Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume III

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XX

Inæstimabile Donum

Instruction from the Sacred Congregation
for the Sacraments and Divine Worship on
Certain Norms Concerning the
Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery1

3 April 1980


This instruction represents an attempt by Pope John Paul II to implement what he had written in Dominicæ Cenæ concerning the need for bishops to curb liturgical abuses. It begins by “nothing with great joy the many positive results of the liturgical reform.” Some of these “positive results” are cited, and they include such “benefits” as “a growth in the community sense of liturgical life, and successful efforts to close the gap between life and worship.” Millions of Catholics throughout the world had closed that gap by ceasing to take part in public worship, but it is unlikely that this is quite what the Instruction intended to convey!

It was, of course, ludicrous to claim any positive benefits for a reform which had resulted in the need for the publication of an instruction intended to curb serious abuses of which, it admitted: "The consequences are – and cannot fail to be – the impairing of the unity of faith and worship in the Church, doctrinal uncertainty, scandal and bewilderment among the People of God, and the near inevitability of violent reactions." When the Sacred Congregation admits to such a state of affairs, and then speaks of positive results, it is rather like informing someone who has lost his sight and hearing as the result of an accident that he should note with great joy the accompanying benefits, such as the fact that he will no longer be disturbed by bright lights and loud noises.

The good intentions of Pope John Paul II in having this Instruction published must be accepted, but alas, it has had little if any effect on those perpetrating the twenty-seven serious abuses which it lists. We must concern ourselves with facts rather than intentions, and the inescapable fact is that the abuses the Instruction is intended to curtail have become more widespread since its publication. Abuse no. 18 in the Instruction is that of female altar servers. When the Instruction was published in Apri1 1980 this aberration was virtually unknown in Great Britain, now it is by no mean unusual. Abuse no.12 concerned the distribution of Communion under both kinds outside the limits prescribed by the Holy See. The Instruction was defied to such an extent in this respect that the Vatican surrendered, just as in case of Communion in the hand, and authorized practice for all Masses in such countries as the United States.


1. Complete text available in Flannery II (see bibliography).

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXI

Archbishop Lefebvre in Venice
7 April 1980 - Easter Monday

On Easter Monday 1980, Archbishop Lefebvre offered Mass in the Church of San Simone Piccolo. Twenty students and a number of priests of the seminary at Albano, near Rome, had travelled to Venice for the Mass. I had a personal interest in this particular Mass as I had been staying at the seminary during Holy Week, prior to meeting Cardinal Seper on the evening of Easter Monday. The Cardinal had expressed a wish to meet me after having been given some of my books by Archbishop Lefebvre. I had gone to the Rome terminus to see the seminarians off, and I was most interested in the outcome of the Mass as the Patriarch of Venice, Cardinal Cé, made public his displeasure at Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to offer Mass in his diocese. A justification of Mgr. Lefebvre's practice in intervening within the dioceses of other bishops is included in my commentary on the protest made by Mgr. Elchinger when the Archbishop came to Strasbourg .

Four items concerning the Venice Mass are included here. They are an account of the Mass provided by a seminarian, the Archbishop’s sermon, a report which appeared in The Times, and a characteristic example of Universe gutter journalism from Ronald Singleton. It is interesting to compare this report with his account of the condemnation of Hans Küng.


A Visit to Venice by a Seminarian from Albano1
The seminarians completing their second year of studies at the Society of St. Pius X's house near Rome were able, during Easter week, to benefit from a five-day holiday in Venice provided by the generosity of Italian benefactors. Under the direction of our Director, Father Didier Bonneterre, we left Albano after chanting Vespers in the seminary chapel. A picnic supper had been provided by the Sisters, and we very much appreciated it during the long journey by train as far as Padua.

Padua is a modem thriving metropolis whose history goes back well before the time of the Holy Roman Empire when it was already an important religious, cultural, artistic, and commercial center. Today its chief claim to fame is its magnificent medieval basilica built to house the remains of St. Anthony, the great Franciscan preacher whose name is popularly invoked in the search for mislaid objects. The hotel at which we were to stay was situated very near the basilica, and from six 0' clock each morning seminarians could be seen dotted all over this huge church, making their early morning meditation and reciting their breviary.

We had the opportunity of visiting other churches in Padua, whose expansive medieval city-center is still very much unspoiled by the industrial development springing up in the suburbs. In the Benedictine Monastery of Santa Guistina, for example, a majestic sixteenth-century church surmounted by eight domes, we were able to pray at the tomb of St. Luke the Evangelist and author of the Acts of the Apostles. It is at such venerable sites of Christendom as this that one is more painfully aware of the sorrows of today's Church. Since St. Luke and the other Apostles and Evangelists first began to preach the Word of God, never has the Faith been so disturbed, so endangered as in the present century; the Benedictine monk in the emerald-green shirt, one of the "guardians" of this holy place, was living proof. We should remember in our prayers the modern day pastors of Christ's flock, that they may continue to spread the truth of Christ, and to safeguard the Deposit of Faith handed down to us by the Apostles.

Just over half an hour from Padua, the city of Venice is approached by a three-mile long road-rail bridge built in 1933. Stepping outside from the railway station the first view of Venice is impressive - the Grand Canal with its endless stream of gondolas and vaporetti, and immediately opposite, the steps rising out of the water, the Church of San Simone Piccolo.

This small but imposing building was to be the scene of a much publicized and controversial event this past Easter Monday: Mgr. Lefebvre, Superior of the Society of St. Pius X, was to celebrate a Solemn Pontifical Mass - his first public Mass in Italy since the Vatican attempt to suppress the Society and the Mass of St. Pius V back in 1975. As we arrived in Venice early that morning a large crowd was already gathering around the church, and television cameras were being fixed into position on the bridge across the Grand Canal.

Without San Simone the atmosphere was relatively peaceful. A group of local supporters was succeeding in separating the newspaper reporters and the curious from the worshippers at the entrance, and the church was quickly filled by several hundred Catholic faithful, who, in a general air of expectancy, quietly recited the Rosary, or followed the Low Mass being celebrated in one of the side chapels by Father Bonneterre.

As last minute preparations were being made in the sacristy a loud commotion outside the church announced the arrival Archbishop Lefebvre, who had travelled down to Venice from Ecône the night before. Despite his long journey His Grace showed no signs of fatigue, and acknowledged the enthusiasm of the crowds as he made his way through the church to the sacristy. With proverbial Italian exuberance, the faithful clapped and cheered, and kneeling to receive his blessing and obviously grateful to have the opportunity of showing their loyalty and devotion to this faithful pastor and all he stands for.

The Archbishop arrived in the sacristy where the priests and seminarians were vesting for Mass. Soon the procession had formed and, after bowing to the Cross, it slowly made its way towards the door into the church. As the processional cross appeared in a cloud of incense the enthusiasm of the faithful burst forth again, this time in the singing of the Sacerdas et Pantifex. Arriving at the high altar resplendent in its Easter decorations, each seminarian in turn genuflected and made his way into the choir. The Introit was solemnly intoned and Monseigneur began the prayers at the foot of the altar. The ancient chants and ceremonies of the Easter liturgy continued: Hæc est dies - "This is the day that the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad therein."

When the deacon had completed the singing of the Gospel announcing the Resurrection of Our Lord, he incensed the Archbishop who then proceeded to address the faithful. In a sermon in which he criticized condemnation of the Society - a condemnation made without any pretense at a fair trial - the Archbishop reaffirmed his refusal to compromise the Faith and his continued belief that any renewal within the Church must come through Tradition. He also criticized the attitude of those traditionalists who take an extreme position in regard to Rome, and refuse to acknowledge the lawful and divine authority of the official Church. Never has he worked against the Church - Ecône and its more than two hundred seminarians are working for the Church and within the Church. To prove this point, Mgr. Lefebvre reminded the congregation of the words of St. Pius X, Cardinal Patriarch of Venice before he was elected to the Throne of Peter, that the friends of the people are not the progressives and the innovators, but rather those who remain faithful to Tradition.

After the sermon the congregation rose to its feet to profess its faith in the singing of the Credo. The Mass proceeded, and soon a hush descended on the church as the warning bell was rung for the consecration. As the Archbishop paused and bent over the paten to whisper the words of consecration, the sacred stillness was suddenly broken by the triumphant pealing of the church bells, jubilantly proclaiming to the outside world the presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the altar.

As the Mass came to an end, the congregation knelt for the pontifical blessing. The Archbishop made the triple sign of the cross over the people, and as choir and congregation joined in the final hymn, Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat, the clergy began the procession out of the church.

After changing out of our surplices and saying a prayer of thanksgiving, it was time to leave. Monseigneur arrived looking relaxed and cheerful, and we began the perilous descent of the steps down to the Grand Canal - perilous because of the enormous crowd of reporters and cameramen jostling each other in a frantic attempt at getting a personal interview with the Archbishop. With cameras clicking furiously, and microphones being brandished in all directions, Monseigneur looked the picture of serenity as he boarded the motor launch and waved to the crowds.

