection of religious and classical music: I am pleased to see that someone has been playing Byrd's Mass for Five Voices. There is no television and the students are not allowed radios; nor is smoking permitted in the Seminary.

There are a good number of chapels and oratories but the main chapel is a recently converted barn - a massive structure with walls at least three feet thick. It is divided into two sections, one for the community and one for visitors. The number of visitors wishing to attend the Seminary Masses had grown so much that this new chapel was necessary - the previous one could hardly accommodate the seminarians. At least one hundred and fifty visitors had been attending the community Mass each Sunday. On 9 May, the Swiss bishops had withdrawn their canonical authorization from the Seminary. Canonically it had ceased to exist - in the language of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four it could now be described as an "unseminary." The announcement had appeared in the Swiss press on Saturday, 10 May. The bishops had said that, as a result of their decision, no faithful Catholic could continue to support the Seminary ("aucun fidèle n 'a plus le droit de lui accorder son appui"). There was some speculation in the Seminary as to how many, if any, visitors would come for the Mass on Sunday, 11 May. Over three hundred crammed themselves into the chapel - double the normal number and this figure increased the next week.

Just before 17:00 the seminarians file in for their community Mass. I have already referred to my impression of their forming a corporate entity: it is during the liturgy that this impression becomes most manifest. All stand as the celebrant and servers enter. As the Mass begins a sharp tap is heard. All kneel as if one person. Introibo ad altare Dei - Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam - it is as if one person is responding, half speaking, half chanting. I soon discover that Ecône has a liturgical style of its own. Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta...It is impossible not to apply these words to those who are persecuting the Seminary; to those who will allow practically any abomination to take place during the celebration of Mass, but who are adamant that to begin it with Psalm 42 is a crime crying out to heaven for vengeance! (As the celebrant is now encouraged to add some words of his own at the beginning of Mass, why should he not choose Psalm 42? and if the congregation wishes to say some of the verses, is this not a dialogue? and surely nothing is more praiseworthy than a dialogue in the renewed Church?)

It is not simply the seminarians who seem to be an entity - everything in the chapel blends into an organic whole: the dignified and beautiful altar; the priest with his quiet words, his slow and deliberate gestures; the acolytes whose movements must surely be synchronized, the words of the Mass, the seminarians who have been absorbed into the liturgy, who are simply part of what is happening. And what is happening? The Sacrifice of Calvary is being rendered present in our midst. There is indeed but one entity here - and that entity is Christ. Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. Christ is present upon the altar, present physically, present in person. The priest raises Christ's true Body for our adoration - the same Body Which was born of the Virgin, Which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world, and Which is seated at the right hand of the Father. The priest who elevates the Host is also Christ, and how easy it is to believe this at Mass at Ecône. And the Congregation is Christ too, His Body on earth to build up His kingdom and, when they receive Holy Communion, they are united with Him and with each other as fully and perfectly as it is possible to be. This then is the secret of Ecône, this is the aim and the effect of the formation given there, the complete incorporation into Christ of these young men whose vocation it is to bring Christ to others.

In the pew in front of me there is a young couple with three children. The older girls use their missals with complete facility and make the responses with scarcely a glance at the page. The youngest child, about six years old, has a little book with a simple text and pictures of the action of the Mass. From time to time her sister checks to see that the picture corresponds with what the priest is doing at the altar.

Ite Missa Est says the priest. Deo Gratias comes the response; and what grace and blessings those who have been present at the Mass have to thank God for. Yet this is the Seminary which the French bishops, the Swiss bishops, and now the Vatican are trying to suppress. In principio erat Verbum....Once again the reason why is clear. We are in the midst of a "renewal" - which forbids the reading of the Last Gospel of St. John. Et tux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Ecône is a light, a light shining in the darkness that is now enveloping the Church, a light which reveals the hollowness of a renewal about which much is spoken but of which nothing is seen, a light which must be extinguished if the shallowness of this renewal is to remain hidden.


Wednesday, 28 May

Today I am to follow the seminarians throughout their normal program. They rise at 6:00. At 6:30 there is Prime followed by meditation. The Community Mass takes place at 7:15 and breakfast is at 8:00. Lectures begin at 9:00. The next is at 10:00 and the third at 11:00. Each lasts about forty-five minutes. They begin and end with prayer, they are very intensive and demand a high degree of attention. A large proportion of the students are graduates of secular universities and are able to cope with the demanding curriculum without great difficulty. Some of the younger seminarians find it requires an enormous effort - particularly those whose French is not too good when they arrive, as the teaching is conducted through this medium. There are several dozen students whose mother tongue is not French - Germans, Italians, Spaniards, English, Scottish, Australian, and above all American. There are also students from Africa and Asia. The title "International Seminary of St. Pius X" is well merited. I notice that an English student sitting next to me, now in his second year, makes his notes in French. In the Canon Law lecture the subject is that of the Oath. There is a great deal to condense into one lecture and the professor expounds the subject at great speed. The students open their Latin Codes of Canon Law at Canon 316. The difference between an oath and a vow is explained. We soon learn the difference between a iuramentum assertorium and a iuramentum promissorium. Canon follows canon as information is given on witnesses worthy of confidence, when oaths are binding on heirs, licitness, validity, obligation, annulment, dispensation, commutation, complications arising from possible conflicts with civil law. From time to time my eyes wander to the window through which I can see the great waterfall gleaming and shimmering in the bright sun. Soon the sun becomes too bright and the curtains are drawn. The loud-speaker summons an Abbé with a German name to the telephone. The professor is explaining how two apparently contradictory canons are not contradictory at all. Then chimes are heard over the loudspeaker announcing the end of the lecture. After the lecture the students crowd round the professor in friendly and animated conversation. During the lecture the atmosphere was formal and businesslike - afterwards it is all friendliness and informality.

At 12:10 there is Sext and the Angelus followed by lunch. Lunch is followed by recreation and the manual work - which can be synonymous if necessary. All students are asked to report to the vigneron, who has some urgent tasks to be done in the vineyard. There must have been some who when they answered a call to become laborers in the vineyard of the Lord had not expected to do so in quite such a literal manner. But the work is done with a great deal of gusto and a great deal of laughter, and the vigneron seems well pleased as he reappears with wine for those who want it.

Manual work is followed by two hours private study by the students in their rooms or the library - and study they do and study they must. If there is any feeling of anxiety among the seminarians during my visit it concerns their forthcoming examinations rather than the campaign to have the Seminary closed.

At 16:00 Goûter is available for those who want it - a cup of tea or coffee and a piece of bread and jam. Every weekday there is a plainchant practice at 18:00 - which explains the exceptionally high standard of chant in the Seminary. This is followed at 18:30 by a spiritual conference and at 19:00 by one of a variety of spiritual exercises, the Rosary, Benediction, Way of the Cross. Dinner is at 19:30, after which a period of recreation follows until Compline at 20:45. At 22:00 hours lights must be put out and strict silence observed.

It is impossible in any written account even to begin to convey any adequate impression of the atmosphere of Ecône. Serenity is perhaps the best word to describe it. This serenity derives in part from order and from discipline, but it is a discipline which comes from within, a discipline that is freely and consciously accepted, but which is practiced unconsciously and naturally. Above all, the atmosphere comes from the spirit of prayer which pervades the community. If asked to describe Ecône in one phrase there could be no other answer but "a community of prayer." This prayer springs from and is fostered by the deep spirituality evoked by the sublime liturgical worship which permeates the life of the Seminary. Whenever there are no lectures, there are students praying in the chapel or one of the many oratories. Look from any window in the Seminary and you will see soutane-clad figures walking in the vineyards and along the mountain paths saying the rosary. In the long corridors of the Seminary there are some very fine examples of baroque statuary - Our Lady, St. Joseph, the Sacred Heart. Strangely enough they appear in complete harmony with their very modern setting. Votive lights burn before them continually and in the evening there is almost invariably one young man kneeling in prayer before each statue. There is a particularly strong devotion to St. Pius X - the patron of the Seminary - before whose picture, beneath which there is a relic in the wall, a stream of prayers is offered for his intercession. However, although the atmosphere of Ecône is one of sanctity it is certainly not sanctimonious; there is no affectation, no conscious attempt to appear pious. The spirituality is natural and spontaneous and certainly accounts for the cheerfulness, the feeling of joy, which is equally evident and a real indication of true holiness.


Thursday, 29 May

Thursday, 29 May, is the Feast of Corpus Christi which is prepared for by solemn Vespers on the Wednesday evening. I will not even attempt to describe the beauty, the dignity, the perfection of this service. There is all-night exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and, during the night, I have the good fortune to make a visit to the chapel just before Matins are sung. I am not normally at my most receptive at 3:00 a. m., but I can state in all honesty that the only question I ask myself is not, "When will it end?" but, "Why must it end?" At about 4:00 a. m. I go outside for a few minutes to see the dawn appearing. The mountains are clearly visible, their snow-capped peaks turning red with the first rays of the sun. A chorus of innumerable birds has burst into its own version of Matins, almost drowning the rush of the great waterfall and blending with the sound of the eternal chant which filters through the windows of the chapel. At that moment, the brave new Church of Vatican II seems quite remote, quite unreal, and quite irrelevant with its dialogues and discussions, its committees and commissions, its political priests and emancipated nuns, its smiles and goodwill to all who are not of the Household of the Faith, its harshness and vindictiveness towards any Catholic who is less than enthusiastic about being updated. The great renewal with all its works and pomps seems no more than a memory now of a distant and unpleasant dream. Here is the eternal and unchanging Church. I turn to the ancient house of the Canons of St. Bernard. I would not be surprised to see one or more of them come down the steps at any moment; and should any do so and enter the chapel, then, no matter whether they had returned from fifty, a hundred, two hundred or three hundred years before, they could take their places beside the seminarians and begin singing Matins just as they had done when they lived at the foot of these same mountains.

At about 8:30 on the Feast of Corpus Christi we all leave for the parish church at Riddes. The parish priest has invited all the seminarians to take part in his Corpus Christi procession - a courageous gesture as the Swiss bishops have said there can no longer be any support for the Society of St. Pius X. Fr. Épiney, the Curé, is a very dynamic young priest. He has just built a very large and very modern church constructed of grey concrete. I must confess that I do not much like it, either the exterior or the interior. The church is packed to the doors for Mass with one empty section of seats reserved for the seminarians and their professors. Outside there is an atmosphere of great excitement and anticipation. Two bands are waiting - the Socialist band in blue uniforms and the Fanfare independante in crimson: this, I am told, is the "Radical" band and has Masonic ties. Both are anti-clerical and the Fanfaristes manifest this by remaining outside the church. But virtually everyone in Riddes is devoted to the Curé - and the bandsmen will manifest this devotion by playing in his procession. My friends at the Seminary told me I was in for a surprise. They were correct. The young Curé celebrates a Solemn High Tridentine Mass. The deacon and sub-deacon are seminarians who will be ordained on June 29th. The seminarians sing the Proper - many of the congregation join in. I notice that a good number of the young people present have very new missals - the Daily Missal which is on sale at the Seminary. The Curé gives a passionate sermon on devotion to the Blessed Sacrament which is listened to with rapt attention. He deplores the fact that there are even those who call themselves Catholics but do not kneel to receive their Lord and some who have the temerity to hold out their hands for the Host. The Blessed Sacrament is God; there is no honor, no devotion, no praise too great to offer to Him. We must be prepared to endure any humiliation, persecution even, rather than diminish our reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by one iota. In this sermon and in another when the procession halts for Benediction in the Town Square, he expresses his complete solidarity with the Seminary. He and the people of Riddes know what value to put on the calumnies used against it, no matter from what level they come. Our religion is a religion of love, and in the service of love malice and calumny have no part. There are reporters present. Cameras flash. I learn later that informed opinion is certain that the revenge of the bishops will be swift and severe. The Curé may not even last a week - he will certainly be out within a month. It is a humbling experience to see a young man prepared to make any sacrifice for a matter of principle, a young man who considers that truth takes priority over expediency. My mind immediately turns to another young man who took such a stand nearly 2,000 years ago; and it is this very Man, God the Son made Man, whom the Curé elevates in the Monstrance for our adoration at the start of the procession. Truly, here is Christ carried in the arms of an alter Christus.

The procession is a never to be forgotten event. There were clouds in the sky before Mass; these have vanished now and the sun is blazing down. The Pange Lingua surges upwards. The procession seems to go on for ever. There are the two bands. There are this year's first communicants - the little boys in their long white robes looking as charming as the girls. There is another group of children with baskets of rose petals which they scatter on the road along which God the Son will pass. The children of the village are present in their different age groups. A Marian group carries a statue of Our Lady of Fatima. The seminarians file past together with their professors; their number seems almost endless. An elderly and very poor lady is overcome with emotion. She begins to ask me something. I explain that I am only a visitor. She is delighted to learn that Ecône is known in Britain and that there are five British seminarians there now; and even more delighted to know that this number will be increased in the autumn. "Monsieur," she says, "Monsieur, the seminarians. How they sang at Mass. It was heaven come down to earth." "Heaven come down to earth" - this is it precisely. That is what Ecône is.

Behind the Blessed Sacrament walk the civic dignitaries - they are all there including the Socialist mayor whose devotion to the Curé equals that of any of the Catholic parishioners. Then come the ordinary Faithful - first the men and then the women; thousand upon thousand of them. Many must have come from outside this little town. All ages and all social classes walk together reciting the Rosary as they pass along the streets between houses decorated in honor of  the Feast while the bands play and the sun shines. There are practically no spectators - almost everyone is walking in the procession. My American friend and I decide that it is about time we do so too and we join the men. He is a young convert who, after graduating at an American University, has been working for a doctorate in Spain. He must return that night to defend his thesis. He will be entering the Seminary in September. He has only one regret and that is that he cannot enter now.

Eventually the procession returns to the church. There is Benediction yet again. The service ends with the Te Deum during which the seminarians file out. The great hymn of praise continues with almost undiminished vigor. I have to follow it from my missal (to my shame). I notice that most of the congregation know it by heart and sing it from their hearts. Salvum fac populum tuum Domine, et benedic baereditati tuae....We all go out to where the bands are playing and an unlimited supply of wine is available to all. The Curé moves among his people, a true father in God, laughing, smiling, joking, listening. The seminarians are surrounded by admirers and well-wishers. This has been a revelation of what Catholicism can be - how Belloc would have approved! And not least of the laughter and the wine.

