<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre]]>

<![CDATA[The Catacombs - Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre]]> https://thecatacombs.org/ Mon, 04 May 2026 23:30:15 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre’s first visit to Australia [Article reprint from 1973]]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7765 Mon, 08 Dec 2025 14:16:47 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7765 Archbishop Lefebvre’s first visit to Australia

Pax Orbis | December 7, 2025

This is the first article in our series on the history of Tradition in Australia, and it covers Archbishop Lefebvre ‘s 1973 visit. His Grace made several trips to Australia prior to the arrival of the Society of Saint Pius X in August, 1982. This account comes from the traditional newspaper, ‘Catholic,’ and is reproduced here by kind permission.

[NOTE: Unless otherwise stated, photographs were kindly supplied by the Pravidur family. The dates of the photographs have not yet been established, and may represent a later visit. Please email Kathy at [email=pax@paxorbis,org]pax@paxorbis,org[/email] if you can identify churches or individuals shown in the photographs or can shed some light on the dates. ]

His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre first visited Australia in 1973. His visit at this tumultuous time in the Church was an inspiration to the Hero Priests who refused to adopt the novelties of the Second Vatican Council.

Recounted here is the World Trends report of Msgr Lefebvre’s visit to Melbourne. But first, a word about World Trends. The editor of this, before its time magazine, was French/Australian Yves Dupont. Mr Dupont had served in the French Foreign Legion and had been awarded the Croix de Guerre for his service. He was an extremely perceptive layman who began his publication circa 1964. He also began selling Catholic books under the name Tenet Books.

It is interesting to note that Mr Dupont’s book selling venture started at much the same time as did Tom Nelson’s TAN Books and Publishers in USA. Yves sold TAN books and even wrote one titled Catholic Prophecy. Prior to 1973 His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not well known in Australia.

It is true to say that Tradition also was rather fragmented. Many despondent priests were in a certain sense, “doing their own thing” in trying to maintain what they had been ordained to do.

From 1958 until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Mass, to be adopted in November 1969, they had been subjected, as were the laity, to continual change. A small number of priests became more or less independent of the mainstream Church. It is those priests whom the Compiler of this History has chosen to describe as the Hero Priests.

Many had chosen to continue in the timeless practices of the Church and were serving small and scattered groups of like-minded laity. They had no Bishop to look to for leadership, other than to a limited extent, Bishop Stewart of Sandhurst.

Gradually the work of Archbishop Lefebvre became known and at last there was a small degree of unity. Msgr Lefebvre did not seek any kind of leadership of these individual priests; he was simply prepared to provide those functions that only a Bishop can provide.

The Latin Mass Society of Australia had invited Msgr Lefebvre to visit Australia. His visit happened to coincide with the Fortieth International Eucharistic Congress which took place in Melbourne in January/February 1973. World Trends described the Congress as “Spiritually, it was a dismal failure.” It featured a multitude of the then new Concelebrated Masses. It also featured a pagan ritual dance by Australian Aborigines.

[Image: aboriginal-liturgy.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1]

Australia’s first Aboriginal liturgy, Sidney Myer Music Bowl, 24 February 1973. Photo from the Archives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Fortunately at that time, Mr Ernie Dingo had not yet invented his Aboriginal “Smoking Ceremony”. That came later and had its first really public performance at the beatification by Pope John Paul II of Blessed Mary of the Cross at Randwick Racecourse in Sydney in 1986.

[Image: Aboriginal-liturgy-2.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1]

A ritual dance purported to express the Last Supper. Photo from the Archives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Below is the verbatim World Trends report of the visit of Msgr Lefebvre’s visit to Melbourne in February 1973.

The Arrival of Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

On Saturday the 17th of February, 1973, His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre arrived at Tullamarine International Airport by a Qantas flight from London. He was scheduled to arrive at 9.55 am., but due to various delays he eventually arrived at 11.25 am. Coincidentally, he had travelled from London in the company of His Eminence Cardinal Slimyi, the Exarch of the Ukrainian Byzantine Rite of the Catholic Church. A good crowd of members, their families and friends had waited patiently for His Grace’s arrival.

After he was released from Customs, where, thanks to the kindness of a Customs Official, Mr Yves Dupont was admitted and was able to identify him, His Grace was immediately driven to the home of the General President, where he lunched with the Victorian Committee and Spiritual Director.

After a brief period of rest His Grace was ready to say his first Mass in this country. At 4 pm precisely he began a votive Mass of Our Lady for the members of the Committee.

Thus, his first Mass in Australia was rather a private one indeed, but none the less a very moving experience for the small congregation present. The atmosphere of this first Low Mass was one of intense awe and devotion, anyone present, hardly even being aware of the presence of anyone else.

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

After our first meeting with His Grace, it was quickly realised that he was a man of quite witty humour, with an unusually saintly expression on his face. His hand gestures during conversation were reminiscent of our late Archbishop Mannix. He was obviously quite at ease with his Australian hosts. Many were surprised by his remarkably good English.

His first Mass over, he was then taken to the Presbytery at Our Lady of Lourdes, Armadale, where he was received by his host for the week, the Reverend Father Opie, Parish Priest. We then left His Grace in the care of Fr. Opie and the Committee proceeded with preparations for the events of the following day.

[Image: OLO-Lourdes-Armadale.jpg?resize=768%2C512&ssl=1]

Our Lady of Lourdes, Armadale, present day. IMAGE SOURCE

Sunday, 18th February, 1973

As Septuagesima Sunday dawned over Melbourne, it was already obvious that a hot day with infamous northerly winds was in store. After several of our Committee members started this day by attendance at a private Mass, celebrated by our Spiritual Director, we were ready for the greater celebrations to come.

The sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, Armadale, was prepared in accordance with the requirements of a Solemn Pontifical High Mass at the Faldstool. The Celebrant was His Grace the archbishop, Fr. J. Opie P.P., Deacon, Fr. J. Stockdale, Sub-deacon, Fr. A. Cummins, CSSR, the Assistant Priest.

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

At 12 noon precisely, the procession of sacred ministers left the sacristy to enter the church by the east side door, whilst the choir sang “Ecce Sacerdos.” The choir paused whilst His Grace received the bowl and hissop in preparation for the Asperges ceremony, which was performed by His Grace as the procession made its way up the centre aisle.

The precious mitre, studded with jewels, the golden crozier held in the purple-gloved right hand of the Archbishop glittered in the
light of the nave of the church as the sacred ministers filed slowly towards the sanctuary, the Archbishop bringing up the rear.

After the usual genuflection, the Mass began with the prayers at the foot of the altar, with Psalm 42 recited in full. The sight of the Archbishop flanked at his left by Deacon and Sub-deacon, and on his right by the Assistant Priest and Master of Ceremonies, brought back many happy memories of the glorious days of liturgical security, which were characterised by regular celebrations of Pontifical Masses of this kind.

After the incensing of the altar, the Archbishop proceeded to the Faldstool to sit whilst the choir sang the Kyrie. And so the Mass continued, with the Sub-deacon chanting the Epistle and later the Deacon proclaiming the Gospel, whilst the Archbishop, crozier in hand, stood at the faldstool facing towards the lectern. Then followed the Credo, with an excellent performance by the choir.

After washing his hands at the faldstool, the Archbishop ascended the altar, and turning away from the congregation toward the Almighty, he proceeded with the first part of the Holy Sacrifice, the Offertory. The sight of the sub-deacon taking the humeral veil on his shoulders and than receiving the paten from the deacon, to retain it right through the Canon, was indicative of the complete intactness of the Tridentine High Mass.

The Sanctus bell brought the whole congregation to their knees. The Canon commenced whilst the choir continued the singing of the Sanctus. Intense silence prevailed after the warning bell, whilst the Archbishop pronounced silently the words of Consecration, in the form unchanged since the fourth century, to effect the complete change of the Host and Wine into the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and so to complete yet another renewal of the Sacrifice of Calvary.

After this, the choir took up the singing of the Benedictus. As the Mass continued on through the Pater Noster and Agnus Dei, the Domine Non Sum Dignus bell brought the congregation to attention in preparation for Holy Communion.

The Archbishop distributed Holy Communion reciting the full, unchanged formula for the administration of the Sacrament. After Holy Communion, the Post-Communion prayer ended, and then the Archbishop gave the full Pontifical blessing.

After the reading of the Last Gospel, all genuflected and the procession left the sanctuary as the choir sang O Salutaris Hostia. As the Archbishop walked slowly down the aisle, people, seat by seat, knelt to receive his individual blessing.

After Mass members lunched in the parish hall in company with the members of the Bendigo choir. After the Archbishop had lunched in the Presbytery, and taken time to recover from the ordeal of the High Mass (because of the intense heat), he came to the hall to meet his new Australian friends. The afternoon drew to a close with Solemn Pontifical Benediction at 4.30 pm.

It was some time later before the loyal band of workers were able to make their way home from Armadale. After such a wonderfully holy and glorious day our members were justifiably elated, but nevertheless a little weary. As the sun went down, leaving Melbourne with a warm but pleasant twilight, the Committee proceeded with the organisation of the remainder of the programme.

Monday, 19th February

During the morning and afternoon His Grace kindly gave his time for private interviews with some of our members. On this day His Grace celebrated a Low Mass at 6.30 pm. at Our Lady of Lebanon, Carlton, a church of the Maronite rite. This Mass was a votive Mass of the Most Blessed Trinity.

The altar in this church is in the traditional Roman style and is a magnificent work of art. Above the throne over the Tabernacle stands a large statue of Our Lady, with a spherical base, symbolising Our Lady’s dominion over the world. Our members greatly appreciated the tranquillity of a Low Mass, enabling a true and real participation, that is, a spiritual one. Even the Leonine prayers for the conversion of Russia were recited in Latin, with the congregation ably responding to the Ave Maria and Salve Regina.

After Mass, the Archbishop and members were entertained in the Presbytery by the Parish Priest, the Rt. Rev. Mgr. El Koury. Our thanks to Msgr. El Koury and the Lebanese community for giving us their church for the Mass, and also their kind hospitality afterwards.

Tuesday, 20th February

After a quiet morning at Armadale, His Grace was taken to Mornington to visit Bishop Stewart of Sandhurst and Bishop Brennan of Toowoomba, who were on holiday. The Archbishop had long been wanting to meet the two most conservative members of the Australian hierarchy. A very cordial atmosphere prevailed during the afternoon, and a number of important issues affecting the Catholic Church were discussed by the three prelates.

After a pleasant cross-country drive through Frankston and Dandenong, Ferntree Gully was reached about 6 pm. The parish priest, Rev. Fr. C. J. Cummings, was well prepared to receive His Grace and proudly showed him around the spacious grounds of the church and school. On this day, Mass was at 7.30 pm. and it was a votive Mass of St. John the Baptist, in honour of the title saint of the Ferntree Gully parish.

After Mass, the ladies of the parish entertained members and other visitors over supper in the parish hall. Our thanks to Fr. Cummings and the ladies of the parish for making the evening a pleasant one indeed.

His Grace remarked that the setting of the church and also the township of Ferntree Gully, nestled at the foot of the Dandenong Ranges, reminded him of the Swiss Alps which tower above the Archbishop’s home in Fribourg.

Wednesday, 21st February

After a quiet morning at Armadale, His Grace left Melbourne by car in the early afternoon for his visit to the diocese of Sandhurst. After a pleasant and leisurely journey via the Mclvor Highway, Bendigo was reached about 5.30 pm., where the Vicar-general of the diocese, the Rt. Rev. Msgr. F.P. de Campo was awaiting the arrival of his distinguished guest.

At 7.30 pm. His Grace was celebrant of a Solemn Pontifical High Mass, which on this occasion was a Votive Mass of the Holy Ghost. It was a full Solemn Pontifical High Mass at the throne. His Lordship, Bishop Stewart, kindly gave His Grace the use of the throne for the Mass, enabling it to be celebrated in its fullest possible solemnity. This was a very generous gesture of Bishop Stewart, for he could not have bestowed a greater honour on his guest Archbishop.

After the Mass His Grace remarked to the President, that Bendigo would be the only diocese in the world where he could expect to be received with such gracious respect.

The archbishop was also greatly impressed with the liturgical exactness of the sacred ministers and the fervour of the congregation. His Grace further remarked that it was fifteen years since he had celebrated a Mass with such solemnity.

[Image: St-kilians-bendigo.jpg?w=900&ssl=1]

St. Kilian’s Church, Bendigo, present day SOURCE

This Mass was celebrated in St. Kilian’s Church in Bendigo city, as the cathedral was unfortunately not available, owing to its undergoing the final stages of completion.

Although the nave of the cathedral had been built and opened in 1900, it was more than half a century later before the work of completing the cathedral was commenced. The completion of the transepts, and sanctuary area will mark the achievement of one of the greatest examples of Gothic architecture in the Southern hemisphere. It is believed that this Sacred Heart Cathedral in Bendigo may well be the last work of Gothic architecture in the world to be completed. It is certainly a fine tribute to the age which inspired what can rightly be termed as a climax of man’s architectural ability.

St. Killian’s Church, where the Archbishop celebrated Mass, is in itself a historic and interesting building. Together with St. Laborius, Eaglehawk, St. Killian’s was first started during the gold-rush of 1851, and like most other features of Bendigo, was largely built by the gold-diggers.

St. Killian’s has the distinction of being the largest wooden church in Australia, surpassing even some of the larger wooden churches seen in Queensland. The exterior and interior are both maintained in a manner which is certainly a credit to the people of Bendigo.

The high altar, flanked by angel statues, is of carved wood with red curtains at the back of the egrediens. White painted and outlined in gold and jewelled patterns, it is magnificently resplendent under the electric light. The sanctuary of this, like other churches in the diocese of Sandhurst, has not undergone the desecration, nor has its altar undergone the desecration that so many churches have suffered in other dioceses.

The sanctuary is not impeded by a “Table Altar”, hence, no special preparations were required. It may be of interest to know that on the feasts of Christmas, Easter and Pentecost each year, there is a Latin High Mass in Bendigo.

We wish to extend our sincere thanks to His Lordship, Bishop Stewart, for making possible the visit to his diocese and also to Msgr. De Campo for his wonderful work in organising such a gratifying display of the traditional Catholic liturgy. The ladies of St. Killian’s receive our thanks for their kindness to us in the hall after Mass. The packed church indicated the interest of the people of the Sandhurst diocese, many of whom travelled a long way to attend the Mass.

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

For our own members travelling from Melbourne for the occasion, we were all re-vitalised by the refreshing liturgical atmosphere, which is so welcome after the stifling heat of liturgical chaos and degradation now so common in most dioceses of Australia.

Thursday, 22nd February

His Grace stayed overnight at Bethlehem Hospital in Bendigo. In the morning, the Vicar-general, Mgr. De Campo, played host to His Grace, taking him to see many points of interest around the city. Thanks to Mgr. De Campo, His Grace saw more of the city of Bendigo than he was able to see in the city of Melbourne, as our programme proved to be a full and demanding one.

Mass on this day was at 7.30 pm at St. Peter’s Church, Clayton. Being one of the newer churches of the Archdiocese, St. Peter’s is built in the contemporary style. Not surprisingly the sanctuary was not designed for the celebration of the Tridentine Mass.

The parish priest, Rev. Fr. Pickering, kindly agreed to the adaptation of the altar for this Mass. A carload of equipment was required, including a full size house door, which was used as the altar. Despite the improvising necessary, the Mass was celebrated with full dignity and reverence. The Rosary was recited by members after the Mass.

After the Mass, on the way home by car, His Grace remarked to the President, that he had to come all the way to Australia to be forced to say Mass, not on some undignified Communion Table, but in fact on a door. His Grace also remarked that little did he expect the President of a Una Voce Association to be the person responsible for his having to say Mass on a door! This is just another example of the keen wit, which was characteristic of His Grace during his stay in Australia.

Friday, 23rd February

This was a day of devotion to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. It was the focal point of our campaign of reparation for the insults hurled on His Divine Majesty by the human race and, of late, by many of His own priests and bishops. His Grace celebrated a votive Mass of the Sacred Heart at 11.30 am. Following the Mass, Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament commenced at 12.30 pm.

Many people came a long way to Armadale for this occasion, and several were seen to remain before the Blessed Sacrament exposed all through the afternoon. At 5.30 pm. our Spiritual Director celebrated a votive Mass of the Blessed Sacrament during the course of Exposition. The special solemnity of Mass in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament exposed was reminiscent to many of the regular customs in St. Francis’ church in the city before the advent of liturgical upheaval.

At 7.30 pm our Spiritual Director commenced the Holy Hour of Reparation to the Sacred Heart. Father was careful to include the Acts of Reparation and Consecration as well as the Litany.

His Grace the Archbishop presided in the sanctuary during the Holy Hour. The sermon brought home to the congregation present the earnest need for the whole human race to lighten the burden of the Cross on the shoulders of Our Divine Lord. The Holy Hour concluded with Pontifical Benediction at 8.30 pm. The closing hymn, “Faith of our Fathers”, was sung by the whole congregation.

It was reminiscent of the strong feeling of faith which was once so commonly felt after parish missions. As one meditated over this Holy Hour, one could hardly help recalling that once, nearly every Melbourne parish honoured the Sacred Heart on First Fridays, by a regular Holy Hour.

Saturday, 24th February

This day was dedicated to devotion to Our Blessed Mother. His Grace the Archbishop celebrated Mass at 2.30 pm. Following the Mass our spiritual director conducted a full programme of Marian devotions. The devotions were interspersed with hymns to our Blessed Lady. The general form of Marian devotions was already fairly well known to our local members, having been a regular feature of First Saturdays in Melbourne over the last six months. It was hoped to have a Marian procession, but unfortunately, such was precluded by the confined space in the church and its immediate surroundings. A renewal of Baptismal promises and a Profession of Faith were part of the afternoon’s ceremonies. The day concluded with Pontifical Benediction.

