The Recusant #58 - September 2022

[Stone]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: “Those who are Pro- Syllabus and those who are Anti- Syllabus”
Originally printed in Fideliter No.87, 1992

[Fideliter Note - We publish here below a large extract from given by Archbishop Lefebvre at the start of a priests’ retreat in September 1990 in Écône. It remains relevant today, since it illustrates well the radical change which took place in the Church at the Council. Vatican II contradicted what he Magisterium taught, notably the combat waged by the Popes of the 19th and 20th centuries up to Pius XII, against the errors of the modernists.

After recalling a telephone conversation which he had with Cardinal Oddi, who had been urging him to make “a little apology to the Pope,” to which he replied, “Rome has to change. It’s no longer a question of the liturgy, it’s a question of the Faith!” Archbishop Lefebvre affirmed that the battle which we are living through today is still the same. There are those who are for the Syllabus and those who are against it.]


“The problem remains very serious and shouldn’t be downplayed at all. That’s what you have to say in reply to all the laymen who ask you if the crisis is about to come to an end, if there’s no way of getting authorisation for our liturgy, for our sacraments. … Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but even more important is the question of the Faith. For us, that question is settled, since we have the Faith of all time, the Faith of the Council of Trent, the catechism of St. Pius X, of all the Councils and all the Popes before Vatican II, in a word the Faith of the Church.

But in Rome? The perseverance and pertinacity of the false ideas and serious errors of Vatican
II continues. That’s clear.

Fr. Tam sent us some cuttings from l’Osservatore Romano: speeches by the Holy Father, of Cardinal Cassaroli, of Cardinal Ratzinger. These are official church documents whose authenticity cannot be doubted, and one is dumbfounded.

These days (since I’m somewhat unemployed), I re-read this book, you know it well, the one by Barbier, on liberal Catholicism. It is striking to see that our battle is exactly that of the great Catholics of the 19th century, after the French Revolution, and the same battle as Popes Pius VI, Pius VII, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, down to Pius XII. But how can it be summed-up? It is Quanta Cura and the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and Pascendi Dominici Gregis of St. Pius X. Those are sensational documents, documents which caused a shockwave in their own time and which set forth the doctrine of the Holy See before the modern errors. It’s the doctrine of the Church, opposing the errors which showed forth from the Revolution, particularly in the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

And yet this is the same battle which we are waging today: there are those who are pro– the Syllabus, those who are pro– Quanta Cura, pro– Pascendi, and those who are against. It’s as simple as that. Those who are anti– the Syllabus have adopted the Principles of the Revolution Those who are against these documents adopt the principles of the Revolution, the modern errors. Those who are for it, remain in the true Catholic Faith. And yet, you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger said officially that for him, Vatican II was an counter-Syllabus. If he clearly placed himself as being against the Syllabus, that’s because he has accepted the principles of the Revolution. Elsewhere he said very clearly: “The Church opened herself up to doctrines which weren’t hers, but which came from society, etc.”

Everyone understood what he meant: the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man. We are exactly in the situation of Cardinal Pie, of Bishop Freppel, of Louis Veuillot, of deputy Keller in Alsace, of Ketler in Germany, of Cardinal Mermillod in Switzerland, who fought the good fight, with the vast majority of the bishops, for at this point in time they were lucky enough to have the vast majority of bishops on their side. Certainly, Bishop Dupanloup and some French bishops who followed him were the exception to this. Even some of them in
Germany and Italy openly opposed the Syllabus and Pius IX, but these were exceptional cases. There was this Revolutionary force, those who were the legacy of the French Revolution, and by way of extending their hand to them, the Dupanloups and Montalemberts and Lamennais - who would never wish to invoke the rights of God against the rights of man: “We’re asking for common rights” [common law], in other words, what’s convenient for all men, for all religions, for everyone. Common rights, but no longer the rights of God… We find ourselves right now in the same situation, be under no illusion: we are in the midst of a very hard-fought battle. But since we’re backed-up by a whole line of Popes, we needn’t hesitate or be afraid.

There are some who would like to change this or change that, to come to an arrangement with Rome, with the Pope, anyway… We would do that, of course, if they were with Tradition and continuing the work of all the Popes of the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th Century. But they themselves admit to having taken a new direction, they say that that Vatican II opened a new era and that the Church is going through a new phase.