I must leave the Seminary after Compline that night to take the train for London. The thought of leaving is painful. My own spiritual life has not simply been deepened and strengthened; it seems to have only just begun. I am just beginning to learn the true meaning of prayer and worship. Compline draws to an end. The lights are extinguished for the Salve Regina. The chant rises effortlessly up to the Blessed Lady who will certainly act as the gracious advocate for the hundred and more young men who are placing their hope in her - exsules filii Evae. Exiles indeed, exiles because their hopes and their beliefs are anathema to the forces holding effective power in the Church today. If they belonged to any of a thousand and one heretical sects they would be smiled upon; if they professed Judaism, the Islamic or the Hindu faith they would be welcomed with open arms; if they were Marxist politicians, then red carpets would be laid before their feet. But they are young men who believe in the traditional and unchanging Catholic Faith; they are young men filled with a burning love for Our Lord and Our Lady; they are young men who have no other desire in life than to bring Christ upon the altar in the sublime setting of the Mass codified by St. Pius V and which has nourished the Faith of so many saints and countless millions of faithful Catholics throughout the centuries. But this rite of Mass is inimical to Protestants. It enshrines and proclaims so clearly the doctrines of the Real Presence and the Real Sacrifice which they do not believe in and will not accept. The Tridentine Mass is an obstacle to Ecumenism. Ecumenism is the new god of the new Church and Ecumenism is a jealous god. The young men who kneel in the shadows before me, pouring out their prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, evoke the memory of St. Ignatius and his tiny band of followers, who eventually grew into a great army of soldiers of Christ who not only halted the progress of the Protestant heresy but won back millions of souls to God. The forces of Modernism realize too clearly that unless something can be done to prevent these young men from being ordained and going out into the world then the victory of Modernism, which had seemed so secure for a time, will be in serious doubt. The Faithful will rally to these young men, the young in particular, and there will indeed be a renewal; but a Catholic renewal built on the sound basis of the traditional liturgy, traditional teaching, and traditional spirituality of the Church.

Calumny is the weapon which will be used in an attempt to destroy it. More often than not the Society of St. Pius X will be unable to refute these calumnies, but truth is great and must prevail. For those who might be tempted to believe the calumnies I know that every member of this Society, from Archbishop Lefebvre to the youngest seminarians, would have only one answer: "Come and see." Ecône has no secrets, as any visitor will soon find out. If there is anything to be discovered there it is the secret of holiness. I would be surprised to learn of any man of good will who could visit the Seminary and think otherwise.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 7

In a letter to Mgr. Mamie dated 31 May 1975, Cardinal Tabera reaffirmed his approval and support for Mgr. Mamie's action in withdrawing recognition from the Society of St. Pius X.

Within a few days of writing this letter, Cardinal Tabera died suddenly. Let us pray that God may have mercy on him.

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


Most Holy Father,

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

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

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

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

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

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

And may God...

†Marcel Lefebvre.

On 2 June 1975, Mgr. Mamie published the Cardinals' letter of 6 May to Mgr. Lefebvre.

On 5 June Mgr. Lefebvre's lawyer lodged his appeal with the Court of the Apostolic Signature in Rome, listing serious breaches of Canon Law in the action taken against him and demanding the production of evidence that the Pope had in fact authorized the Cardinals to take their quite unprecedented action against the Society of St. Pius X. The text of  appeal is entered under 21 May 1975.

Bulletin No.17 of the International Federation Una Voce, published 6 June 1975, included a comment by its distinguished president, Dr. Eric M. Saventhem, concerning the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre. His remarks included the following:

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

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

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

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

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

On 10 June 1975 Mgr. Lefebvre's appeal was rejected on the grounds that the condemnation of the three Cardinals had been approved in forma specifica by the Pope and that therefore no appeal was admissible. Had this appeal gone forward it would have been necessary to produce the "express mandate" of the Holy Father authorizing the three Cardinals to act against Mgr. Lefebvre and also the approbation in forma specifica of the action which they took. There is every reason to believe that no such documents exist and that therefore the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre was uncanonical and automatically void. Had these documents existed there is not the least doubt that the Commission of Cardinals would have produced them. The decision against Mgr. Lefebvre could then have been set out, as was that against Fr. Coache, which, although unjust, at least denoted an observance of the correct legal procedure. The decision against Fr. Coache was phrased as follows:

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

It is quite clear that the Pope's letter to Mgr. Lefebvre of 29 June 1975 (which will be found in its chronological order) was an attempt to give retroactive legality to a manifestly illegal process. This letter, far from allaying doubts concerning the regularity of the procedure against the Archbishop, constituted the clumsiest of possible public admissions that it had been irregular. This a posteriori legalization of an illegal act will certainly scandalize anyone in the least familiar with the most elementary principles of jurisprudence. As Mgr. Lefebvre expressed it himself:

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

A final point with regard to Mgr. Lefebvre's appeal - it was rejected in only five days whereas such appeals normally involve months or even a year or more of study.

On 14 June 1975, Mgr. Lefebvre's lawyers lodged an appeal with the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature. He did not even receive a reply to this appeal, and in fact he discovered that Cardinal Staffa had been threatened with dismissal if he so much as examined any appeal coming from Mgr. Lefebvre.6

There may be readers who find it impossible to believe that those charged with governing the Church founded by Christ could behave in such a manner. It will suffice to cite the case of Father Coache once more to dispel their illusions. Among the many invaluable historical documents published by Itinéraires is its Dossier: The Unjust Condemnation of Fr. Coache (160 pages in length) in its issue of January 1976. It includes numerous letters to and from Fr. Coache, his Bishop, and various Vatican departments. Fr. Coache had incurred the displeasure of his Bishop for the crime of organizing a procession of the Blessed Sacrament, and he was to be deprived of his parish. He informed his Bishop that he would appeal to Rome against the decision and duly wrote his appeal. But learning there was a postal strike in Italy, he delayed posting it. Some days later the Vicar General arrived with a telegram from the Vatican announcing that his appeal had been rejected. Fr. Coache opened the drawer containing the envelope with his appeal in it, showed it to the Vicar General and said: "Here's my appeal. I haven't posted it yet!" Exit the Vicar General in confusion. A few days later, the postal strike being over, a letter from the Vatican confirming the rejection of his appeal arrived. The Latin text and translation are set out below. This letter proves that no Catholic today can presume that any statement coming from the Vatican is true. The same goes for the "establishment" of the "Conciliar Church" in any country. I have a number of examples on record of straightforward lies told by prominent Liberal clerics in England.

The text of the letter from the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy is taken from the January 1976 issue of Itinéraires.

SACRA CONGREGATIO
PRO CLERICIS
Prot. 124205

Romae, 6 Junii 1969.

Excellentissime Domine,

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

P. Palazzini, a Secretis.

Excellentissimo ac Rev. mo Domino,

D. NO STEPHANO DESMAZIÉRES

Episcopo
Bellovacen.

A translation of this letter follows:

Excellentissime Domine,

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

An Editor Silenced

There was considerable sympathy for Ecône and the Old Mass in England. Particularly significant in this connection was the editorial of the Catholic Herald of 13 June 1975 (the issue which reported the suppression of Ecône).

It began by admitting that most of the letters received by the editor concerned the liturgy, and that most of these letters were against the reforms. It went on to refer to the recent episcopal pronunciamento, which was simply a restatement of the October 1974 renewed proscription of the Old Mass by the Congregation for Divine Worship. Describing this as "a landmark in ecumenical history," the editorial stated:

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

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

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

It is hardly surprising that the present Liberal establishment could not countenance the prospect of an official Catholic weekly presenting the news objectively and commenting upon it in balanced editorials. It was soon made clear to Stuan Reid, the newly appointed editor, that although he had been guaranteed editorial freedom, this meant only freedom to write what was acceptable to the Liberal establishment. He was told that he must either submit his editorials to censorship or have them written for him by someone who could be guaranteed not to deviate from the party line. Under these circumstances he felt that he had no honorable option but to resign.


A Priest Dismissed

On 15 June 1975, Fr. Pierre Épiney, the young parish priest of Riddes, the nearest parish to the Seminary at Ecône, was summarily deprived of his parish by Mgr. Adam, because of his "refusal to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff and to Vatican II.”

In an open letter to Fr. Épiney, Mgr. Adam stated that this was the most cruel decision in his 23-year episcopate but that he would be failing in his duty if "by my silence, I were to collude with your disobedience." Within a few days of the Bishop's decision being known over 800 of the adult parishioners had signed a petition in support of Fr. Épiney and more have since been added. This represents almost all the adult practicing Catholics in the parish. An earlier petition to have Fr. Épiney removed attracted only 12 signatures. Fr. Épiney complied with Mgr. Adam's order to vacate his parish church on 15 June but conducted an evening vigil before the Blessed Sacrament which concluded exactly at midnight, when he left the Church which had been packed to the doors for the vigil.

Evidently, there is only one serious sin in the contemporary Church - "to refuse to submit to Vatican II." One of the grounds for the dismissal of Fr. Épiney was that he had returned to the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. As, to the certain knowledge of Mgr. Adam, he has been saying only this form of Mass for several years, the Bishop's sudden pangs of conscience are curious to say the least.

Needless to say, the real reason for Fr. Épiney's dismissal was his refusal to obey the diktat of the faceless Roman authority who insisted that "no support whatsoever must be given to Mgr. Lefebvre."

On 29 June 1975, Pope Paul VI dispatched his first letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. This letter was made public in a dossier on Ecône published in the Nouvelliste of Sion on 12 December 1975. (Sion is the diocese in which Ecône is situated.)

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

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

Dear Brother,

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

The precise reason for the Pope's "grief" at Mgr. Lefebvre's attempt to "invalidate" the action taken against him is that he has had the temerity to resort to the standard legal procedure and lodge an appeal to the competent tribunal. As, according to the Commission of Cardinals and stated expressly in its letter of 6 May 1975 (see p. 59), the sole motive for the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre was the Declaration of 21 November 1974, the competent authority to decide upon the orthodoxy of this letter was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Mgr. Lefebvre has asked that his Declaration be examined by this Congregation, the "competent authority," but this request has been denied.

Careful note should also be taken of the manner in which no distinction is made between "opposition to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed." All must be accepted together as a strict package.

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

This is the first documentary evidence to support the claim that the Pope had given approval to the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre in forma specifica. Papal approval is normally given to acts of the Curia in forma communi. This simply gives the necessary legal status to the curial act in question when such approval is necessary. A decree which has received such approbation still remains the decree of those who enacted it - it is an act of the Holy See rather than a specifically papal act. If such an act contained legal irregularities sufficient to invalidate it, then it would be invalid despite having received papal approval in forma communi. Without proof to the contrary, papal approbation should always be presumed to have been given in forma communi.

The special approbation known as in forma specifica is granted only after the Pope has given the matter his close personal attention in every aspect and possibly made changes in the text submitted to him. Such approval is indicated by such formulas as ex motu proprio, ex scientia certa, de apostolicae auctoritatis plenitudine. This manner of approbation transforms the act into a specifically papal one and the steps leading up to it are considered as having only consultative status. Normally, even if there had been legal irregularities in the preliminary stages, these could not affect the juridical validity of a decision which the Pope had made his own. Up to the publication of this letter there had been no more than a gratuitous affirmation by Cardinal Villot that the Pope had approved the steps taken against Mgr. Lefebvre in forma specifica, thus blocking the appeal which could have revealed, inter alia, that no such approval had been given up to that point. The question that must be asked is whether this letter from the Pope is an attempt to give approval in forma specifica retrospectively. If it is not, why can no earlier document be produced?

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

Mgr. Lefebvre's profession of veneration for the successor of St. Peter is the only point in his letter of 31 May to which specific reference is made. No answer is made to his claim that Natural and Canon Law have been violated or that his Declaration should be submitted for judgment to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

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

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

Pope Paul VI thus shows himself to be aware of the abuses which are widespread in every aspect of the Church's life, in doctrine, in the liturgy, in morality. He returns to this theme on future occasions, most notably in his Consistorial Address of 24 May 1976 and in his long letter to Mgr. Lefebvre dated 11 October 1976, which can be found under this date. In this letter Pope Paul even concedes that these abuses are going to the extent of sacrilege. He invariably stated that he was taking action to remedy these abuses, but it must be stated, with all the respect due to the Holy Father, that the anguished faithful in many countries saw no sign at all of any action being taken to correct abuses during his pontificate, particularly in the liturgy. To give just one example, Pope Paul himself made it quite clear that he wished the traditional manner of receiving Holy Communion to be adhered to in his Instruction Memoriale Domini of 29 May 1969. But since this Instruction was published he has legalized the abuse of Communion in the hand throughout the West. A detailed examination of the manner in which one liturgical abuse after another has spread throughout the world, with the acquiescence of the Vatican, will be provided in my book Pope Paul's New Mass. The beginning of the story has already been documented in Pope John's Council.

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

This is truly an astonishing statement. How is it possible to condemn as harmful excesses the training of priests in the traditional manner, and in almost total conformity to the norms laid down during and subsequent to Vatican II; in continuing to teach traditional doctrine and morality in total conformity with the acts of the Magisterium dating back 2,000 years, and in conformity with such documents of Pope Paul VI himself as Mysterium Fidei, his Credo, or his Humanae Vitae; and in continuing to offer Mass in accordance with the Missal of Saint Pius V, a Missal which has provided the source of the spiritual life of so many saints in so many countries, and to which Pope Paul himself paid tribute in his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum?

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

It also quite astonishing to find Mgr. Lefebvre's "faults" equated with the abuses he denounces. His "faults" are to continue teaching the traditional faith, using the traditional liturgy, and forming seminarians in the traditional manner even if this involves disobeying the Vatican and even the Pope himself. How can such devotion to the traditional faith be compared with the abuses mentioned by the Archbishop in his letter of 31 May where he refers to the Dutch Bishops who have publicly questioned the virginal conception of Our Lord - a doctrine fundamental to our entire faith? Pope Paul VI did not denounce the Dutch hierarchy.