Our benefactors had arranged a banquet at a restaurant outside the city, and after such a long and physically tiring day everyone was more than happy to relax in pleasant surroundings and enjoy the hospitality of our hosts.

Later in the afternoon we were taken by bus to Riese, the birthplace of St. Pius X. For Archbishop Lefebvre, as well as for the majority of the seminarians, this was their first visit to this shrine, and although only a fleeting pilgrimage, the tour was made very special by the presence among us of the great-niece of St. Pius X. This wonderful old lady still lives in the home of the Sarto family where St. Pius X was born and spent his childhood. It is a simple house, typical of the dwellings of the region, a house which has retained all of its charm, thanks to the care of the Sarto family who have also established behind the house a museum dedicated to this great and holy man. In the town of Riese - now known as Riese/San Pio Decimo - the memory of this Pope lives on. His name is to be seen everywhere you look: Giuseppe Sarto Street, Pius X Boulevard, St. Pius X Pharmacy, and so on. It was refreshing to see such devotion to our heavenly patron in these times when his successors in the hierarchy seem to prefer to forget the teachings of such a staunchly traditionalist and anti-liberal Pope.


What is Happening In The Church?
A Sermon Pronounced by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre at the Church of St. Simon Piccolo, Venice2
7 April 1980

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

My dear brethren,

I hope you will excuse me if I am not very fluent in your language but I hope that you will understand my words.

Perhaps there are some among you who are having doubts. They are maybe wondering why Archbishop Lefebvre has come here to Venice, without having been invited by Cardinal Cé. My presence here creates a situation which, in the Church, is not normal.

This is true. When I was Archbishop of Dakar, if a bishop had come to my diocese without having asked me and without having been invited, I would have been very surprised. I realize this, that we are dealing with an abnormal situation. We definitely have to ask ourselves what the present situation in the Church is.

Never, never would I have wanted to do anything contrary to the Church! All of my life has been devoted to the service of the Church. In my fifty years of priesthood, thirty-three of them as a bishop, I have done nothing but serve the Church as a missionary, as a bishop in France, as Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, and as a missionary bishop. The young seminarians and the priests that you see here with me represent a very small part of all those presently studying in my five seminaries.

Ten years ago I began this work - this Society of St. Pius X - with the intention of wanting always to serve the Church. Why, then, is Cardinal Cé, Patriarch of Venice, not happy that I have come here? Why does he not understand the reason? How can I best explain? Obviously, he is not happy that I have continued my duties unchanged since the day of my ordination to the priesthood. I have never changed in any way, whether it was when I established new seminaries in Africa, or when, as Apostolic Delegate of His Holiness Pope Pius XII, I visited the sixty-four dioceses of French Africa during the course of eleven years. I visited all the seminaries, laying down to the diocesan bishops the standards for the new ones to be opened.

I have never changed. I have preached and done what the Church has always taught. I have never changed what the Church said in the Council of Trent and at the First Vatican Council. So who has changed? Myself or Cardinal Cé? I don’t know, but I think that considering the way things are - that is, the fruits of the changes made in the Church since the Second Vatican Council - as Catholics we can observe the fruits for ourselves, you can see it with your own eyes.

How are things going in the Church today? Ask His Grace Monseigneur Pintonello, former Chaplain to the Armed Forces, who has made a detailed report on the present conditions of the Italian seminaries: a disaster! A real disaster! How many seminaries have been sold or closed? The Seminary of Turin with three hundred places - empty! And how many others have you seen closed in your own dioceses? So then, surely, something is wrong in the Church, because if there are no longer any seminaries there will in the future be no more priests - thus, there will no longer be the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. What will become of the Church? All this is unbelievable! They have changed, yes. They have changed, but why? They have done this, of course, with the idea of saving the Church, of doing something new. Before the Council there was a real decrease of fervor and therefore they thought that by changing, the Church would become more alive. But one cannot change what Jesus Christ has established. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments, the Creed, our catechism, the Sacred Scriptures - all come from Jesus Christ. To change them is to change the establishment of Jesus Christ. Impossible! One cannot say that the Church has been mistaken; if something is wrong one must look for the reason somewhere, but not in the Church. They also say that the Church must change as modem man changes, that as man has a new way of life, so too the Church must have another doctrine - a new Mass, new Sacraments, a new catechism, new seminaries - and, in this way, everything has gone to ruin. Everything has been ruined!

The Church is not responsible. It is not the Church but rather the priests who are responsible for the deterioration of Catholicism. Pope St. Pius X, your Holy Patriarch of Venice, in the first pages of his encyclical Pascendi, writes that already in his time there were errors and heresies not outside but inside the Church; within the Church and not only among the laity but, more to the point, amongst the priests. St. Pius X saw these enemies from the very beginning of this century. Today we can add that if St. Pius X were still alive, he would see them not only amongst the priests but amongst the bishops and cardinals as well. It is certain, unfortunately, that there are even some cardinals who are diffusing error.

Where does the Dutch Catechism originate? Certainly not from the Catholic Catechism, even though it was approved by cardinals and bishops. Even the French catechism, with which I am acquainted, contain errors. It is no longer the true Catholic doctrine which has always been taught. We are dealing with a very serious situation.

Throughout the world, everywhere I have been, I have visited groups of Catholics like you, who ask themselves: "What is happening in the Church?" The Church is hardly recognizable today. The ceremonies - the half - Protestant, half-Catholic liturgy - are a circus; it is no longer a Mystery. The Sacred Mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass - a great Mystery, heavenly and sublime - is no longer considered such. One no longer feels the supernatural character of the Mass; those who are present have a feeling of emptiness and no longer know whether they have been at a Catholic ceremony or at some king of secular gathering.

This is an inadmissible situation. The faithful, good and simple people, are opposed to it. Because they intuitively know that there is something which is not right in this reform. They see seminaries empty; the novitiates of religious communities empty throughout the world. This, too, is inadmissible. For the good of the Church we must resist without being against those in authority.

I have always had a great respect for the Holy Father, for the bishops and cardinals. I am not capable of pronouncing uncharitable words in the confrontation with Cardinal Cé, but that does not stop me from affirming Catholic doctrine because I want to remain a Catholic.

When I was baptized, the priest asked my godparents: "What does this child ask of the Church?" They replied: "Faith. He asks Faith from the Church." And even today I still ask Faith from the Church - the Catholic Faith. Why do the godparents ask Faith of the Church for the child? They do so to enable him to obtain everlasting life. If it is the Faith that obtains everlasting life, then it is this Faith that I want- and I don’t want to change it!

The Catholic Faith is the Catholic Faith. The Creed is the Creed. They cannot be changed. One cannot change the Catechism; one cannot change the Mass, transforming it into a meal as the Protestants have.

The Mass is a Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Cross and, as the Council of Trent says, it is the same Sacrifice as Calvary, with the only difference being that one is bloody and the other unbloody. But the two are the same; the same priest - Jesus Christ, and the same Victim - Jesus Christ.

If the Victim is truly Jesus Christ, God, our Creator and our Redeemer, who shed all His Blood for our souls, it is impossible to receive Him in our hands like just any piece of bread. And it is therefore impossible for a Catholic not to have respect and adoration, if he truly believes that in the Blessed Sacrament is Jesus Christ - God Himself - the Creator, our Judge, who will be seen coming in the clouds of heaven to judge the entire world. Like you, I am also scandalized, I am saddened and it pains my heart to see it - they even show it on television - pictures in which a cardinal or bishop approaches the Blessed Eucharist without making a genuflection or any other sign of respect towards the Blessed Sacrament - nothing! Once again, this is inadmissible and does not reflect the attitude of the Catholic Church. We must keep the Faith in this storm through which the Church is passing - a storm that has lasted for a long time and that we hope will soon be over so that the Church can return to the Faith that she had before. We must have a little patience.

I go to Rome five or six times a year to plead with the cardinals, the Pope himself, to return to Tradition and to give back to the Church her Catholic spirit. I quote again from St. Pius X: "Who are the friends of the people? The true friends of the people are neither the revolutionaries nor the innovators but rather the traditionalists." Those are the words of St. Pius X to the French bishops. The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor the innovators - and it was precisely the innovators who condemned St. Pius X - but rather the traditionalists. We want to be in the same spirit of St. Pius X whom for this reason I have chosen as patron of our Society, which is recognized by the Church.

My Society, in fact, was officially recognized ten years ago by Rome and by the Bishop of Fribourg in Switzerland in which diocese it was founded. Afterwards, progressive bishops and Modernists saw in my seminaries a danger for their theories. They were enraged with me and said to themselves: "We need to destroy these seminaries, we need to finish off Ecône and the work of Archbishop Lefebvre, because it presents a danger to our progressive and revolutionary plan." They addressed themselves to Rome in this calumnious manner and Rome consented.