During the evening, His Grace spent more time with individual members, listening intently to their many and varied problems and counselling wisely in return. He portrayed himself as a true spiritual shepherd over his flock of the faithful.

Sunday, 25th February

Sexagesima Sunday, the final of the Society’s programme, O Salutaris Hostia, Melbourne enjoyed a cool, pleasant morning for this wonderful climax to a week of prayer and devotion. His Grace the Archbishop celebrated Solemn Pontifical High Mass at 10.30 am. at Our Lady of Lourdes, Armadale. The deacon was Rev. Fr. Pickering P.P., sub-deacon Rev. Fr. Pulvermacher, O.F.M., the Assistant Priest Rev. Fr. D. Ross O.S.B., and Fr. E. Perez, O.S.B. was in the sanctuary. The Gregorian choir from Bendigo again favoured us by coming down to Melbourne to sing at the Mass.

After Mass members and friends partook of lunch in the parish hall. We were pleased again to be able to entertain the visiting choir members. After luncheon the Victorian Branch Chairman, Mr Tom Ward, called the hall to attention as His Grace the Archbishop entered the room. The National Executive of the Society, comprising of the General President, Mr. M. Foley, the Vice-president, Mr. K. McManus, and the assistant General Secretary, Mr. M, McDonall, presided ever the gathering. An apology for the unavoidable absence of the General Secretary, Mr. Carleton and the Treasurer, Miss L. Rossbotham was put forward. The President welcomed His Grace the Archbishop to the gathering and handed over to him to address the meeting. His Grace gave the following address:

Quote:“My Dear Brethren,

At the close of this week of prayer with you and especially in offering the Divine Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Our Lord on the Altar, I would like to give you a few words of encouragement as St. Paul to the Faithful of Caesarea and Miletus when he said; “Vigitate et memoria retinentes…” (Watch, therefore and remember the counsels which I have given you…) – So spoke St. Paul.

Here is now my advice to you, my dear Brethren.

First of all, keep the Faith without any compromise and pray daily to preserve the Faith, reciting the Rosary in the family or in a group.

Secondly, deepen your Faith by reading the Gospel and above all the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X., the Catechism of Cardinal Gasparri or the Baltimore Catechism.

Thirdly, attend a Tridentine Mass and receive Holy Communion wherever possible. If not, attend a Mass in which the priest says the Consecration in Latin, or in one of the Oriental Catholic rites.

Finally, gather in groups around those priests who have remained good and faithful; and together, pray, organise the defence of the Faith and try especially to strengthen the faith of your children.

All this must be done with patience, with confidence in God and without bitterness. Our work is primarily to construct more than to fight. This was the way followed by all the true faithful during the persecutions. Let us remember the Catholics of Japan who suffered for many centuries.

Let us remember the Catholics of South America and the Catholics, including priests, behind the Iron Curtain. Another very important work is the training of true priests, priests strong in the interior life, the spiritual life, firm on doctrine, faithful in their teaching to the traditional magisterium of the Church and the traditional liturgy and sacraments. This is what I am endeavouring to achieve in Switzerland through the Society of St. Pius X in my Seminary of Econe, where I now have sixty-five Seminarians of eight different countries; and, please God, I will have, next October, two or three from your own beloved Australia.

The Foundation for Nuns is provided for in the statutes and, with the help of God, I hope to open this foundation next October and God alone knows, perhaps with one Australian postulant.

What is the future of this Society? Well, I think that the experience accrued in the long history of the Church shows that the most important thing for each one of us is to accomplish God’s will within the lifespan allotted to us.

As for the future, God alone knows. But the aim of the Society of St. Pius X is pastoral work, the work of the priest, assisted by brothers and nuns, following the only way of true sanctification, namely Jesus Christ Our Lord crucified upon the Cross. The Cross of Calvary and the Sacrifice of the Mass provides the only answer to the problems of our souls whatever they may be. Without Calvary, and without the Sacrifice of the Mass as the continuation of Calvary, there is no opening for the sanctification of priests, no substance for the religious life, no support for the Christian life in general. Without Calvary and the Mass there is no answer to human suffering, no justice possible, no peace possible.

That is the reason why we must preserve the true Sacrifice of the Mass, for the Mass is the corner-stone of the Church; indeed the very heart of the Church. Such is the spirituality of our Society, and I recommend to your prayers our Society of Priests, our Society of Nuns, and especially that we may have many Australian vocations.

I will take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the President of the “O Salutaris Hostia” Committee, to those who have assisted him and to the Bishops and Priests who have so kindly helped in making possible this week of prayer.

God bless you all by the intercession of His Holy Mother, Amen.”

The afternoon concluded with Solemn Pontifical Benediction by His Grace the Archbishop. Fr J Opie was the deacon and Fr Ross O.S.B. the sub-deacon. The Bendigo choir and congregation combined in singing the Latin Benediction. The closing hymn “O Sweet Sacrament Divine” was in line with the theme of the week’s program – devotion and reparation to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament.Thus ended the last liturgical celebration of what had been and outstanding week for the Society. (The Latin Mass Society.)

At the kind invitation of local members, Mr and Mrs Ned Hardiman and family, His Grace the Archbishop and all members and friends made their way to the Hardimans home in Essendon, where there was a Farewell tea for His Grace. After being with us for over a week, His Grace was now due to leave us.

The short time at the Hardimans home was a very enjoyable one indeed, and as always, a very cordial atmosphere prevailed. After the meal was over His Grace the Archbishop left for Tullamarine Airport, where he was to leave by a T.A.A. flight at 7.40pm.

A large gathering of members were present to say farewell to His Grace, and, judging by the expression of joy on the faces of those present, every aspect of the week had been an outstanding success. Cameras flashed to His Grace, accompanied by the General President, and Assistant General Secretary, boarded the plane for Sydney.

Only one hour after leaving Melbourne His Grace the Archbishop landed at Mascot Airport in Sydney, where a rousing welcome from a number of Sydney members tock place.

After leaving the airport His Grace the Archbishop, in the company of the General Secretary, proceeded direct to St. Vincent’s Hospital, where he imparted the Pontifical Blessing on Michael Massey, son of Leo and Marcia Massey, who was seriously ill and was to undergo a major operation the following morning.

Thus, after a very full and eventful day, His Grace was able to proceed to Ashfield where he would spend the night.

On Monday morning the General President and General Secretary farwelled His Grace the Archbishop at Mascot, where he left for Parkes. He was on his way to visit his sister, a Carmelite nun, whom he had not seen for some 25 years. Thus one side effect of the wonderful help and consolation he had been to us, was to enable him to visit his own sister, whom time and distance had separated as each had pursued God’s vocation in life.

Conclusion

Without the help of many priests, this inspiring week of Traditional Masses and ceremonies would not have been possible. However, our special thanks go to Rev. Fr. Opie for accomodating His Grace so kindly during his stay with us in Melbourne.

The members of the Latin Mass Society who helped so much in so many different ways, whether by assistance in organisation or generous donations were repaid in full by the truly uplifting experience of meeting and knowing this courageous Archbishop. But his visit was only a beginning; surely the fruits will follow. Inspired by his example we must all work that much harder to expand our membership in every State.

We pray that, with the help of Almighty God, and the intercession of His Blessed Mother, we may all follow the lead of His Grace to be constructive, so that more and more clergy and laity will become aware of the stealthy heresy which is overcoming the Church, and that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church will once again emerge in all its reverence, true to its doctrines and as immovable as the rock on which it was founded.

So ends the account of the first major support from the Society of Saint Pius X to Tradition in Australia. It can be noted here that soon after the visit, Mr Gerard Hogan went to Switzerland to study for the priesthood, and Miss Janine Ward went to Europe to join the Sisters of the SSPX. At the time, Msgr Lefebvre had compiled the Statutes for the Sisters, but they had not yet been formed.

Soon there was a foundation, the first Superior was Mother Mary Gabriel, a natural sister of Msgr Lefebvre. Janine Ward from Melbourne was the first nun to join the Sisters of the SSPX directly, without coming from another Order. She took the name Sister Mary Michael.

‘Catholic’ was a traditional newspaper printed in country Victoria, Australia from 1982 to 2000. Its founders were Don McClean and his late wife, Andrina. Among its contributors was the famous defender of tradition, Michael Davies.]]> Archbishop Lefebvre’s first visit to Australia

Pax Orbis | December 7, 2025

This is the first article in our series on the history of Tradition in Australia, and it covers Archbishop Lefebvre ‘s 1973 visit. His Grace made several trips to Australia prior to the arrival of the Society of Saint Pius X in August, 1982. This account comes from the traditional newspaper, ‘Catholic,’ and is reproduced here by kind permission.

[NOTE: Unless otherwise stated, photographs were kindly supplied by the Pravidur family. The dates of the photographs have not yet been established, and may represent a later visit. Please email Kathy at [email=pax@paxorbis,org]pax@paxorbis,org[/email] if you can identify churches or individuals shown in the photographs or can shed some light on the dates. ]

His Grace, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre first visited Australia in 1973. His visit at this tumultuous time in the Church was an inspiration to the Hero Priests who refused to adopt the novelties of the Second Vatican Council.

Recounted here is the World Trends report of Msgr Lefebvre’s visit to Melbourne. But first, a word about World Trends. The editor of this, before its time magazine, was French/Australian Yves Dupont. Mr Dupont had served in the French Foreign Legion and had been awarded the Croix de Guerre for his service. He was an extremely perceptive layman who began his publication circa 1964. He also began selling Catholic books under the name Tenet Books.

It is interesting to note that Mr Dupont’s book selling venture started at much the same time as did Tom Nelson’s TAN Books and Publishers in USA. Yves sold TAN books and even wrote one titled Catholic Prophecy. Prior to 1973 His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was not well known in Australia.

It is true to say that Tradition also was rather fragmented. Many despondent priests were in a certain sense, “doing their own thing” in trying to maintain what they had been ordained to do.

From 1958 until the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missae, the New Mass, to be adopted in November 1969, they had been subjected, as were the laity, to continual change. A small number of priests became more or less independent of the mainstream Church. It is those priests whom the Compiler of this History has chosen to describe as the Hero Priests.

Many had chosen to continue in the timeless practices of the Church and were serving small and scattered groups of like-minded laity. They had no Bishop to look to for leadership, other than to a limited extent, Bishop Stewart of Sandhurst.

Gradually the work of Archbishop Lefebvre became known and at last there was a small degree of unity. Msgr Lefebvre did not seek any kind of leadership of these individual priests; he was simply prepared to provide those functions that only a Bishop can provide.

The Latin Mass Society of Australia had invited Msgr Lefebvre to visit Australia. His visit happened to coincide with the Fortieth International Eucharistic Congress which took place in Melbourne in January/February 1973. World Trends described the Congress as “Spiritually, it was a dismal failure.” It featured a multitude of the then new Concelebrated Masses. It also featured a pagan ritual dance by Australian Aborigines.

Australia’s first Aboriginal liturgy, Sidney Myer Music Bowl, 24 February 1973. Photo from the Archives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

A ritual dance purported to express the Last Supper. Photo from the Archives of the Catholic Archdiocese of Melbourne.

Below is the verbatim World Trends report of the visit of Msgr Lefebvre’s visit to Melbourne in February 1973.

The Arrival of Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

Our Lady of Lourdes, Armadale, present day. IMAGE SOURCE

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

St. Kilian’s Church, Bendigo, present day SOURCE

Archbishop Lefebvre in Australia

Quote:“My Dear Brethren,

At the close of this week of prayer with you and especially in offering the Divine Sacrifice of Jesus Christ Our Lord on the Altar, I would like to give you a few words of encouragement as St. Paul to the Faithful of Caesarea and Miletus when he said; “Vigitate et memoria retinentes…” (Watch, therefore and remember the counsels which I have given you…) – So spoke St. Paul.

Here is now my advice to you, my dear Brethren.

First of all, keep the Faith without any compromise and pray daily to preserve the Faith, reciting the Rosary in the family or in a group.

Secondly, deepen your Faith by reading the Gospel and above all the Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Catechism of St. Pius X., the Catechism of Cardinal Gasparri or the Baltimore Catechism.

Thirdly, attend a Tridentine Mass and receive Holy Communion wherever possible. If not, attend a Mass in which the priest says the Consecration in Latin, or in one of the Oriental Catholic rites.

Finally, gather in groups around those priests who have remained good and faithful; and together, pray, organise the defence of the Faith and try especially to strengthen the faith of your children.

All this must be done with patience, with confidence in God and without bitterness. Our work is primarily to construct more than to fight. This was the way followed by all the true faithful during the persecutions. Let us remember the Catholics of Japan who suffered for many centuries.

Let us remember the Catholics of South America and the Catholics, including priests, behind the Iron Curtain. Another very important work is the training of true priests, priests strong in the interior life, the spiritual life, firm on doctrine, faithful in their teaching to the traditional magisterium of the Church and the traditional liturgy and sacraments. This is what I am endeavouring to achieve in Switzerland through the Society of St. Pius X in my Seminary of Econe, where I now have sixty-five Seminarians of eight different countries; and, please God, I will have, next October, two or three from your own beloved Australia.

The Foundation for Nuns is provided for in the statutes and, with the help of God, I hope to open this foundation next October and God alone knows, perhaps with one Australian postulant.

What is the future of this Society? Well, I think that the experience accrued in the long history of the Church shows that the most important thing for each one of us is to accomplish God’s will within the lifespan allotted to us.

As for the future, God alone knows. But the aim of the Society of St. Pius X is pastoral work, the work of the priest, assisted by brothers and nuns, following the only way of true sanctification, namely Jesus Christ Our Lord crucified upon the Cross. The Cross of Calvary and the Sacrifice of the Mass provides the only answer to the problems of our souls whatever they may be. Without Calvary, and without the Sacrifice of the Mass as the continuation of Calvary, there is no opening for the sanctification of priests, no substance for the religious life, no support for the Christian life in general. Without Calvary and the Mass there is no answer to human suffering, no justice possible, no peace possible.

That is the reason why we must preserve the true Sacrifice of the Mass, for the Mass is the corner-stone of the Church; indeed the very heart of the Church. Such is the spirituality of our Society, and I recommend to your prayers our Society of Priests, our Society of Nuns, and especially that we may have many Australian vocations.

I will take this opportunity to express my deep gratitude to the President of the “O Salutaris Hostia” Committee, to those who have assisted him and to the Bishops and Priests who have so kindly helped in making possible this week of prayer.

God bless you all by the intercession of His Holy Mother, Amen.”

Contents

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

☩ ☩ ☩

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Davies

27 Apri11988

St. Peter Canisius]]> Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume III
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: cover.jpg]

☩ ☩ ☩

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Davies

27 Apri11988

St. Peter Canisius]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Holy Wisdom on the Crisis in the Catholic Church]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7349 Fri, 25 Jul 2025 13:34:46 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=7349 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Holy Wisdom on the Crisis in the Catholic Church

[Image: dbd10d342f5d1149efb8f8297287edf1_L.jpg]

[Image: dbd10d342f5d1149efb8f8297287edf1_L.jpg]

Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist | July 23, 2025

Understanding this holy wisdom from Archbishop Lefebvre does not make the crisis go away, but it does help us serve God without feeling “lost and confused” because of what we see from Rome. Perhaps this is why those who seek to perpetuate the crisis in the Church never stop trying to disparage the man who did more than anyone else to oppose the Vatican II revolution and preserve the Traditional Latin Mass.

One of the many interesting aspects of Diane Montagna’s report on the document which purportedly served as the pretext for Francis’s overturning of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum was the document’s discussion of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:

“Regarding the second objection, it should be recalled that the MP Summorum Pontificum was not intended for the SSPX; they already had access to what was granted by the MP Summorum Pontificum and therefore did not need it. Rather, the MP Summorum Pontificum stands in unity and completion, as an organic and coherent development, to the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta of John Paul II, by which the Polish Pontiff sought to save many Catholics who were lost and confused and at risk of schism following the episcopal ordinations carried out by Archbishop Lefebvre.”

So, according to the Vatican document that supposedly provided the justification for Traditionis Custodes, we are to believe that Catholics were “lost and confused” because of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 consecration of bishops without Rome’s permission, as though Catholics had been quite comfortable with the changes that had taken place since Vatican II up until that point. To appreciate the sheer lunacy of this suggestion, we merely need to consider Paul VI’s 1972 statement about the state of affairs after the Council:

Quote:“Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation. One does not trust the Church anymore; one trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some newspapers or some social movement, and then rush after him and ask him if he held the formula of real life. And we fail to perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows that were supposed to be opened to the light instead. . . Even in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought that after the Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses instead of fillin

Paul VI rendered this cataclysmic assessment of the state of the Church over a decade before John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi, which only magnified the confusion of serious Catholics. Obviously, then, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 actions cannot seriously be blamed for making Catholics feel “lost and confused.” Rather, it is certain that Archbishop Lefebvre accurately diagnosed the actual source of confusion in his 1986 book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
[quote]“Who can deny that Catholics in the latter part of the twentieth century are confused? A glance at what has happened in the Church over the past twenty years is enough to convince anyone that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Only a short time ago the path was clearly marked: either one followed it or one did not. One had the Faith — or perhaps had lost it — or had never had it. But he who had it — who had entered the Church through baptism, who had renewed his baptismal promises around the age of twelve and had received the Holy Ghost on the day of his confirmation — such a person knew what he had to believe and what he had to do. Many today no longer know. They hear all sorts of astonishing statements in the churches, they read things contrary to what was always taught, and doubt has crept into their minds. . . We naturally ask, therefore, what brought on this state of things? For every effect there is a cause. Has faith been weakened by a disappearance of generosity of soul, by a taste for enjoyment, an attraction to the pleasures of life and the manifold distractions which the modern world offers? These cannot be the real reasons, because they have always been with us in one way or another. The rapid decline in religious practice comes rather from the new spirit which has been introduced into the Church and which has cast suspicion over all past teachings and life of the Church.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 1)

Thus, the real source of confusion was, and remains, the new spirit which has “cast suspicion over all past teachings and life of the Church.”