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

If some Catholics claim that there is a parallel between the case of Archbishop Lefebvre and that of St. Athanasius, what can the Archbishop do about it? Appendix I shows that a good case can be made for invoking such a parallel.

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

St. Athanasius defended not so much the Council of Nicea as the traditional faith which this very important dogmatic council taught. Mgr. Lefebvre would certainly defend any of the traditional articles of faith restated in the documents of Vatican II, as, indeed, some of them are.

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

Within the space of a few lines the charge against Mgr. Lefebvre has been changed from allowing himself to be compared to St. Athanasius to actually comparing himself with the great saint - something that he has neither done nor would ever contemplate doing! There is, in fact, a very striking comparison between Archbishop Lefebvre and St. Athanasius. Pope Liberius subscribed to one of the ambiguous formulae of Sirmium, which seriously compromised the traditional faith, and he confirmed the excommunication of St. Athanasius. It is true that Liberius acted under pressure and later repented - but it is equally true that it was Athanasius who upheld the faith and was canonized. The story of Liberius and Athanasius is told in some detail in Appendix I.

It is really hard to believe that Pope Paul VI could claim seriously that Vatican II is equal in authority and in some respects more important than the Council of Nicea. The Council of Nicea, the first Ecumenical Council, promulgated infallible teaching concerned with the divinity of Christ - nothing could be more fundamental or more important. Vatican II deliberately refrained from utilizing that assistance of the Holy Ghost which would have enabled it to promulgate infallible teaching. The teaching of Nicea belongs to the Extraordinary Magisterium and those who deny it are anathematized. The teaching of Vatican II belongs to the Ordinary Magisterium and no such sanction is applied to anyone rejecting it. There is thus no possible way in which the teaching of Vatican II could be considered equal in authority to Nicea, still less more important. When the Pope makes such claims he is expressing his personal opinion and his views in no way demand our assent. The question of the relative status of the two councils is considered in Appendix III.

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

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

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

The Significance of Pope Paul's Letter

Jean Madiran, editor of Itinéraires, considers that the personal intervention of the Pope marks a second and tragic phase in the campaign against the Archbishop. In the issue dated February 1977 he writes (pp. 122-123):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Issue Made Clear

With the Pope's letter of 29 June 1975, the issues at stake have been made quite clear. Our attitude to subsequent events will be governed by our reaction to the manner in which the Society of St. Pius X and its Seminary at Ecône were suppressed. Given that the Pope's letter of 29 June is legally acceptable as approval of this suppression in forma specifica, it would be technically correct to concede that the Archbishop is being disobedient. Let it be noted here that he and his legal advisers do not accept that even in the light of the Pope's letter of 29 June 1975 the decision against him can be considered as legally valid. Could it be proved that the decision conformed with the strict legal requirements of Canon Law, it was clearly an outrage against the Natural Law, and a Catholic would be entitled to resist such a decision.

As will be shown in Appendix II, The Right to Resist an Abuse of Power, Bishop Grosseteste was certainly resisting a perfectly legal papal command in 1253 - but it would surprise me if a single reader of this book would say that this great English Bishop was wrong. What every theologian of repute would certainly accept is that resisting the Pope is not ipso facto wrong, what matters is the reason for resistance. What has never ceased to astonish me from the beginning of the whole affair is not the manner in which Catholic Liberals pour invective upon the Archbishop - this is only to be expected - but the manner in which self-proclaimed champions of orthodoxy condemn him for the sin of disobedience with an alacrity which would have left the most accomplished pharisee at a loss for words, and the manner in which they issue their condemnations without even a pretense of taking into consideration the reasons which have prompted Mgr. Lefebvre to make his stand. The case can be summarized as follows:

1. The Society of Saint Pius X was established according to all the requirements of Canon Law, with the approval of the Vatican and the active encouragement of the Congregation of the Clergy and its Prefect, Cardinal Wright.

2. The Society soon established the most flourishing and orthodox Seminary in Europe at enormous financial cost, borne by thousands of faithful Catholics all over the world.

3. An Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary brought to light no reason for complaint.

4. Mgr. Lefebvre was summoned to appear before three Cardinals for a discussion which turned out to be a trial.

5. The entire case against him was based on a statement provoked by unorthodox opinions expressed by the Apostolic Visitors to Ecône.

6. The entire Society was suppressed as the result of a single statement made by only one of its members.

7. The Archbishop rightly insisted that if the statement was alleged to be unorthodox the only tribunal competent to assess it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. He asked to have his Declaration considered by this Congregation. His request was refused.

8. Up to this point, no public statement had been issued quoting a specific passage in this Declaration which was alleged to be unorthodox.

9. Not one iota of evidence has ever been produced to prove that the Commission of Cardinals had been constituted by the Pope according to the required canonical norms or that the Pope had approved its decisions in forma specifica.

10. However, even had this Commission of Cardinals formed a legally constituted tribunal with the authority to try and condemn Mgr. Lefebvre (without considering it necessary to mention this fact to him), it has been shown on p. 61 that the decisions taken against Mgr. Lefebvre were not those of the tribunal, still less of the Pope, but of some anonymous authority.

11. At the moment when it would have been necessary to produce the relevant documents in response to the Archbishop’s appeal, it was stated that his appeal could not be heard as the Pope had approved the decisions of the Commission of Cardinals in forma specifica - the very point which the Archbishop disputed and for which his lawyer would required proof.

12. On this basis the Archbishop was expected to close his Seminary in mid-term and send professors and seminarians home.


Mgr. Lefebvre claims that this constituted an abuse of power. The reader must decide whether he is justified in making this claim. The question at issue is this: Is it outrageous that the Archbishop should have refused to submit to the Pope, or is it outrageous that the Pope should have demanded that the Archbishop should submit to such a travesty of justice?

On 22 October 1976, The Cambridge Review, a non-Catholic publication, included an article on the legal aspects of the treatment accorded to Mgr. Lefebvre, part of which is reproduced below.

The Cambridge Review Speaks Out

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29 June 1975 - The Ordinations at Ecône

The Feast of SS. Peter and Paul, 29 June 1975, was celebrated at Ecône with the ordination to the priesthood of three deacons. The necessary legal procedure for their incardination in the dioceses of bishops sympathetic to Archbishop Lefebvre had already been completed. Approximately a thousand of the faithful were present and hundreds were unable to find a place inside the chapel. Subject to the approval of the civil authorities, a new and much larger chapel will eventually be built at Ecône.

In July 1975, Mgr. Lefebvre's second appeal was rejected. Technically, as from July 1975, the Society of St. Pius X and its foundations no longer existed. In the language of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four, the Seminary at Ecône, the most flourishing and most orthodox seminary in the West, then became an unseminary. The most serious aspect of this situation was that some members of religious orders teaching at Ecône had to leave, as their superiors would not allow them to remain in an institution which had no legal existence.

About a dozen students did not return in September as a result of the changed situation. But given the enormous pressure brought to bear upon the students and their families, this is a significantly small proportion.

However, the number of young men seeking to enter Ecône was still so high that dozens had to be refused even after filling the vacancies caused by those who had left.


15 July 1975

On 15 July 1975, Mgr. Lefebvre wrote to thank Hamish Fraser for devoting an entire issue of Approaches to the campaign against Ecône. This letter is significant for its affirmation of the Archbishop's belief that Cardinal Villot was the moving spirit behind the campaign.

Dear Mr. Hamish Fraser,

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

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

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

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

The Catholic Herald (London) of 25 July 1975 carried an N. C. Report stating that Mgr. Mamie had invited the students from Ecône to contact Mgr. Adam (Bishop of Sion) or himself in order that arrangements could be made for them to continue their studies for the priesthood at the University of Fribourg. Cardinal Marty, Archbishop of Paris, had associated himself with this invitation and the bishops promised that any student who wished could be incardinated into his original diocese or into a religious order.

The French daily, L'Aurore, reported on 21 July that Cardinal Garrone had offered to arrange for the French-speaking seminarians to enter the Pontifical French Seminary in Rome. The enemies of Ecône were clearly distressed that, notwithstanding their machinations, the Seminary still existed.


Footnotes

1. The Letter to Cardinal Staffa of 21 May 1975.

2. Non-observance of Natural and Canon Law which evidently annuls the preceding paragraph.

3. The article of 8 May 1975.

4. Hanu, pp. 222-223 (191).

5. Hanu, p. 223 (191).

6. Hanu p. 216, 223 (185, 191)

7. The Roman Congregations

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

Volume 1, Chapter 8

The War of Attrition

Under the heading "Official Information of the Conference of Swiss Bishops concerning Mgr. Lefebvre's Foundations," the 12 December 1975 issue of the Nouvelliste (of Sion, Switzerland) reproduced a Dossier concerning Ecône which had just been released for publication by the Swiss Bishops' Conference.

This Dossier comprised the following documents:

1. A letter from Cardinal Villot dated 27 October 1975 addressed to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

2. The text of a typewritten letter signed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI dated 29 June 1975 addressed to Mgr. Lefebvre.

3. The text of an entirely handwritten letter dated 8 September 1975, from His Holiness Pope Paul VI to Mgr. Lefebvre.

4. The text of the handwritten reply from Mgr. Lefebvre to His Holiness Pope Paul VI dated 24 September 1975.

5. In addition to these documents the Nouvelliste also published a commentary on them by Mgr. Pierre Mamie, the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg.

These documents are included here in their chronological order, with the exception of the papal letter of 29 June, which has already been included under that date.

8 September 1975 - Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre

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

Awareness of the mission with which the Lord has entrusted Us led Us on 29 June last to address to you an exhortation that was both urgent and fraternal.

Since that date, We have waited each day for a sign on your part expressing your submission - or better than that, your attachment and unreserved fidelity - to the Vicar of Christ. Nothing has yet come. It seems that you have not renounced any of your activities and, even that you are developing new projects.

Do you perhaps consider that your intentions have been badly understood? Do you perhaps believe the Pope to be badly informed, or subject to pressure? Dear Brother, your attitude in Our eyes is so serious that - We tell you again - We have Ourselves attentively examined it in all aspects, Our primary concern being for the good of the Church and a particular concern for persons. The decision which We confirmed to you in Our previous letter was taken after mature reflection and before the Lord.

The time has now come for you to declare yourself clearly. Despite the grief We feel in making public Our interventions, We can no longer delay doing so if you do not soon declare your complete submission. We implore you to force us neither to take such a step nor afterwards take sanctions against a refusal of obedience.

Pray to the Holy Spirit, dear Brother. He will show you the necessary renunciations and help you to re-enter in the path of a full communion with the Church and with the successor of Peter. We Ourselves invoke Him on your behalf while telling you once more of Our affection and Our affliction.

8 September 1975

Paul PP VI

24 September 1975 - Letter of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI

Dear Holy Father,

If my reply to the letter of Your Holiness is belated, it is that it was repugnant to me to make a public act that could have led people to think that I had the pretension of treating the successor of Peter on a footing of equality.

On the other hand, on the advice of the Nunciature, I hasten to write these few lines to Your Holiness in order to express my unreserved attachment to the Holy See and to the Vicar of Christ. I very much regret that my feelings in this regard could have been called in question and that certain of my expressions may have been wrongly interpreted.

It is to His Vicar that Jesus Christ confided the responsibilities of confirming his brethren in the faith and whom He asked to watch that each Bishop should faithfully guard the deposit of faith, in accordance with the words of Paul to Timothy.

It is this conviction which guides me and has always guided me throughout the whole of  my priestly and apostolic life. It is this faith which I endeavour with God's help to inculcate in the youth who are preparing themselves for the priesthood.

This faith is the soul of Catholicism affirmed by the Gospels: "on this I shall build my Church."

With all my heart, I renew my devotion towards the Successor of Peter, "The Master of Truth" for the whole Church, "columna et firmamentum Veritatis."

†Marcel Lefebvre

27 October 1975 - Letter from Cardinal Villot to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences

Your Eminence, Your Excellency,

On 6 May last, in full agreement with the Holy See, Mgr. Pierre Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg withdrew canonical approval from the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X, directed by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre, former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle.

The foundations of this Fraternity, and particularly the Seminary of Ecône, by this same action lost the right to exist. Thus a particularly complex sad affair was settled from the juridical point of view.

What point have we reached in this matter six months afterwards? Mgr. Lefebvre has not yet accepted in deeds the decision of the competent authority. His activities continue, his projects tend to assume concrete form in various countries, his writings and talks continue to lead astray a certain number of confused Catholics. It is alleged here and there that the Holy Father has allowed himself to be influenced or that the development of the procedure has been vitiated by formal defects.

It is not simply alleged "here and there" that there were formal defects in the legal proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, it is Mgr. Lefebvre himself who makes the claim, and his advocate was prepared to prove it if granted a proper legal hearing. The fact that the Archbishop was denied the right to appeal certainly gives credence to his allegation.

Fidelity to the Church of yesterday is invoked in order to disassociate oneself from the Church of today as though the Church of the Lord could change in nature or in form.

In view of the harm done to Christian people by the continuation of such a situation and only after having utilized all the resources of charity, the Sovereign Pontiff has ordered that the following information, which should contribute towards dispelling remaining doubts, be communicated to all Episcopal Conferences.

The Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X was instituted on 1 November 1970 by Mgr. Francis Charrière, the then Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg. A diocesan pious union, it was destined in the mind of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre to be subsequently transformed into a Religious Community without vows. Until its recognition as such - which recognition moreover was not given - it consequently continued to be subject jurisdiction of the Bishop of Fribourg and to the vigilance of the dioceses in which it carried on its activities. Such is the position according to law.

However, it became apparent soon enough that those responsible refused all control by the legitimate authorities...

This is a straightforward calumny. The letter from Cardinal Wright cited under the date 18 February 1971 proves that Archbishop Lefebvre was keeping the appropriate Vatican departments acquainted with the progress of the Fraternity - and that this progress was regarded with warm approbation by Cardinal Wright. The only attempt by "legitimate authority" to exercise "control" was the Apostolic Visitation of November 1974. In his letter of 25 January 1975 (cited in under that date), Cardinal Garrone thanked Mgr. Lefebvre for the total cooperation which he had given to the Apostolic Visitor. "We are grateful to you for having given him every facility to accomplish the mission on behalf of the See."