But as I said to His Holiness John Paul II, the suppression was carried out in a manner contrary to Canon Law. Not even the Soviets pronounce judgments as the cardinals at Rome have done against my work. The Soviets have a tribunal, a kind of tribunal to condemn someone, but I have not even had this tribunal - nothing! I have been condemned without having had anything, not even a forewarning or a summons - nothing! One fine day a letter arrived to tell me that the seminary would have to be closed.

I have repeated this to the Holy Father that not even the Soviets behave like this. I told him that I have continued because this is not how the Church acts - it is the enemies of the Church that want her seminaries closed down. The Catholic Church cannot just forget her Tradition, it is impossible. It is the enemy, as St. Pius X said, the enemy who is working within the Church because he wants the Church to be finished with her tradition; because he is in a fury against her Tradition.

It is up to you to judge the facts. In my seminaries we have over 200 seminarians and many vocations to the religious life. When a house opens it is soon filled with many new vocations. Why? Because the youth seek to find the Church - Tradition. There, where one finds Tradition, one also finds the Church. Through a priest all finds its ideal; all his heart is in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. To go unto the altar of God, to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to give Our Christ, the true Victim - to souls. Thus the fullness of the priesthood and the priests. My seminarians, such as those at Ecône, know this; they prepare themselves for the priesthood upon this basis.

I congratulate and thank those who have invited me to come. I hope that my visit has encouraged Catholics to maintain the Church of all time, the Catholic Church. In Rome it has been said of me that I have done nothing other than halt, impede, progress in the Church. In that alone I would be doing a splendid thing! If only this, to halt, to impede the ruin of the Church!

That is not our only purpose. Not only do we wish to halt this ruin but we desire also to reconstruct the Church, a living Church. For this end I preach to you a crusade, a true crusade of all Catholics who desire to maintain the Faith. In order to do so you must gather about good priests who wish to conserve the Faith by assuring life in the Church.

In closing, I ask all who are gathered around this altar, a true altar with a true priest, I ask you to continue the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. We pray also for your children that they may see and know the Catholic religion, that they may frequent Catholic schools. Indeed, there are great trials for Catholic parents. These children must also conserve Tradition. We invoke, to this end, our highly venerated Patriarch of Venice, Pope St. Pius X, who was a saint who foresaw the future.

During the course of this Mass let us ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to whom we must have a great devotion, especially through the invocation of the most holy Rosary, let us ask her to terminate this crisis in the Church and return to the Church the peace and grace of Almighty God.

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



"Catholic Church at Point of Catastrophe, says Rebel Prelate"
from Peter Nichols, Rome, April 7
8 April 1980 - A Report in The Times

Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre, the traditionalist prelate suspended by the Vatican for disobedience, said in his sermon preached in a Venice church today that change had brought the Catholic Church to the point of catastrophe.

During the celebration of the Latin Mass, the first in Italy since his suspension by Pope Paul VI for disobedience, he said that he would never do anything against the Church which he had served all his life. He had not changed. He still said and preached the things that the Church had always taught. But the fruits of the changes around him were now clear.

"Seminaries have been sold or closed with the risk that, in the future, there will be no more priests and no more Masses."

There had been, he said, before the Vatican Council a falling off in fervor, and people had thought that by changing things, the situation would improve. "But you cannot change things pertaining to the Church."

Responsible for the situation were those bishops and cardinals who spread error and a Catholic doctrine which was no longer what it used to be. For the good of the Church, he said, "one must resist."

" I have asked, and continue to ask, several times a year, the cardinals in Rome to return to the tradition, but these progressive and Modernist bishops have seen in my seminaries a danger and they want to destroy them, and with them my work. Not even the Soviets are as intransigent as the cardinals of Rome have been toward me."

This, he said, was not the Catholic Church but the enemy within the Catholic Church. "To brake the ruin of the Church is one of our aims. The other is to build a living Church."

There were about 600 people in the church. Scuffling was caused because of an order to ban all press photographers.

Mgr. Lefebvre himself appeared quite calm, ignoring the numerous placards outside the church criticizing his challenge to the Vatican.

The rebel Archbishop was preceded by twenty students from his seminary at Ecône in Switzerland, and eight priests.

Mgr. Lefebvre was heckled both during and after the services by young parishioners from a nearby Liberal Roman Catholic church. At one point the Archbishop's traditionalist followers appeared on the point of breaking into fist fights and police moved between the two groups outside the tiny church of San Simeon Piccolo to prevent violence.

As Mgr. Lefebvre arrived at the church he was met by about twenty protesters shouting: "Fascist" and "throw him into the water."

When compared with the account of the Venice Mass by the seminarian, and the text of the Archbishop's sermon, it will be clear that this report describes what took place and summarized the Archbishop's sermon in a reasonably objective manner. The contentious epithet "rebel prelate" is unfortunate, but it has been used so frequently in the Catholic press it is now almost a sine qua non for secular journalists. It is consoling to think that had there been newspapers in the fourth century the same epithet would have been applied to St. Athanasius.


"New Challenge by the Rebel Archbishop"
by Ronald Singleton
8 April 1980- A Report in The Universe

Cherubic, pink-cheeked, and immensely self-confident Archbishop Lefebvre, 74, zoomed into Venice by motorboat and celebrated a Tridentine Mass that was a challenge to the Pope.

A crowd shouted: "Throw him in the lagoon!"

More than 400 Catholics who reject Vatican instructions on how Mass must be said went to his service at a building, once the church of St. Simeon Minor.

The Archbishop’s sermon contained not words of joy, but acrid accusations of all bishops gathered about the Pope. As usual they were his favorite villains and "Abominations." He pointedly ignored the Holy Father.

Most Venetians were shocked. Cardinal Patriarch Cé, and diocesan Church and lay leaders were outraged.

The congregation included so-called princes, princesses, counts and dukes.

They filed into the building past black-cloaked men who told correspondents, "No photos! No tape recording! No notebooks! No notes! No pencils!"

Invitations were limited to cards: "A Mass will be said in the Latin Gregorian Rite in the church with the green dome past the canal in front of the railway station."

The suspended Archbishop had the support of Countess Elisabetta Marcella Vendramin, but not of Count Pier Fillippo Grimani, descendant of three Dogs and "Leader" of Venetian aristocracy, who observed: "This Lefebvre! What are we coming to!"

The promoter of the ceremony was Sirio Cisilino, 80, who said: "I am proud of the fact that I have never once said Mass in Italian!"

He was given permission to say Latin Masses in the church by the last Cardinal Patriarch Luciani (Pope John Paul I).

The Archbishop was celebrating Mass "to help the beatification cause of Padre Pio."

An angry Cardinal Patriarch Cé telephoned the Pope a few days ago, then wrote in a pastoral letter: "The Mass will take place explicitly against the ruling of the Church authorities in violation of the rules concerning the use of the building involved, which is for musical concerts."

A Vatican official said: "If the Archbishop continues trying to score points, the Holy Father is bound to intervene."

The angry citizens who shouted: "Throw him in the lagoon!" were answered by others who waved banners and called "Long live Lefebvre!" There were fights. Thirty police intervened.

* * * *

It is hardly surprising that there is such a widespread prejudice against Mgr. Lefebvre when it is remembered that the typical Catholic will form his opinion of the Archbishop from reports such as this. A lack of professionalism is, unfortunately, a characteristic of the Liberal Catholic press. It is only reasonable that any journal should be entitled to its viewpoint, and to use its columns to promote this viewpoint, but any journal claiming to be a newspaper should make the classic distinction between news, which should be sacred, and comment, which should be free but fair .The Universe had every right to criticize Mgr. Lefebvre for offering Mass in Venice without the permission of Cardinal Cé, but it should have used its opinion column to do this and not what purported to be a news report. When The Universe report is set beside that of The Times, the abysmal lack of professionalism which characterizes this squalid propaganda sheet becomes apparent immediately. In his sermon the Archbishop mentioned the fact that the treatment he had received from the Vatican was more reminiscent of Soviet Russia than the Catholic Church. The manner in which The Universe has consistently vilified Mgr. Lefebvre also brings to mind the manner in which the Soviet press conducts its campaigns against such men as Alexander Solzhenitsyn. The same motive can be discerned in both cases: fear of the truth.

It is worth examining the Singleton report in some detail, as has been done on previous occasions, to discern the techniques used by the journalists of conciliar Catholicism engaged in character assassination. It should also be noted that The Universe rarely publishes letters defending those whom it has denigrated, and that the techniques it employs are typical of the official Catholic press throughout the world.

Singleton claims that the Mass which the Archbishop offered was a challenge to the Pope. Let us hope that the Pope did not consider that offering Mass in a rite dating back in all essentials to the epoch of St. Gregory the Great constituted a "challenge" to him. Mgr. Lefebvre has never been in any diocese to challenge any bishop’s authority, but simply to minister to the pastoral needs of traditional Catholics, the orphans of the Conciliar Church. Hans Küng travelled all over the world undermining the faith of Catholics in diocese, both before and after his condemnation. Singleton on no occasion terms this "a challenge to the Pope."