As confusing as the crisis is, though, God permitted Archbishop Lefebvre to leave us both a clear explanation of the causes of the crisis and a well-marked path of what we must do to persevere in the Faith as the crisis continues. The quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre that follow ring more true today than they did when he wrote them decades ago, and illuminate the road ahead as we try to remain faithful Catholics.

In His Loving Providence, God Permits This Great Crisis in the Church for Our Sanctification. “Providence has allowed this painful crisis in the Church for our sanctification and in order to give more brightness to the pure gold of its doctrine and its means of redemption. This passion of the Church is a great mystery, for it reaches chiefly its hierarchy, its scholars, who seem to no longer know who they are and the reasons of their being appointed. Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy, an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood - marrying the true and the false.” (1978 Letter to Friends and Benefactors)

The Church’s Enemies Have Caused the Crisis Because They Seek to Hide and Distort Catholicism’s Objective Truth. “The Church is necessarily, fundamentally opposed to Freemasonry. They affirm that truth is relative, we, that it is objective. They declare that there are no dogmas, and we, that there is a revealed truth and dogmas. Accord is therefore impossible. That is why the Freemasons will continue to do everything, as Leo XIII affirmed, to attempt to destroy the Church, because, necessarily, she is against them. There is an essential incompatibility. Their naturalist principle is in formal opposition to the Church’s doctrine.” (Against the Heresies, p. 83)

Much of the Real Damage Occurred Prior to Vatican II. “My personal experience never ceases to amaze me. These bishops for the most part were fellow students with me in Rome, trained in the same manner. And then, all of a sudden, I found myself alone. But I have invented nothing new; I was carrying on. Cardinal Garrone even said to me one day: ‘They deceived us at the French Seminary in Rome.’ Deceived us in what? Had he not himself taught the children of his catechism class thousands of times, before the Council, the Act of Faith: ‘My God, I firmly believe all the truths Thou hast revealed and that Thy Church doth teach, because Thou canst neither deceive nor be deceived’? How have all these bishops been able to metamorphose themselves in this manner? I can see only one explanation: they were always in France and they let themselves become gradually infected. In Africa I was protected. I came back the year of the Council, when the harm had already been done. Vatican II only opened the gates which were holding back the devastating flood. In no time at all, even before the end of the fourth session, it was catastrophic. Everything, almost, was to be swept away; prayer first of all.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 8)

But the Turning Point Came at the Council, With the Majority of Bishops Going Along with the Church’s Enemies. “Having assisted at the dramatic contest between Cardinal Bea, representing Liberalism, and Cardinal Ottaviani, representing the doctrine fo the Church, it was clear after the vote of the seventy cardinals that the rupture was consummated. One could thing, without fooling oneself, that the support of the Pope would go to the Liberals. But henceforth this problem was in broad daylight! What would the bishops do, aware of the danger which threatened the Church? All could see the triumph, within the Church, of new ideas, born of the Revolution and the Lodges: 250 cardinals and bishops rejoiced at the victory, 250 were horror-stricken, 1,750 tried not to ask questions, but simply followed the Pope: ‘. . . we shall see to it later!’” (Spiritual Journey, p. vi-vii)

The Enduring Source of the Crisis Is an Adulterous Union of the Church and Revolution, Which Places Truth and Error on the Same Level. “The adulterous union of the Church and the Revolution is cemented by ‘dialogue.’ Our Lord said ‘Go, teach all nations and convert them.' He did not say ‘Hold dialogue with them but don’t try to convert them.’ Truth and error are incompatible; to dialogue with error is to put God and the devil on the same footing. This is what the Popes have always repeated and what was easy for Christians to understand because it is also a matter of common sense. In order to impose different attitudes and reactions it was necessary to do some indoctrinating so as to make modernists of the clergy needed to spread the new doctrine. This is what is called ‘recycling,’ a conditioning process intended to refashion the very faculty God gave man to direct his judgment.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 112)

It Has Been the Masterstroke of Satan to Trick Catholics Into Disobeying Tradition Through False Obedience to the Revolution. "In fact ‘the masterstroke of Satan has been to trick the Church through obedience into disobeying her Tradition.’ The Church was going to destroy herself by obeying revolutionary principles brought inside the Church by the authorities of the Church. From 1968 onwards, did not Paul VI himself speak publicly of the ‘auto-demolition of the Church’? On June 29, 1972, he admitted: ‘Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God . . . Satan . . . has come to spoil and wither the fruits of the Council.’ Paul did not want to see where the crack was. Marcel saw it and denounced it: it lay in the break with Tradition. Already, however, the Archbishop felt that his foresight would get him condemned: ‘Satan has played a masterstroke: those who keep the Faith are condemned by those who should defend and propagate it!’” (from the Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 468)

However, If We Love the Church, We Must Remain Faithful to Tradition. “That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome. By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.” (1974 Declaration)

If We Have Any Doubts About Which Path to Follow, We Can Simply Judge by Fruits. "Traveling a great deal, I see everywhere at work the hand of Christ blessing His Church. . . . In the United States, young married couples with their numerous children flock to the Society’s priests. In 1982 in that country I ordained the first three priests trained entirely in our seminaries. Groups of traditionalists are on the increase whereas the parishes are declining. Ireland, which has remained refractory towards the novelties, has been subject to the reforms since 1980, altars having been cast into rivers or re-used as building material. Simultaneously, traditionalist groups have formed in Dublin and Belfast. . . . It is therefore the right road we are following; the proof is there, we recognize the tree by its fruits.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 161-162)

By Following the Path of Tradition, We Will Do All We Can Until the Blessed Virgin Mary Triumphs. “As for me, I will not resign; I will not content myself with being present, my arms dangling, at the death-throes of my Mother the Holy Church. . . If this is how things are, you will understand that, in spite of everything, I am not a pessimist. The Holy Virgin will have the victory. She will triumph over the great apostasy, the fruit of Liberalism. One more reason not to twiddle our thumbs! We have to fight more than ever for the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In this battle, we are not alone: we have with us all the Popes up through Pius XII inclusively. All of them combatted Liberalism in order to deliver the Church from it. God did not grant that they succeed, but this is no reason to lay down our weapons! We have to hold on. We have to build, while the others are demolishing.” (They Have Uncrowned Him, pp. 250-251)

Understanding this holy wisdom from Archbishop Lefebvre does not make the crisis go away, but it does help us serve God without feeling “lost and confused” because of what we see from Rome. Perhaps this is why those who seek to perpetuate the crisis in the Church never stop trying to disparage the man who did more than anyone else to oppose the Vatican II revolution and preserve the Traditional Latin Mass. Far from causing us to turn away from Archbishop Lefebvre’s keen insights, this unabated persecution of the saintly defender of the Faith should make his wisdom shine forth more brightly for those of us who need light in the darkness of the ongoing crisis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!]]> Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s Holy Wisdom on the Crisis in the Catholic Church

[Image: dbd10d342f5d1149efb8f8297287edf1_L.jpg]

Quote:“Through some cracks the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God: there is doubt, uncertainty, problematic, anxiety, confrontation. One does not trust the Church anymore; one trusts the first prophet that comes to talk to us from some newspapers or some social movement, and then rush after him and ask him if he held the formula of real life. And we fail to perceive, instead, that we are the masters of life already. Doubt has entered our conscience, and it has entered through windows that were supposed to be opened to the light instead. . . Even in the Church this state of uncertainty rules. One thought that after the Council there would come a shiny day for the history of the Church. A cloudy day came instead, a day of tempest, gloom, quest, and uncertainty. We preach ecumenism and drift farther and farther from the others. We attempt to dig abysses instead of fillin

Paul VI rendered this cataclysmic assessment of the state of the Church over a decade before John Paul II’s prayer meeting at Assisi, which only magnified the confusion of serious Catholics. Obviously, then, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s 1988 actions cannot seriously be blamed for making Catholics feel “lost and confused.” Rather, it is certain that Archbishop Lefebvre accurately diagnosed the actual source of confusion in his 1986 book, Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
[quote]“Who can deny that Catholics in the latter part of the twentieth century are confused? A glance at what has happened in the Church over the past twenty years is enough to convince anyone that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. Only a short time ago the path was clearly marked: either one followed it or one did not. One had the Faith — or perhaps had lost it — or had never had it. But he who had it — who had entered the Church through baptism, who had renewed his baptismal promises around the age of twelve and had received the Holy Ghost on the day of his confirmation — such a person knew what he had to believe and what he had to do. Many today no longer know. They hear all sorts of astonishing statements in the churches, they read things contrary to what was always taught, and doubt has crept into their minds. . . We naturally ask, therefore, what brought on this state of things? For every effect there is a cause. Has faith been weakened by a disappearance of generosity of soul, by a taste for enjoyment, an attraction to the pleasures of life and the manifold distractions which the modern world offers? These cannot be the real reasons, because they have always been with us in one way or another. The rapid decline in religious practice comes rather from the new spirit which has been introduced into the Church and which has cast suspicion over all past teachings and life of the Church.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 1)

Thus, the real source of confusion was, and remains, the new spirit which has “cast suspicion over all past teachings and life of the Church.”

As confusing as the crisis is, though, God permitted Archbishop Lefebvre to leave us both a clear explanation of the causes of the crisis and a well-marked path of what we must do to persevere in the Faith as the crisis continues. The quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre that follow ring more true today than they did when he wrote them decades ago, and illuminate the road ahead as we try to remain faithful Catholics.

In His Loving Providence, God Permits This Great Crisis in the Church for Our Sanctification. “Providence has allowed this painful crisis in the Church for our sanctification and in order to give more brightness to the pure gold of its doctrine and its means of redemption. This passion of the Church is a great mystery, for it reaches chiefly its hierarchy, its scholars, who seem to no longer know who they are and the reasons of their being appointed. Satan, the father of lies, as Our Lord Jesus calls him, has the extraordinary talent of finding out some words, to which he assigns a new meaning so that from their ambiguity, he achieves acceptance of the destructive falsehood which overthrows the best established societies. He found it in this “ecumenism” of the Council which has created an ecumenical liturgy, an ecumenical Bible, and ecumenical catechism, uniting truth and falsehood - marrying the true and the false.” (1978 Letter to Friends and Benefactors)

The Church’s Enemies Have Caused the Crisis Because They Seek to Hide and Distort Catholicism’s Objective Truth. “The Church is necessarily, fundamentally opposed to Freemasonry. They affirm that truth is relative, we, that it is objective. They declare that there are no dogmas, and we, that there is a revealed truth and dogmas. Accord is therefore impossible. That is why the Freemasons will continue to do everything, as Leo XIII affirmed, to attempt to destroy the Church, because, necessarily, she is against them. There is an essential incompatibility. Their naturalist principle is in formal opposition to the Church’s doctrine.” (Against the Heresies, p. 83)

Much of the Real Damage Occurred Prior to Vatican II. “My personal experience never ceases to amaze me. These bishops for the most part were fellow students with me in Rome, trained in the same manner. And then, all of a sudden, I found myself alone. But I have invented nothing new; I was carrying on. Cardinal Garrone even said to me one day: ‘They deceived us at the French Seminary in Rome.’ Deceived us in what? Had he not himself taught the children of his catechism class thousands of times, before the Council, the Act of Faith: ‘My God, I firmly believe all the truths Thou hast revealed and that Thy Church doth teach, because Thou canst neither deceive nor be deceived’? How have all these bishops been able to metamorphose themselves in this manner? I can see only one explanation: they were always in France and they let themselves become gradually infected. In Africa I was protected. I came back the year of the Council, when the harm had already been done. Vatican II only opened the gates which were holding back the devastating flood. In no time at all, even before the end of the fourth session, it was catastrophic. Everything, almost, was to be swept away; prayer first of all.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 8)

But the Turning Point Came at the Council, With the Majority of Bishops Going Along with the Church’s Enemies. “Having assisted at the dramatic contest between Cardinal Bea, representing Liberalism, and Cardinal Ottaviani, representing the doctrine fo the Church, it was clear after the vote of the seventy cardinals that the rupture was consummated. One could thing, without fooling oneself, that the support of the Pope would go to the Liberals. But henceforth this problem was in broad daylight! What would the bishops do, aware of the danger which threatened the Church? All could see the triumph, within the Church, of new ideas, born of the Revolution and the Lodges: 250 cardinals and bishops rejoiced at the victory, 250 were horror-stricken, 1,750 tried not to ask questions, but simply followed the Pope: ‘. . . we shall see to it later!’” (Spiritual Journey, p. vi-vii)

The Enduring Source of the Crisis Is an Adulterous Union of the Church and Revolution, Which Places Truth and Error on the Same Level. “The adulterous union of the Church and the Revolution is cemented by ‘dialogue.’ Our Lord said ‘Go, teach all nations and convert them.' He did not say ‘Hold dialogue with them but don’t try to convert them.’ Truth and error are incompatible; to dialogue with error is to put God and the devil on the same footing. This is what the Popes have always repeated and what was easy for Christians to understand because it is also a matter of common sense. In order to impose different attitudes and reactions it was necessary to do some indoctrinating so as to make modernists of the clergy needed to spread the new doctrine. This is what is called ‘recycling,’ a conditioning process intended to refashion the very faculty God gave man to direct his judgment.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, p. 112)

It Has Been the Masterstroke of Satan to Trick Catholics Into Disobeying Tradition Through False Obedience to the Revolution. "In fact ‘the masterstroke of Satan has been to trick the Church through obedience into disobeying her Tradition.’ The Church was going to destroy herself by obeying revolutionary principles brought inside the Church by the authorities of the Church. From 1968 onwards, did not Paul VI himself speak publicly of the ‘auto-demolition of the Church’? On June 29, 1972, he admitted: ‘Through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God . . . Satan . . . has come to spoil and wither the fruits of the Council.’ Paul did not want to see where the crack was. Marcel saw it and denounced it: it lay in the break with Tradition. Already, however, the Archbishop felt that his foresight would get him condemned: ‘Satan has played a masterstroke: those who keep the Faith are condemned by those who should defend and propagate it!’” (from the Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais biography of Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 468)

However, If We Love the Church, We Must Remain Faithful to Tradition. “That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome. By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.” (1974 Declaration)

If We Have Any Doubts About Which Path to Follow, We Can Simply Judge by Fruits. "Traveling a great deal, I see everywhere at work the hand of Christ blessing His Church. . . . In the United States, young married couples with their numerous children flock to the Society’s priests. In 1982 in that country I ordained the first three priests trained entirely in our seminaries. Groups of traditionalists are on the increase whereas the parishes are declining. Ireland, which has remained refractory towards the novelties, has been subject to the reforms since 1980, altars having been cast into rivers or re-used as building material. Simultaneously, traditionalist groups have formed in Dublin and Belfast. . . . It is therefore the right road we are following; the proof is there, we recognize the tree by its fruits.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pp. 161-162)

By Following the Path of Tradition, We Will Do All We Can Until the Blessed Virgin Mary Triumphs. “As for me, I will not resign; I will not content myself with being present, my arms dangling, at the death-throes of my Mother the Holy Church. . . If this is how things are, you will understand that, in spite of everything, I am not a pessimist. The Holy Virgin will have the victory. She will triumph over the great apostasy, the fruit of Liberalism. One more reason not to twiddle our thumbs! We have to fight more than ever for the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In this battle, we are not alone: we have with us all the Popes up through Pius XII inclusively. All of them combatted Liberalism in order to deliver the Church from it. God did not grant that they succeed, but this is no reason to lay down our weapons! We have to hold on. We have to build, while the others are demolishing.” (They Have Uncrowned Him, pp. 250-251)

Understanding this holy wisdom from Archbishop Lefebvre does not make the crisis go away, but it does help us serve God without feeling “lost and confused” because of what we see from Rome. Perhaps this is why those who seek to perpetuate the crisis in the Church never stop trying to disparage the man who did more than anyone else to oppose the Vatican II revolution and preserve the Traditional Latin Mass. Far from causing us to turn away from Archbishop Lefebvre’s keen insights, this unabated persecution of the saintly defender of the Faith should make his wisdom shine forth more brightly for those of us who need light in the darkness of the ongoing crisis.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!]]> <![CDATA[Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume II]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6969 Tue, 18 Mar 2025 12:37:13 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6969 Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume II
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-am...ipo=images]

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-am...ipo=images]

Author’s Introduction

The first volume of the Apologia took the story of Archbishop Lefebvre up to the end of 1976. I had hoped to continue the account in this volume, but the amount of material I felt it necessary to include was such that it could cover only three more years, taking the story to the end of 1979. The last major incident in this book is the Archbishop's sacerdotal Golden Jubilee. I had also hoped, as I remarked in the Introdtiction to Volume I, to be able to give details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop in this volume. Alas, no final agreement has yet been reached, but negotiations are still continuing. Let us pray that Volume III will contain details of this greatly desired reconciliation.

The major part of this book is taken up with the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Holy See, principally with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre had long demanded that his case should he brought before this Congregation; his request was granted, and the resultant discussions are absorbing and of considerable historic interest. Unlike the treatment he received from the Vatican which was described in Volume I, I consider his treatment at the hands of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have been scrupulously fair. The story is told here principally through the original documents which are presented without comment. The discussions were by no means one-sided. The questions put to the Archbishop were very perceptive and clearly gave him cause to think deeply about the basis for his attitudes and actions. In some cases he has clearly vindicated his position, but in others his answers were not quite as convincing. These negotiations are, of course, continuing. Further documentation will be provided in Volume III.