...remaining deaf to their warnings...

This is another calumny. As no such warnings from "the legitimate authorities" were received by Mgr. Lefebvre (and not even one is cited by Cardinal Villot), the Archbishop can hardly be accused of remaining deaf to them!

...persevering against the whole world in their chosen direction: systematic opposition to the Second Vatican Council and to post-conciliar reform.

This is a very vague and sweeping allegation. It should be noted that opposition to the Council itself and to the reforms claiming to implement it are bracketed together. Throughout the entire campaign against the Archbishop he is invariably ordered to accept the Council and the Reforms - it is never conceded that a distinction can be made between them. In this respect I must ask readers to refer to my book Pope John's Council, where I provide ample documentation to prove that a good number of the reforms claiming to implement the Council cannot possibly be justified by specific reference to a Council document. I also demonstrate that there are, as Mgr. Lefebvre claims, some badly worded passages in the actual documents which have been utilized by the Liberals in their efforts to undermine the Church. Now either these ambiguous passages exist or they do not. If they do exist, then Mgr. Lefebvre clearly has a duty to draw attention to them; if his criticisms are unfounded, then this should be pointed out. At the moment his opponents are not prepared to discuss, let alone attempt to refute, his criticisms. Their invariable attitude is that anyone who criticizes the documents of Vatican II is ipso facto in the wrong.

It was not acceptable that candidates for the priesthood should be trained in a spirit of hostility towards the living Church, towards the Pope, towards the Bishops, and towards the priests with whom they were asked to collaborate.

Not one word is adduced to prove that the seminarians were trained in this spirit. Quite clearly, the testimony of the Apostolic Visitors gave no such impression or it would have been used against the Archbishop.

It became urgent to help the seminarists who had thus been trained. Finally, it appeared necessary to remedy the increasing trouble in several dioceses in Switzerland and other nations.

In view of the gravity of this matter and anxious that the inquiry should be conducted quite dispassionately, the Holy Father therefore set up a Commission of Cardinals composed of three members: Cardinal Gabriel-Marie Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education (who was President of the Commission); Cardinal John Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; and Cardinal Arturo Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes. This Commission had as its task, first to collect the fullest possible information and to proceed to an examination of all aspects of the problem, and then to propose its findings to the Sovereign Pontiff.

The first phase of its work lasted approximately a year. That is to say that, contrary to certain allegations, it was done without any haste and time was taken for profound reflection. The evidence of a very large number of the witnesses was received. An Apostolic Visitation of the Fraternity was effected at Ecône (11-13 November 1974) by Mgr. Albert Descamps, Rector Emeritus of the University of Louvain, and Secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, assisted by Mgr. Guillaume Onclin, in the capacity of canonical adviser. Mgr. Mamie and Mgr. Adam, Bishop of Sion (the diocese in which Ecône is situated), were heard on several occasions and Mgr. Lefebvre was twice called to Rome, in February and March 1975. The Pope himself was frequently and scrupulously kept informed of the development of the inquiry and its results, which he had to confirm in the course of the summer to Mgr. Lefebvre (cf. the two Pontifical letters which will be referred to later).

The second phase resulted in the decision which is known, a decision made public by order of His Holiness communicated to the Cardinals' Commission, and a decision without right of appeal since each of its points was approved in forma specifica by the Supreme Authority.

Once again it must be stated that not one shred of document evidence of the Pope's approval in forma specifica can be produced dated earlier than his letter of 29 June 1975. It is reasonable to presume that Cardinal Villot forbade Cardinal Staffa to examine the Archbishop's second appeal in order to prevent this serious irregularity from being brought to light.

I shall not deal any further with the history of what happened. If you consider it useful, you can in effect ask for details from the Pontifical Representative in your country. He has been instructed to give you such information should it be needed.

It is therefore now clear that the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has ceased to exist, that those who still claim to be members of it cannot pretend - a fortiori - to escape the jurisdiction of the diocesan Ordinaries, and, finally, that these same Ordinaries are gravely requested not to accord incardination in their dioceses to the young men who declare themselves to be engaged in the service of the Fraternity.

This paragraph makes clear the true purpose of Cardinal Villot's letter. In order to be ordained, a priest must be accepted (incardinated) into either a diocese or a religious order. By instructing the world's bishops to refuse to incardinate the students from Ecône, Cardinal Villot imagined that he had signed the death-warrant of Ecône, since students would not go there to study for the priesthood when there was no possibility of their being ordained. Up to this point the priests ordained at Ecône had all been regularly incardinated into dioceses in accordance with the requirements of Canon Law.

It remains for me to present to you the enclosed documents, two letters addressed by the Holy Father to Mgr. Lefebvre, and a reply from the latter. Their publication had been delayed until now: the Gospel teaches that fraternal correction must first be attempted with discretion. This is also the reason why the Holy See has abstained from all kinds of polemic from the beginning of this affair and has never sought to react to the insinuations, lying manipulation of the facts, and personal accusations so liberally diffused in the press. But there sometimes comes a moment when silence can no longer be kept and when it is necessary for the Church to know (cf. Mt. 18: 15-17).1

There had indeed been a press campaign based on "insinuations, lying manipulation of the facts, and personal accusations" - but it was in operation against Mgr. Lefebvre rather than on his behalf. As the entry for 8 May 1975 makes clear, a lead was given in this campaign by an article in L'Osservatore Romano, probably written by Cardinal Villot himself.

The first letter dated 29 June 1975 had been taken to Ecône on 8 July. It has never been answered. You will read in it, as in the second (8 September) the grief of the Common Father and the hope he still entertains, even if no sign of real good will has yet been given him. You will see that his dearest wish is to receive his Brother in the Episcopate whenever he submits.

The letter from Mgr. Lefebvre certainly shows evidence of personal devotion with regard to the Pontiff, but unfortunately nothing authorizes one to think that the author is resolved to obey. It cannot therefore itself alone be considered a satisfactory reply.

Your Eminence/Your Excellency, if circumstances are such that the problem affects you in one way or another, you yourself or other Bishops of your country, you will have it at heart in this Holy Year to work for peace and reconciliation. The hour is not one for polemics, it is rather one for charity and for examination of conscience. Excesses often call forth other excesses. Vigilance in doctrinal and liturgical matters, clear-sightedness in discerning the reforms which require to be undertaken, patience and tact in the guidance of the People of God, solicitude for priestly vocations and an exacting preparation for the tasks of the ministry, all that is undoubtedly the most effective manner in which a Pastor can bear witness.

I am sure you will understand this appeal and, with you, I desire that the unity of the members of the Church may shine forth still more in the future.

†Jean Cardinal Villot

3 September 1975 - Letter to Friends and Benefactors2 (no.9)

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

It seems to me that the moment has come to bring to your knowledge the latest events concerning Ecône, and the attitude which in conscience before God we believe we must take in these grave circumstances.

As far as the appeal to the Apostolic Signature is concerned: the last attempt on the part of my lawyer, to find out from the Cardinals forming the Supreme Court exactly how the Pope intervened in the proceedings being brought against us, was stopped in its tracks by a hand-written letter from Cardinal Villot to Cardinal Staffa, President of the Supreme Court, ordering him to forbid any appeal.

As for my audience with the Holy Father, it has likewise been refused by Cardinal Villot. I shall obtain an audience only when my work has disappeared and when I have conformed my way of thinking to that which reigns supreme in today's reformed Church.

However, the most important event is undoubtedly the signed letter from the Holy Father (of 29 June) presented as the Pope's own handwriting by the Papal Nuncio in Bern, but in fact typewritten, and which takes up again in a new form the arguments or rather the statements of the Cardinal's letter. This I received on 10 July last. It calls on me to make a public act of submission "to the Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed (orientations qui engagent le pape lui-même)."

A second letter from the Pope which I received on 10 September urgently required an answer to the first letter.

This time, through no desire of my own, my only aim being to serve the Church in the humble and very consoling task of giving Her true priests devoted to Her service, I found myself confronted with the Church authorities at their top-most level on earth, the Pope. So I wrote an answer to the Holy Father, stating my submission to the successor of Peter in his essential function, that of faithfully transmitting to us the deposit of the faith.

If we consider the facts from a purely material point of view, it is a trifling matter: the suppression of a Society which has barely come into existence, with no more than a few dozen members, the closing down of a Seminary - how little it is in reality, hardly worth anyone's attention.

On the other hand if for a moment we heed the reactions stirred up in Catholic and even Protestant, Orthodox and atheist circles, moreover throughout the entire world, the countless articles in the world press, reactions of enthusiasm and true hope, reactions of spite and opposition, reactions of mere curiosity, we cannot help thinking, even against our will, that Ecône is posing a problem reaching far beyond the modest confines of the Society and its Seminary, a deep and unavoidable problem that cannot be pushed to one side with a sweep of the hand, nor solved by any formal order, from whatever authority it may come. For the problem of Ecône is the problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences, distressed, divided and torn for the past ten years by the agonizing dilemma: whether to obey and risk losing one's faith, or disobey and keep one's faith intact; whether to obey and join in the destruction of the Church, whether to accept the reformed Liberal Church, or to go on belonging to the Catholic Church.

It is because Ecône is at the heart of this crucial problem, seldom till now posed with such fullness or gravity, that so many people are looking to this house which has resolutely made its choice of belonging to the eternal Church and of refusing to belong to the reformed Liberal Church.

And now the Church, through her official representatives, is taking up a position against Ecône's choice, thus condemning in public the traditional training of priests, in the name of the Second Vatican Council, in the name of post-conciliar reforms, and in the name of post-conciliar orientations to which the Pope himself is committed.

How can such opposition to Tradition in the name of a Council and its practical application be explained? Can one reasonably oppose, should one in reality oppose, a Council and its reforms? What is more, can one and should one oppose the orders of a hierarchy commanding one to follow the Council and all the official post-conciliar changes?

That is the grave problem, today, after ten post-conciliar years, confronting our conscience, as a result of the condemnation of Ecône.

One cannot give a prudent answer to these questions without making a rapid survey of the history of Liberalism and Catholic Liberalism over the last centuries. The present can only be explained by the past.

Principles of Liberalism

Let us first define in a few words the Liberalism of which the most typical historical example is Protestantism. Liberalism pretends to free man from any constraint not wished or accepted by himself.

First liberation: frees the intelligence from any objective truth imposed on it. The Truth must be accepted as differing according to the individual or group of individuals, so it is necessarily divided up. The making of the Truth and the search for it go on all the time. Nobody can claim to have exclusive or complete possession of it. It is obvious how contrary that is to Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church.

Second liberation: frees the faith from any dogmas imposed on us, formulated in a definitive fashion, and which the intelligence and will must submit to. Dogmas, according to the Liberal, must be submitted to the test of reason and science, constantly, because science is constantly progressing. Hence it is impossible to admit any revealed truth defined once and for all. It will be noticed how opposed such a principle is to the Revelation of Our Lord and His divine authority.

Lastly, Third liberation: frees us from the law. The law, according, to the Liberal, limits freedom and imposes on it a restraint first moral and then physical. The law and its restraint are an affront to human dignity and human conscience. Conscience is the supreme law. The Liberal confuses liberty with license. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the living Law, as He is the Word of God; it will be realized once more how deep runs the opposition between the Liberal and Our Lord.


Consequences of Liberalism

The consequences of Liberal principles are to destroy the philosophy of being and to refuse all definition of things, so as to shut oneself into nominalism or existentialism and evolutionism. Everything is subject to mutation and change.

A second consequence, as grave as the first, if not more so, is to deny the supernatural, and hence original sin, justification by grace, the true reason for the Incarnation, the Sacrifice of the Cross, the Church, the Priesthood. Everything Our Lord accomplished gets falsified; which works out in practical terms as a Protestant view of the Liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments whose object is no longer to apply the merits of the Redemption to souls, to each single soul, in order to impart to it the grace of divine life and to prepare it for eternal life through its belonging to the Mystical Body of Our Lord, but whose central purpose from now on is the belonging to a human community of a religious character. The whole liturgical Reform reflects this change of direction.

Another consequence: the denying of all personal authority as sharing in the authority of God. Human dignity demands that man submit only to what he agrees to submit to. Since, however, no society can live without authority, man will accept only authority approved by the majority, because that represents authority being delegated by the largest number of individuals to a designated person or group of persons, such authority being never more than delegated.

Now these principles and their consequences, requiring freedom of thought, freedom of teaching, freedom of conscience, freedom to choose one's own religion, these false freedoms which presuppose the secular state, the separation of Church and State, have been, ever since the Council of Trent, steadily condemned by the successors of Peter, starting with the Council of Trent itself.

Condemnation of Liberalism by the Magisterium of the Church

It is the Church’s opposition to Protestant Liberalism which gave rise to the Council of Trent, and hence the considerable importance of this dogmatic Council in the struggle against Liberal errors, in the defense of the Truth and the Faith, in particular in the codifying of the Liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments, in the definitions concerning justification by grace.

Let us list a few of the most important documents, completing and confirming the Council of Trent's doctrine:

- The Bull Auctorem fidei of Pius VI against the Council of Pistoia.

- The Encyclical Mirari vos of Gregory XVI against Lamennais.

- The Encyclical Quanta cura and the Syllabus of Pius IX.

- The Encyclical Immortale Dei of Leo XIII condemning the secularization of states.

- The Papal Acts of Saint Pius X against the Sillon and Modernism, and especially the Decree Lamentabili and the Anti-Modernist Oath.

- The Encyclical Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI against Communism.

- The Encyclical Humani generis of Pius XII.

Thus Liberalism and Liberal Catholicism have always been condemned by Peter's successors in the name of the Gospel and apostolic Tradition.

This obvious conclusion is of capital importance in deciding what attitude to adopt in order to show that we are unfailingly at one with the Church's Magisterium and with Peter’s successors. Nobody is more attached than we are to Peter’s successor reigning today when he echoes the apostolic Traditions and all his predecessors' teachings. For it is the very definition of Peter's successor to guard the deposit of Faith and hand it faithfully down. Here is what Pope Pius IX proclaimed on the subject in Pastor aeternus:

For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might individually keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.