"A crowd shouted: ‘ Throw him into the lagoon!'" The Times report reveals this "crowd" consisted of only twenty youths from a local Liberal parish. As they also shouted "Fascist" at the Archbishop it would appear fair to describe them as left-wing hooligans.

The "400" Catholics who assisted at the Archbishop's Mass "reject Vatican instructions on how Mass must be said." The number was actually 600, and they were all, it seems, very naughty Catholics who reject Vatican instructions. It is definitely arguable that there has never been any canonically valid legal prohibition of the Tridentine Mass, but leave that aside. As is made clear in Inæstimabile donum, Vatican instructions on the way Mass must be said are widely ignored throughout the Catholic world, and in a manner that undermines Eucharistic devotion. But even if were ignored in Venice, attendance at this Mass could only have served to strengthen the Eucharistic devotion of those present. I am certain that Singleton would never have described those attending a Küng lecture as "Catholics who reject Church teaching."

"The Archbishop’s sermon contained not words of joy, but acrid accusations of all bishops gathered about the Pope. As usual, they were his favorite villains and abominations." A photograph of the Archbishop had the caption: "Acrid: Archbishop Lefebvre."

Is Singleton under the impression that every sermon must contain "words of joy"? It would be hard to find any terms of joy appropriate for the present condition of the Church. One must presume that Singleton would have censured Our Lord for weeping over Jerusalem. Unlike the readers of The Universe, readers of this book are able to compare Singleton's description of the sermon with what the Archbishop actually said. It will also be noted that, unlike The Times correspondent, Singleton made no attempt to report the Archbishop's actual words. The only word he quotes is " abominations" - claiming that the Archbishop applied this term to " all the bishops gathered about the Pope - his favorite villains." Readers will have noted that the word "abominations" does not appear anywhere in the sermon, but most Universe readers would have believed that Mgr. Lefebvre had actually used this expression. They will also note that the sermon was very far from being acrid. It provided an accurate assessment of the state of contemporary Catholicism, and offered words of encouragement, inspiration and hope to those remaining faithful to Tradition. The Archbishop did indeed criticize cardinals and bishops, and with very good reason. As he mentioned, the notorious Dutch Catechism could hardly be described as Catholic, and yet it has received the approval of cardinals and bishops.  The Archbishop’s judgment is corroborated by Professor J.P.M. van der Ploeg, O.P., one of the most outstanding biblical scholars in the world today. Professor van der Ploeg stated:

The Dutch Catechism is, from one end to the other, a manual of Modernism for which it aims to win an acceptance everywhere. In order not to alarm its readers the true import of its teaching is frequently concealed by deceptive and ambiguous phrasing, although at times the authors have the insolence to flaunt it openly. The Dutch Catechism has already caused incalculable harm throughout the world, as a Roman Cardinal confided to me recently.

If the Dutch Catechism is indeed a "manual of Modernism" which has caused incalculable harm throughout the world, then Mgr. Lefebvre not only has a right but a duty to criticize cardinals and bishops who endorse it. Such criticism, far from being acrid, is courageous, constructive and a duty to the Faith.

Singleton was obviously disappointed that Mgr. Lefebvre had not criticized the Pope. But such is his pathological dislike for the Archbishop (which I referred to in Apologia II, p. 37), that he even uses this as an excuse to abuse the former Apostolic Delegate to the whole of French-speaking Africa. The Archbishop, he claimed, "pointedly ignored the Holy Father." Just as there is no obligation for any preacher to include "words of joy" in every sermon, there is equally no obligation for him to mention the Pope each time he preaches. I have heard many hundreds of sermons in which the Pope has not been mentioned, but it never struck me that the preacher was "pointedly ignoring" the Holy Father! Once again, unlike the readers of The Universe, readers of this book will be aware that Singleton is stating something which is totally false. There are, in fact, several references to the Holy Father in the sermon, and all in the most respectful terms. Indeed, the Archbishop was equally respectful when referring to the bishops whom Singleton claimed he had accused in acrid terms as "villains and abominations": "I have always had a great respect for the Holy Father, for the bishops and cardinals. I am not capable of pronouncing uncharitable words in the confrontation with you Cardinal Cé, but that does not stop me from affirming Catholics doctrine because I want to remain a Catholic." The negative impression which most Universe readers would have formed of the Archbishop after reading the Singleton report would have been very different had they been able to read what Mgr. Lefebvre had actually said. It is not difficult to understand why The Universe has such a fear of the truth.


A Digression

It is clear that had Mgr. Lefebvre criticized Pope John Paul II in his sermon he would have been denounced by Singleton as some sort of apostate. If criticism of cardinals and bishops is unacceptable, then criticism of the Pope is unthinkable. But is this necessarily the invariable view of The Universe? Not so. Its editor has gone on record as stating quite clearly that criticism of the Pope can be legitimate. What matters is who is criticizing him, and why. In July 1983 the Holy Father was attacked by Mgr. Bruce Kent for failing to endorse the policy of unilateral disarmament. Mgr. Kent had been excused from his priestly duties by Cardinal Hume so that he could devote himself full-time to undermining the defense of the West.3

Mgr. Kent also had a very poor opinion of the Pope’s attitude to women and his view of the life of the clergy. In both cases he castigated the Pope's attitude as "unbelievable." The Monsignor received a good deal of criticism for his attack upon the Pope, but in its 22 July 1983 edition The Universe sprang to his defense. Criticism of the Pope, it appears, is not wrong providing the criticism comes from Liberals. "We are concerned," explained The Universe, "with the principle that criticism of the Pope is not forbidden by the Church. Criticism should not be taken for disloyalty." The editorial might have added: "Except in the case of Mgr. Lefebvre."


Back to Singleton

According to Singleton, Venetians could be divided into two classes that Easter Monday: those who were shocked and those who were outraged. Most, it appeared, came into the former category. It is far more likely that most Venetians were totally indifferent, if their attitude to the Faith bears any similarity to that of Catholics of most Western countries today. It would be interesting if Singleton could reveal precisely how he was able to ascertain the opinion of "most Venetians."

"The congregation included so-called princes, princesses, counts and dukes." What does Singleton mean by this? Either these people did possess the titles to which they laid claim or they did not. As Singleton does not adduce one word of evidence to suggest that any of them were frauds then he had no right to make such an imputation.

Singleton was somewhat irate at the refusal to let reporters into the Mass with their equipment. In view of the vilification to which the Archbishop and his Society have been treated by the press this precaution appears to be no more than common sense.

It will be noted that when reporting the condemnation of Hans Küng, comments were obtained only from admirers of this Liberal hero. The Universe published three comments on the Mass in Venice, all from individuals hostile to Mgr. Lefebvre, including one from a mysterious "Vatican official," whose remarks were so inane that he might well have been a gardener or a cook. One notes, too, that thirty police had to intervene to stop a fight which, according to The Times did not take place. Had there been a fight it would evidently have been provoked not by supporters of the Archbishop, but by the Liberal hooligans who had come solely with the object of abusing a prelate who had been a giant in the Church long before they had been born.

Singleton, The Universe, and the Catholic press in general might consider themselves to have been successful, to have won a victory, in their reporting of the Venice Mass and countless similar incidents involving Archbishop Lefebvre. They have deceived their readers, and they have covered up their deception. They have been successful in building up the image of the acrid "rebel bishop" in the minds of the ordinary faithful. In the best tradition of Dr. Goebbels, they know that if you tell a lie often enough, most people will come to accept it as the truth. The Archbishop can take comfort in the recollection that the enemies of his Divine Master needed to call upon the testimony of false witnesses. The same tactic was used in the trial of St. Thomas More. Satan does not change the methods which he employs from one century to another in his war against those who uphold the Truth.


1. This account was first published in The Angelus of September 1980.

2. First published in The Angelus, October 1980.

3. Mgr. Kent left the priesthood in 1987, and, in 1988, married an official of Pax Christi in a registry office without obtaining a dispensation from his priestly vows. The Universe made his marriage its front story on 15 April 1988, without a hint of criticism of Mgr. Kent, or even a hint that the marriage was invalid. He was given ample space to justify his indefensible behavior.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXII

A Meeting with Cardinal Seper
7 April 1980

On the evening of Easter Monday, 1980, I had a discussion lasting over two hours with Cardinal Seper in his private apartment in Rome. He had expressed a wish to meet me after reading some of my books given to him by Archbishop Lefebvre. I was accompanied by my wife who, like the Cardinal, is Croatian, and was, where necessary, able to translate for us. One of my sons was also present.

The impression of Cardinal Seper derived from the manner in which he conducted the discussions with Mgr. Lefebvre is not a very sympathetic one. This is because he is seen only in his role as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, acting in his official capacity. In private, he was relaxed and good humored. During our discussion, the Croatian nun who takes care of him, brought us coffee and cake from time to time. On each occasion my wife launched into a protracted discussion with her concerning the recipes, and wrote a number of them down. The Cardinal found this very amusing and asked my son whether he thought his mother would actually use any of the recipes. “No,” he replied. The Cardinal roared with laughter and said that this was precisely what he had suspected. He was, of course, totally correct and the recipes have still not been tried.