I have followed a strict chronological sequence, and have interspersed documentation on the negotiations with some of the Archbishop's sermons and accounts of his activities. The schedule he undertakes is quite staggering for a man in his seventies. His travels take him all over the world, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the United States of America, South America, and many European countries. Wherever he goes, the faithful have high expectations of him, and despite his personal fatigue and the weighty problems with which he has to deal he rarely disappoints them. He is always ready with a friendly smile, a kindly word, and inspirational sermon. The progress made by the Society at this time would have been almost miraculous even had it enjoyed the full support of the Vatican. The number of ordinations increased steadily, new seminaries were opened; there are now three in addition to Ecône-in Germany, the U.S.A., and Argentina. Schools were founded, church buildings purchased, and new Mass centers opened at an astonishing rate.

But at the same time evidence of problems within the Society began to emerge. The Archbishop was attracting considerable criticism from the fringe of the traditionalist movement for his alleged moderation and willingness to "compromise." A good number of priests outside the Society claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, and that there had been no true pope since Pope Pius XII. Some priests in the Society became infected by these theories, particularly in France and the U.S.A. And, almost inevitably, some young Society priests began to show alarming signs of arrogance. The Archbishop had taken a calculated risk in sending young men out to do pastoral work without the benefit of guidance and supervision from mature priests. Some proved worthy of the trust he had placed in them, others did not. Needless to say, reports of these tendencies reached the Vatican and added to the Archbishop's problems in working for a reconciliation. This was why he found it necessary to clarify his position on the New Mass and the Pope on a number of occasions, as this book will show. These internal problems became more serious after 1979, and will be dealt with in Volume III. The Archbishop felt obliged to expel a number of priests in subsequent years, including nine in the United States in 1983. Others left of their own accord. Sadly, some of these priests have had no scruples about making vindictive attacks upon t lie bishop who had given them their priesthood.

In June 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre resigned as Superior of the Society, to be succeeded by Father Franz Schmidberger who had been Superior of the German District. The Archbishop will continue to carry out the ordinations and confirmations, but will at least be relieved of the administrative burdens.

This book, as was its predecessor, is not directed primarily to Catholics who support the stand Archbishop Lefebvre has taken. Its aim is to provide factual material for those interested in discovering the truth about a man and a movement of great significance in the history of the Church during the post-conciliar epoch. No individual has been as consistently mispresented in the official Catholic press as the Archbishop. When the three volumes of the Apologia are available it will at least be possible for fair-minded Catholics to judge him by what he has said and done, rather than what he is alleged to have said and done.

I do not expect every reader to agree with all the Archbishop's opinions, actions, and judgments. I do not necessarily do so myself. He has admitted that he sometimes speaks with excessive indignation (see p. 112), and that his addresses have included "exaggerated expressions" (p. 290). But, as I have endeavored to point out several times in the present volume, it is necessary to set the case of the Archbishop within the overall context of the Conciliar Church, a context of accelerating self-destruction, of doctrinal, moral, and liturgical degeneration, widespread anarchy, and apparent impotence on the part of the Holy See to take any effective measures to restore order. In the U.S.A., for example, respected Catholics unconnected with the traditionalist movement are speaking of a de facto schism. In an editorial in the January 1983 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Father Kenneth Baker, S. J., noted that in the United States: "We are witnessing the rejection of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ to be replaced by a Protestant American Church separate from Rome." This is a fact which must be kept in mind continually when passing judgment upon Archbishop Lefebvre. I would ask those readers who do not know him and are not familiar with his work to read his sermons carefully. How many bishops preach like this today? They disclose a man who has the Faith, loves the Faith, and lives the Faith.

I said earlier that the account of the negotiations with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is absorbing. There will be one exception for some readers. This is Chapter XV, a long chapter which contains the Archbishop's defense of his position concerning religious liberty. Those who are not familiar with the background to this controversy may well find Chapter XV complex and difficult to follow. I suggest that they omit it, at least on a first reading. Most readers will find it less difficult if they first study Appendix IV to Volume I of the Apologia, This provides a fairly brief and simple introduction to this question, which is probably the greatest obstacle impeding a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the Vatican. The Archbishop's insistence upon the Society being allowed to use the Tridentine Mass and pre-conciliar sacramental rites is a disciplinary matter, and could be conceded by the Pope without great difficulty; but the question of religious liberty involves a serious disagreement on a matter of doctrine.

I would like to draw the reader's attention to the list of abbreviations contained on page xvii. All the abbreviations used in the book are, I hope, included here.

I am grateful to a number of people who have given me considerable help with this volume. I must mention first Miss Norah Haines who provided the typescript, checked the proofs with meticulous care, and compiled the index. Without her help it would never have been completed. I am equally grateful to Mrs. Carlita Brown who set the type and submitted to numerous last minute amendments without complaining. I must also pay tribute to Father Carl Pulvermacher for printing and collating the book single-handed. This has been a real community effort in what I believe is supposed to be the "spirit of Vatican II." Archbishop Lefebvre was kind enough to read through the proofs and make a number of corrections. There are several others whose help I would like to acknowledge publicly, but who have asked me not to do so.

I would like to stress the fact that although both volumes of' the Apologia have been published by the English-language publishers to the Society of St. Pius X, The Angelus Press, I have written them with complete independence. No attempt has ever been made to influence what I wished to say.

Finally, I would like to answer a question concerning which I receive a considerable amount of correspondence. Has Archbishop Lefebvre been excommunicated? No, he certainly has not. Statements claiming the opposite have been made in several countries. In order to settle the matter once and for all I wrote to the Vatican in April 1983, and received a letter signed by Cardinal Oddi, dated 7 May 1983, stating that Archbishop Lefebvre has not been excommunicated. However, those who would like him to be excommunicated will no doubt continue to insist that he has been, no matter what evidence to the contrary can be brought forward, which is just one one indication of why I consider it to have been so necessary to write Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Michael Davies,
7 August 1983,
St. Cajetan, Confessor.]]> Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume II
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages-na.ssl-images-am...ipo=images]

Author’s Introduction

The first volume of the Apologia took the story of Archbishop Lefebvre up to the end of 1976. I had hoped to continue the account in this volume, but the amount of material I felt it necessary to include was such that it could cover only three more years, taking the story to the end of 1979. The last major incident in this book is the Archbishop's sacerdotal Golden Jubilee. I had also hoped, as I remarked in the Introdtiction to Volume I, to be able to give details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop in this volume. Alas, no final agreement has yet been reached, but negotiations are still continuing. Let us pray that Volume III will contain details of this greatly desired reconciliation.

The major part of this book is taken up with the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Holy See, principally with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre had long demanded that his case should he brought before this Congregation; his request was granted, and the resultant discussions are absorbing and of considerable historic interest. Unlike the treatment he received from the Vatican which was described in Volume I, I consider his treatment at the hands of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have been scrupulously fair. The story is told here principally through the original documents which are presented without comment. The discussions were by no means one-sided. The questions put to the Archbishop were very perceptive and clearly gave him cause to think deeply about the basis for his attitudes and actions. In some cases he has clearly vindicated his position, but in others his answers were not quite as convincing. These negotiations are, of course, continuing. Further documentation will be provided in Volume III.

I have followed a strict chronological sequence, and have interspersed documentation on the negotiations with some of the Archbishop's sermons and accounts of his activities. The schedule he undertakes is quite staggering for a man in his seventies. His travels take him all over the world, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the United States of America, South America, and many European countries. Wherever he goes, the faithful have high expectations of him, and despite his personal fatigue and the weighty problems with which he has to deal he rarely disappoints them. He is always ready with a friendly smile, a kindly word, and inspirational sermon. The progress made by the Society at this time would have been almost miraculous even had it enjoyed the full support of the Vatican. The number of ordinations increased steadily, new seminaries were opened; there are now three in addition to Ecône-in Germany, the U.S.A., and Argentina. Schools were founded, church buildings purchased, and new Mass centers opened at an astonishing rate.

But at the same time evidence of problems within the Society began to emerge. The Archbishop was attracting considerable criticism from the fringe of the traditionalist movement for his alleged moderation and willingness to "compromise." A good number of priests outside the Society claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, and that there had been no true pope since Pope Pius XII. Some priests in the Society became infected by these theories, particularly in France and the U.S.A. And, almost inevitably, some young Society priests began to show alarming signs of arrogance. The Archbishop had taken a calculated risk in sending young men out to do pastoral work without the benefit of guidance and supervision from mature priests. Some proved worthy of the trust he had placed in them, others did not. Needless to say, reports of these tendencies reached the Vatican and added to the Archbishop's problems in working for a reconciliation. This was why he found it necessary to clarify his position on the New Mass and the Pope on a number of occasions, as this book will show. These internal problems became more serious after 1979, and will be dealt with in Volume III. The Archbishop felt obliged to expel a number of priests in subsequent years, including nine in the United States in 1983. Others left of their own accord. Sadly, some of these priests have had no scruples about making vindictive attacks upon t lie bishop who had given them their priesthood.

In June 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre resigned as Superior of the Society, to be succeeded by Father Franz Schmidberger who had been Superior of the German District. The Archbishop will continue to carry out the ordinations and confirmations, but will at least be relieved of the administrative burdens.

This book, as was its predecessor, is not directed primarily to Catholics who support the stand Archbishop Lefebvre has taken. Its aim is to provide factual material for those interested in discovering the truth about a man and a movement of great significance in the history of the Church during the post-conciliar epoch. No individual has been as consistently mispresented in the official Catholic press as the Archbishop. When the three volumes of the Apologia are available it will at least be possible for fair-minded Catholics to judge him by what he has said and done, rather than what he is alleged to have said and done.

I do not expect every reader to agree with all the Archbishop's opinions, actions, and judgments. I do not necessarily do so myself. He has admitted that he sometimes speaks with excessive indignation (see p. 112), and that his addresses have included "exaggerated expressions" (p. 290). But, as I have endeavored to point out several times in the present volume, it is necessary to set the case of the Archbishop within the overall context of the Conciliar Church, a context of accelerating self-destruction, of doctrinal, moral, and liturgical degeneration, widespread anarchy, and apparent impotence on the part of the Holy See to take any effective measures to restore order. In the U.S.A., for example, respected Catholics unconnected with the traditionalist movement are speaking of a de facto schism. In an editorial in the January 1983 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Father Kenneth Baker, S. J., noted that in the United States: "We are witnessing the rejection of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ to be replaced by a Protestant American Church separate from Rome." This is a fact which must be kept in mind continually when passing judgment upon Archbishop Lefebvre. I would ask those readers who do not know him and are not familiar with his work to read his sermons carefully. How many bishops preach like this today? They disclose a man who has the Faith, loves the Faith, and lives the Faith.

I said earlier that the account of the negotiations with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is absorbing. There will be one exception for some readers. This is Chapter XV, a long chapter which contains the Archbishop's defense of his position concerning religious liberty. Those who are not familiar with the background to this controversy may well find Chapter XV complex and difficult to follow. I suggest that they omit it, at least on a first reading. Most readers will find it less difficult if they first study Appendix IV to Volume I of the Apologia, This provides a fairly brief and simple introduction to this question, which is probably the greatest obstacle impeding a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the Vatican. The Archbishop's insistence upon the Society being allowed to use the Tridentine Mass and pre-conciliar sacramental rites is a disciplinary matter, and could be conceded by the Pope without great difficulty; but the question of religious liberty involves a serious disagreement on a matter of doctrine.

I would like to draw the reader's attention to the list of abbreviations contained on page xvii. All the abbreviations used in the book are, I hope, included here.

I am grateful to a number of people who have given me considerable help with this volume. I must mention first Miss Norah Haines who provided the typescript, checked the proofs with meticulous care, and compiled the index. Without her help it would never have been completed. I am equally grateful to Mrs. Carlita Brown who set the type and submitted to numerous last minute amendments without complaining. I must also pay tribute to Father Carl Pulvermacher for printing and collating the book single-handed. This has been a real community effort in what I believe is supposed to be the "spirit of Vatican II." Archbishop Lefebvre was kind enough to read through the proofs and make a number of corrections. There are several others whose help I would like to acknowledge publicly, but who have asked me not to do so.

I would like to stress the fact that although both volumes of' the Apologia have been published by the English-language publishers to the Society of St. Pius X, The Angelus Press, I have written them with complete independence. No attempt has ever been made to influence what I wished to say.

Finally, I would like to answer a question concerning which I receive a considerable amount of correspondence. Has Archbishop Lefebvre been excommunicated? No, he certainly has not. Statements claiming the opposite have been made in several countries. In order to settle the matter once and for all I wrote to the Vatican in April 1983, and received a letter signed by Cardinal Oddi, dated 7 May 1983, stating that Archbishop Lefebvre has not been excommunicated. However, those who would like him to be excommunicated will no doubt continue to insist that he has been, no matter what evidence to the contrary can be brought forward, which is just one one indication of why I consider it to have been so necessary to write Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Michael Davies,
7 August 1983,
St. Cajetan, Confessor.]]> <![CDATA[Last Interview w/ Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre - 1991]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6835 Fri, 31 Jan 2025 13:27:08 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6835 The Recusant September 2014:

Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Fideliter No. 79 January-February 1991

“It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of the Faith.”

On the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the founding of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X , Archbishop Lefebvre kindly answer the questions we asked him. "It is no longer just a question of liturgy, as important as it is, that separates us from Rome, but a matter of faith." We also note how the prelate destroys the calumnies that have been made against him about the conciliar documents on Religious Liberty and “The Church in the Modern World.”

Fideliter - Since the coronations there has been no more contact with Rome; however, as you told us, Cardinal Oddi telephoned you saying, “Things have got to be sorted out. Make a little act of asking forgiveness to the Pope and he is ready to welcome you.” So why not try this one last approach and why do you think it impossible?

Archbishop Lefebvre – It is absolutely impossible in the current climate of Rome which is becoming worse. We must not delude ourselves. The principles which now guide the conciliar Church are more and more overtly contrary to Catholic doctrine. Before the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations, Cardinal Casaroli recently declared:
“I want to dwell somewhat on one specific aspect of the fundamental freedom of thinking and acting according to one’s conscience: religious liberty ... the Catholic Church and her Supreme Pastor , who has made human rights one of the major themes of his preaching, have not failed to recall that, in a world made by man and for man, the whole organization of society has meaning only insofar as it is the human dimension a central concern.”

To hear that in the mouth of a cardinal! He does not speak about God! For his part, Cardinal Ratzinger, presenting a discussion paper on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms he says “for the first time clearly” that “the decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such” but are “a kind of provisional disposition ... the core remains stable but the particular aspects that influence the circumstances of that time may need correction later on. In this regard one can point to
the declarations of the popes of the last century. The anti-modernist decisions rendered a great service but they are now outdated.” And voila, the position on modernism is turned around! These reflections are absolutely insane.

Finally the Pope is more ecumenist than ever. All the false ideas of the Council continue to develop, to be reaffirmed with ever greater clarity. They are hiding less and less. It is absolutely inconceivable that we can agree to work with such a hierarchy.

Fideliter - Do you think the situation has deteriorated even further since the time before the consecrations when you engaged in discussions that led to the drafting of the Protocol of 5 May 1988?

Archbishop Lefebvre - Oh yes! For example the making of the Profession of Faith which is now claimed by Cardinal Ratzinger since the beginning of 1989. This is a very serious matter. Because he asks all those [Traditionalists] who rallied to them [i.e. signed an agreement with Rome - trans] or could do to make a profession of faith in the Council documents and in the post-conciliar reforms. For us it is impossible.

We will have to wait some more before considering the prospect of an agreement. For my part I believe that only God can intervene as humanly we do not any possibility of Rome straightening things out. For fifteen years we dialogued to try to put the tradition back in its place of honour, in that place in the Church which it has by right. We ran up against a continual refusal. What Rome grants in favour of this tradition at present is nothing but a purely political gesture, a piece of diplomacy so as to force people into compromise. But it is not a conviction of the benefits of Tradition.

Fideliter - When we see that Dom Gérard and the Fraternity of St. Peter got to keep the liturgy and catechism without – so they say - have conceded anything, some people who are troubled to find themselves in a difficult situation with Rome, can be tempted to make an agreement in their turn, through lassitude. They have managed, so they say, to get along with Rome without having to relinquish anything.

Archbishop Lefebvre - When they say they don’t have to give anything up, that’s false. They have given up the ability to oppose Rome. They cannot say anything any more. They must remain silent given the favours that have been granted them. It is now impossible for them to expose the errors of the Conciliar Church. Softly, softly they adhere, even be it only by their Profession of Faith that is requested by Cardinal Ratzinger. I think Dom Gérard is about to publish a small book written by one of his monks on Religious Liberty and which will try to justify it. From the point of view of ideas, they begin to slide ever so slowly and end up by admitting the false ideas of the Council, because Rome has granted them some favours of Tradition. It’s a very dangerous situation.

During the audience which he granted to Dom Gérard and a delegation of monks from Le Barroux, the Pope expressed the desire to see them continue to evolve. He didn’t hide what he thought. They must submit more and more to the Archbishop [of their diocese] and they must take care not to act as though the conciliar reforms are less-than appreciated because they have been granted an exceptions to the liturgical rule of the Council. They must also make an effort to bring with them all those who are not yet in obedience to the Holy Father.