Influence of Liberalism on Vatican II

Now we come to the question which so concerns us: How is it possible that anyone can, in the name of the Second Vatican Council, oppose the centuries-old apostolic traditions, and so bring into question the Catholic Priesthood itself, and its essential act, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

A grave and tragic ambiguity hangs over the Second Vatican Council which is presented by the Popes themselves3 in terms favoring that ambiguity: for instance, the Council of the aggiornamento, the "bringing up-to-date" of the Church, the pastoral non-dogmatic Council, as the Pope again called it just a month ago.

This way of presenting the Council, in the Church and the world as they were in 1962, ran very grave risks which the Council did not succeed in avoiding. It was easy to interpret these words in such a way that the Council was opened wide to the errors of Liberalism. A Liberal minority among the Council Fathers, and above all among the Cardinals, was very active, very well organized and fully supported by a constellation of Modernist theologians and numerous secretariats. Take for example the enormous flow of printed matter from the I.D.O.C., subsidized by the Bishops' Conferences of Germany and Holland.

Everything was in their favor, for their demanding the instant adaptation of the Church to modern man, in other words man who wishes to be freed from all shackles, for their presenting the Church as out of touch and impotent, for their saying "mea culpa" on behalf of their predecessors. The Church is presented as being as guilty as the Protestants and Orthodox for the divisions of old. She must ask present-day Protestants for forgiveness.

The Traditional Church is guilty in Her wealth, in her triumphalism; the Council Fathers feel guilty at being out of the world, at not belonging to the world; they are already blushing at their episcopal insignia, soon they will be ashamed of their cassocks.

Soon this atmosphere of liberation will spread to all fields and it will show in the spirit of collegiality which will veil the shame felt at exercising a personal authority so opposed to the spirit of modern man, let us say Liberal man. The Pope and Bishops will exercise their authority collegially in Synods, Bishops' Conferences, Priests' Councils. Finally the Church is opened wide to the principles of the modern world.

The Liturgy too will be Liberalized, adapted, subjected to experiments by the Bishops' Conferences.

Religious liberty, ecumenism, theological research, the revision of Canon Law will all soften down the triumphalism of a Church which used to proclaim herself the only ark of salvation! The Truth is to be found divided up among all religions, joint research will carry the universal religious community forward around the Church.

Geneva Protestants, Marsaudon in his book Ecumenism as Seen by a Freemason, Liberals like Fesquet, are triumphant. At last the era of Catholic states will disappear. All religions equal before the Law! "The Church free in the free State," Lamennais' formula! Now the Church is in touch with the modern world! The Church's privileged status before the Law and all the documents cited above turn into museum pieces for an age that has out-grown them! Read the beginning of the Schema on The Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the description of how modern times are changing; read the conclusions, they are pure Liberalism. Read the Declaration on Religious Freedom and compare it with the Encyclical Mirari vos of Gregory XVI, or with Quanta cura of Pius IX, and you can recognize the contradiction almost word for word.4

To say that Liberal ideas had no influence on the Second Vatican Council is to fly in the face of the evidence. The internal and external evidence both make that influence abundantly clear.


Influence of Liberalism on the post-conciliar reforms and trends

And if we pass on from the Council to the reforms and changes of direction since the Council the proof is so clear as to be blinding. Now, let us take careful note that in the letters from Rome calling upon us to make a public act of submission, the Council and its subsequent reforms and orientations are always presented as being three parts of one whole. Hence all those people are gravely mistaken who talk of a wrong interpretation of the Council, as though the Council in itself was perfect and could not be interpreted along the lines of the subsequent reforms and changes.

Clearer than any written account of the Council, the official reforms and changes that have followed in its wake show how the Council is officially meant to be interpreted.

Now on this point we need not elaborate: the facts speak for themselves, alas all too eloquently.

What still remains intact of the pre-conciliar Church? Where has the self-destruction (as Pope Paul called it) not been at work? Catechetics - seminaries - religious congregations - liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments - constitution of the Church - concept of the Priesthood. Liberal ideas have wrought havoc all round and are taking the Church far beyond Protestant ideas, to the amazement of the Protestants and to the disgust of the Orthodox.

One of the most horrifying practical applications of these Liberal principles is the opening wide of the Church to embrace all errors and in particular the most monstrous error ever devised by Satan: Communism. Communism now has official access to the Vatican, and its world revolution is made markedly easier by the official non-resistance of the Church, nay, by her regular support of the revolution, in spite of the despairing warnings by cardinals who have been through Communist jails.

The refusal of this pastoral Council to issue any official condemnation of Communism alone suffices to disgrace it for all time, when one thinks of the tens of millions of martyrs, of people having their personalities scientifically destroyed in the psychiatric hospitals, serving as guinea-pigs for all sorts of experiments. And the pastoral Council which brought together 2,350 Bishops said not a word, in spite of the 450 signatures of Fathers demanding a condemnation, which I myself took to Mgr. Felici, Secretary of the Council, together with Mgr. Sigaud, Archbishop of Diamantina.

Need the analysis be pushed any further to reach its conclusion? These lines seem to me to be enough to justify one's refusing to follow this Council, these reforms, these changes in all their Liberalism and Neo-modernism.

We should like to reply to the objection that will no doubt be raised under the heading of obedience, and of the jurisdiction held by those who seek to impose this Liberalization. Our reply is: In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service of the Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith.

We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they are at the service of the Faith. But on what basis can they be judged? Tradition, the Faith taught for 2,000 years. Every Catholic can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith, the Faith of the eternal Church, relying on his childhood catechism.

Defending his Faith is the prime duty of every Christian, all the more of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order carries with it a danger of corrupting Faith and morals, it becomes a grave duty not to obey it.

It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter's successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say "No" to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable.

One final objection: the Council is a Council like the others, therefore it should be followed like the others. It is like them in its ecumenicity and in the manner of its being called, yes; like them in its object, which is what is essential, no. A non-dogmatic Council need not be infallible; it is only infallible when it repeats traditional dogmatic truths.

How do you justify your attitude towards the Pope?

We are the keenest defenders of his authority as Peter's successor, but our attitude is governed by the words of Pius IX quoted above. We applaud the Pope when he echoes Tradition and is faithful to his mission of handing down the deposit of the Faith. We accept changes in close conformity with Tradition and the Faith. We do not feel bound by any obedience to accept changes going against Tradition and threatening our Faith. In that case, we take up position behind the papal documents listed above.

We do not see how, in conscience, a Catholic layman, priest or bishop can adopt any other attitude towards the grievous crisis the Church is going through. Nihil innovetur nisi quod traditum est - innovate nothing outside Tradition.

May Jesus and Mary help us to remain faithful to our episcopal promises! "Call not true what is false, call not good what is evil." That is what we were told at our consecration.

On the Feast of Saint Pius X, 1975
†Marcel Lefebvre

A few lines added to the above document will inform you of how our work is progressing.

A dozen seminarians left us at the end of the academic year, some of them because of the repeated attacks on us by the hierarchy. Ten more have been called up for military service. On the other hand, we have 25 new seminarians entering at Ecône, 5 at Weissbad in the Appenzell Canton, and 6 at Armada in the USA.

Moreover, we have five postulant brothers and eight postulant sisters. You can see that young people, by their sense of the Faith, know where to find the sources of the graces necessary for their vocation. We are preparing for the future: in the United States by building a chapel at Armada with 18 rooms for seminarians; in England by buying a larger house for the four priests now dispensing true doctrine, the true Sacrifice and the Sacraments. In France, we have acquired our first Priory, at St. Michel-en-Brenne. These priories, including one house for priests and brothers, another for sisters and a house of 25 to 30 rooms for the spiritual exercises, will be sources of prayer-life and sanctification for lay-folk and priests, and centres of missionary activity. In Switzerland at Weissbad, a Society of St. Charles Borromeo is putting rooms at our disposal in a rented building in which private lessons are being organized for German-speaking students.

That is why we are counting on the support of your prayers and generosity in order to continue, despite the trials, this training of priests indispensable to the life of the Church. We are being attacked neither by the Church nor by the Successor of Peter, but by churchmen steeped in the errors of Liberalism and occupying high positions, who are making use of their power to make the Church of the past disappear, and to install in its place a new Church which no longer has anything to do with Catholicism.

Therefore we must save the true Church and Peter's successor from this diabolical assault which calls to mind the prophecies of the Book of Revelation.

Let us pray unceasingly to the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph, the Holy Angels, St. Pius X, to come to our help so that the Catholic Faith may triumph over errors. Let us remain united in this Faith, let us avoid disputations, let us love one another, let us pray for those who persecute us and let us render good for evil.

And may God bless you.
†Marcel Lefebvre

A Commentary by Mgr. Mamie, published in the Nouvelliste of Sion of 12 December 1975

In a letter to friends and benefactors of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (No.9, dated the Feast of St. Pius X, 1975) - which has been widely diffused - Mgr. Lefebvre writes:

"It seems to me that the moment has come to bring to your knowledge the latest events concerning Ecône, and the attitude which in conscience before God we believe we must take in these grave circumstances."

In the same letter he also states:

"It is because we believe that our whole Faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and changes that it is our duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter's successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say "No" to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable."

On November 6 last, on Swiss Television there was a program dealing with intégrisme.5 In this program prominence was given to liturgical initiatives in the form of Masses celebrated according to the rite of St. Pius V.

The journal Le Monde, in its issue of 27 November 1975, gives some information on the same question and in particular publishes a letter from the Superior General of the Holy Ghost Congregation which publicly disowns the positions taken by Mgr. Lefebvre.

The journal La Croix, in its issue of 27 November 1975, also informs its readers in an article entitled "Mgr. Lefebvre Refuses Obedience to Paul VI."

In accord with the Conference of Swiss Bishops, we have on our part decided to publish the letters which compose this new dossier. Some comments are necessary:

1. It is surprising that Mgr. Lefebvre had not replied to the first clear and paternal letter from the Sovereign Pontiff.

2. It was therefore necessary for the Pope to write a new letter in his own hand in order that Mgr. Lefebvre could acknowledge the authenticity of the first letter.

3. In his reply, Mgr. Lefebvre expresses his "unreserved attachment to the Holy See and to the Vicar of Christ."

4. However, as I see it, there is a contradiction between this affirmation on the one hand, and on the other the continued activities of the Ecône Seminary, the establishment of new institutions, certain positions taken against the Second Vatican Council and the Letter to Friends and Benefactors we have already cited, for this letter speaks of a "right to disobey."

It is with great sorrow that we communicate this information. We were so hopeful that Mgr. Lefebvre would have accepted the demands of the Sovereign Pontiff. It is more urgent than ever to intensify our prayers that the faithful, priests, and bishops remain attached by their actions to the Successor of Peter, for without attachment and submission to the Pope there is no longer a Catholic Church.

We recall:

a. That His Holiness Pope Paul wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre (in his letter of 29 June 1975): "Certainly, problems of another order entirely preoccupy Us equally - the superficiality of certain interpretations of conciliar documents, of individual or collective initiatives deriving sometimes rather from arbitrary wilfulness (libre arbitre) than from confident adhesion to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, of initiatives which arbitrarily evoke the faith to justify them. We know them, We suffer because of them, and, for Our part, We strive in season and out of season to remedy them.

But how can one use things such as these to justify oneself in committing excesses which are gravely harmful? Such is not the right way to do things, since it makes use of ways comparable to those which are denounced."

b. That His Eminence Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State, wrote to us (in his letter of 27 October 1975):

"Vigilance in doctrinal and liturgical matters, clear-sightedness in discerning the reforms which require to be undertaken, patience and tact in the guidance of the People of God, solicitude for priestly vocations and an exacting preparation for the tasks of the ministry, all that is undoubtedly the most effective manner in which a Pastor can bear witness."

c. That we wrote (on 7 June last):

"However, we remain sad (but confident) because we have had to speak publicly of dissensions in the family of the children of God and of the sons of the Church. We should have loved to resolve our problems among ourselves in discretion and silence. We did not succeed in doing so. Let us pray very much that peace and confidence may be restored."

May God enable us to remain faithful to the Truth with constant Charity.

Fribourg, 6 December 1975
†Pierre Mamie
Bishop

13 February 1976 - Report of an interview granted by Mgr. Lefebvre to Louis Salleron and published in La France Catbolique-Ecclesia

Louis Salleron: Monseigneur, not only in France, but throughout the entire world, there is an immense number of Catholics who have placed their trust in you because the Seminary of Ecône seems to them the rampart of their faith during what Father Bouyer has described as "the decomposition of Catholicism." However, many today are troubled because the information they read in the newspapers presents you as disobedient to the Pope.

Mgr. Lefebvre: It seems to me that, on the contrary, my seminary is the clearest expression of an attitude of obedience to the Pope, successor of Peter and Vicar of Jesus Christ.

L. Salleron: You have however spoken of the "duty to disobey."

Mgr. Lefebvre: Undoubtedly. It is a duty to disobey the prescriptions of those who themselves constitute disobedience to the doctrine of the Church. You have a family. If your children receive in the catechism an official teaching, authorized or imposed, which either distorts or is silent with regard to the truths one must believe, your duty is to disobey those who presume to teach this new catechism to your children. In so doing, you obey the Church.

L. Salleron: Cardinal Villot has stated in writing that you refused to accept control by the competent ecclesiastical authorities. Is that true?

Mgr. Lefebvre: It is absolutely false. Besides, I have several times had the pleasure of a visit from Mgr. Adam (Bishop of Sion) and I have explicitly invited Mgr. Mamie (Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg) who has always refused to come, because he considered my Seminary illegal, although he declared in his letter suppressing it that the Seminary had (as from that moment only) lost its legal status.

L. Salleron: Cardinal Villot also says that you are systematically opposed to the Council. Is that true?

Mgr. Lefebvre: It is equally false (to say) that I am systematically opposed to the Second Vatican Council. But I am convinced that a Liberal spirit was active at the Council and became apparent frequently in conciliar texts, particularly in certain declarations such as that on religious freedom, the one on non-Christian religions and on the Church in the world. That is why it seems to me very legitimate to have considerable reservations concerning these texts.