We discussed a number of topics as well as the case of Archbishop Lefebvre. The Cardinal's Congregation was assessing the Agreed Statements of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC), which covered such topics as the Eucharist and the Ministry. By using ambiguous terminology, formulated with the greatest care by theologians from both sides, agreements were produced purporting to prove that Catholics and Anglicans hold precisely the same beliefs on doctrines where the teaching of the two communions is radically incompatible. Thus, the Agreement on the Ministry nowhere states that only an ordained priest can celebrate a valid Eucharist. The Catholic side claims that as the document does not deny this fundamental teaching it must be considered to affirm it. The Anglican side claims that as it does not affirm the doctrine it must be considered to deny it. The principal Anglican theologian on the Commission, Dr. Julian Charley, stated specifically that the agreement accepts that a layman can celebrate the Eucharist in the absence of an ordained minister. I was able to give the Cardinal a number of commentaries on the Agreed Statements written by Dr. Charley showing the extent to which they can be interpreted in a manner that is incompatible with Catholic teaching. Cardinal Seper assured me that the ARCIC documents would never be approved by his Congregation. This gave me great satisfaction as when I had pointed out the deficiencies of these documents to Cardinal Hume, he had expressed the opinion that one day they would become the official teaching of the Church.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Seper's successor, eventually published a devastating critique of the ARCIC documents, showing clearly that they are totally unacceptable as the basis for a doctrinal agreement between Catholics and Anglicans. I was pleased to see that all the points I had put to Cardinal Seper were included in the Congregation’s critique.

Cardinal Seper was very amused when I informed him that The Tablet had demanded the suppression of his Congregation following the action it had taken against Hans Küng. “Isn’t that the paper that used to be Catholic?” he asked. (The Tablet had, at one time, been the outstanding Catholic journal in Great Britain. It now does little more than purvey fashionable progressive platitudes.)

The Cardinal asked for my opinion as to the worst Modernists among the English bishops, and I raised the questions as to why the Vatican did not take action against American bishops who were defying the Holy See on such important questions as valid Eucharistic matter. He admitted quite openly that the Vatican no longer exercises effective control over the American bishops. He asked whether I thought it feasible for the Holy See to suspend the entire hierarchy of the United States. I agreed that this was hardly a practical proposition but when I recounted the conversation to an American priest1 a few days later, he remarked that it would not be necessary to suspend the entire hierarchy to bring the American bishops into line, simply half a dozen of the more blatant Modernists.

Where dogma was concerned, it was evident that not only was the Cardinal totally orthodox and traditional, but that he was an outstanding theologian. However, when we came to discuss the liturgy in the context of the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, I found that he was unable to understand the issues that were troubling traditional Catholics. He saw the imposition of the New Mass simply as a disciplinary matter. It had been promulgated validly in accordance with Canon Law, and it was therefore the duty of every Catholic to accept it without question and not to deviate from the rubrics. He recognized that there was a liturgical problem, but believed that it could be solved simply by faithful adherence to the missal of Pope Paul VI. This was the Mass he used. He was totally orthodox, and as it did not trouble him, he could not see any reason why it should trouble anyone, providing that it was celebrated reverently and without abuses. He told me with great satisfaction how a group of German tourists had attempted to receive Communion in the hand when assisting at his Mass in St. Peter's Basilica a few days before. He had made them all kneel down and receive Communion on the tongue.

Cardinal Seper remarked that Mgr. Lefebvre made too much fuss about unimportant issues. Why object to Mass facing the people when this was the practice of the early Church? As the celebration of Mass facing the people had never been the practice of the Church in East or West at any time in her history prior to Vatican II this was not the best example the Cardinal could have chosen.2 His lack of concern where the New Mass is concerned is probably the result of being brought up in a country where there was no large Protestant minority. The same may be true of Pope John Paul II. Slavonic Catholics come into contact with members of the Orthodox Church far more frequently than they do with Protestants. The Eucharistic teaching of the Orthodox Church is very close to that of the Catholic Church. There has never been the saying: “It is the Mass that matters," among Slavonic Catholics. Thus, the changes made in the Mass following the Second Vatican Council do not have the same significance for them as they do in some countries such as England where similar changes were made by the Protestant Reformers. In Slavonic countries Marian rather than Eucharistic devotions tend to form the focus of Catholic piety. It is also true of both Cardinal Seper and Pope John Paul II that their people live under Communist governments, and maintaining the unity of the Catholic people is their greatest priority. Cardinal Seper was, therefore, far more disturbed by reluctance in accepting without question a disciplinary change imposed by the Pope than by the fact that the liturgical expression of Catholic Eucharistic teaching had been considerably weakened in the Novus Ordo Missæ.

There is not the least doubt that Cardinal Seper was a devout and totally orthodox Catholic. He was a dedicated servant of the Church and did his duty courageously and dispassionately, condemning error whenever he saw it and witnessing to the Truth. It is unfortunate that he was unable to appreciate the fact that the stand taken by Mgr. Lefebvre had the object of upholding Tradition, and could not be compared to the rebellion of such priests as Hans Küng or Charles Curran whose teaching served to undermine orthodoxy.

When the history of the post-conciliar debacle comes to be written, Cardinal Seper will be one of the few prelates to emerge with credit. His Congregation issued a series of totally orthodox documents upholding the traditional teaching on faith and morals. These documents have been largely ignored by the bishops, and appear to be unknown to most traditional Catholics. Those who believe that authentic Catholic teaching no longer comes to us from Rome should study some of the documents issued by this Congregation – such as The Declaration on Euthanasia, Instruction on Infant Baptism, Sexual Ethics, Mysterium Ecclesiæ Women in the Priesthood, or the Declaration on Professor Hans Küng.

The Cardinal had complained to Father Milan Mikulich, a Croatian priest in Portland, Oregon, that diocesan bishops failed to implement the instructions emanating from Rome. This was perfectly true, but in reality, the Cardinal’s greatest problem was not the bishops, but Pope Paul VI. Pope Paul invariably ratified the documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and then allowed them to be ignored with impunity. Weakness at the top permeates through any organization, the Church included.

Cardinal Seper was to die on 29 December 1981, at the age of seventy-six. He remained Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith until he retired, the month before he died. May he rest in peace.


1. Father Carl Pulvermacher, O.F.M.

2. See Pope Paul’s New Mass, Chapter XIX.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXIII

Letter to Friends & Benefactors, No. 18
13 April 1980

Dear Friends and Benefactors:

Today, at the novitiate of the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X in St. Michel-en-Brenne, eight postulants took the habit and four novices made their profession. Next year eleven novices will make profession. One would have to be frankly prejudiced not to recognize the fervor and profound faith of this community, as well as its radiant joy, so clearly the work of the Holy Ghost. Here one is indeed far from Pentecostalism or the charismatic movement, but simply in line with the great tradition of the religious life in the Catholic Church.

What is important in the Church today, as yesterday, and tomorrow, is to live from faith, so as to live from grace and thus prepare oneself for eternal life. St. John, in his first epistle tells us, in today's Mass, "He who was born of God has vanquished the world, and the victory which has vanquished the world is our faith. Who indeed has vanquished the world if not he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.”

If the above is the resume and substance of our faith, then we must honor Jesus as God in all our Christian life, and thus, as the Church has always taught and practised, we must refuse to make Jesus equivalent to the founders of false religions, which would be blasphemous. We must refuse to compromise with those who deny the divinity of Our Lord, or with any false ecumenism. We must fight against atheism and laicism in order to help Our Lord to reign over families and over society. We must protect the worship of the Church, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the sacraments instituted by Our Lord, practicing them according to the rites honored by twenty centuries of tradition. Thus we will properly honor Our Lord, and thus be assured of receiving His grace.

It is because the novelties which have invaded the Church since the Council diminish the adoration and the honor due to Our Lord, and implicitly throw doubt upon His divinity, that we refuse them. These novelties do not come from the Holy Ghost, nor from His Church, but from those who are imbued with the spirit of Modernism, and with all the errors which convey this spirit, condemned with so much courage and energy by St. Pius X. This holy Pope said to the bishops of France with regard to the Sillon movement: "The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but the men of tradition.”

If only the innovators of the Council and those since it would understand this language which is, after all, that of the Church since the time of St. Paul.

One cannot hope for a real renovation of the Church without a return to Tradition. The Church cannot content herself with doubtful sacraments nor with ambiguous teaching. Those who have introduced these doubts and this ambiguity are not disciples of the Church. Whatever their intentions may have been, they in fact worked against the Church. The disastrous results of their industry exceed the worst examinings, and are not lessened by the apparent exceptions of a few regions. When Luther introduced the vernacular into the liturgy, the crowds rushed into the churches. But later?

It is consoling to note that in the Catholic world, the sense of faith of the faithful rejects these novelties and attaches itself to Tradition. It is from this that the true renewal of the Church will come. And it is because these novelties were introduced by a clergy infected with Modernism, that the most urgent and necessary work in the Church is the formation of a profoundly Catholic clergy. We give ourselves to this work with all our heart, aided henceforth by our eighty young priests, and encouraged by the presence of our two hundred and ten major seminarians. The countries of South and Central America give us hope.