These are pressing invitations made to them and it’s this which is the purpose of the privileges granted to them. That is why Dom Gérard wrote to Mother Anne-Marie Simoulin, Father Innocent-Marie, the Capuchins of Morgon and others to try even to influence me. On his return from Rome he launched the offensive to try to convince those who do not follow him to follow in his wake and rally to Rome. All the things that have been granted to them have only been agreed to with the goal of ensuring that all those who adhere to or are related to the Society will break from it and submit to Rome.

Fideliter - Dom Gérard is thus taking on the role that had devolved to Mgr. Perl.

Archbishop Lefebvre - I have had the opportunity to see at least three letters which Mgr. Perl sent in response to people who had written to him. It is always the same. It is essential to make an effort among those who do not understand the need to make an agreement with the Pope and the Council. It's a shame, he wrote, to see that there have been no more agreements.

Fideliter - You have said, concerning Dom Gérard and others: “They have betrayed us. They are now giving a helping hand to those who demolish the Church, the Liberals, the modernists.” Isn’t that a bit harsh?

Archbishop Lefebvre – Not at all, no! They appealed to me for fifteen years. It was not I who went looking for them. It is they themselves who came to me and asked me for support, for ordinations, for the friendship of our priests and at the same time the opening of our priories to help them financially. They took full advantage of us, as much as they were able. We did it with good will and even generosity. I was happy to do these ordinations, to open our houses so that they could take advantage of the generosity of our benefactors... And then, suddenly, they telephone me. We no longer need you; it’s over. We’re going over to the archbishop of Avignon. We’re now in agreement with Rome. We’ve signed a protocol.

It gave us no joyfulness of heart to have trouble with Rome. It wasn’t out of pleasure that we had to fight. We did it out of principle, to keep the Catholic faith. And they agreed with us. They cooperated with us. And then suddenly they abandon the true combat to ally themselves with the demolishers on the pretext that they be given some privileges. That’s unacceptable. They have in practice abandoned the fight for the Faith. They cannot attack Rome.

That was what Father de Blignières did too. He has changed completely. He who had written an entire volume condemning religious liberty, he now writes in favour of religious liberty. That’s not being serious. One cannot rely any more on men like that, who have understood nothing of the doctrinal question. I think in any case they commit a serious mistake. They sinned seriously in acting the way they did, knowingly, and with an unreal nonchalance.

I have heard tell of some monks who intend leaving Le Barroux, saying they can no longer live in an atmosphere of lies. I wonder how they managed to stay as long as this in such an atmosphere.

It’s the same with those who are with Dom Augustin [Superior of the Benedictine Monastery of Flavigny - [trans]. They were even more traditional than us and now they have completely gone over to the other side. For all young people who are there, it’s awful to think of such a reversal. They entered the monastery to be really in Tradition. It was the safest, firmest bastion of Tradition, even more so than the Society. They thought they were guaranteed forever. And then they completely turn their coats... and they stay put! It is inexplicable.

Fideliter – Fr. de Blignières, Fr. de Nantes and Dom Gérard have practically accused you of lying when you say that you didn’t sign two documents of the Council: Dignitatis Humanae on religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes. The journal Sedes sapientiae reproduced a document from the Vatican archives where there is your name written in your hand. What exactly is it and what is this document?

Archbishop Lefebvre - This idea of interpreting signatures as signifying approval of the conciliar documents germinated in the ill-intentioned mind of Fr. de Blignières. Approvals or refusals documents were obviously made for each particular document. The vote was secret, done on individual cards, and made with a special pen that allowed the calculation of electronic votes. The cards were taken in by the Secretaries from the hand of each voter.

The large sheets which were passed around from hand to hand among the Council Fathers and to which everyone added his signature were nothing to do with voting for or against, but signified our presence at this session for voting on four documents. One would really have to take the Fathers who voted against the text for weathervanes, claiming that they approved something that they had refused a half hour before. We see what we can expect from the imagination of those who are weathervanes and adore what they burned before, such as the Fr. de Blignières, Dom Gérard and that windmill par excellence Fr. de Nantes.

Fideliter - Some of the faithful are tempted to keep good relations with those who have rallied, or even attend the Mass or ceremonies that they celebrate, do you think that there Abp. Lefebvre is a danger in that?

Archbishop Lefebvre - I have always warned the faithful vis-à -vis the sedevacantists, for example. There also people say: “The Mass is fine, so we go to it.” Yes, there is the Mass. That’s fine, but there is also the sermon; there is the atmosphere, the conversations, contacts before and after, which make you little by little change your ideas. It is therefore a danger and that’s why in general, I think it constitutes part of a whole. One does not merely go to Mass, one frequents a milieu.

There are obviously some people who are attracted by the beautiful ceremonies, who also go to Fontgombault, where they have taken up the old mass again. They are in a climate of ambiguity which to my mind is dangerous. Once one finds oneself in this atmosphere, submitted to the Vatican, subject ultimately to the Council, one ends up by becoming ecumenical.

Fideliter - The Pope is very popular. He draws crowds; he wants to gather all Christians together in ecumenism, which he says he is making the cornerstone of his pontificate. At first glance this may seem a noble thought, wanting to actually gather all Christians together.

Archbishop Lefebvre - The Pope wants unity outside the Faith. It is a “communion”. Communion with whom? With what? In what? That is no longer unity. This cannot be except in the unity of the Faith. That is what the Church has always taught. That is why there were missionaries, to convert souls to the Catholic Faith. Now you don’t have to convert any more. The Church is not a hierarchical society, it is a communion. Everything is distorted. It is the destruction of the concept of the Church, of Catholicism. This is very serious and it is what explains why many Catholics are abandoning the Faith.

When you add to that all the outrageous comments that were made at the synod on the priesthood, declarations like those of Cardinals Decourtray and Danneels, one wonders how there can be any Catholics left. After Assisi and after similar declarations, we understand that there were many people who go went over to the Mormons, to the Jehovah Witnesses or elsewhere. They lose the Faith, it’s not surprising.

Fideliter - Regarding the synod, Cardinal Lorscheider, announcing that two married Brazilians had been ordained priests, requested that consideration be given to ordaining married men with “life experience”.

Archbishop Lefebvre - All this is being directed against the celibacy of priests. The synod which will be held in Africa will probably be a step towards the abolition of priestly celibacy, that is if God does not intervene first.

Fideliter – People cite as an example the development of Catholicism the considerable increase in the number of vocations in African countries, including Zaire, where there are hundreds of seminarians.

Archbishop Lefebvre - But we must see how they are formed. In these Third World countries there are many children and being a priest is a social promotion. Unfortunately this is not real progress for Catholicism. I'm not saying that everything is negative. But these are all conciliar seminarians, with the New Mass, the introduction of bongo drums, the inculturation in the liturgy. What religion will they have? It will no longer be the Catholic religion, but a kind of religious syncretism with purely exterior manifestations. This is serious, because it means the demolition of all the work done by the missionaries.

Fideliter - Beyond the just the liturgy, you often say, it is now a matter of Faith which makes us oppose modern Rome.

Archbishop Lefebvre - Certainly the question of the liturgy and the sacraments is very important, but it is not the most important. The most important is that of the Faith. For us it is resolved. We have the Faith of all time, of the Council of Trent, of the Catechism of St. Pius X, of all the councils and all the popes before Vatican II.

For years they have tried in Rome to show that everything in the Council was fully consistent with Tradition. Now they are showing their true colours. Cardinal Ratzinger never spoke so clearly. There is no tradition. There is no longer any deposit to be transmitted. Tradition in the Church is whatever the Pope is saying today. You must submit to what the Pope and the bishops say today. That’s what Tradition is for them, the famous ‘Living Tradition’, the only ground of our condemnation.

They no longer seek now to prove what they say is consistent with what Pius IX wrote or with what the Council of Trent promulgated. No, all of that is over; it’s outdated, as Cardinal Ratzinger said. It is clear and they could have said so earlier. There was no point in our talking, in our discussing with them. Now is the tyranny of authority, because there are no longer any rules. One can no longer refer to the past.

In a sense things today are becoming clearer. They always give us more reason. We are dealing with people who have a different philosophy to ours, a different way of seeing, who are influenced by all modern subjectivist philosophers. For them there is no fixed truth, there is no dogma. Everything is evolving. That is a totally Masonic concept. This is really the destruction of the Faith. Fortunately, we continue to lean on Tradition!

Fideliter - Yes, but you are alone against everyone.

Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, it is a great mystery.

Fideliter - In the last newsletter “Introibo” Father André notes that although they say the
New Mass , a dozen bishops provide hope. They are classified as “traditional bishops” by “Episcopal Who's Who.”

Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, but they are all conciliar. It’s only Bishop de Castro Mayer and myself who have resisted that Council and its applications , whereas at the Council there were 250 of us opposing the errors.

I was recently told to re-read the prophecy of Our Lady of Quito (1), where in the early seventeenth century, the Blessed Virgin Mary gave a revelation to a holy nun about the destruction of morals and the terrible crisis which now afflicts the Church and its clergy (2) announcing to her also that there would be a prelate who would dedicated himself to the restoration of the priesthood. The Blessed Virgin announced that that would happen in the twentieth century. This is a fact. The Good Lord has planned this time in the Church.

Fideliter - You have emphasised that you are convinced that the work you have undertaken is blessed by God, because at several points it could have disappeared.

Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, that’s right. We have always come under very hard, very difficult attacks. Often people who worked with us, who used to be our friends, have turned against us and have really become enemies. It is very painful, but there is nothing to be done. We realise after some time that those are after us and who are trying to destroy us are sinking, and that we continue, we must believe nonetheless that the line of the Faith and Tradition that we have adopted, that we are following, is imperishable because it is the
Church and because God cannot allow his Church to perish.

Fideliter - What can you say to those of the faithful who still hope in the possibility of an agreement with Rome?

Archbishop Lefebvre - Our true faithful, those who have understood the problem and who have precisely helped us to continue along the straight and firm path of Tradition and the Faith, were afraid of the approaches I made towards Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that in Rome we would witness a little bit of loyalty. I cannot be blamed for not having done the maximum. So now too, to those who say to me, “You’ve got to reach an agreement with Rome,” I think I can say that I went even further than I should have.

Fideliter - You answer: you do not have to worry, because we are with Tradition, with all the councils before Vatican II, with everything said by all the popes who preceded it...

Archbishop Lefebvre - Yes, obviously if we were inventing something we would be worried that our invention would not endure. But we’re doing nothing new.

A little while ago time I saw a bishop, one of my friends with whom we worked during the council and was in complete agreement with me at that time. And he said: “It is unfortunate that you are in trouble with Rome.” “How can you, who fought at the Council for the same reasons as me,” I answered him, “how can you now be surprised? We held continual meetings together and with others to try to maintain the line of Tradition in the Council. And now you have abandoned all of that. Is what we were doing wrong?”

“See the results of the Council. Can you show me any that are good, that are positive? Where and in what areas have the Council and the reforms that came from it brought about an extraordinary revival in the Church?” He did not answer. There is nothing. Everything is negative.

Fideliter - And the charismatics?

Archbishop Lefebvre – That’s more negative still. It’s the devil, because charismatics come to us to ask us to exorcise them. One has to believe that they are possessed by the devil.

They call the Spirit. What spirit? There are some people among them who are of good will, without doubt, who are striving to pray, to do adoration, no doubt, but the devil is evil. He draws in with one hand, and he grabs with the other.

We’re not done fighting. When I’m gone my successors will still have to fight. But God can do anything. On the political level it would have been difficult to predict a year or two ago what is happening right now. No one imagined that the Iron Curtain would be lifted, that Germany would reunify. Now they say that the collapse of the Soviet empire is near.

I received a letter from a Ukrainian bishop who wanted to contact us, to ask us to help edit a catechism because they no longer have anything. He did more than fifteen years in a Soviet prison with some others. A number of them have now been released. He found his diocese in a terrible state, because everything now belongs to the Orthodox Church. They took everything. So they are trying to recover what they can, but they have against them the Vatican, which is poisoned by this business. The return of these bishops and priests who want to revive the Catholic Church in Ukraine is a nuisance to the Vatican, which above all does not want to get into trouble with the Kremlin and the Orthodox church. This Catholic revival in Ukraine is a nuisance to them. This is what the bishop wrote to me: “There really is a mystery for us surrounding the attitude of Rome.” For us it is not a mystery!

Fideliter - What conclusions can we draw from the Society after twenty years of existence?

Archbishop Lefebvre - The Good Lord wanted Tradition. I am deeply convinced that the Society is the means that God wanted to keep and maintain the Faith, the truth of the Church and what can still be saved in the Church. Thanks also to the bishops around the Superior General of the Society, who fulfil their indispensable role of maintaining the Faith, of preaching the Faith, and of communicate the grace of the priesthood and confirmation, Tradition remains unchanged and a still-fruitful source the divine life.

All this is very comforting and I think we have to thank God and continue to faithfully keep the treasures of the Church, hoping that one day these treasures resume the place they deserve in Rome and they should never have lost.

Interview by Andrew CAGNON]]> The Recusant September 2014:

Interview with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

Fideliter No. 79 January-February 1991

Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

[Image: rs=w:1280]

The Catholic Trumpet [slightly adapted] | January 7, 2025

It is with deep disappointment that we address an article published by Tradition in Action (TIA), titled “Lefebvre Mason Polemic VI: Objection ‘Arch. Léfèbvre Was Not a Mason’” (accessible here). While TIA has made valuable contributions to the traditional Catholic cause, this piece profoundly misrepresents +Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, spreading unverified accusations and conflating his legacy with unrelated controversies.

As Pope St. Pius X warned in his encyclical Notre Charge Apostolique: “The true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists.” It is with this fidelity to Tradition that we undertake the task of exposing the falsehoods in TIA’s accusations while upholding the truth of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s heroic mission to preserve the Faith.

Editor’s Note:

The Catholic Trumpet seeks to uphold the truth of the Faith as handed down through the Church and preserved by +Archbishop Lefebvre. In this article, we address Tradition in Action’s (TIA) misrepresentation of +Archbishop Lefebvre and their unjust accusations. While TIA claims to have separated from Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP) due to internal disagreements, it is evident that they still rely on principles rooted in Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira’s teachings, which +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer rightly condemned as anti-Catholic and heretical.

Our critique is not made out of hostility but arises from the necessity of correcting errors that obscure the truth and create unnecessary divisions among faithful Catholics. As +Archbishop Lefebvre taught, fidelity to the Church’s perennial teaching admits no compromise. It is in this spirit of total fidelity that we challenge the errors and misrepresentations propagated by TIA.

1. +Archbishop Lefebvre: Defender of Tradition and Opponent of Freemasonry

A Legacy of Resistance

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s unwavering opposition to Freemasonry and modernism is well-documented. He consistently denounced Freemasonry as “the tool of Satan,” warning of its infiltration into the Church to bring about its destruction. Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus (1884), emphasized the grave danger posed by Freemasonry: “Let us never forget that Christianity and Freemasonry are essentially incompatible, so that to enroll in one means deserting the other.”

Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Collaboration

+Archbishop Lefebvre worked closely with +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer, another stalwart defender of Tradition, to oppose the novelties of Vatican II. In 1984, +Bishop de Castro Mayer issued a scathing condemnation of TFP (Tradition, Family, and Property) the ideological predecessor of TIA, describing it as an “anti-Catholic, anti-clerical heretical sect.”

To provide complete clarity and transparency, +Bishop de Castro Mayer’s full letter of condemnation is included below this article for readers to evaluate directly. This historical evidence exposes the deep-rooted errors within the movement that now seeks to malign the legacy of +Archbishop Lefebvre.

2. Addressing TIA’s Claims

Freemasonry Allegations

TIA’s claim that Lefebvre had ties to Freemasonry is based on circumstantial and unverified evidence. Key points refuting this:

• No Evidence of Masonic Affiliation: Lefebvre’s public condemnations of Freemasonry contradict any suggestion of his involvement.

• False Claims of Masonic Associations: Allegations regarding Lefebvre’s association with the “Order of Our Lady of Sion” conflate it with other unrelated organizations.

• Baseless Accusations of Masonic Bands: TIA’s claims about a Masonic band in an SSPX procession lack any credible substantiation.

Signing of Vatican II Documents

Critics often point to +Archbishop Lefebvre’s signing of certain Vatican II documents as evidence of his supposed compromise. However:

• Historical Context: Lefebvre signed some documents under obedience and in the spirit of collegiality. He later condemned the Council’s novelties, stating: “The Council has turned its back on Tradition and broken with the Church of the past. It is a schismatic council.”

• Development of Opposition: His signing was not an endorsement but a procedural action. He spent the next 25+ years opposing the Council’s errors.

• Typology: Like St. Peter, who repented after denying Christ, Lefebvre’s clarity and opposition to Vatican II only grew over time, leading him to heroically defend the Faith against modernist Rome.

Celebration of the Novus Ordo

• Firm Rejection: +Archbishop Lefebvre consistently rejected the Novus Ordo Missae, referring to it as “a Protestantized liturgy.” This is consistent with the Critical Study of the New Order of Mass (Ottaviani Intervention), which observed: “The reform… represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”

• Even If He Had: Hypothetically, if he had celebrated the Novus Ordo early on (a claim for which no proof exists), this would only emphasize his later repentance and complete rejection of the New Mass. His actions in preserving the Traditional Latin Mass are undeniable proof of his fidelity.

Conflation of SSPX and Neo-SSPX

TIA fails to distinguish between the original SSPX founded by +Archbishop Lefebvre and the Neo-SSPX, which compromised with modernist Rome in 2012. This conflation misleads readers and unfairly tarnishes Lefebvre’s legacy.

3. TFP and TIA: A Cultic Legacy

Cult Practices of TFP

Documented evidence reveals that TFP engaged in cultic practices, including the veneration of its founder, Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira. This included “slave” ceremonies and prayers elevating Plinio to a semi-divine status.

