After Fifty Years, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “1974 Declaration” Is More Vital Than Ever

[Stone]

After Fifty Years, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “1974 Declaration” Is More Vital Than Ever

Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | November 1, 2024

After Fifty Years, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “1974 Declaration” Is More Vital Than Ever
Almost fifty years ago, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre wrote his famous “1974 Declaration,” a brief defense of the immutable Catholic Faith which was so powerful that the liberals in Rome realized they must immediately attack the archbishop. In his Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies described the difference between how orthodox Catholics and Rome’s anti-Catholics saw the 1974 Declaration:

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

These two perspectives remain fifty years later: as we will see below, everything in the 1974 Declaration is even more sensible today in the eyes of orthodox Catholics; and the Church’s liberal enemies are more opposed to those ideas now than ever. Unfortunately, the crisis in the Church has persisted, and even worsened, over the past fifty years largely because the Church’s enemies have succeeded in convincing some faithful Catholics that, in the name of obedience, they cannot accept Archbishop Lefebvre’s intransigent defense of the Faith. If more bishops had stood with Archbishop Lefebvre in 1974, we may never have heard of Francis or his Synod on Synodality.

Before considering how the 1974 Declaration has become more vital over the past fifty years, it is worth briefly recalling the history of why Archbishop Lefebvre wrote it. The late Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais described the impetus for the 1974 Declaration in his biography of Archbishop Lefebvre:

“The storm broke suddenly on November 11, 1974: after breakfast the Archbishop gathered together the Ecône community to announce that they would that very day receive two apostolic visitors who were coming to conduct an inquiry on behalf of three Roman Congregations, following orders from Paul VI himself. In the corridor of the cloister while waiting for the visitors, Archbishop Lefebvre confided to Fr. Aulagnier: ‘I well suspected that our refusal to accept the New Mass would sooner or later be a stumbling block, but I would have preferred to die rather than have to confront Rome and the Pope!’” (p. 478)

Then, as now, few things raise the suspicion of Roman authorities more than adherence to the Traditional Latin Mass. Bishop Tissier continued his description of the Apostolic Visitation:

“Msgr. Albert Descamps, secretary for the Biblical Commission, and Msgr. Guillaume Onclin, under-secretary of the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law, arrived at nine o’clock in the morning. For three days the two Belgians would question the priests and seminarians, and make theologically questionable remarks to them. They thought the ordination of married men was normal and inevitable, they did not admit that truth is immutable, and they expressed doubts concerning the physical reality of Christ’s Resurrection.” (pp. 478-479)

In 2024, it may no longer surprise us to hear heretical statements from Roman prelates, but in 1974 the scandal was enough to spur Archbishop Lefebvre to write his famous declaration, dated November 21, 1974. As Dr. David Allen White described in his The Horn of the Unicorn: A Mosaic of the Life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the declaration was written for the benefit of the seminarians:

“The Declaration was penned to quiet the apprehensions of the seminarians and to assure them of the intended direction of the seminary. It was not meant to be an attack on Rome, nor was it intended as a public pronouncement. The Declaration was leaked to the public without Archbishop Lefebvre’s knowledge or permission, and instantly phrases and fragments were broken off from it to slash the Society at its founder. Learning that the Declaration had become public and knowing the uses to which it would be put, he released it himself in its complete form.” (p. 182)

Even though Archbishop Lefebvre did not intend the declaration “to be an attack on Rome,” the seminarians understood that it was most certainly an attack on the errors threatening the Faith, as Bishop Tissier described:

“Archbishop Lefebvre had not even finished reading his declaration when the seminarians, aware of the importance of the moment, began to applaud. Scorning all human prudence and drawing on a vision of faith, the Archbishop had openly declared war on all the post-conciliar reforms.” (p. 480)

As we can see from the text below, the 1974 Declaration is indeed a declaration of war against the post-conciliar reforms. However stunning the declaration might have been in 1974, though, the experience of the past fifty years likely colors our perception of it today. With fifty years of worsening fruits from the Vatican II revolution, his words ring more true than ever, and are presented below with no additional commentary other than to identify the topic of each portion of the declaration:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duty of Catholics to Reject the Revolution. “It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in any way whatsoever.”

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

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

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

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

As Michael Davies wrote, “it is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this.” Even those who may object to Archbishop Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate bishops without Rome’s approval in 1988 should have no reason to disagree with the ideas in the 1974 Declaration.

The Church is in a much different situation than it was in 1974, but the cause of the crisis and the nature of the corrective action remain the same, although Archbishop Lefebvre would also tell us that we need to fight the spiritual battle as saints. We do not need to look for other answers to Francis, his Synodal Church, or whatever scandals and tyrannical moves Rome sends us next — the greatest service we can render to the Church is to remain faithful to “everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the Modernist influence of the Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetics, priestly formation, and the institution of the Church.”

We can even see that this determination to remain faithful to everything that the Church taught and practiced prior to the Council should be less controversial now than in 1974. As confusing as the situation was in 1974, many faithful Catholics were still convinced that Paul VI and the hierarchy were not actively trying to destroy the Church. We can have no such illusions today thanks to Francis’s most egregious initiatives: Fiducia Supplicans, Pachamama, Amoris Laetitia, Traditionis Custodes, the Synodal Church, his partnership with the anti-Catholic globalists, etc. The wrong-way signs of the Vatican II revolution may have been relatively hidden in 1974 but today they are so prominent that anyone with eyes to see cannot miss them.

God gave us the example of Archbishop Lefebvre not only for the time in which he lived but also so that we can learn how to combat the evils facing the Church today. All of us — priests or laity, friends of the Society of St. Pius X or not, those who think Francis is pope or anti-pope — are called to fight against the enemies trying to destroy the Church from within. We know they will never succeed and that God wins in the end, but it should also be clear that God calls us all to fight. Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration is the battle plan and call to arms that we need. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!