Since authorized theological research calls in question veritable dogmas of our faith, I cannot understand why I should be condemned for discussing certain texts of a council which even the Pope himself has recently affirmed to be non-dogmatic. I am accused of infidelity to the Church while none of these theologians engaged in research is condemned. There are truly two weights and two measures.

L. Salleron: However, it is the Pope himself who seems to think that you do not obey the Church.

Mgr. Lefebvre: Then there has been a misunderstanding. My thoughts and my will in this matter have always been entirely free from any ambiguity. One day I had occasion to write to the Abbé de Nantes: "I want you to know that if a Bishop breaks with Rome, it will not be me."

L. Salleron: Have you had some discussion with the Pope about this question?

Mgr. Lefebvre: No. It is precisely that which I deplore.

L. Salleron: He has not summoned you in order to let you know his mind on this question?

Mgr. Lefebvre: Not only have I not been invited, but I have never been able to obtain an audience with him, and for that reason I have been wondering if my request for an audience had been presented to him. Recently a Bishop whom I very much esteem has seen the Holy Father in order to tell him of the upset in his diocese caused by all measures taken against me which seems to represent a condemnation of my work. And he asked him to receive me. The Holy Father begged him to discuss this with Cardinal Villot, who told him: "There can be no question of this. The Pope could change his mind and there would be confusion." You see therefore that there is a screen between the Holy Father and me.

L. Salleron: In his second letter, the Pope told you that he is perfectly well informed concerning you.

Mgr. Lefebvre: Since I cannot have an audience with him I have a right to think that he is not "well informed."

L. Salleron: He is probably basing this on the Report of the two Apostolic Visitors who had been to Ecône and on the Report of the three Cardinals who interviewed you by express command of the Holy Father.

Mgr. Lefebvre: I don't know what was in these documents. As for the Report of the two Apostolic Visitors, it was not communicated to me...

L. Salleron: It is said to have been favorable to the Seminary at Ecône.

Mgr. Lefebvre: So they say, and I am happy because of that. But in fact I know nothing, since this report was not communicated to me. As for my discussions with Cardinals Garrone, Wright and Tabera, I can tell you the following fact: Cardinal Garrone most courteously asked me if I had any objection to the discussion being recorded. I willingly agreed and after the discussion I asked for a copy of the recording to be given to me. Cardinal Garrone agreed, saying it was my right. When I came to ask for the promised recording I was told that it would only be a typed transcript. That wasn't the same thing because there could be suppressions and modifications on the typed copy.

I was in Rome for several days. The promised copy should have been delivered to me. Seeing no sign of it, I telephoned to speed things up - only to be told that it wasn't possible for me to be given this copy but that I could come and see it on such and such a day at such and such an hour. I refused to be a party to this farce. And consequently, just as I don't know what was in the Apostolic Visitors' Report, neither do I know what was contained in the Report of the Cardinals' Commission. If the recording has been neither destroyed nor cut, I can assure you that it would be interesting to listen to. But, obviously, the Holy Father has been given only such reports as were prepared for him, and of which I am totally ignorant.

L. Salleron: In short, you have been condemned in a trial without your having been given the evidence.

Mgr. Lefebvre: It wasn't even a trial, for the Cardinals' Commission wasn't a tribunal and had never been presented to me as such. I have been condemned, as you say, in so irregular a manner that I can't see what the word "condemnation" can mean.

And this, be it noted, at a moment when we are told that the Church no longer condemns, and without having been able to be heard by the Holy Father, who has made dialogue the mark of his government. That is why I think that all this has been contrived behind his back.

L. Salleron: But what difficulty do you find in making the public act of submission that is being asked of you: i. e. "to the Council, to the post-conciliar reforms and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed"?

Mgr. Lefebvre: I find a difficulty in the equivocation which borders on falsehood. From the "Council" one proceeds to "post-conciliar reforms" and from there to the "orientations to which the Pope himself is committed." One no longer knows what precisely is involved. What is to be understood by the "orientations to which the Pope himself is committed"? Must we understand it to mean such of the orientations as involve the Pope personally (and what are these?), or the actual orientations of the Church, to all of which the Pope is committed?

When one sees what is happening in France - to speak only of our own country - am I to think that, in its collegiality, the episcopate has submitted "to the Council, to post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations to which the Pope himself is committed"?

Logically, I must think so, since no public act of submission has been asked of the French Episcopate by Cardinal Villot or the Sovereign Pontiff. Is it therefore to the destruction of the priesthood, to the changing or the negation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the abandonment of moral values, to the politicization of the Gospel, and to the constitution of a national Church centered on the episcopal conference and the secretariat of the episcopate that I must subscribe to bear witness to my communion with the Catholic Church and the Vicar of Christ? It is absurd. My Catholic faith and my duty as a bishop forbid me to do so.

L. Salleron: I believe that what you are being asked to do is simply to close the Seminary of Ecône.

Mgr. Lefebvre: But why? It is perhaps the only one that corresponds not only to the tradition of the Church but also to the Decree of Vatican II concerning the training of priests. Moreover, I had occasion one day to say so to Cardinal Garrone, who did not deny it.

L. Salleron: If, instead of asking you to make a badly defined act of submission, the Pope were to give you an express order by a new letter, to close the Seminary of Ecône, would you close it?

Mgr. Lefebvre: After a trial carried out in a proper way according to the elementary norms of natural law and ecclesiastical law, yes, I would agree to close my Seminary.

Let me be told in an explicit and concrete manner what I am being reproached with in my activities and in my writings, and let me be given the elementary right to defend myself with the help of an advocate.

L. Salleron: Despite everything, then, you are an optimist?

Mgr. Lefebvre: It isn't a question of optimism. I don't know what will happen, and sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. But I have confidence however because, being supported by the millenary tradition of the Church, which cannot possibly have been mistaken, I cannot see how, this being so, I can be the subject of condemnation.

The ordeal which the Church is undergoing can be ended only by a return to the principles which make her continuous and everlasting.

21 February 1976 - Letter from Pope Paul VI to Cardinal Villot

(The following is a translation of the text of an entirely hand-written letter, dated 21 February 1976, from Pope Paul to Cardinal Villot. It was reproduced photographically in La France Catholique-Ecclesia of 5 May 1976.)

To: Jean Villot, Our Secretary of State

We have taken notice of an interview requested of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre by the weekly France Catholique-Ecclesia (No. 1322, of 13 February 1976).

Among the errors contained in this interview there is one which We wish to rectify Ourself: you would seem to be a screen placed between the Pope and Mgr. Lefebvre, an obstacle to the meeting which he wishes Us. That is not true.

It is particularly significant that although the Holy Father does not say what other "errors" are contained in the interview, concerning the only one he does refer to specifically he confines himself to denying that Cardinal Villot acts as a screen between him and Mgr. Lefebvre. He does not deny that, having been begged to see Mgr. Lefebvre by an African Bishop-friend of Mgr. Lefebvre, he urged the Bishop to see Cardinal Villot, who promptly told him that this was out of the question since it might induce the Holy Father to change his mind.

If this is not "screening" the Holy Father it is only in the sense that to use the word "screen " in that context constitutes understatement.

We consider that before being received in audience Mgr. Lefebvre must renounce his inadmissible position concerning the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council and measures which We have promulgated or approved in matters liturgical and disciplinary (and by consequence, also doctrinal).

It has hitherto always been generally understood, and taught, that, far from being synonymous, the two terms were clearly distinguished. It would have been different had it been a case of insisting that what was essentially doctrinal was therefore also a matter of discipline. But to state the contrary; particularly with reference to post-conciliar reforms, is ominous indeed since it has hitherto been insisted with wearying monotony that these were of exclusively pastoral significance and did not imply any doctrinal change.

This position alas! he does not cease to affirm by words and deeds. A real change of attitude is therefore necessary, in order that the desired interview may take place in the spirit of fraternity and ecclesial unity which We have desired so much since the beginning of this painful affair, and above all since We have personally and on two occasions written to Mgr. Lefebvre.

In Itinéraires of April 1976, Jean Madiran adds this footnote:

"One asks why...it is only of Mgr. Lefebvre that these conditions are demanded: Paul in effect receives all kinds of people (abortionists, libertines, stars in immoral shows, freemasons, communists, terrorists, etc.) whose attitude is quite unsatisfactory, without 'a real change of attitude' being demanded of them before being received in audience....It seems increasingly obvious that this inequality of treatment is neither accidental nor arbitrary; it is an inevitable practical consequence of the axiom according to which Vatican II has more importance than the Council of Nicea.6

The theoretical prior importance accorded Vatican II...has given rise to a new form of communion. Those who approve or at least applaud the Council belong to this new communion and are fraternally received by Paul VI, even if they reject or know nothing of the preceding 20 Councils and the defined dogmas.

By contrast, those who remain faithful to the defined dogmas and to the entire apostolic tradition, but have reservations concerning the Council and the circumstantial reforms deriving from it, they alas! are considered as out of communion and find the door shut against them so long as they have not changed their attitude.

Thus the Council has the ambition of summarizing and the function of replacing everything that preceded it. It becomes the principal criterion of true and false, of good and evil.

It is only conciliar evolution which in turn has as much authority as and more importance than the Council itself.

One has a right to be more conciliar than the Council; one has no right to be less. It is only in this perspective that the official attitude with regard to Mgr. Lefebvre finds coherence, and explanation. But what a frightening coherence, a terrible explanation."

Pope Paul's letter continues:

We continue to hope that he will soon give Us, in deeds, the concrete proof of his fidelity to the Church and to the Holy See, from which he has received so many marks of esteem and confidence.

We know that you share this hope; that is why We authorize you to make this letter public, in accordance with the good wishes and affection which We feel for you, Our collaborator in the apostolic charge.

With Our personal benediction.

Paulus PP VI
The Vatican, 21 February 1976.

7 March 1976 - Letter to Friends and Benefactors (no. 10)

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Amidst trials and opposition our Work goes serenely ahead, trusting in God and based on the Faith which does not change and cannot be shaken.

On April 3rd there will be 11 more deacons at Ecône, and many seminarians will on the same day be receiving Minor Orders. Together with the dozen seminarians doing military service, Ecône now counts 110 seminarians. We already have some 40 applications for next October.

In Weissbad, as in Armada in the United States, applications are so numerous that both houses will soon be filled.

Our Sisters in Albano include four Novices and five Postulants. The latter will receive the habit on Easter Sunday, and if one counts the four Americans who will be joining them soon, plus the ten or so applicants for October, then the House where they train will already be gathering together some 23 aspirants to the religious life.

They will be moving to France in October because the house at Albano, originally intended for young priests, will be occupied by the newly ordained sixth-year students.

Our Brothers have two Novices and seven Postulants. They will be gladly received in our various houses, increasing in number: four in the USA (Armada, New York, San José and Houston); two in England (Highclere and Sanderstead); one in Brussels; five in France, one in Germany (Munich); three in Switzerland; one in Italy (Albano).

It is thanks to your prayers and your generosity that in a year's time we shall be able, please God, to have 26 priests at your disposal: 13 are already at work training students or ministering to souls.

How does it come about that a Work thus resembling all those of its kind existing before the Second Vatican Council should be harshly and pitilessly hounded down by the Roman Authorities, unjustly and illegally suppressed, accused of breaking off communion with Rome, etc.?

The reason is precisely that we are continuing to believe and act as the Church always has believed and acted. Hence the truth is that modern Rome has changed. And yet it was clear to see where the novelties already repeatedly condemned by the Magisterium of the Church would lead.

The balance-sheet for the ten years following the Council is catastrophic in all departments. Churchmen, herein following numerous bad examples, thought that they could replace what Our Lord instituted with institutions better suited to the modern world, forgetting that Jesus Christ is God "yesterday, today and for ever" (Heb. 13:8), and that His Work is suited to all times and to all men.

Saint Pius X condemned them in his masterly Encyclical Pascendi. Such innovators pervert the faith, bring supernatural means down to the level of man and destroy the hierarchical constitution of the Church.

For a long time now we have been warned by the Popes. Pius IX had the Documents of the Alta Vendita of the Carbonari published in which we read: "In a hundred years' time...bishops and priests will think they are marching behind the banner of the keys of Peter when in fact they will be following our flag." (Masonic Infiltrations in the Church, Barbier.) Fogazzaro at the beginning of the century, founder of the Modernist lodge of Milan, used to say: "The Reform will have to be brought about in the name of obedience." (The Church under Occupation, Ploncard d' Assac.)7

Now, when we hear in Rome that he who was the heart and soul of the liturgical reform is a Freemason, we may think that he is not the only one. The veil covering over the greatest hoax ever to have mystified the clergy and baffled the faithful is doubtless beginning to be torn asunder.

Now is the time then to hold more faithfully than ever to Tradition and the unchanging Church, and to pray to God, to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and to St. Michael the Archangel to free the Church from the scandalous occupation of which She is victim.

"This is the victory that overcomes the world, our faith." (I John 5:4.)

May God bless you through the intercession of His Holy Mother, and I wish you all a Holy Eastertide!

†Marcel Lefebvre

21 April 1976 - Letter from Archbishop Benelli to Archbishop Lefebvre

This letter is important because it states precisely, in writing, for the first time the real conditions of the submission demanded of Mgr. Lefebvre. The author of the letter, Mgr. Benelli, who has the title of "Substitute"8 in the Vatican Secretariat of State, was its most notable personage after Cardinal Villot until he was created a Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in May 1977.

Monseigneur,

It is now a month since we met. As I offer you my best wishes for the Easter feast, I should like to repeat how happy I am that our meeting was so frank, and also how, every day, the expectation grows keener that you will return to that effective communion with Pope Paul VI which the celebration of the Resurrection required and of which our conversation had given hope.

The meeting took place in Rome, on 19 March 1976, on Mgr. Benelli's initiative (he was reviving a request for an audience by Mgr. Lefebvre which, the year before, had been left unanswered).

Indeed, you certainly remember the step envisaged as most suitable for arriving at that happy result.

"Envisaged"? Not at all; imposed in the name of the Pope by Mgr. Benelli, but he had sent Mgr. Lefebvre nothing in writing.

After reflecting, alone and before God, you will write to the Holy Father informing him of your acceptance of the Council and of all its documents, affirming your full attachment to the person of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and to the totality of his teaching...