Átila Sinke Guimarães’ Involvement

Átila Sinke Guimarães, the founder of TIA, was deeply involved in TFP, even serving as Slave #11. His defense of TFP’s practices undermines his credibility in critiquing Archbishop Lefebvre.

Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Condemnation

+Bishop de Castro Mayer condemned TFP for its esoteric character, religious fanaticism, and cultic veneration of Plinio. This raises serious concerns about the ideological foundations of TIA.

4. Recognizing the True Enemy

It is essential to recognize the true enemy: the Synagogue of Satan, as referenced in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9. This is rabbinical Judaism, which opposes Christ and operates through its agents, such as Freemasonry. Freemasonry has infiltrated the Church, including the Neo-SSPX, where it continues to operate, spreading confusion and division.

As Pope St. Pius X wrote in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “One cannot excise the poison of modernism without going to its root, for its tentacles touch every aspect of Catholic life.” Let us remain steadfast in identifying these errors while refusing to adopt the Kabbalistic or Talmudic mentality that denies the law of non-contradiction. Truth is singular, and +Archbishop Lefebvre’s consistent witness to Tradition exemplifies this fidelity.

5. A Call for Unity and Fidelity

+Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy is one of unwavering fidelity to the Faith during the Church’s darkest hour. TIA’s unfounded accusations against him are not only misleading but also harmful to the cause of Tradition.

We urge faithful Catholics to:

1. Uphold the truth about +Archbishop Lefebvre’s mission and legacy.

2. Pray for unity in the fight against modernism, secularism and Judeo-Freemasonry.

As Our Lord said: “By their fruits you shall know them” (Matt. 7:16). Lefebvre’s fruits are evident in the preservation of the Traditional Faith, the formation of valid priests, and the defense of Catholic doctrine.

May this article contribute to a clearer understanding of +Archbishop Lefebvre’s legacy and inspire unity among faithful Catholics in the ongoing effort to preserve and restore the Church in fidelity to Tradition.

Below, we include Bishop de Castro Mayer’s letter condemning TFP, as historical evidence of the errors underlying the attacks on +Archbishop Lefebvre.

No Compromise. No Retreat.

-The☩Trumpet

Appendix: Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Letter on TFP
The full text of +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s 1984 letter condemning TFP is provided below for readers’ reference.

(The following letter was written in 1984 and later published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha da Manhã in 1991. It was also reprinted in Le Sel de la Terre, no. 28, Spring 1999, in an article titled “Documents sur la TFP.”)

Dear N.,

I owe you an answer to your painful letter of September 24, 1984, that, as the postmark indicates, you sent me on September 25th.

In this case, I can only give you one piece of advice: pray, pray a lot, above all the [15-decade] Rosary or at least the [5-decade] Rosary, asking the Virgin Mother, Mediatrix of all graces, to enlighten her son and make him see that the TFP is a heretical sect. For, in fact, although they do not say or write it, the TFP lives and behaves in accord with a principle that fundamentally undermines the truth of Christendom, that is, of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it is de fide that Jesus Christ founded His Church—destined to maintain on earth the true worship of God and to lead souls toward eternal salvation—as an unequal society composed of two classes: one that governs, teaches, and sanctifies, composed of members of the clergy, and another—the faithful—who receive the teaching, are governed, and are sanctified. This is a dogma de fide.

St. Pius X affirmed this clearly when he wrote:

“The Church is, in its very nature, an unequal society, meaning that it comprises two orders of persons: shepherds and flock, those who belong to the various ranks of the Hierarchy and the faithful multitude. These two orders are so completely distinct that the Hierarchy alone has the right and authority to guide and govern the members for the purposes of the Church, while the duty of the faithful is to let themselves be governed and to obediently follow the given path by the ruling class.” (Encyclical Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906)

The whole history of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, attests to this truth as a fundamental dogma of her constitution. It was only to the Apostles that Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations.” The Acts of the Apostles also show us the life of the Church in the times after Jesus Christ.

Because of this, it is a heretical subversion to habitually follow a layman—therefore a non-member of the Hierarchy—as a spokesman for orthodoxy. These individuals disregard what the Church says or what the bishops teach, instead choosing to follow this or that layman. This attitude—even if not openly stated—effectively positions the lay “leader” as an arbiter of orthodoxy. It is accompanied by a sudden but real mistrust of the hierarchy and clergy in general.

There is a visceral anti-clericalism in the TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is received with bias. Essentially, all priests are deemed ignorant, lacking zeal, self-interested, or otherwise defective. Such a position, when considered in light of the divine constitution of the Church, makes this habitual anti-clericalism heretical.

Thus, as I said, the TFP is animated by a principle contrary to the dogma established by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church.

The History of TFP’s Deviation

The TFP had a healthy beginning. It evolved from the apostolate of the biweekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecilia, titled The Legionary.

As a serious and well-intentioned movement, it sought to strengthen the intellectual and religious formation of the members of the Congregation and, consequently, of the biweekly readers. It was influential throughout Brazil. This was the era of obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme.

I followed and approved of its apostolate during this time, even as it began to drift into an anti-clerical spirit. Eventually, this spirit consolidated its positions and inverted them, putting the clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman who monopolized orthodoxy. Perhaps I gave them support beyond a licit point. I withdrew my support only when it became clear that my warnings were being ignored.

Charismatic Fervor and Fanaticism

The deceptions of certain members of the hierarchy partially explain the scandal of the “TFPists,” but this does not justify their positions—even less so for their leader, Plinio.

As I noted earlier, charismatic fervor produces a certain fanaticism. Individuals become incapable of seeing objective reality or perceiving even fundamental errors. This blindness stems from an inversion: they follow a layman instead of the legitimate pastors of the Holy Church.

I must emphasize that prayer is the only remedy. Without prayer, nothing is achieved. Our Lord said, “Ask, and you shall receive.”

I ask Our Lord to grant you and your family a Holy and Merry Christmas and many years filled with His grace.

I also ask that you pray for me, a servant in Christ Jesus.

- Antônio de Castro Mayer

Bishop Emeritus of Campos]]> The Catacombs has in the past shared articles from TIA whenever it has published traditional Catholic teaching. But on this topic, which is their opinion, we echo this defense by the The Catholic Trumpet and strenuously disagree with TIA's position:

Defending +Archbishop Lefebvre: Against TIA’s Errors

[Image: rs=w:1280]

Appendix: Bishop de Castro Mayer’s Letter on TFP
The full text of +Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer’s 1984 letter condemning TFP is provided below for readers’ reference.

(The following letter was written in 1984 and later published in the Brazilian newspaper Folha da Manhã in 1991. It was also reprinted in Le Sel de la Terre, no. 28, Spring 1999, in an article titled “Documents sur la TFP.”)

Dear N.,

I owe you an answer to your painful letter of September 24, 1984, that, as the postmark indicates, you sent me on September 25th.

In this case, I can only give you one piece of advice: pray, pray a lot, above all the [15-decade] Rosary or at least the [5-decade] Rosary, asking the Virgin Mother, Mediatrix of all graces, to enlighten her son and make him see that the TFP is a heretical sect. For, in fact, although they do not say or write it, the TFP lives and behaves in accord with a principle that fundamentally undermines the truth of Christendom, that is, of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, it is de fide that Jesus Christ founded His Church—destined to maintain on earth the true worship of God and to lead souls toward eternal salvation—as an unequal society composed of two classes: one that governs, teaches, and sanctifies, composed of members of the clergy, and another—the faithful—who receive the teaching, are governed, and are sanctified. This is a dogma de fide.

St. Pius X affirmed this clearly when he wrote:

“The Church is, in its very nature, an unequal society, meaning that it comprises two orders of persons: shepherds and flock, those who belong to the various ranks of the Hierarchy and the faithful multitude. These two orders are so completely distinct that the Hierarchy alone has the right and authority to guide and govern the members for the purposes of the Church, while the duty of the faithful is to let themselves be governed and to obediently follow the given path by the ruling class.” (Encyclical Vehementer Nos, February 11, 1906)

The whole history of the Church, as recorded in the New Testament, attests to this truth as a fundamental dogma of her constitution. It was only to the Apostles that Jesus said, “Go and teach all nations.” The Acts of the Apostles also show us the life of the Church in the times after Jesus Christ.

Because of this, it is a heretical subversion to habitually follow a layman—therefore a non-member of the Hierarchy—as a spokesman for orthodoxy. These individuals disregard what the Church says or what the bishops teach, instead choosing to follow this or that layman. This attitude—even if not openly stated—effectively positions the lay “leader” as an arbiter of orthodoxy. It is accompanied by a sudden but real mistrust of the hierarchy and clergy in general.

There is a visceral anti-clericalism in the TFP: everything that comes from the clergy is received with bias. Essentially, all priests are deemed ignorant, lacking zeal, self-interested, or otherwise defective. Such a position, when considered in light of the divine constitution of the Church, makes this habitual anti-clericalism heretical.

Thus, as I said, the TFP is animated by a principle contrary to the dogma established by Jesus Christ in the constitution of His Church.

The History of TFP’s Deviation

The TFP had a healthy beginning. It evolved from the apostolate of the biweekly newspaper of the Marian Congregation of St. Cecilia, titled The Legionary.

As a serious and well-intentioned movement, it sought to strengthen the intellectual and religious formation of the members of the Congregation and, consequently, of the biweekly readers. It was influential throughout Brazil. This was the era of obedience to Monsignors Duarte and Leme.

I followed and approved of its apostolate during this time, even as it began to drift into an anti-clerical spirit. Eventually, this spirit consolidated its positions and inverted them, putting the clergy in tow behind a charismatic layman who monopolized orthodoxy. Perhaps I gave them support beyond a licit point. I withdrew my support only when it became clear that my warnings were being ignored.

Charismatic Fervor and Fanaticism

The deceptions of certain members of the hierarchy partially explain the scandal of the “TFPists,” but this does not justify their positions—even less so for their leader, Plinio.

As I noted earlier, charismatic fervor produces a certain fanaticism. Individuals become incapable of seeing objective reality or perceiving even fundamental errors. This blindness stems from an inversion: they follow a layman instead of the legitimate pastors of the Holy Church.

I must emphasize that prayer is the only remedy. Without prayer, nothing is achieved. Our Lord said, “Ask, and you shall receive.”

I ask Our Lord to grant you and your family a Holy and Merry Christmas and many years filled with His grace.

I also ask that you pray for me, a servant in Christ Jesus.

- Antônio de Castro Mayer

Bishop Emeritus of Campos]]> <![CDATA[Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume I]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6778 Tue, 07 Jan 2025 16:07:57 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6778 Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume I
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: Apologia_cover_b.jpg]

Author’s Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Davies

20 June 1979
St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr.

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

_________

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech.]]> Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
by Michael Davies
Volume I
Taken from the SSPX Asia website

[Image: Apologia_cover_b.jpg]

Author’s Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Davies

20 June 1979
St. Silverius, Pope and Martyr.

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

_________

1. Let anyone who doubts this compare the new and old rites of ordination. A detailed comparison has been made in my book The Order of Melchisedech.]]> <![CDATA[Bishop Strickland: ‘It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre walked an apostle’s path’]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6698 Sun, 15 Dec 2024 19:39:42 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6698

Bishop Strickland: ‘It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre walked an apostle’s path’
It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre walked an apostle’s path and was led to establish a safe place, a refuge, where could be found the Mass of the ages in its pure form, a place where the Deposit of Faith would be protected, and the staircase preserved intact, even while the ape of the Church was pulling off boards and throwing out all that is most precious.

[Image: abp_lefebvre-810x500.jpg]

Abp. Marcel Lefebvre (third from right).
Spiritains / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

Sat Dec 14, 2024
(LifeSiteNews) — Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

At this time of year, as we wait for Our Lord, I want to draw our attention for a moment to St. Joseph, a mostly silent but very important person in the Advent of Our Lord. We know St. Joseph as a carpenter because St. Matthew and St. Mark used the Greek term tekton to describe his work which is a common term for a worker in wood, a builder, a “joiner” – one whose woodworking skills include “joining” pieces of wood together. The Latin fathers interpreted this word as “carpenter.”

The word “joiner” is an apt word for St. Joseph because in so many ways he was called to be a builder of staircases that provided steps for heaven to “join” earth, and earth to “join” heaven. The Blessed Virgin Mary was called to be the Mother of God, and St. Joseph built a staircase by offering her marriage and a home where the Christ Child could live on earth. Jesus Christ dwelled in the house St. Joseph provided, and although a house and any steps St. Joseph built would have been made of earthly materials, heaven walked upon them, so it could be said that he built a staircase that connected heaven to earth.

As we think of staircases, and things that “join” heaven and earth, we think naturally of Christ’s Church, for as Catholics, we stand on a staircase, or a bridge, built by Christ that connects earth to heaven. The steps on this staircase are the sacraments which bridge the abyss that separates the Creator from the created, and the Deposit of Faith is the framework. As long as we stand securely on this staircase, then we, like Mary holding the infant Christ, can gaze into the face of God. For in His Church, Christ truly meets us on earth, as in His Church He is truly present. The sacraments are efficacious signs for they truly bring to earth (and join) what they symbolize. In order for this to happen, as we know, it must be “symbolized” correctly (the staircase must be constructed of the right materials) both in “form” and in “matter.” If either is changed, the form (the words spoken) or the matter (the physical part of the Sacrament), then the validity is destroyed. Therefore, every board of this staircase is an integral part of the whole.

This staircase, or bridge, which connects earth with heaven has always stood firm, despite constant attacks from the outside throughout the history of the Church. However, we now see attacks originating from within the Church Herself, and originating from those who claim to have the authority to wage this war. What is occurring now is the culmination of what the fallen have systematically, with diabolical intent, planned, and what has been prophesied by many saints throughout the history of the Church. However, the boards of this staircase were given by Christ Himself, and any substitute materials that are put in their place will not bear the weight of what we have been given. Therefore, it is of grave concern to me, as a bishop, that the faithful not lose sight of the true staircase and then find themselves standing on a staircase build of substitute materials, wondering why their Church seems so empty. Christ will always be present in His Church, standing on the staircase that He has built, but we must be sure that is where we are standing also, and that we have not been waylaid by the “ape of the Church” as Archbishop Fulton Sheen aptly called it.

As a bishop, I have promised – no matter the cost – to stand firm on the true staircase which was given by Christ and rests in Him, and whose framework is the Deposit of Faith, and indeed to protect it from all who would attempt to pry off the boards. I am called to remember that the precious blood of Christ marks this staircase, and that it is also stained by the blood of martyrs, and that I must also be willing to shed my blood to protect it. For Christ to die for us, it was required for Him to become man and to surrender to the atrocity of death while holding the very key of life. This took unparalleled will – it took the Will of God. And that is where He calls each of us – to walk completely in the Will of God.

When did the attempted destruction of this staircase begin? Many point to Vatican II as the culprit. I was born in October of 1958, the same year and month that Pope John XXIII was elected to the Chair of Saint Peter as Pontifex Maximus (Supreme Pontiff), which means great bridge builder. I mention this because very often this year is highlighted as the beginning of the turmoil in the Church which we presently see boiling over in countless ways. It is true that his pontificate and his decision to convene the Second Vatican Council was a pivotal moment in Church History. On October 11, 1962, Pope John XXIII opened the Second Vatican Council; however, he died in June of 1963, and Paul VI, his successor, took his place. The fourth and final session of the Council ended in December of 1965.

Was this the beginning? It does seem that there has been a systematic attempt at the demolition of what had been considered “unreformable” before Vatican II. And yet how have those responsible attempted to destroy what is eternal? They have done this by attempting to confine what was of heaven to an earthly definition, and this is done most effectively by attempting to substitute man-made materials for what was given from heaven. However, when one end rests on earth and one end rests in heaven, as does the Church, then man cannot destroy it. What he can do, though, is obscure the Truth by offering the “ape of the Church” in its place.

There can be no doubt that much changed after Vatican II. There was a new emphasis on the Church walking with the “world,” and this definitely opened the door to theological views that compromised the Church’s unique identity. Ideas like ecumenism struck a blow to the staircase, for Christ never said His Church should be a part of the world; in fact, He said the opposite.

With Vatican II, a focused movement began to encourage the Church to engage in “dialogue” with other denominations. Yet I have to ask, “What was there to dialogue about?” Christ gave us His Church. It is clear now that it has been the logical progression of what came forth from Vatican II that we are now at the point where the Holy Father can make a statement like, “All religions are paths to God,” and the majority of bishops and cardinals just nod, never saying a word.

And yet they know – they cannot help but know – that they are abandoning the staircase they have promised to protect. What Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam (1302) infallibly taught is on that staircase: “We are compelled in virtue of our faith to believe and maintain that there is only one Catholic Church, and that one apostolic. This we firmly believe and profess without qualification. Outside this Church there is no salvation and no remission of sins. Thus, the spouse proclaims in the Canticle, ‘One is my dove: my perfect one is but one. She is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her’ (Cant. 6:8). Now this chosen one represents the one mystical body whose head is Christ, and Christ’s head is God. In her there is ‘one Lord, one faith, one baptism’ (Eph. 4:5). For at the time of the deluge there existed only one ark, the figure of the one Church.”

There are many divinely inspired words on the staircase that would lead us to conclude without exception that “No, all religions are NOT paths to God.” For, as Pope Benedict XV stated in his Papal Encyclical Ad Beatissimi (1914), words that are also on this staircase: “Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim, ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.”

The Catholic Church has ALWAYS condemned the false belief that all religions are good and “of God.” This is the false doctrine of religious indifferentism, and it is a board which should never be placed on this sacred staircase. There have been many, many other boards that men have attempted to place since Vatican II that are made of man-made materials. They have tried to substitute man-made materials for heavenly ones because they thought that the original materials were “out-of-date.” However, what heaven has built never becomes out-of-date.