I think we have to inculcate that into our faithful, in such a way that they feel a solidarity with the whole history of the Church. Because in the end all this goes back further than the Revolution: it’s the struggle of Satan against the City of God. How is it going to end? That is God’s secret, a mystery. But we needn’t be worried, we have to have confidence in the good God’s grace.

What is clear is that we need to fight against the ideas currently in fashion in Rome, those expressed by the Pope, as well as by Ratzinger, Casaroli, Willebrands and so many others. We fight against them because all they’re doing is repeating the opposite of what the Popes have said and affirmed for a century-and-a-half.


We Have to Choose

So we have to chose.

That’s what I said to Paul VI. We’re being obliged to choose between you and the Council, and your predecessors. Which way should we go? Should we go to your predecessors who affirmed the doctrine of the Church, or should we follow the novelties of the Second Vatican Council which you have affirmed? “Oh, you mustn’t talk theology here!” he replied. So that’s clear then!

We mustn’t hesitate for one moment, if we want to avoid finding ourselves amongst those who are betraying us. There are some who always want to look over the fence. They don’t look at the side of their friends, of those who are fighting to defend the same battlefield, they’re always looking a little bit at what it’s like on the enemy’s side.

They say that we have to be charitable, we have to be kind, we have to avoid divisions. After all, those people are saying the Traditional Mass, they aren’t as bad as people say… But they’re betraying us. They are shaking hands with those who are destroying the Church, with those who hold modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So now, they’re doing the work of the devil, whereas those who work with us are working for the reign of Our Lord and the salvation of souls.

“Oh, provided that they let us have the Traditional Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, there’s no difficulty there.” Look at how that works out! They’re in an impossible situation because one cannot shake hands with modernists and at the same time try to defend Tradition. Having contact with them so as to bring them back to Tradition, to convert them, maybe at most. That’s the good sort of “ecumenism”. But giving the impression almost that it’s regrettable and that after all we’d be fine talking to them, that’s not possible. How are we meant to talk to those who are now telling us that we are rigid like corpses? According to them, we’re no longer with the “living Tradition,” we’re sad people, “lifeless and joyless.” It’s as though they’d never belonged to Tradition! It’s incredible! How are we meant to have relations with such people as that?

That’s something which from time to time causes us problems with certain very good laymen, who are on our side and who have accepted the consecrations, but who have a sort of secret regret that they are no longer with the people they were with before, those who didn’t accept the consecrations and who are now against us. “It’s a shame, I’d like to go and find them, drink a glass with them, extend a hand to them.” That’s treason, because at the slightest opportunity they’ll be off with them. You need to know what it is you want.

Because that is what killed off Christendom in Europe, not just the Church in France, but also in Germany, in Switzerland… it was the liberals who allowed the Revolution gain a foothold, precisely because they extended their hand to those who didn’t have their principles. We Do Not Wish to Collaborate in the Destruction of the Church We have to know whether or not we want to collaborate also in the destruction of the Church, in the ruin of the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, or whether we’ve decided to work for the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

All those who want to come with us, to work with us, Deo Gratias, we welcome them, no matter where they come from, but let them not tell us to leave our path to go off with them and collaborate with others. That’s not possible. All the way through the 19th Century, Catholics were literally torn apart regarding this document, the Syllabus: for, against, for, against… Recall in particular the case of the Count of Chambord who was criticised for having refused royalty over the question of a flag. But it wasn’t just a question of a flag, the Count of Chambord refused to submit to the principles of the Revolution. He said: “I will never agree to being the legitimate king of the Revolution.” He was right, for he would have been voted in by the people and the Parliament, but on condition of his accepting Parliamentarianism, in other words the principles of the Revolution. So he said: “No, if I am to be king, I will be king in the way of my ancestors from before the Revolution.”