The Church was saved from Arianism. She will be saved as well from Modernism. Our Lord will triumph, even when, humanly speaking, all seems lost. His ways are not our ways. Would we have chosen the Cross to triumph over Satan, the world and sin? Our forty houses throughout the world demonstrate that God can bring much out of nothing. God wills to make use of us. He makes use of you, as well, dear friends and benefactors. May God bless you and keep you in His love and peace.

†Marcel Lefebvre

St. Michel-en-Brenne
Low Sunday (13 April) 1980

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXIV

Frequent Confession
The Remnant-18 April 1980

Pope John Paul II, in outdoor beatification ceremonies for a Franciscan known for hearing confessions, condemned the idea that frequent confession is “old fashioned.”

The Pope repeated his frequent call to priests to see the “capital importance” of their ministry of confessors. About 10,000 people listened as the Pope praised Capuchin Father Leopold of Herceg Novi, Yugoslavia, who died in 1942 and had spent hours each day hearing confessions for forty years.

The Pope objected to "certain critical currents which would like to relegate frequent confession to a position of being considered old-fashioned.” He said that those who held this view “are certainly not inspired by mature Christian wisdom.” Today more than ever, the Pope said, "individual confession is a font of grace and peace, a school of Christian life and of incomparable comfort for the earthly pilgrimage toward eternal happiness.”

On Good Friday of this year, Pope John Paul II himself entered a confessional in St. Peter’s Basilica and heard private confessions for an hour and a half. A spokesman for the Holy See declared that the Pope did so to emphasize the importance of individual sacramental confession. L’Observatore Romano likewise reported that the Holy Father meant to emphasize “the importance which the Church gives this Sacrament, especially at Easter, as a means of reconciliation with God and with one’s brothers.”

Meanwhile, in the St. Paul-Minneapolis Archdiocese, Archbishop John Roach had instructed his priests to dispense with the Sacrament of Penance “except for serious pastoral reasons” from Holy Thursday through Easter Sunday. The Archbishop’s reasoning for this was, to say the least, quixotic. In a lengthy letter to his priests, the Archbishop pointed to a “separation” of the Easter Triduum from Lent’s call to conversion and penance. The ‘ritual process’ of the Easter Triduum, said the Archbishop, “enunciates a new spiritually and it invites another form of participation” distinct from the “season of Lent (which) ends on Holy Thursday…At this time the call to conversion is ended,” he maintained.

As one lady remarked, in a "mail” letter to the local daily, “ Christ crucified forgave the penitent thief on Good Friday. Was not this the reason He suffered the Passion and death – to unite sinners with God? The horror of sin was never more manifest than on Good Friday. Sinners have been moved to repentance on that day. It is difficult to understand why the opportunity for reception of this grace should be denied them.”

Apparently, however, Pope John Paul II was of a different mind when, precisely on Good Friday and over looking the fine distinction between” Lent’s call to conversion” and the “ritual process of the Easter Triduum,” he himself heard confessions at St, Peter's.


Archbishop Lefebvre in Spain
19 April 1980

On 19 Apri1 1980 Mgr, Lefebvre was in Madrid, Spain, where he gave a conference to more than eight hundred people concerning the present situation in the Church. This conference was delivered in French and immediately translated into Spanish by Father Phillipe Pazat, a priest of the Society.

The Society presently has a priory in Spain, located in Madrid, with an ever-increasing weekly and daily attendance at the Holy Sacrifice of the mass, and constant requests for more Spanish-speaking priests.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXV

Archbishop Gerety                                               
Has he Left the Roman Catholic Faith?
April 1980

The following article appeared in the April 1980 issue of The New Jersey Catholic News.1 This excellent journal was established to enable concerned Catholics to learn the truth about what is taking place in the Conciliar Church. The type of reporting found in the English official Catholic weekly, The Universe, show a just how great is the need for such journals. The question posed by this article is one which Catholics in all too many dioceses today must ask concerning their bishop. From a strictly canonical standpoint Archbishop Gerety had not left the Roman Catholic Faith as he had been excommunicated by the Pope, nor has he denied pertinaciously any truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, nor has he specifically repudiated communion with the Roman Pontiff or the members of the Church subject to him.2 But, as the article makes clear, he does at least implicitly deny de fide  doctrines and does implicitly repudiate communion with the Roman Pontiff. A bishop who promotes in his dioceses practices explicitly forbidden by the Holy See can hardly be said to place much importance on communion with the Roman Pontiff. What is most significant for the reader of this book is that while a prelate of such exemplary orthodoxy as Msgr. Lefebvre is suspended a divinis, Archbishop Gerety and hundreds of prelates like him remain free from any censure. It is within the context of such widespread de facto episcopal schism and heresy that the alleged disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre must considered.

Archbishop Gerety: Has He Left the Roman Catholic Faith?

Having been reared in that storied era in which it was de rigueur never to question one's doctor, lawyer, or clergyman, most of us become hesitant to ask hard questions about a Catholic bishop. Heaven forbid! Our Irish grandmothers often warned us of the special curse that befalls those who "talked about the priest."

Keep in mind that we are not so presumptuous as to judge the subjective culpability of anyone, including a bishop, nor are we concerned with judging private worldliness or unworthiness. For those who erroneously feel that all criticism and judgment making is wrongful in the sight of God, consider:

a. Jesus Christ often criticized religious leaders and encouraged His Apostles to do the same.
b. Our Savior bequeathed to us the great spiritual work of mercy, to "admonish the sinner." How does one admonish without making judgments as to who, objectively, is a sinner?
c. St. John the Baptist passed judgment on King Herod, "It is not lawful to have her" (Mt. 14:4).
d. St. Anthony was the Hammer of Heretics, not merely of heresy.
e. The Catholic laity , during the reign of Henry VIII, was obliged to judge which of their new hierarchy had defected to the King's new religion, and which of them had remained loyal to the Pope.
f. So also were Roman Catholics in Germany and Scandinavia compelled to make judgments about sacerdotal apostasy to Lutheranism.
g. The Biblical dictum:Judge not lest ye be judged," must be taken, as all Scriptural quotes, in the context of God’s total revelation and the example of Christ. This New Testament instruction obviously refers to rash judgement and/or judgments of a sinner's subjective culpability. If all judgments were immoral then no parent ,no priest, no teacher, no police officer, could ever exercise the necessary judgment as to whether the lad up the block is an evil influence on your son; or criticize the radical who bums crosses on the lawn; or make judgments about Mao Tse Tung, Adolf Hitler, Hugh Hefner or even Bert Lance.
h. Of course Liberals have no such conscience hang-ups. They will judge Richard Nixon, or Spiro Agnew, or Archbishop, until the cows come home , with nary the slightest twinge of remorse.

At the outset, let us acknowledge that no one, especially a bishop, ever says, "Look at me. I'm a heretic," or "Ladies and gentlemen (drum roll), I have separated myself from papal authority." So we must ,with God's grace and a open mind, look at the record.

Archbishop Peter L. Gerety , during his six years of stewardship in the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, has:

1. Co-sponsored and given his blessing to the infamous 1976 Detroit Call to Action, at which conference homosexuality, lesbianism, and artificial birth control were approved. Furthermore ,at this same conference the method was germinated for the take-over of the Roman Catholic Church , i.e., to systematically separate from Vatican authority, and convert into an independent American Catholic Church. (This process, in most dioceses, goes under the name of "renewal.")

According to Msgr. John Egan, assistant to the ultra-Liberal president of Notre Dame University(who doubles as a member of the Rockfeller Foundation), the 1976 Call to Action was described , incredibly, as “the clearest sign of the Spirit in the Church. It shows the beauty of the Church transforming itself. "

2. Proposed the following amendments to the final draft of the Catechetical Directory, the supposedly definitive national catechism:

Amendment 64: Strike: "Sin and its effects have been part of the human condition ever since our first parents sinned." Insert: Sin and its effects have been part of the human condition, as reflected upon in the early chapters of Genesis."

Amendment 128: Strike: "The Pope, in virtue of his office, enjoys infallibility when as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, he defines a doctrine of faith and morals. Therefore his definitions of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable. Even when he is not speaking ex cathedra his teaching in matters of faith and morals demands religious submission of mind and of will." This was not to be replaced by anything-just stricken from the text. It is a quotation from Lumen Gentium, the Vatican II Constitution on the Church, and was added to the document by the NCD3 Committee after their previous version was sent out to the bishops. Where rejection of the Pope's supreme authority was implicit by omission in the earlier version of the NCD, it is explicit in this amendment proposed by Archbishop Peter Gerety. What his proposal amounts to is  a recommendation to the American bishops to reject the teaching of Vatican II concerning papal authority.