Much that came out of the Second Council represented a movement from the Catholic Church to the conciliar church. What is especially tragic is that it was likely at this point that we lost the focus of bringing the world to Christ.

Nothing was as damaging to the staircase, though, as the changes that occurred in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It seems now much of the Church asks with St. Mary Magdalene as she encountered the empty tomb, “Where have they laid Him?” The changes that the Church has witnessed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass since Vatican II have left many unaware of where He is and of His loving sacrifice for all humanity as belief in the Real Presence has fallen substantially.

The Old Mass was suppressed in 1970, and many Catholics left the Church, as Pope Paul VI actually accused any who observed the Old Mass as rebellious against the Council. As I reflect on the changes that came about in the Mass as a result of Vatican II, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre comes to mind. Archbishop Lefebvre, who founded the Society of Saint Pius X (the SSPX), a traditionalist priestly society, was labeled disobedient, a rebel and even schismatic in the 1970’s and 1980’s for refusing to celebrate the New Mass. However, Lefebvre felt the Church was experiencing a profound “crisis of faith” due to the infiltration of modernism and liberalism. He felt that there was an active attempt to pry off the boards of the staircase and to replace them with boards of the world. He consecrated four “tradition-minded” bishops without papal approval (although he had repeatedly sought approval for years after having been previously told that approval would be granted) because he felt that without bishops who upheld traditional teachings and the Tridentine Latin Mass that the continuity of the Church’s Tradition would be at risk. And, thus, he made sure the staircase was preserved intact.

In 1976, when Lefebvre was about to ordain 13 priests into the Society, Archbishop Giovanni Benelli from the Vatican Secretary of State office wrote him requiring fidelity to the conciliar church, and Archbishop Lefebvre replied, “What is that church? I know not a conciliar church. I am Catholic!”

I, myself, having been in seminary at a time when Latin was not even taught, and having always as a priest and bishop celebrated the Novus Ordo (New Mass), have been on a journey to understand this issue. I would urge all of us to recognize, as I have come to recognize, that the issues with the Holy Mass began because of an attempt to move the focus away from Jesus Christ and His sacrifice which IS the Holy Mass.

I believe that we should each strive to be first century Christians in the twenty-first century, and this is especially significant in the area of the Holy Mass. The dawn of the Church included the celebration of Holy Mass, the Last Supper, making present Christ’s once-and-for-all sacrifice of Himself. Accounts like that of St. Justin Martyr offer us very early descriptions of what occurred at Holy Mass, and the beauty of these accounts is that they are so close in time to the sacrifice that the Mass commemorates. We must keep our focus on Jesus Christ as the earliest Christians did, so that the temporal distance from His Sacrifice falls into insignificance because we are focused on the same Crucified and Risen Lord as the early Christians.

There is no doubt that with the New Mass there has been a diminished focus on Jesus Christ. This has often been seen in subtle ways, but we have also witnessed drastic neglect of the Real Presence of Jesus Christ that rises to the level of blasphemy in many instances since Vatican II. When the liturgy shifted its focus to the people and away from Jesus Christ, it opened the door to extreme neglect of His Sacred Presence.

It is interesting that although the Novus Ordo is usually celebrated in the vernacular, the common language of the country where it is celebrated, while the Traditional Mass is celebrated in Latin, the normative language of the Novus Ordo is also Latin. Although provisions were made for the Mass to be celebrated in the local vernacular for pastoral reasons, it was always assumed that the Mass would continue to be celebrated in Latin, and Pope Benedict XVI urged the reintroduction of Latin into the Novus Ordo.

When the Novus Ordo was introduced, many altar rails were removed. However, the altar rail helped us to maintain the distinction between the sanctuary (where the altar is and which represents heaven, where our staircase leads) and the rest of the Church (which represents earth, and where our staircase begins). In the Traditional Latin Mass, communicants kneel at the altar rail (the gate to heaven) and receive the Eucharist on their tongues from the priest.

Although there are many sacred and beautiful Novus Ordo masses celebrated consistently, it is a fact that the New Mass represented a break in centuries of Liturgical continuity. And with that has come a massive decline in Mass attendance, vocations, and belief in core Catholic teachings. Pope Benedict XVI addressed these concerns with his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum in which he expanded access to the Traditional Latin Mass. However, in his 2021 motu proprio Traditionis Custodes, Pope Francis severely limited access to the Traditional Latin Mass again. But let us read these words of Pope Pius V in his Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum from 1570 regarding the Traditional Latin Mass:

Quote:Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription…

The words that Archbishop Lefebvre spoke at the ordination of 13 priests in 1976 are words we should take to heart. He stated, “For if the most holy Church has wished to guard throughout the centuries this precious treasure which She has given us of the rite of Holy Mass which was canonized by St. Pius V, it has not been without purpose. It is because this Mass contains our whole Faith, the whole Catholic Faith: Faith in the Most Holy Trinity, Faith in the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Faith in the Redemption of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Faith in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which flowed for the redemption of our sins, Faith in supernatural grace, which comes to us from the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which comes to us from the Cross, which comes to us through all the Sacraments. This is what we believe. This is what we believe in celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of all time. It is a lesson of Faith and at the same time a source of our Faith, indispensable for us in this age when our Faith is attacked from all sides. We have need of this true Mass, of this Mass of all time, of this Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ really to fill our souls with the Holy Ghost and with the strength of Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Pope Benedict XVI said, “What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us, too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church’s Faith and prayer.”

I feel that it is also important to state here that the SSPX is not outside the Catholic Church, and that although it is canonically irregular, it is not schismatic. Bishop Athanasius Schneider has done extensive study on the SSPX, and as a result, he has given a clear and consistent defense of the Society. He has stated that Catholics may attend SSPX masses and receive sacraments from its clergy without concern. Although he acknowledges the “irregular canonical situation” of the SSPX, he states that this does not equate to being outside the Church, and he has praised the SSPX for upholding traditional Catholic faith and liturgy. Bishop Schneider has also called for their full canonical recognition by the Vatican, asserting that the SSPX adheres to traditional Catholic teachings and sacraments as they were practiced for centuries before Vatican II.

In conclusion, I would like to quote a famous declaration that Archbishop Lefebvre made in 1974. It is clear that Archbishop Lefebvre walked an apostle’s path and was led to establish a safe place, a refuge, where could be found the Mass of the ages in its pure form, a place where the Deposit of Faith would be protected, and the staircase preserved intact, even while the ape of the Church was pulling off boards and throwing out all that is most precious. Here is Archbishop Lefebvre’s declaration:

Quote:We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

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

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

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

‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.

The Archbishop did not write this in a spirit of rebellion – but rather as a rallying cry for all those who want to fight for Christ the King. I offer this same declaration as also my battle cry to fight for Him.

As I conclude this letter, I do so with a renewal of our focus on Jesus Christ. The Church is His, the Mass is His, He offered Himself to the Father once and for all for the salvation of our souls. Let us resist any further attempts to diminish our focus on Him and instead draw all the Church – ordained, religious and laity – to know Him more deeply “in the breaking of the bread.” And proclaim to the world that Jesus Christ is Savior and Lord of all.

And to my fellow bishops I quote the words of St. Pope John Paul II, “We must defend the truth at all costs, even if we are reduced to just twelve again.”

May Almighty God bless you and may our Holy and Immaculate Mother protect you and guide you always to her Divine Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Bishop Joseph E. Strickland

Bishop Emeritus]]>

Abp. Marcel Lefebvre (third from right).
Spiritains / Wikimedia Commons / CC BY-SA 4.0

Quote:Furthermore, by these presents [this law], in virtue of Our Apostolic authority, We grant and concede in perpetuity that, for the chanting or reading of the Mass in any church whatsoever, this Missal is hereafter to be followed absolutely, without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgment, or censure, and may freely and lawfully be used. Nor are superiors, administrators, canons, chaplains, and other secular priests, or religious, of whatever title designated, obliged to celebrate the Mass otherwise than as enjoined by Us. We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription…

Quote:We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth.

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

All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments, to the disappearance of religious life, to a naturalist and Teilhardian teaching in universities, seminaries and catechectics; a teaching derived from Liberalism and Protestantism, many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.

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

‘But though we,’ says St. Paul, ‘or an angel from heaven preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’ (Gal. 1:8).

Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if we can discern a certain contradiction in his words and deeds, as well as in those of the dicasteries, well we choose what was always taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties destroying the Church.

It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.

That is why, without any spirit of rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of forming priests, with the timeless Magisterium as our guide. We are persuaded that we can render no greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity.

That is why we hold fast to all that has been believed and practiced in the faith, morals, liturgy, teaching of the catechism, formation of the priest and institution of the Church, by the Church of all time; to all these things as codified in those books which saw day before the Modernist influence of the Council. This we shall do until such time that the true light of Tradition dissipates the darkness obscuring the sky of Eternal Rome.

By doing this, with the grace of God and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that of St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are assured of remaining faithful to the Roman Catholic Church and to all the successors of Peter, and of being the fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen.

The Declaration of 1974: 50 Years Ago, Today

[Image: 202c39a8-fcc7-06f8-13c7-ea48079c78fc.jpg]

"We hold fast, with all our heart and with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of the traditions necessary to preserve this faith, to Eternal Rome, Mistress of wisdom and truth…"

Today marks the 50th Anniversary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s famous "Declaration". This inspired pronouncement was made with righteous indignation, as an affirmation of the Catholic Faith in response to the Modernist crisis afflicting the post-conciliar Church.

On this beautiful feast of the Immaculata’s Presentation in 1974, His Grace, scandalized by the opinions expressed by two recent Apostolic Visitors, drew up for his seminarians this famous declaration as his stand against the errors of Modernism.

For, only ten (10) days earlier, these two Vatican assessors arrived at the Saint Pius X Seminary in Econe, Switzerland and manifested their novel, heterodox viewpoints. During their brief stay, they spoke to the seminarians and professors, maintaining several scandalous opinions, such as: the ordination of married men will soon be a normal thing; that truth changes with the times; and that the traditional concept of the Resurrection of Our Lord is open to opinion and discussion.

We provide here in full our beloved Founder’s heroic response:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

†Marcel Lefebvre

November 21, 1974
Econe, Switzerland]]> Oratory of the Sorrowful Heart of Mary Bulletin:

The Declaration of 1974: 50 Years Ago, Today

[Image: 202c39a8-fcc7-06f8-13c7-ea48079c78fc.jpg]

[Image: 37365d86a2107e76a977ee3cea38b482_L.jpg]

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:

Quote:“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:

Quote:“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:

Quote:“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:

Quote:“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:

Quote:“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.”

Quote:“"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.”

Quote:“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.”

Quote:“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.”

Quote:“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!]]> After Fifty Years, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s “1974 Declaration” Is More Vital Than Ever

[Image: 37365d86a2107e76a977ee3cea38b482_L.jpg]

Quote:“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.’”

Quote:“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:

Quote:“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)

Quote:“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)

Quote:“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)

Quote:“"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.”

Quote:“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.”

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

Quote:“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!]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre and Conciliar Sacraments – Did he doubt them?]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6420 Wed, 28 Aug 2024 13:13:17 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6420 Archbishop Lefebvre and Conciliar Sacraments – Did he doubt them?
The Church cannot approve rites which are harmful or out of harmony with the faith.
This is precisely what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said of the conciliar rites. So how did he resolve the question?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x675.jpeg]

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x675.jpeg]

Image: The Tomb of Pope Leo XIII (Fr Lawrence Lew OP) with superimposed image of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (Wiki Commons) both under CC 2.0.
WM Review | Aug 27, 2024

Introduction

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated on several occasions that both the Novus Ordo and the accompanying reforms to the other sacramental rites are essentially harmful in themselves, incentives to impiety, and fail to serve as a profession of the Catholic faith. In one classic text, he said:

Quote:“All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments…

“It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

“The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.”1

However, Catholic teaching and theology tells us that this is impossible for the Church’s approved sacramental rites, which are examples of universal disciplinary laws and thus fall under “the secondary object of infallibility.”

The only route out of this dilemma is to exonerate the Church of responsibility for these reforms. We must, in other words, say that these reforms do not come to us from the Church or with her approval or sanction.

This conclusion – that the reformed rites do not come from the Church and not enjoy her approval or sanction – was expressed and implied by the Archbishop and other SSPX figures on several occasions.

However, this solution comes at a price.

Once we have acknowledged that, because of their harmful, evil or non-Catholic nature, these reformed rites cannot have come to us from the Church or with her approval or sanction, we must also recognise that these rites do not come with the Church’s guarantees of validity either.

In this piece, we will see what Archbishop Lefebvre had to say about the validity of the reformed sacramental rites, and how he more or less recognised the practical effects of the conclusion mentioned above.

The harmfulness of the reformed rites and prima facie guarantees of validity

As noted elsewhere – and as is obvious – only rites which come to us from the Church enjoy her guarantees of validity. There is no theological principle which allows us to say that the Church’s liturgical rites are infallibly valid but not infallibly safe and Catholic.

Therefore, as mentioned, if we do hold these rites to be unsafe and uncatholic, then we must also acknowledge that by that fact, they also lack the Church’s sanction – and therefore we have no prima facie grounds for asserting that they are valid.

This is the same thing as saying that they are subject to prima facie doubt.

In his 1956 book on a related topic, Anglican Orders and Defect of Intention, Fr Francis Clark writes:

Quote:“The only formulae that infallibly and necessarily contain the essential significance of a sacrament are those which have been canonised by being instituted by Christ and His Church for that purpose.”2

In his bull on Anglican orders and liturgical changes, Pope Leo XIII himself wrote:

Quote:“… f the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”3

The English bishops explained this further in 1898, in defence of the same bull:

Quote:“… in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential.”4

What would these nineteenth century bishops have made of our situation, in which [i]all the sacramental rites were radically reformed, and in which four were changed in their essentials?

Regarding changes of sacramental form, Clark writes:

Quote:“Where, however, a new liturgical form is introduced and no such canonised formula [“instituted by Christ and His Church”] is employed, there cannot be certainty of its validity until its credentials have been established, and it has been acknowledged, expressly or implicitly, by the universal Church.”5

In a footnote appended to this text, Clark continues:

Quote:“Only the Church as a whole, the Mystical Body of Christ and the guardian of His sacraments, has the power to decide that with final certainty.”6

We cannot evade the force of this point by claiming that the Church has already decided the matter by her promulgation and customary usage of these rites: this evasion is cut off to us, if we are also claiming that these rites are harmful, non-Catholic, and to be rejected.

In any case, this would give rise to another problem, as the promulgation of a sacramental rite by the Roman Pontiff is itself a definitive judgment of the goodness, safety and validity of the rites.

If they had been promulgated or sanctioned by the Roman Pontiff, then they would have had the approval of the Church – and it would therefore be impossible to say that they are harmful or fail to express the Catholic faith.

Nonetheless, without presuming to solve this problem, the negative qualities of the reformed rites require us to hold back from having recourse to a resolution based around authoritative promulgation of these rites.

Archbishop Lefebvre’s own concerns about validity

As discussed previously, doubts about the validity of these reformed sacramental rites are apparent in Archbishop Lefebvre’s words and actions.

Even if he himself did not always personally embrace such doubt, his pastoral practice demonstrated that he clearly understood the situation, and wished to accommodate the faithful by providing them with certainty and peace.

Speaking of Confirmation, he said:

Quote:“It is at the request of the faithful, attached to Tradition, that I use the old sacramental formula, and also for safety's sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.”7 (Emphasis added)

[ ... The remainder of this article is behind a paywall.]]]> Archbishop Lefebvre and Conciliar Sacraments – Did he doubt them?
The Church cannot approve rites which are harmful or out of harmony with the faith.
This is precisely what Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre said of the conciliar rites. So how did he resolve the question?

[Image: https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.ama...0x675.jpeg]

Quote:“All these reforms, indeed, have contributed and are still contributing to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and of the sacraments…

“It is impossible to modify profoundly the lex orandi without modifying the lex credendi. To the Novus Ordo Missae correspond a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, a charismatic Pentecostal Church—all things opposed to orthodoxy and the perennial teaching of the Church.

“This Reformation, born of Liberalism and Modernism, is poisoned through and through; it derives from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious and faithful Catholic to espouse this Reformation or to submit to it in any way whatsoever.

“The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and Catholic doctrine, in view of our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept this Reformation.”1

Quote:“The only formulae that infallibly and necessarily contain the essential significance of a sacrament are those which have been canonised by being instituted by Christ and His Church for that purpose.”2

In his bull on Anglican orders and liturgical changes, Pope Leo XIII himself wrote:

Quote:“… f the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what, by the institution of Christ, belongs to the nature of the Sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the Sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the Sacrament.”3

The English bishops explained this further in 1898, in defence of the same bull:

Quote:“… in adhering rigidly to the rite handed down to us we can always feel secure; whereas, if we omit or change anything, we may perhaps be abandoning just that element which is essential.”4

Quote:“Where, however, a new liturgical form is introduced and no such canonised formula [“instituted by Christ and His Church”] is employed, there cannot be certainty of its validity until its credentials have been established, and it has been acknowledged, expressly or implicitly, by the universal Church.”5

In a footnote appended to this text, Clark continues:

Quote:“Only the Church as a whole, the Mystical Body of Christ and the guardian of His sacraments, has the power to decide that with final certainty.”6

Quote:“It is at the request of the faithful, attached to Tradition, that I use the old sacramental formula, and also for safety's sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.”7 (Emphasis added)

[ ... The remainder of this article is behind a paywall.]]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: A Letter to Future Bishops]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6247 Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:13:38 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=6247 Adveniat Regnum Tuum

A Letter to Future Bishops
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 1987
Taken from here [Emphasis mine].