He was right. A choice had to be made. Along with the Pope, he chose the principles from before the Revolution, Catholic and counter-revolutionary principles. We too have chosen to be counter-revolutionary, with the Syllabus, against the modern errors, to be with Catholic truth and to defend it. This battle between the Church and the liberal modernists is the battle of Vatican II. There’s no need to complicate matters. And the consequences are far-reaching. The more one analyses the documents of Vatican II and the interpretation given to them by the Church authorities, the more one realises that this is not a question of a few errors, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain liberalism, but a total perversion of the mind. It’s a whole new philosophy, based on modern, subjectivist philosophy. The book which a German theologian has just brought out, and which I hope will be translated into French* so that you can have a copy in your hands, is very instructive when it comes to this. He comments on the Pope’s thinking, especially a retreat which, when he was just a bishop, he preached at Vatican II. He shows that everything is subjective with this Pope. When one reads back over his speeches, one notices that that is what his thinking is like. Despite appearances, it isn’t Catholic. The Pope thinks of God, Our Lord, as something which comes from the depths of his consciousness and not from an objective Revelation to which he adheres with his intellect. He constructs an idea of God.

* The English edition of this book is called: “John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting
of Religions in Assisi” by Fr. Johannes Dormann - Ed.

He said recently, in an incredible document, that the idea of the Trinity was only able to come about later on, because man’s inner psychology needed to be able to arrive at the idea of the Holy Trinity. So the idea of the Trinity didn’t come from Revelation but from the depths of consciousness. That’s a completely novel concept of Revelation, of the Faith, of philosophy, it’s a total perversion. How are we going to get out of this mess? I have no idea. But anyway, that’s how it is.

These are not little errors. We are facing a whole current of philosophy which goes back to Descartes, to Kant, to the whole line of modern philosophers who prepared the Revolution. Here are a few quote from the Pope concerning ecumenism, published in l’Osservatore Romano, 2nd June 1989:

“My visit to the Scandinavian countries is a confirmation of the Church’s interest in the work of ecumenism which is to promote unity amongst all Christians. Twenty-five years ago, the Second Vatican Council insisted clearly on the urgency of this challenge facing the Church. My predecessors pursued this objective with a persevering attention to the grace of the Holy Spirit which is the divine source and guarantor of the ecumenical movement. From the start of my pontificate I have made ecumenism the priority of my concern for pastoral action.”

That’s clear. And the Pope keeps making speeches about ecumenism because he’s constantly receiving delegations of Orthodox, of all the different religions and sects. But we can state that this ecumenism hasn’t led to the Church making the slightest progress. It hasn’t achieved anything, apart from giving comfort to others in their errors, without seeking to convert them. All these things they say are a veritable mish-mash: “communion,” “drawing closer,” “we desire to be soon in perfect community,” “we hope soon to be able to be in communion in sacramental unity”… and so forth. But they aren’t advancing and it’s impossible for them ever to advance. Once again in l’Osservatore Romano one finds a speech of Cardinal Casaroli to the United Nations human rights commission:

“It gives me great pleasure to respond to your invitation to come and address you and bring you the encouragement of the Holy See, and I wish to dwell a little on - and you will all understand what I’m about to say - on a specific aspect of fundamental liberty of thinking and of acting according to one’s conscience, thus religious liberty!”

I never thought I’d hear such things in the mouth of an Archbishop!

“Last year, in a message for the World Day of Peace, John Paul II didn’t hesitate in affirming that Religious Liberty constitutes the cornerstone of the edifice of the rights of man. The Catholic Church and its Supreme Pastor, who has made the rights of man one of the great themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that in a world made by man and for man” - dixit Casaroli! - “the whole way in which society is organised only makes sense that it makes the human dimension its central preoccupation.”

And God? We don’t talk about Him, there’s no God-dimension in man. This is terrible, it’s paganism! Anyway, he goes on:

“Every man and everything to do with man, that’s the occupation of the Holy See. I have no doubt that it is yours too.”

There’s nothing left to do but pull up the drawbridge! We have nothing to do with those people, because we have nothing in common with them.

So, our old friend Cardinal Ratzinger finds himself getting into trouble for having said that Vatican II is a “counter Syllabus,” because people have been using that quote against him often. That’s why he found an explanation, which he gave on 27th June 1990. You know that Rome published a very long document to explain the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians. Since they don’t know how to get out of the problems they find themselves in al over the place, they’re trying to catch-up with and catch the theologians without condemning them too much. There’s pages and pages of it, you could get completely lost in there.

And it was in presenting this document that Cardinal Ratzinger gave his thoughts on the possibility of being able to contradict what the Popes have always taught since the 19th Century. “The document,” said the Cardinal, “Affirms, perhaps for the first time with clarity,”

I think he’s right there!

“that there are decisions of the Magisterium which cannot be the last word on the matter as such, but which are a substantial anchorage in the problem,”

He’s evil!