Amendment 36: Strike: "at the devil's urging." The sentence to which this applied ran as follows: "Made by God in the state of holiness, human beings from the dawn of history abused their liberty at the devil's urging." Thus the intention of the amendment was to remove any reference to the devil or his influence in human history.

Amendment 143: Strike: "..offer the Sacrifice of His and Blood. " Insert: "...to celebrate the Eucharist." Such a substitution seems a clear indication of the Archbishop's distaste for clarity when it comes to the Sacrifice of the Mass, and of the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Amendment 186: Strike: "...in accordance with the norms of the decree Quam Singulari." Insert: "By Church law adults are not obliged to confess sins unless they are conscious of serious sin; similarly, children cannot be obliged to confess before receiving First Communion unless they are conscious of serious sin."

Amendment 193: Strike: "...the evil of artificial birth control and of sterilization for that purpose, and of the crime of abortion." There was no substitute offered for this; it was simply to be stricken. The sentence to which the amendment applies, reads: "Catechesis also includes a clear presentation of the Church's teaching concerning moral methods of regulating births, the evil of artificial birth control and of sterilization for that purpose, and the crime of abortion; it should stress the protection of human life once conceived."

3. Never once gave total and public ratification to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, the most significant moral position of that Pope's reign.

4. Welcomed into his diocese Rev. Charles Curran, an outspoken enemy of papal teaching, including Humanae Vitae. Moreover, Archbishop Gerety introduced him as "a good friend with whom I agree substantially," and saw to it that Father Curran lectured at numerous study days for priests, nuns and laity.

5. Turned over the Cathedral of the Sacred Heart (Newark), an edifice built by the sacrifice of our Catholic mothers and fathers, to a Protestant diocese for the installation of a Protestant bishop. All the blood shed by the holy English Martyrs, the most notable being St. Thomas More, rather than compromise their faith, apparently means nothing to Bishop Gerety. Typically, this cathedral lending was done without consultation and approval by the priests and laity in his diocese. Whatever happened to the vox populi that the Liberals claim to revere so much?

6. Has permitted Immaculate Conception Seminary, Darlington. New Jersey, to become a hothouse of "on-going revelation, " "fundamental options" and the principles of Teilhard de Chardin  - all theories considered pernicious by the Holy See. Seminarians who profess orthodoxy are often harassed; many are forced to pursue their vocation elsewhere.

7. Sponsored,  with advance notice, four General Absolutions sessions(euphemistically called "Father’s Embrace"),and set in motion hundreds of other such sessions on the parish level, despite the papacy’s clear and equivocal prohibition of general absolutions.

8. Publishes a diocesan newspaper called The Advocate, which habitually takes issue with our Holy Father(often in a sarcastic manner), on the subject of ordination of women, priestly celibacy and the like. Among the most flagrant insults to Catholic sensibilities were articles by Father Greely entitled, "Papal Blunder" and Father Holden’s "My Friend, The Adulteress. "

9. Allows religious textbooks in our parochial school system which openly contradict papal teaching, and spread grave moral error: in other words, textbooks that subtly plant into our impressionable children the deadly philosophy of secular humanism.

10. Perhaps the worst of Bishop Gerety’s shortcomings is his penchant, reflected in public pronouncements, for skilfully dodging certain Catholic dogmas and Catholic moral principles, like O.J. Simpson "dodging tacklers on an open football field."

Second to this is his gross neglect in confronting really serious moral problems afflicting our communities today, such as pornography, street crime, drugs, divorce and birth control. Come to think of it, has he or any of his auxiliary bishops ever sent  a letter " to be read at all the Masses" on any of the above? What kind of leadership do we have anyway? (Don’t be fooled by Bishop Gerety’s Johnny-come-lately posturing for the pro-life movement. It smacks of the wily politician’s trick of getting on the bandwagon, but he might fall out of  favor  with his constituents  or contributors. His support is a classic case of lip service)

11. Received, early in 1979, a sincere and well prepared letter from an ad hoc committee of forty prayerful laymen from New Jersey, urging him to express publicly his belief in the divinity of Christ, transubstantiation, original sin, papal infallibility, since there was a growing cloud of doubt over the Bishop's orthodoxy. Not only did the

bishop not publicly express his belief, but did not even extend the courtesy of a reply to these laymen whose names, addresses and occupations were clearly stated on the petition- men and women who had given time and money to the Church throughout the years. In effect, Archbishop Gerety thumbed his nose at them.

Now, the question: Has Archbishop Peter L. Gerety  left the holy Roman Catholic Church?

Many devout Catholics are convinced that, somewhere along the line, this he has previously done- and that we are kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. What else, what other reprehensible actions contrary to papal directives, must he do before we are convinced?

Of course, there are always those Catholics who, refusing to draw any conclusions about any bishop until it is too late, will not believe what they do not wish to believe, merely because the alternative is too difficult to accept.

It is indeed a sad situation! Who would have imagined ten years ago, that members of the Catholic hierarchy would contradict and/or ignore papal teaching? But lookback, regretfully, we did let it happen. The priests, the nuns, and to a lesser extent, the laity , who remained silent while  heresy grew, afraid, timid, whispering in our vestibules and convents, for fear of suffering the label "out-dated," or "ignorant of Vatican II." " Anyhow ," we comforted ourselves, "our ecclesiastical higher-ups will come through soon, " like the cavalry arriving in the nick of time to save the wagon train.

Our trust in authority held us back. And our reverence for authority holds us back even now from making an honest judgment. Historically, Catholics are reluctant to criticize priests and bishops. All well and good. But what of truth? We cannot separate veritas from caritas. And, therefore, in a certain sense they are one and the same virtue. Our tendency for respect has held us from truth. Our reverence has allowed Our Savior's teachings to be contradicted and misrepresented. Could it be that our virtues have somehow been transmogrified into vices?

It is not charity to allow evil- the absence of the Divine Good- to perpetuate itself. It is not love of God and it is not love for our neighbor. True love, i.e., true charity, desires the glory of God and the salvation of souls. And, by the way, this all-embracing charity includes the sinner, and the heretic and the schismatic, that they be converted to live again in Jesus Christ.

Too bad the enemy doesn't have a scowling face, a screeching voice and a crude vocabulary. We have rather the gentle demeanor, the soft accents, the warm grin,poetic words of love, the ecumenical handshake-herein lies the danger. Lucifer was a beautiful angel before the Fall, and the old boy still manages to look attractive in all his modern guises. He usually appears to mankind as an angel of light, never with cloven feet. The product is religion, my friends, and with all products on the market, caveat emptor.

How many young girls have been seduced and abandoned by the gentle, handsome, sensitive young man?

How many public servants have risen to power through their good looks, shirt-sleeved tours of the ghetto, and a thousand babies kissed, while at the same time they sponsored ugly, destructive pro-abortion laws?

It is no secret that a segment of the American public, Catholic and otherwise, has the tendency to fall hook, line and sinker, for shadow rather than substance. The Bard of Avon well understood the wiles of human nature and the pretensions of those who would lead us to ruin, when he said, "That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain" (Hamlet, Act 1, scene v.).

Mark Twain once remarked, "Let us be thankful for the fools. But for them, the rest of us could not succeed." If a man were bumming down your house, would you not be a fool to pay for his lighter fluid and matches? If a bishop is contributing daily to the loss of faith in your children and your grandchildren,would you not be a fool to subsidize that bishop? Did not Christ instruct His followers, "Be as simple as doves and as wise as serpents? " Not as dumb as an ox, but as wise as a serpent!

Should we not withhold financial support from parishes which follow the bishop’spolicies? From parishes which hold General Absolution Services? From parishes which let Bishop Gerety's Liturgical Commission drain ounce of tradition and devotion out of our churches? From parishes which allow Bishop Gerety's School to recommend catechisms that actually harm the student’s immortal soul?

If we do not act forcibly now, perhaps we are only forestalling the inevitable. The longer we go on funding (and Liberals need money!) these "separated" bishops, the more we are contributing to the destruction of the true Faith in yet another generation.

When these Modernist aberrations in the diocese were first  introduced, our sensus catholicus told us something was wrong, even though we could not always put our finger on it. Our sensus catholicus, which in every case proved to be correct, is  taking a relentless pounding. It is a situation that parallels our sense of patriotism, which also undergoes constant bombarding from the media.

We all know priests, for example, who a few years back were as orthodox as could be, but subjected themselves to a steady diet of reading The Advocate and The National Catholic Reporter, attending study days and workshops, continuing education programs, accepting diocesan propaganda- and now, after all this conditioning, are hardly recognisable as those former men of priestly strength and faith.

Sometimes, we ourselves fear- as St. Paul, who worked out his salvation "in fear and trembling"-that they have broken us down, that they have " gotten to us." Have we lost some of our strength and loyalty? How long can we hold out? We cannot dabble with Liberalism, passively tolerate it,drink it,sleep it, eat it, be surrounded by

It, and still remain strong in the Faith if Jesus Christ.

Grace builds on nature. "He who loves the evil, will perish in it." In other words, the Divine Master is telling us to fight the evil, or flee from it, not only moral evil but doctrinal evil as well. The waiting game will not work.