My dear friends,

The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross - Regnavit a Ligno Deus - and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies. Hence the absolute need appears obvious of ensuring the permanency and continuation of the adorable Sacrifice of Our Lord in order that "His Kingdom come." The corruption of the Holy Mass has brought the corruption of the priesthood and the universal decadence of Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

God raised up the Priestly Society of St. Pius X for the maintenance and perpetuity of His glorious and expiatory Sacrifice within the Church. He chose Himself some true priests instructed in and convinced of these divine mysteries. God bestowed upon me the grace to prepare these Levites and to confer upon them the grace of the priesthood for the continuation of the true Sacrifice according to the definition of the Council of Trent.

This is what has brought down upon our heads persecution by the Rome of the anti-Christs. Since this Rome, Modernist and Liberal, is carrying on its work of destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord, as Assisi and the confirmation of the Liberal theses of Vatican II on Religious Liberty prove, I find myself constrained by Divine Providence to pass on the grace of the Catholic episcopacy which I received, in order that the Church and the Catholic priesthood continue to subsist for the glory of God and for the salvation of souls.

That is why, convinced that I am only carrying out the holy will of Our Lord, I am writing this letter to ask you to agree to receive the grace of the Catholic episcopacy, just as I have already conferred it on other priests in other circumstances. I will bestow this grace upon you, confident that without too long a delay the See of Peter will be occupied by a successor of Peter who is perfectly Catholic, and into whose hands you will be able to put back the grace of your episcopacy so that he may confirm it.

The main purpose of my passing on the episcopacy is that the grace of priestly orders be continued, for the true Sacrifice of the Mass to be continued, and that the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation be bestowed upon children and upon the faithful who will ask you for it.

I beseech you to remain attached to the See of Peter, to the Roman Church, Mother and Mistress of all Churches, in the integral Catholic Faith, expressed in the various creeds of our Catholic Faith, in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, in conformity with what you were taught in your seminary. Remain faithful in the handing down of this Faith so that the Kingdom of Our Lord may come.

Finally, I beseech you to remain attached to the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, to remain profoundly united amongst yourselves, in submission to the Society's Superior General, in the Catholic Faith of all time, remembering the words of St. Paul to the Galatians (1:8-9): "But even if we or an angel from heaven were to teach you a different gospel from the one we have taught you, let him be anathema."

As we have said before, now again I say: "if anyone teaches you a different gospel from what you have received, let him be anathema." My dear friends, be my consolation in Christ Jesus, remain strong in the Faith, faithful to the true Sacrifice of the Mass, to the true and holy priesthood of Our Lord for the triumph and glory of Jesus in heaven and upon earth, for the salvation of souls, for the salvation of my own soul.

In the hearts of Jesus and Mary I embrace you and bless you. Your father in Christ Jesus,

+ Marcel Lefebvre]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre: On Fasting and Abstinence [1982]]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5936 Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:44:05 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5936 Archbishop Lefebvre: On Fasting and Abstinence
Taken from here.

My dear brethren,

According to an ancient and salutary tradition in the Church, on the occasion of the beginning of Lent, I address these words to you in order to encourage you to enter into this penitential season wholeheartedly, with the dispositions willed by the Church and to accomplish the purpose for which the Church prescribes it.

If I look in books from the early part of this century, I find that they indicate three purposes for which the Church has prescribed this penitential time:

First - in order to curb the concupiscence of the flesh; Then - to facilitate the elevation of our souls toward divine realities; Finally - to make satisfaction for our sins.

Our Lord gave us the example during His life, here on earth: pray and do penance. However, Our Lord, being free from concupiscence and sin, did penance and made satisfaction for our sins, thus showing us that our penance may be beneficial not only for ourselves but also for others.

Pray and do penance

Do penance in order to pray better, in order to draw closer to Almighty God. This is what all the saints have done, and this is that of which all the messages of the Blessed Virgin remind us.

Would we dare to say that this necessity is less important in our day and age than in former times? On the contrary, we can and we must affirm that today, more than ever before, prayer and penance are necessary because everything possible has been done to diminish and denigrate these two fundamental elements of Christian life.

Never before has the world sought to satisfy, without any limit, the disordered instincts of the flesh, even to the point of the murder of millions of innocent, unborn children. One would come to believe that society has no other reason for existence except to give the greatest material standard of living to all men in order that they should not be deprived of material goods.

Thus we can see that such a society would be opposed to what the Church prescribes. In these times, when even Churchmen align themselves with the spirit of this world, we witness the disappearance of prayer and penance, particularly in their character of reparation for sins and obtaining pardon for faults.

Few there are today who love to recite Psalm 50, the Miserere, and who say with the psalmist, Peccatum meum contra me est simper: "My sin is always before me." How can a Christian remove the thought of sin if the image of the crucifix is always before his eyes?

At the Council the bishops requested such a diminution of fast and abstinence that the prescriptions have practically disappeared. We must recognize the fact that this disappearance is a consequence of the ecumenical and Protestant spirit which denies the necessity of our participation for the application of the merits of Our Lord to each one of us for the remission of our sins and the restoration of our divine affiliation [i.e., our character as adoptive sons of God].

In the past the commandments of the Church provided for:

+ An obligatory fast on all days of Lent with the exception of Sundays, for the three Ember Days and for many Vigils.

+ Abstinence was for all Fridays of the year, the Saturdays of Lent and, in numerous dioceses, all the Saturdays of the year.

What remains of these prescriptions? The fast for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstinence for Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent. One wonders at the motives for such a drastic diminution.

Who is obliged to observe the fast?

Adults from ages 21 to 60.

And who is obliged to observe abstinence?

All the faithful from the age of 7 years.

What does fasting mean?

To fast means to take only one (full) meal a day to which one may add two collations (or small meals) one in the morning, one in the evening, which, when combined, do not equal a full meal. [Note: The Archbishop is referring to the European order of meals; in the United States, the full meal is usually the evening meal].

What is meant by abstinence?

By abstinence is meant that one abstains from meat.

The faithful who have a true spirit of faith and who profoundly understand the motives of the Church which have been mentioned above, will wholeheartedly accomplish not only the light prescriptions of today but, entering into the spirit of Our Lord and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, will endeavor to make reparation for the sins which they have committed and for the sins of their family, their neighbors, friends and fellow citizens.

It is for this reason that they will add to the actual prescriptions. These additional penances might be to fast for all Fridays of Lent, abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, abstinence from television, or other similar sacrifices.

They will make an effort to pray more, to assist more frequently at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to recite the Rosary, and not to miss evening prayers with the family. They will detach themselves from their superfluous material goods in order to aid the seminaries, help establish schools, help their priests adequately furnish the chapels and to help establish novitiates for nuns and brothers.

The prescriptions of the Church do not concern fast and abstinence alone but also of the obligation of the Paschal Communion (Easter Duty). Here is what the Vicar of the Diocese of Sion, in Switzerland, recommended to the faithful of that diocese on February 20, 1919:

+ During Lent, the pastors will have the Stations of the Cross twice a week; one day for the children of the schools and another day for the other parishioners. After the Stations of the Cross, they will recite the Litany of the Sacred Heart.

+ During Passion Week, which is to say, the week before Palm Sunday, there will be a Triduum in all parish churches, Instruction, Litany of the Sacred Heart in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction. In these instructions the pastors will simply and clearly remind their parishioners of the principal conditions to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily.

+ The time during which one may fulfill the Easter Duty has been set for all parishes from Passion Sunday to the first Sunday after Easter.

Why should these directives no longer be useful today?

Let us profit from this salutary time during the course of which Our Lord is accustomed to dispense grace abundantly. Let us not imitate the foolish virgins who having no oil in their lamps found the door of the bridegroom's house closed and this terrible response: Nescio vos - "I know you not."

Blessed are they who have the spirit of poverty for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The spirit of poverty means the spirit of detachment from things of this world.

Blessed are they who weep for they shall be consoled. Let us think of Jesus in the Garden of Olives who wept for our sins. It is henceforth for us to weep for our sins and for those of our brethren.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for holiness for they shall be satisfied. Holiness - sanctity is attained by means of the Cross, penance and sacrifice. If we truly seek perfection then we must follow the Way of the Cross.

May we, during this Lenten Season, hear the call of Jesus and Mary and engage ourselves to follow them in this crusade of prayer and penance. May our prayers, our supplications, and our sacrifices obtain from heaven the grace that those in places of responsibility in the Church return to her true and holy traditions, which is the only solution to revive and re-flourish the institutions of the Church again.

Let us love to recite the conclusion of the Te Deum:

In te Doming, speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
"In Thee, O Lord, I have hoped. I will not be confounded in eternity."

+ Marcel Lefebvre
Sexagesima Sunday
February 14, 1982
Rickenbach, Switzerland]]> Archbishop Lefebvre: On Fasting and Abstinence
Taken from here.

My dear brethren,

According to an ancient and salutary tradition in the Church, on the occasion of the beginning of Lent, I address these words to you in order to encourage you to enter into this penitential season wholeheartedly, with the dispositions willed by the Church and to accomplish the purpose for which the Church prescribes it.

If I look in books from the early part of this century, I find that they indicate three purposes for which the Church has prescribed this penitential time:

First - in order to curb the concupiscence of the flesh; Then - to facilitate the elevation of our souls toward divine realities; Finally - to make satisfaction for our sins.

Our Lord gave us the example during His life, here on earth: pray and do penance. However, Our Lord, being free from concupiscence and sin, did penance and made satisfaction for our sins, thus showing us that our penance may be beneficial not only for ourselves but also for others.

Pray and do penance

Do penance in order to pray better, in order to draw closer to Almighty God. This is what all the saints have done, and this is that of which all the messages of the Blessed Virgin remind us.

Would we dare to say that this necessity is less important in our day and age than in former times? On the contrary, we can and we must affirm that today, more than ever before, prayer and penance are necessary because everything possible has been done to diminish and denigrate these two fundamental elements of Christian life.

Never before has the world sought to satisfy, without any limit, the disordered instincts of the flesh, even to the point of the murder of millions of innocent, unborn children. One would come to believe that society has no other reason for existence except to give the greatest material standard of living to all men in order that they should not be deprived of material goods.

Thus we can see that such a society would be opposed to what the Church prescribes. In these times, when even Churchmen align themselves with the spirit of this world, we witness the disappearance of prayer and penance, particularly in their character of reparation for sins and obtaining pardon for faults.

Few there are today who love to recite Psalm 50, the Miserere, and who say with the psalmist, Peccatum meum contra me est simper: "My sin is always before me." How can a Christian remove the thought of sin if the image of the crucifix is always before his eyes?

At the Council the bishops requested such a diminution of fast and abstinence that the prescriptions have practically disappeared. We must recognize the fact that this disappearance is a consequence of the ecumenical and Protestant spirit which denies the necessity of our participation for the application of the merits of Our Lord to each one of us for the remission of our sins and the restoration of our divine affiliation [i.e., our character as adoptive sons of God].

In the past the commandments of the Church provided for:

+ An obligatory fast on all days of Lent with the exception of Sundays, for the three Ember Days and for many Vigils.

+ Abstinence was for all Fridays of the year, the Saturdays of Lent and, in numerous dioceses, all the Saturdays of the year.

What remains of these prescriptions? The fast for Ash Wednesday and Good Friday and abstinence for Ash Wednesday and the Fridays of Lent. One wonders at the motives for such a drastic diminution.

Who is obliged to observe the fast?

Adults from ages 21 to 60.

And who is obliged to observe abstinence?

All the faithful from the age of 7 years.

What does fasting mean?

To fast means to take only one (full) meal a day to which one may add two collations (or small meals) one in the morning, one in the evening, which, when combined, do not equal a full meal. [Note: The Archbishop is referring to the European order of meals; in the United States, the full meal is usually the evening meal].

What is meant by abstinence?

By abstinence is meant that one abstains from meat.

The faithful who have a true spirit of faith and who profoundly understand the motives of the Church which have been mentioned above, will wholeheartedly accomplish not only the light prescriptions of today but, entering into the spirit of Our Lord and of the Blessed Virgin Mary, will endeavor to make reparation for the sins which they have committed and for the sins of their family, their neighbors, friends and fellow citizens.

It is for this reason that they will add to the actual prescriptions. These additional penances might be to fast for all Fridays of Lent, abstinence from all alcoholic beverages, abstinence from television, or other similar sacrifices.

They will make an effort to pray more, to assist more frequently at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to recite the Rosary, and not to miss evening prayers with the family. They will detach themselves from their superfluous material goods in order to aid the seminaries, help establish schools, help their priests adequately furnish the chapels and to help establish novitiates for nuns and brothers.

The prescriptions of the Church do not concern fast and abstinence alone but also of the obligation of the Paschal Communion (Easter Duty). Here is what the Vicar of the Diocese of Sion, in Switzerland, recommended to the faithful of that diocese on February 20, 1919:

+ During Lent, the pastors will have the Stations of the Cross twice a week; one day for the children of the schools and another day for the other parishioners. After the Stations of the Cross, they will recite the Litany of the Sacred Heart.

+ During Passion Week, which is to say, the week before Palm Sunday, there will be a Triduum in all parish churches, Instruction, Litany of the Sacred Heart in the Presence of the Blessed Sacrament, Benediction. In these instructions the pastors will simply and clearly remind their parishioners of the principal conditions to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily.

+ The time during which one may fulfill the Easter Duty has been set for all parishes from Passion Sunday to the first Sunday after Easter.

Why should these directives no longer be useful today?

Let us profit from this salutary time during the course of which Our Lord is accustomed to dispense grace abundantly. Let us not imitate the foolish virgins who having no oil in their lamps found the door of the bridegroom's house closed and this terrible response: Nescio vos - "I know you not."

Blessed are they who have the spirit of poverty for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. The spirit of poverty means the spirit of detachment from things of this world.

Blessed are they who weep for they shall be consoled. Let us think of Jesus in the Garden of Olives who wept for our sins. It is henceforth for us to weep for our sins and for those of our brethren.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for holiness for they shall be satisfied. Holiness - sanctity is attained by means of the Cross, penance and sacrifice. If we truly seek perfection then we must follow the Way of the Cross.

May we, during this Lenten Season, hear the call of Jesus and Mary and engage ourselves to follow them in this crusade of prayer and penance. May our prayers, our supplications, and our sacrifices obtain from heaven the grace that those in places of responsibility in the Church return to her true and holy traditions, which is the only solution to revive and re-flourish the institutions of the Church again.

Let us love to recite the conclusion of the Te Deum:

In te Doming, speravi; non confundar in aeternum.
"In Thee, O Lord, I have hoped. I will not be confounded in eternity."

+ Marcel Lefebvre
Sexagesima Sunday
February 14, 1982
Rickenbach, Switzerland]]> <![CDATA[Archbishop Lefebvre: Excerpt from 'A Bishop Speaks' on the Validity of the New Mass]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5695 Mon, 20 Nov 2023 11:14:37 +0000 Stone]]> https://thecatacombs.org/showthread.php?tid=5695 here:

From A Bishop Speaks (Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2007), pp 97-98.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Rome, March 13, 1971: The Fruits of the New Mass

"There are thus three realities needful for the reality of the Mass, 1) The Priest-Sacerdotes...having a sacerdotal character. 2) The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ. 3) The sacerdotal action of the sacrificial oblation which is realized essentially in the Consecration.

Let us not forget that it is precisely these three fundamental truths that are denied by the Protestants and Modernists. Let us not forget that it is to manifest their refusal to believe in these dogmas that their Masses have been transformed into services, into a eucharistic meal or gathering, where a much greater place is given to readings from the Bible, to the word, to the detriment of the offering and the liturgy of the sacrifice....Everything laid down in this new order clearly reflects this new conception, which is nearer the Protestant conception than the Catholic. The statements of the Protestants who contributed to the reform illustrate the truth of this naively and sadly: 'Protestants can no longer find anything to prevent their celebrating the Novus Ordo.' We may therefore quite legitimately ask ourselves whether, as the Catholic belief in the essential truths of the Mass insensibly disappears, the validity of the Mass is also disappearing. The intention of the celebrant will have a bearing on the new conception of the Mass which, before long, will be no other than the Protestant. THE MASS WILL NO LONGER BE VALID."]]> here:

From A Bishop Speaks (Kansas City, MO: Angelus Press, 2007), pp 97-98.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Rome, March 13, 1971: The Fruits of the New Mass

"There are thus three realities needful for the reality of the Mass, 1) The Priest-Sacerdotes...having a sacerdotal character. 2) The real and substantial presence of the Victim, who is Christ. 3) The sacerdotal action of the sacrificial oblation which is realized essentially in the Consecration.

Let us not forget that it is precisely these three fundamental truths that are denied by the Protestants and Modernists. Let us not forget that it is to manifest their refusal to believe in these dogmas that their Masses have been transformed into services, into a eucharistic meal or gathering, where a much greater place is given to readings from the Bible, to the word, to the detriment of the offering and the liturgy of the sacrifice....Everything laid down in this new order clearly reflects this new conception, which is nearer the Protestant conception than the Catholic. The statements of the Protestants who contributed to the reform illustrate the truth of this naively and sadly: 'Protestants can no longer find anything to prevent their celebrating the Novus Ordo.' We may therefore quite legitimately ask ourselves whether, as the Catholic belief in the essential truths of the Mass insensibly disappears, the validity of the Mass is also disappearing. The intention of the celebrant will have a bearing on the new conception of the Mass which, before long, will be no other than the Protestant. THE MASS WILL NO LONGER BE VALID."]]>