A Pope who thus wishes to impose a full attachment to the totality of his own teaching - that makes a double difficulty. 1° As is known, or as should be known, the totality of the teaching of a Pope (especially of a modern Pope, speaking much and often) does not involve papal authority in the same degree in all its parts; it can often happen that that authority is not involved at all, when he speaks as a private doctor. Full attachment to the totality of the teaching is an exorbitant demand; it is a form of unconditional submission. That is the first anomaly, and it is serious. 2° The second anomaly, no less serious; the question is of the teaching of Paul VI, by itself; of his personal teaching. The head of a school can so speak. A Pope does not speak in that way. All pontifical documents prior to Paul VI attest the fact: they refer constantly to the teachings of predecessors, and they confirm, repeat, develop and apply them, and they never seek to distinguish themselves from them as individuals. Shall we suppose that this is a stupidity of Mgr. Benelli's? Not at all. He is faithfully reproducing the thought of Paul VI. For it is the same thought which Paul VI himself expresses in his consistorial discourse of 24 May 1976, showing plainly that his own teaching has a distinct individuality: "We think that no one can be in doubt of the meaning of the orientations and the encouragements that, in the course of our pontificate, we have given to pastors and to the people of God, and even the whole world. We are grateful to those who have made a program of the teaching given with a purpose which was always sustained with a lively hope, etc". Where his predecessors used to speak of the teaching of the Popes, of the Holy See, or of the Church, Paul VI speaks of his personal teaching. Just as Vatican II is presented to us as the Council, abstracting from previous councils, so Paul VI presents his teaching as something separate and particular, so that in isolation it can be taken as a program, and he expresses his gratitude to those who have so taken it. On those who have not taken it so, he will impose it: Mgr. Benelli's phrase about full attachment to the totality of the teaching of Paul VI is perfectly consistent with the passage quoted from the Consistorial allocution.

...and undertaking, as concrete proof of your submission to the Successor of Peter, to adopt and to get adopted in the houses dependent on you, the Missal which he himself promulgated in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority.

Enter the new Missal! Until this date, nothing had been said to Mgr. Lefebvre of this obligatory adoption. It constitutes the real condition. This new Mass of which not a word had been whispered in the whole business during a year - the silence on the subject was trickery. Now the veil is removed from it, and it is indeed the essential. More than that, it is not at all a matter of a simple "step that has been envisaged." It might have been that, in the form of a hypothesis, in an explanatory conversation and a fraternal dialogue; but, as indicated on p. 169, the matter is the notifications of conditions imposed by the Pope: that will be confirmed in Mgr. Benelli's letter of 12 June 1976.

I can fully understand how costly such a step must be. That, perhaps, is why you hesitate to take it. Yet, can there be any other way? I address myself to you as a brother, with hope and confidence: this step is possible; it must be taken for the good of the whole Church and for those outside it who are looking at us; and I desire to do everything to help you take it.

A few days ago we celebrated Easter. Christ the Saviour points the way. To be united with Him there is no other road than to put everything into His hands. I pray with all my heart that you may reach Him, and thus give to His Vicar on earth the profound joy that he awaits with impatience.

Be assured, Monseigneur, of my devoted fraternal feelings.

+ J. Benelli.

Footnotes

1. If thy brother does thee wrong, go at once and tax him with it, as a private matter between thee and him; and so, if he will listen to thee, thou has won thy brother. If he will not listen to thee, take with thee one or two more, that the whole matter may be certified by the voice of two or three witnesses. If he will not listen to them, then speak of it to the Church; and if he will not even listen to the Church, then count him all one with the heathen and the publican." The scriptural text is not given in Cardinal Villot's letter, which includes merely the scriptural reference.

2. The Ecône Newsletter No.9 has been included at this point (not in chronological order) because it was referred to by Mgr. Mamie in a commentary published in the Nouvelliste of 12 December 1975. Readers would not have been able to form a balanced judgment of Mgr. Mamie's commentary without reading the Newsletter first. The commentary follows immediately after Newsletter No. 9.

3. Popes John XXIII and Paul IV.

4. See Appendix IV for a discussion of the Declaration on Religious Freedom.

5. Intégrisme is a very much misused word. However by intégrisme properly so called is meant the spirit of those who refuse to accept any changes whatsoever. It is not to be confused with Tradition which is the handing on of essential values, not accretions which have long since ceased to be relevant. Mgr. Mamie implicitly suggests that the traditional Mass exemplifies intégrisme - in other words, that it was so overburdened with historical accretions as to be no longer a vehicle of Tradition.

6. See Appendix III.

7. The full text of the Documents of the Alta Vendita, and much other useful information on the Carbonari, is published in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked by Mgr. G. Dillon. (Augustine Publishing Company)

8. Assistant to the Secretary of State.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 1, Chapter 9

The Consistory Allocution


The Allocution of Pope Paul  VI to the Consistory of Cardinals on 24 May 1976

Only those parts of the allocution concerning Mgr. Lefebvre and the Tridentine Mass are reproduced here. The text is that published in the English edition of L 'Osservatore Romano of 3 June 1976.

The Pope's Allocution

On the one hand there are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.

In this passage the Pope fails to make a crucially important distinction between the teaching of the Council itself and reforms claiming to interpret that teaching-reforms which in many cases cannot be justified by reference to so much as a single sentence in a conciliar document. See again the comment regarding the Seminary at Econe in the light of the specific teaching of the Council, p. 68-70.

This sentence also contains an extremely serious doctrinal error on the part of the Pope or whoever wrote this speech for him. This error is not apparent in the English translation and reference must be made to the official Latin text published in L 'Osservatore Romano (Italian edition) of 24 May 1976. The phrase "the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ" is rendered in Latin as follows: "Conferentiarum episcopalium sub Nostra au ctorita te, quae a Christo originem ducunt." The use of the plural ducunt means that the Pope is claiming that it is not simply his Apostolic Authority but the National Episcopal Conferences which have their origin in Christ. This is totally untrue. The authority of the Pope and the worldwide episcopal college have their origin in Christ-but there is no warrant in Scripture or Tradition for National Episcopal Conferences to be invested with doctrinal or disciplinary teaching authority. This is still true in the strictly legal sense today. National Episcopal Conferences are able to authorize or even recommend a course of action, but each individual bishop is at liberty to decide whether or not to implement these decisions in his diocese. The National Episcopal Conference, having no legal status, has no authority to impose its decisions. But what happens in practice is that individual bishops feel unable to oppose the majority decision and submit to it despite their personal misgivings. Thus one English bishop whom I reproached for allowing Communion to be given in the hand in his diocese, following a decision of the English and Welsh Episcopal Conference to permit this, replied that, although he personally deplored the practice and had done all he could to prevent its acceptance, he now had no practical option but to go along with the majority. This is precisely what Mgr. Lefebvre had forecast during the collegiality debate, warning that collegiality would not give the bishops more power but that the individual bishop would no longer be the ruler in his own diocese.

Returning to the subject of the doctrinal error in the Pope’s allocution, the unorthodoxy of this statement was quickly exposed in traditionalist journals (e.g., the Courrier de Rome, No.159 of 15 July 1976). When the allocution was reprinted in the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS 68, 1976 (6), p. 375) the error was corrected. The plural ducunt had been changed to the singular ducit, referring solely to the Pope’s authority as having its origin in Christ. This provides another instance of the fact that simply because the Pope has stated something it does not follow that it is certainly orthodox.

Discredit is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today's authority is rejected in the name of yesterday's.

The Pope here is presupposing that anyone invested with authority must be obeyed simply because he possesses authority. As Appendix II will show, it is the traditional Catholic teaching that even legitimate authority need not be obeyed (and that obedience might be sinful) if it abuses its power or commands anything contrary to or compromising the faith. Thus, according to Pope Paul's thinking as expressed here, when he made the erroneous statement that Episcopal Conferences had their origin in Christ, the faithful had no right to question it; Similarly, the Pope had to correct that notorious Article 7 of the General Instruction to the New Mass which he had approved, and he was also compelled to revise the new rite of Baptism which he had previously approved. In Britain and the USA the bishops have ordered priests to give Communion in the hand to anyone demanding it -in this case it is clear that priests would not sin by refusing to obey their lawful bishops.

And the fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which We are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who, nevertheless, still has Our respect.

This allegation is quite untrue. The opposition to the post-conciliar reforms existed long before most Catholics, particularly in the English-speaking world, had ever heard of the name of Archbishop Lefebvre. The only authority exercised by Mgr. Lefebvre is over the Fraternity of St. Pius X. He and the Fraternity enjoy the support of hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics because it is Mgr. Lefebvre and the Fraternity who uphold both Tradition and the many traditions to which Catholics are so attached and which, in some cases, could not be abolished or radically modified without compromising Tradition itself. Thus, while it is true to state that Mgr. Lefebvre enjoys the support of the majority of traditionalists, it is not correct to describe him as their leader - a title which he himself has repudiated on many occasions as for example his sermon at Lille on 29 August 1976.

It is so painful to take note of this: but how can We not see in such an attitude -whatever may be these people's intentions -the placing of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor of Peter and therefore outside the Church?

Thus it is now possible to deny any and every fundamental dogma of the faith; to disobey any and every disciplinary law to the Church, even the “Conciliar Church”; to be guilty even of sacrilege; and still not be told that communion with the Successor of Peter has been broken -but remain true to the traditional faith, and one is considered "outside the Church."

For this, unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one's faith intact, and of working in one's own way for the preservation of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give her effective obedience. And this is said openly.

The use of the word "pretext" here is very unjust. A pretext (Latin, praetextu) is an ostensible reason given to hide the true one; in other words, it denotes a lack of sincerity, and while it is legitimate to argue that traditionalists may be mistaken in their attitude, there is no justification for claiming  that they are insincere. It is also unfair and inaccurate to claim that they are working for the preservation of the Church in their own way-they are attempting to preserve the faith in a form which has a tradition of centuries behind it.

It is even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding…..

This is a difficult statement upon which to comment. Who had affirmed this and in precisely what terms? And what does the Pope mean by "the Second Vatican Council"? Presumably he is referring to the doctrinal teaching of the Council. I have discussed the authority of the Documents of Vatican II in detail in Chapter XIV of Pope John's Council. Briefly, the position is that they are not binding in the same way as the documents of previous General Councils, which were promulgated with the authority of the Church's extraordinary Magisterium, under pain of anathema. As the Pope himself has stated specifically on a number of occasions, the documents of the Council come to us with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium does not at all carry the same authority .It is explained excellently in the Approaches supplement by Dom Paul Nau, The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered. This study shows clearly that the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium increases even to the point of infallibility depending upon the frequency with which a particular teaching has been repeated. On the other hand, Dom Paul explains that a novelty taught by the Ordinary Magisterium could be erroneous if it conflicted with previous teaching. This certainly seems to be the case with certain passages in the Declaration on Religious Libeny, which contradict previous authoritative (and possibly infallible) teaching (see Appendix IV). As Mgr. Lefebvre made clear in an interview which he granted me on 16 November 1976, and in his letter to the Pope dated 3 December 1976 (which will both be found in their correct chronological sequence), he accepts everything in the teaching of the Council which is in conformity with Tradition. This is the correct Catholic attitude, to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, bearing in mind that the normal presumption must be that the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium will be in conformity with Tradition and that instances where it is not will be rare in the extreme.

...that the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar directives; that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve certain traditions.

It is quite clear that any faithful Catholic who understands the nature of certain post-conciliar directives and the manner in which they have been implemented must certainly repudiate them not simply to preserve his faith but to show that he takes his faith seriously.

What traditions? Is it for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops, not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!

The unfortunate truth is that it became clear in practice that neither Pope Paul VI nor the Bishops were prepared to take practical steps to uphold the basic norms of faith, apart from issuing pious exhortations which they made no effort to implement. Even those many orthodox Catholics who feel unable to support Mgr. Lefebvre must testify to the truth of this. Instead of prohibiting publication of that veritable textbook of Modernism, the Dutch Catechism, Pope Paul VI, allowed it to be circulated with the addition of an appendix which no one need read. This is equivalent to the father of a family allowing his children to drink poison providing an antidote of doubtful efficacy is ready. Where is there a country in the West in which priests who have publicly dissented from the Encyclical Humanae Vitae do not occupy important teaching posts in Catholic education institutes? What could possibly be a greater cause of a diminution in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and an occasion of sacrilege, than the practice of Communion in the hand? It was condemned by Pope Paul himself in Memoriale Domini. Nonetheless, he authorized its introduction into almost every country in the West. With all the respect due to a Vicar of Christ, it must be said that the faithful could not assume that Pope Paul VI and his Bishops could be relied upon to uphold those traditions necessary for the preservation of the faith.

As you see, Venerable Brethren, such an attitude sets itself up as judge of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith, and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.

This again is quite untrue-Mgr. Lefebvre does not challenge the nature of papal authority (no one has done more to uphold it) or question the fact that it exists by divine will. What he has done is to question certain specific acts of a particular Pope, and, equally important, the failure of this Pope to act in defense of the Faith. In doing this the Archbishop is acting in accordance with approved theological principles (cf. Appendix II).

And this is all the more serious in particular, when division is introduced precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor, in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere.

This is perhaps the most astonishing statement in the entire allocution. It is the post-conciliar liturgical reform which has totally destroyed the unity of the Roman rite. We have been presented not so much with a new form of Mass (however inferior to the old) but with an ongoing liturgical revolution, in which anything is tolerated but the traditional Mass. In the face of this liturgical anarchy, traditionalists wish to adhere to a form of Mass which in all essentials dates back more than a millennium, for which they are accused of promoting liturgical disunity!

It is in the name of Tradition that We ask all Our sons and daughters, all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor the renewed liturgy.

In practice, where the New Mass is celebrated strictly in accordance with what rubrics there are, it is so oppressively dull and insipid that no one could possibly participate in it with fervor. This explains the increase in the so-called Folk Masses, the introduction of dancing and audio-visual effects, and the liturgical antics of the Pentecostals, as an effort to infuse some form of life (however depraved) into what is no more than the corpse of the vibrant, noble, and dignified liturgy of the Roman Mass. Pope Paul must have realized that the liturgy in its present form is a source of misery and even revulsion to countless thousands of the faithful, and that even where they accept it as an act of obedience to expect them to do so with fervor is to ask the impossible.