Evil spreads rapidly; the heresy of secular humanism is metastatic by nature. Soon nearly every area of our society will be touched. If we hold our ground here and now, we will save ourselves many heartaches later on.



1. The New Jersey Catholic News can be obtained from P.O. Box 461, Kearney, New Jersey 07302.

2. Code of Canon Law, Canon 751, new Code, Canon 1325, old Code

3. National Catechetical Directory.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXVI

Letters to the Pope and Cardinal Palazzini
6 May 1980

Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to the Sovereign Pontiff

Most Holy Father,
Since your accession to the Pontificate I have always nourished the hope that the total devotion of my Society and my person to Holy Mother Church would be recognised and that we should be allowed to work freely and in submission to the Church for the salvation of souls, by an increase in the numbers of holy priests.

Your wish for a solution to be found, your struggle against errors spread by theologians whose spirit is tainted with Modernism, such as Hans Kung, Schillebeeckx, Pohier; your efforts to restore normality to Holland; your latest encyclical recalling the principles which are the foundation of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, all these have been so many occasions to hope for such a solution, since we concur entirely with your thinking and wishes in all these fields.

Furthermore, the principal aim of the Society of St. Pius being the formation of true priests of the Roman Catholic Church, we rejoiced every time that Your Holiness called to mind the principles which should govern the training of priests and which are precisely those that have been used in our seminaries since their foundation.

It could be thought, reading the latest document published by the Congregation entrusted with seminaries, on the subject of the year of spirituality, that it is the example given by our seminaries which is the origin of this letter addressed to the episcopate of the entire world.

On the other hand I do believe that I have done everything possible to demonstrate my sincere desire to find a solution to our problem.

I have never hesitated to come to Rome on being summoned by the Curia or the Secretary of State. Since Your Holiness entrusted my case to Cardinal Seper I have come to see him five times. I must add that I am rather sad at seeing no improvement in our position. While the penalties inflicted upon heretical theologians are very mild, I am still said to be suspended a divinis, even though I profess the Catholic Faith in its fullness.

The enemies of the Church, Masons, Communists, Modernists, with all the media at their disposal, fight fanatically against my work and against me, showing by this very fact that we are the best defenders and supporters of the Church, which they wish to destroy at any cost.

It is for this reason that a solution is urgently needed for the good of the Church. Your Holiness can, with complete confidence, count on us and on our priests to support you in your work of restoring the Truth and Sanctity of the Church, based on the indestructible rock of Tradition, the source of the ever renewed youth of the Church. Your Holiness could discern in the eyes and faces of our young priests this youth, the fruit of spiritual vitality.

Since His Eminence Cardinal Palazzini is willing to be the bearer of this request, could he not, in concert with Cardinal Seper, submit a definite plan for a solution, concerning firstly the Liturgy , then the official recognition of the Society of St. Pius X, as well as the institutes of male and female religious orders which have developed thanks to the maintenance of sound doctrine and traditional observances.

In entrusting this request to the Virgin Mary, may Your Holiness deign to allow me to express my most respectful and filial regards in Jesus and Mary.

+Marcel Lefebvre


7 May 1980
Letter of Mgr.Lefebvre to Cardinal Palazzini

Your Eminence,

Father du Chalard has informed me of your desire to help reach a solution to the problem of Econe, and of those who in this troubled time cling ever more firmly to Tradition.

To this end you were kind enough to make some suggestions for the writing of a letter to pass on to thw Holy Father.

I thank you most profoundly, convinced that our efforts to renew the Church’s priesthood are being blessed by God.

If the Holy Father wished it, I should readily come and meet you, and we could further discuss practical solutions, for I must admit my five conversations with Cardinal Seper have led to nothing. We are still where we started.

The Cardinal of Toledo, whom I met in Toledo a few days ago, is also willing to intervene in favor of freedom of Lithurgy and a solution which could preserve the work of Econe.

I pray for such an intervention with all my heart and assure you of my feelings of respect and gratitude in Christo et Maria.

+Marcel Lefebvre


Archbishop Lefebvre Visits Marseilles
11 May 1980

The 11th of May, 1980, was a memorable day for the faithful Catholics of Marseilles, France. It was on this day that literally thousands of people gathered at the largest sports stadium in Marseilles to attend the Solemn Pontificial High Mass which was offered by Archbishop Lefebvre. His Grace was assisted by some of the best known traditionalist Catholic priests of France. Present were Monsignor Ducard-Bourget, valiant leader of traditionalists in Paris. Abbe Louis Coache of Flavigny, monks of the monastery of St Madeline in Bedoin, France(the monastery founded by Dom Gerard, O.S.B. and which follows the Rule of St Benedict, as in former times), and many, many others.

This Solemn Pontificial Mass was the first offered by His Grace in Marseilles. It was organised largely by the members of the chapel of the Society of St Pius which was established there last year. Father George Maurel is the priest in residence.

In the evening, His Grace gave Solemn Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament at which three to five thousand, conservatively estimated, assisted.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XXVII

Archbishop Hunthausen
The Remnant -16 May 1980

Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle has approved recipes for Eucharistic bread containing salt, oils (oil, shortening, butter or margarine) sweetenings {e.g. honey, brown sugar, molasses), baking soda or baking powder. He also says milk may be substituted for water. His approval came in a reply dated March 4th to inquiries of certain members of his Seattle Archdiocese. He told the inquirers that he was author of a statement showing regret over an advertisement by CUF chapter on the question. Both the Archbishop’s statement (in the form of a news release) and the advertisement appeared in the Northwest Catholic Progress.

Archbishop Hunthausen’s letter was silent concerning a warning about such recipes for Eucharistic bread which was released from Cardinal Franjo Seper last June 4th to Archbishop John R. Quinn, President of the NCCB. The Seper letter, meant for "all of the bishops of the Episcopal Conference, " specifically described those ingredients which would make the Eucharistic bread either illicit or even invalid. If priests used invalid matter, they must either repeat the Masses by using valid and lawful hosts, or return the stipends for such Masses to the donors. The Vatican letter on recipes for hosts is, of course, the last word on the subject, and no episcopal conference or liturgical office may overrule it.

Commenting on Archbishop Hunthausen's act of defiance, Father Tom O'Mahoney of El Paso, Texas, stated:"Catholics should not attend Masses said with invalid hosts, as there is no consecration in such Masses " (Most Holy Trinity Parish Bulletin, May 11, 1980)

As for the approved ingredients for Eucharistic bread listed in Archbishop Hunthausen’s March 4th letter, it appears that the Archbishop has authorised the use of recipes that would render the bread invalid matter for confecting the Eucharist.

Meanwhile, the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship has informed inquirers from the Seattle Archdiocese that the decision by that diocese "to allow Communion of the chalice to be given every Sunday, has not been confirmed by this Congregation. It is therefore necessary to remain within the limits established by the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (1975 edition), nos. 240-243"). The letter, dated Feb. 22, 1980, and signed by Msgr. Virgilio Noe, associate secretary, also insisted that no permission has been given by Rome to use girls as "altar servers", which reportedly has been done not only in Seattle , but elsewhere as well.

******

Archbishop Lefebvre has been attacked frequently for allegedly celebrating Mass according to an illicit rite, i.e., a rite which is not sanctioned by the law of the Church. He is also censured for urging the faithful to assist at such Masses rather than Mass in the new rite. The 18 April 1980 Universe report, which has been discussed at length on pages 142-150, terms the Tridentine Mass "a challenge to the Pope," and accuses those who assist at it of rejecting "Vatican instructions on how Mass must be said." It may well be that Vatican officials and the Pope himself considered the Tridentine Mass to have been forbidden, but the fact is that when the authorities in Church or State wish to forbid something they must do so according to accepted legal forms. Wanting something to be forbidden, or believing something to be forbidden, does not place it within the category of legally forbidden practices. Under the strict terms of Canon Law the Tridentine Mass has never forbidden, but let us assume for the sake of argument ,that it was illicit. In this case, Tridentine Masses would have constituted a breach of church discipline, but not even the worst enemy of Archbishop Lefebvre would have suggested that they were invalid. A true sacrifice is always offered at such Masses, and the faithful are able to receive the Body of Christ in a valid Holy Communion.

Archbishop Hunthausen, and other American prelates did not simply countenance illicit Masses, e.g , Masses with Communion under both kinds on Sundays or Masses involving altar girls, but invalid Masses, Masses with no Sacrifice and no valid Communion. Not only did this make it impossible for the faithful in such parishes to fulfil their Sunday obligation, but those who have provided stipends were defrauded! The enormity of this situation is something to be remembered when reading attacks upon Archbishop Lefebvre. Why has Archbishop Hunthausen not been suspended a divinis? This did not happen even when, at a later date, he handed over his cathedral to homosexuals to celebrate a Mass glorifying their perversion. Needless to say, The Universe has never had one critical word to say concerning Archbishop Hunthausen, another facet of the true face of conciliar Catholicism.