“and above all are an expression of pastoral prudence. A sort of temporary disposition.”

Official decisions of the Holy See: temporary dispositions!

“The kernel remains stable, but the particular aspects influenced by the circumstances of the time can need rectification later on. In this regard one might point to the decisions of the Popes in the last century regarding Religious Liberty,”

If you please!

“as well as the anti-modernist decisions from the start of the century.”

That’s rich!

“and above all the decisions of the [Pontifical] Biblical Commission of that time.”

His digestion can’t cope with it!

So there you go, three decisions of the Magisterium which we’re just going to set to one side! It can be changed! In this regard one might point to the decisions of the Popes in the last century which need later rectification! “The anti-modernist decisions were of great service to the Church, but after having been of service in their time, in the details of their decisions, they are now out of date.” There you go. We’ve moved on when it comes to modernism. We don’t talk about it any more. He got out of the accusation that he was against the Syllabus, against the Magisterium: there is still a kernel left (What kernel? Nobody knows!) but the particular aspects influenced by the circumstances of the time can need later rectification. There you go. Incredible.


How Can We Trust These People?

How are we supposed to trust those people, people who justify the denial of Quanta Cura, of Pascendi, of the decisions of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, etc..? Either we are the heirs of the Catholic Church, in other words Quanta Cura, Pascendi, with all the Popes and the vast majority of bishops from before the Council, and we’re for the Reign of Our Lord and the salvation of souls, or we’re the heirs of those who strive, even at the cost of breaking with the Catholic Church and her doctrine, to acknowledge the principles of the Rights of Man, based on a veritable apostasy, in order to obtain the status of servants of the New World Order. Because that’s what’s at the root of this. By saying that they are for the Rights of Man, for Religious Liberty, democracy, and equality, they’ll get a position in the World Government, but it’ll be a servant’s position.

If I say these things to you, it’s because it seems to me that we have to see our own battle in the context of the battle which happened before it. Because this didn’t start with the Council, this hard-fought fight, this painful fight in which blood has flowed. The separation of Church and State, the state passing laws against monasteries and convents and persecuting the religious, the material property of the Church being looted and stolen, these things were a real persecution, not only here in France, but in Switzerland, in Germany, in Italy. There was the moment when the Papal States were invaded and the Pope found himself a prisoner confined to the Vatican, a plague of abominable things! So: are we going to be on the side of the people who did all those things, and against the teaching of those Popes, and ignore all the warning cries which they gave up in defence of the church and Our Lord and in defence of souls?

I think we really have a foundation and a strength which are not of our own making. And that’s the point: it isn’t our own fight that we’re waging, it’s Our Lord’s, continued by the Church. We cannot hesitate: either we are with the Church or we’re against her, we are not for this conciliar church which has less and less to do with the Catholic Church and has practically nothing to do with it any more.

Previously, when the Pope spoke about the Rights of Man, he would often make reference to the duties of man too. Now that’s over: everything is for man, everything is by man. I would like to give you these few considerations, for you to fortify yourselves and know that you’re carrying on the fight with God’s grace.

Because it’s obvious that we wouldn’t exist any longer if God were not with us. There have been at least four or five occasions when the Society could have disappeared. And, thanks to God, we’re still here to carry on. The Society could have disappeared in particular when the consecrations took place, we were told so many times that that was what was going to happen! All the prophets of doom and even those close to us said: “Archbishop, don’t do it! It will be the end of the Society!” But no, the Good Lord didn’t want his fight to come to an end. That’s all.

This fight has had it’s martyrs: the martyrs of the Revolution and all those who suffered a moral martyrdom during the persecutions of the 19th and 20th century. St. Pius X suffered a martyrdom due to all the bishops who were persecuted, the convents and monasteries which were stolen, the religious driven out of France and so much else besides. Was all that for nothing? Was it a false combat, a useless fight, a fight which condemned the victims and martyrs? That’s not possible.

We’re are caught in this current, in this continuity, let’s thank God for it. We’re persecuted, obviously, we’re the only ones who are “excommunicated,” the only ones to be persecuted, but how could it be otherwise? For example, our Swiss colleagues are being obliged again to do their military service. That is persecution by the Swiss government. In France they are persecuting the Society's French District by blocking legacies from being handed over to the District, this in the attempt to stifle us, by cutting off our income. This is persecution, of such a kind as history is full of, it is merely continuing. And God works his way round it.