The adoption of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice of priests or faithful. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided, with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who offer the divine Sacrifices sine populo.

It is extremely significant that Pope Paul makes no reference at all to his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969 which authorizes the introduction of the New Mass. If the traditional Mass has been prohibited this is the only document which could have done so. Not even the most fervent apologists for the New Mass have ever claimed Missale Romanum contains one word explicitly prohibiting the old one; the most they dare claim is that it is prohibited implicitly or that the Old Mass lapsed automatically with the introduction of the new one. The most useful summary  of the legal position of the traditional Mass is available in Father Bryan Houghton's book Mitre and Crook. 1 The Instruction of 14 June 1971 was, in reality, a Notificatio originally published without either date or the author's name and of very dubious authority .It was examined in detail in ltineraires, No.159 of January 1972 (p. 16 ff.) and in The Remnant. The claim that a form of Mass which has provided the basis for Catholic spirituality for a thousand years can now be celebrated only by aged and infirm priests, and then only if they do it behind closed doors as if they were celebrating a Black Mass, is a fitting epitomization of the "Spirit of Vatican II."

The new Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican Council.

At no time did the Fathers of Vatican II ever authorize the composition of a new order of Mass, Novus Ordo Missae, "to take the place of the old"! They did no more than authorize minor modifications to the existing Mass and insisted that no changes should be made unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them and that all existing rites were to be preserved. I have demonstrated in Chapters XV and XVI of Pope John's Council that there is no relationship whatsoever between the reform which the council authorized and that which has been imposed upon the faithful in practice.

In no different way did Our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council of Trent.

This attempt to compare the reform undertaken by Saint Pius V and that authorized by Pope Paul VI is so totally incredible that it could not possibly be dealt with within the context of this commentary.2

The official Latin text of Pope Paul's allocution, published in L' Osservatore Romano of 24-25 May 1976, does not refer to the Missal "reformed" under the authority of St. Pius V but of the Missal "recognized" by his authority ("Missale auctoritate sua recognitum"). The Latin verb recognosco can have a stronger sense than simply to "recognize." With regard to a written document it means that it has been examined with respect to its genuineness and value and is certified or authenticated as genuine.3 This is precisely the action taken by St. Pius V with respect to the existing Roman Mass which was examined diligently by the best scholars and then codified in its existing form with a few modifications which would not have been noticed by the ordinary worshipper.

An Italian translation of this allocution which appeared in the same edition of L 'Osservatore Romano translated recognitum as riformato, "reformed" - a mistranslation carried over into the English edition. Leaving aside the question of this mistranslation, Pope Paul's claim that what he had done in his reform was what "in no different way" ("baud dissimili ratione") St. Pius V had done, is so at variance with historical fact that it forfeits all claim to credibility. If something is untrue the fact that it is stated to be true by the Pope cannot alter the fact that it is untrue. The Pope is not inerrant, he can be mistaken on matters of fact. It is probable (though not certain) that if pressed, the editor of The Wanderer or the President of Catholics United for the Faith would admit that the Church does not require us to believe that the Pope is inerrant. On a practical level, they insist that he is and accuse any Catholic who points out papal errors of being schismatic.

With the same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the Church: in fact it causes the Church serious damage.

Once again, anyone with experience of the new liturgy in practice will know that a faithful Catholic who loves the Mass and loves the Church has no alternative but to try to obstruct a reform which, with all due respect to Pope Paul VI, does not proceed from mature deliberation. Communion in the hand is now part of this official reform in dozens of countries where it has been sanctioned by Pope Paul himself, even though it began not as a result of mature deliberation but as an act of calculated rebellion against papal authority. The Pope consulted the Bishops of the world, who voted overwhelmingly against the innovation; it is still prohibited in Italy. The Pope insisted upon the retention of the traditional method but has none the less given way before the fait accompli technique of the Liberals. Yet where it has been made official, Catholics who oppose the abuse are classed among those who "cause the Church serious damage." By asking us not to oppose innovations which our personal experience has proved to be harmful, the Pope is asking us to dehumanize ourselves, to become robots. It is not a case of opposing something simply because it conflicts with personal taste or established habits. In this instance it is the honor and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, the avoidance of sacrilege which is at stake. Our objections to the innovation, and our adherence to the traditional practice, are based on the very reasons put forward by Pope Paul VI himself in Memoriale Domini. With all due respect, it must be said that as Christ's Vicar upon earth it was his duty to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament from the sacrilege to which this practice inevitably leads. He failed to do so and, not for the first time in the history of the Church, the faithful found that their Catholic duty was not to follow the example of the Pope.

Various times, directly and through Our collaborators and other friendly persons, We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church because of them.

If such admonitions have been made they have not been public. The first admonition of a genuinely doctrinal nature given by the Pope to Mgr. Lefebvre was that he should accept the totally false proposition that Vatican II has as much authority as Nicea, and more importance in some respects (the letter of 29 June 1975).

It is with profound sadness but with paternal hope that We once more turn to this confrere of Ours, to his collaborators and to those who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly, We believe that many of these faithful -at least in the beginning -were in good faith: We also understand their sentimental attachment to forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found spiritual sustenance. But We are confident that they will reflect with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and We Ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of the Church, Her progress in the modern world, and Her unity.

Firstly, does this imply that traditionalists are no longer in good faith? Secondly, while traditionalists naturally look to the traditional liturgy and devotional practices with a nostalgia which is both right and fitting, their opposition to the "Conciliar Church " and to the liturgical reform in general is based not upon sentiment but on a determination to uphold the faith which these reforms compromise. Examine the prayers which Cranmer removed from the traditional Mass (set out in detail in Cranmer's Godly Order) and compare these with the prayers removed from the Mass with the authority of Pope Paul VI. By what possible stretch of the imagination can it be clain1ed that it was absolutely essential to remove these prayers "for the good of the Church, Her progress in the world, and Her unity"? And can it truly be possible that Pope Paul VI really believed that the Church is making progress in the modern world -the devastation which has followed in the wake of the conciliar reform must surely have been evident even from the windows of the Vatican? And as for the unity of the Church, what has done more to destroy that unity than the post-conciliar liturgical reform?

We therefore exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters of Ours; We beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds that they otherwise cause to the Church, and We invite them again to reflect on Christ's serious warnings about the unity of the Church and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed by Him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due to the Father and the Son.

On the contrary , the wounds in the Church and the damage to her unity have not been caused by the stand made by the traditionalists. The traditionalists have taken their stand as a reaction to these wounds and this disunity.

We await them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them: may they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love.

In other words, traditionalists will only become acceptable if they abandon all that they most love and revere and believe to be essential to the well-being of the Church and accept the entire post-conciliar revolution without reservation. The price is unacceptable.

The Pope then goes through the motions of what has become a standard procedure whenever traditionalists are attacked, and delivers generalized admonitions to those at the opposite end of the spectrum who are guilty of doctrinal and liturgical error. These individuals are never named nor are these admonitions ever reinforced with action. Referring to these Liberal Catholics, the Pope makes yet another astonishing statement:

Such Christians are not very numerous, it is true, but they make much noise, believing too easily that they are in a position to interpret the needs of the entire Christian people or the irreversible direction of history.

Virtually every position of importance in the entire Catholic establishment throughout the West is in the hands of these Liberals; they control all the official commissions, catechetical, liturgical, and ecumenical; all too frequently Conferences serve only to act as their mouthpieces, and yet Pope Paul himself claimed that they are few in number but make much noise.

Outside of Which Church?
by Jean Madiran

As a reaction to the papal allocution of 24 May 1976, Jean Madiran wrote the following article which first appeared in the Supplément-Voltigeur of Itinéraires of 15 June 1976. The following translation was made by Father Urban Synder and appeared in The Remnant of 21 July 1976.

"In his allocution to the Consistory of 24 May 1976, where he mentions Archbishop Lefebvre several times by name, Paul VI seems to cut him off and yet he doesn't. He accuses the Archbishop of 'putting himself outside the Church.' But which Church? There are two. And Paul VI has not renounced being the Pope of these two Churches sirnultaneously. Under such conditions, 'outside the Church' is equivocal and does not cut off anything.

That there are now two Churches, with one and the same Paul VI at the head of both, is not our doing, we are not making it up, but simply stating the way things are.

Many episcopates, which declare themselves to be in communion with the Pope, and whom the Pope does not reject from his communion, are objectively outside the Catholic communion.

The episcopate of Holland, in an official document, has explicitly called into doubt the virginal conception of Our Lord, but they have not been summoned by the Pope to retract or to resign. On the contrary-they have spread through-out the whole world their 'Dutch Catechism' which doesn't contain the things necessary to know for salvation, and which inspires all the new catechisms.

The French episcopate since 1969 subjects the faithful, 'as a reminder of faith', to the false teaching that in the Mass 'there is question simply of a memorial.' None of our protestations or supplications has succeeded in bringing them to deny or even explain this. It is in the name of the Council, of the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with him that now, for ten years or more, and without any efficacious denial, there is imposed on us all the discourses and, decisions which install the immanent apostasy, the permanent auto-demolition, the capitulation before the world, the cult of man, the opening to Communism. There is no question here of some handful of marginal dissidents, as the Pope insinuates in his allocution. There is question of the greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession. Legitimate holders? Yes, but prevaricators, deserters, impostors. Paul VI remains at their head without either disavowing or correcting them. He keeps them in his communion, he presides over their Church also.

Archbishop Lefebvre is not in his present situation through any fault of his own. He didn't innovate anything, he didn't invent anything, he didn't overturn anything; he has simply preserved and transmitted the deposit which he received. He has kept the promises of his baptism, the doctrine of his catechism, the Mass of his ordination, the dogmas defined by Popes and Councils, the theology and the traditional ecclesiology of the Church of Rome. Just by his existence, by his very being, and without having willed it, he is thus the witness of a crisis which is not of his making, but that of an uncertain Pope at the head of two Churches at the same time.

Cardinal Suenens declared in 1969: 'We could draw up an impressive list of theses, taught in Rome yesterday and before yesterday as sole truths (seules valables), and which were eliminated by the Council Fathers.’ A formidable doctrinal revolution! Cardinal Suenens is happy about it. The greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession think and speak on this point like Cardinal Suenens. Neither he nor they are disavowed. Paul VI remains at their head and keeps them in his communion; a communion where they profess that the Church, yesterday and before yesterday, was mistaken. But on all these points where they teach that the Church was mistaken, who or what can guarantee to us that it is not they themselves who, today, are mistaken and are misleading us?

It doesn't help at all to reassure us that the Council is badly interpreted and the Pope badly understood. If the Council has been constantly interpreted the way it has, it is with the active or passive consent of the bishops in communion with the Pope. Thus there is established a Conciliar Church, different from the Catholic Church. And no bishop, however scandalous his post-conciliar excesses, has received from Paul VI the severe public rebukes which he has reserved for Archbishop Lefebvre alone, and for the sole reason that the Archbishop remains unshakeably faithful to the Catholic religion such as it was until 1958.

If the Catholic religion, such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII, contained some things optional, variable, which (let us suppose) have become anachronistic in 1976, to remain attached to them does not, all the same, constitute a crime. Anachronism is not necessarily in itself something which puts you 'outside the Church.' If we are going to talk about anachronisms, pure, simple, and unlimited, they are in the new catechisms from which the things necessary for salvation have been excised; they are in the vernacular Masses, accompanied by Marxist chants and erotic dances; they are in the falsification of Scripture imposed by the episcopate, such as where a (French) liturgical reading proclaims that 'to live holily it is necessary to marry'; they are in all the other infamous things of like kind of which none, for the past ten years, has been either retracted by those guilty , or condemned by higher authority. There are indeed crimes really going on in the Church, those just mentioned, but they are considered less criminal than preserving the Catholic religion such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII.

All this presupposes a new religion, another ecclesial community, which nevertheless is installed in the posts of command of Church administration, and boasts of communion with Pope Paul, having at the same time, to put it mildly, the consent of Pope Paul.

Archbishop Lefebvre 'outside the Church'? Out of the one just mentioned, certainly. But it surpasses belief that a person 'puts himself outside' the Catholic Church, without budging, or by simply remaining in the Catholic religion such as it was at the death of Pius XII in 1958.

There are two Churches under Paul VI. Not to see that there are two, or not to see that they are strangers the one to the other, or not to see that Paul VI thus far is presiding over both, partakes of blindness and in some cases perhaps of invincible blindness. But when one has once seen it, not to say it would be to add complicity by silence to an enormous monstrosity.

Gustave Corcao in the review Itineraires for November, 1975, and then Father Bruckberger in L' Aurore for 18 March 1976, remarked in print:

The religious crisis is not like that in the 14th century, when you had, for one single Church, two or three Popes simultaneously; today, rather, there is question of one single Pope for two Churches, the Catholic and the post-conciliar.

But to belong simultaneously to two such contrary Churches is impossible. It is impossible even for a Pope, by the very definition of his office. If Paul VI doesn't disengage himself, there is going to be an inevitable blow-up (choc en retour) as a result."

Footnotes

1. Published in 1978 by Airlington House (USA), also available from The Angelus Press. Available in Britain from Augustine Publishing Co. this is certainly one of the most important books written on the liturgical revolution and, although in the form of a novel, contains much factual information. A summary of all the legislation relative to the traditional Mass is available on pages 87-101.

Two very useful articles by the French canonist, Father Raymond Dulac, does the Novus Ordo Have the Strict Force of Law? and The Legal Status of Quo Primum are available from the Remnant Press in the USA and Augustine Publishing Co. in great Britain. See also footnote to p.447.

2. I must refer readers to my pamphlet The Tridentine Mass, which describes the reform of Pope Saint Pius V, and my pamphlets The New Mass and The Roman Rite Destroyed, which describe the reform of Pope Paul VI, and suggest that they decide for themselves whether there is any difference in the nature of the reforms enacted by the two pontiffs. This will be dealt with in greater detail in my book Pope Paul's New Mass. Available from the Augustine Publishing Co. in Great Britain and from the Angelus Press in the USA.

3. "Haec omnia summa cura et diligentia recognita. " Cicero.