Normally, our French District should have been stifled, and we should have had to shut down our schools, to close down all the institutions which cost us money, but that situation has now gone on for over two years and Providence has allowed for our benefactors to be generous and for the funds to come in, so we have been able to continue despite this iniquitous persecution. Iniquitous, because the law, the state of the law is on our side. But there is a letter to the French Minister from Cardinal Lustiger asking him to block our legacies, and this letter did not come out of nowhere, it was written under the influence of Msgr. Perl. It is he, the damned soul. It is he. He was all smiles when he came on the official Visitation of the Society in 1987, but he was the evil genius of that Visitation. He thought he had us where he wanted us when he cut off our funds!

So we must not worry, for when we look behind us, we see we are still not as unfortunate as those Catholics expropriated at the beginning of this century, who found themselves out on the street with nothing. That may happen to us one day, I do not look forward to it, but the more we expand, the more we will arouse jealousy on the part of all those who do not care for us. But we must count on the Good Lord, on the grace of the Good Lord.

What will happen? I don’t know. The prophet Elias? I was reading this once again this morning, in Sacred Scripture: “Elias will come back and restore everything, put it all right” omnia restituet. He needs to come at once!

Humanly speaking, I cannot see any possibility of an agreement now. I was being asked yesterday, “If Rome accepted your bishops, and you were allowed to be completely free from the jurisdiction from local bishops…” First of all, they’re a long way from accepting anything of that sort, then they’d need to make that offer to us, and I don’t think they’re ready to do that, because at root the problem is precisely that they’d need to give us a traditionalist bishop. They only wanted a bishop with the profile of the Holy See. The “profile,” you understand what that means? They knew very well that by giving us a traditional bishop they would be setting up a Traditionalist citadel able to continue. That they did not want. Nor did they give it to St. Peter's Society. When St. Peter's say they signed the sane Protocol as we did in May, 1988, it is not true because in our Protocol there was one bishop, and two members of the Roman Commission, of which their Protocol had neither. So they did not sign the same Protocol as we did.

Rome took advantage of drawing up a new Protocol to remove those two concessions. At all costs they wanted to avoid that. So we had to do as we did on June 30, 1988. In any case I am happy to be able to encourage you and congratulate you on the work you are doing - the complaints now are rare, and how many people write to me their gratitude for the work of the priests of the Society of St. Pius X. For them the Society is their life. They have rediscovered the life they wanted, the way of the Faith, the family spirit they need, the desire for Christian education, all these schools, together with all that our Sisters and Fathers are doing, and all our friends who work together to continue Tradition. All that is marvelous, in the age we are living in. The people are truly grateful, deeply grateful. So carry on your work and organize - I hope that little by little our various communities will be able to increase in numbers so as to provide more mutual support for you all, moral and physical, so that you can maintain your present fervour.

I wish to thank all the Superiors for their zeal and devotion. I truly think the Good Lord has chosen the Society, has wanted the Society. In November we reach the Society's 20th anniversary and I am intimately convinced that it is the Society which represents what the Good Lord wants, to continue and maintain the Faith, maintain the truth of the Church, maintain what can still be saved in the Church, thanks to the bishops grouped around the Superior General, playing their indispensable part, of guardians of the Faith, of preachers of the Faith, giving the grace of the priesthood, the grace of Confirmation, things that are irreplaceable and absolutely necessary.

So all that is highly consoling. I think we should thank God, and enable it to carry on, so that one day people are forced to recognize that although the Visitation of 1987 bore little fruit, it showed that we were there and that good was being done by the Society, even if they did not wish to say so explicitly outside of our circles after the Visitation. However, one day they will be obliged to recognize that the Society represents a spiritual force and a strength of the Faith which is irreplaceable and which they will have, I hope, the joy and the satisfaction to make use of, but when they have come back to their Traditional Faith.

Let us pray to the Blessed Virgin and let us ask Our Lady of Fatima for all our intentions on all the pilgrimages we make in various countries, that she come to the aid of the Society, that it may have numerous vocations. Obviously we would like to have some more vocations. Our seminaries are not filled. We would like them to be filled. However, with the grace of God, it will come. So, once more, thank you, and please pray for me that I die a good and holy death, because I think that is all that I still have to do!