Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume II

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXVIII

A Good Friend Dies
1 November 1978

A sermon preached by Father L. M. Barrielle, published in The Angelus, November 1979.

On All Saints' Day, Wednesday, 1 November 1978, the soul of M. Alphonse Pedroni left us for the land of the blest – the meeting place of all who on earth have believed in Christ and led their lives in accord with His divine teaching.

Every day Holy Church invites us to honor certain men who, during their lives, have been examples of heroic sanctity. To encourage us here below and to give us an example, the Church inscribes them in the catalogue of saints. But many saints – even those heroic in all Christian virtues – are not known on earth. The Church includes them in the wonderful Feast of All Saints.

In this numberless procession it is pleasing to imagine this Saint - M. Alphonse Pedroni – who will probably pass unknown to many, but will surely find a high place among the souls who have done much to establish the reign of the Immaculate Heart, which will triumph in the end. On Saturday, 4 November 1978, the first Saturday of the month, so dear to his heart, in the crowded chapel of Econe, his mortal remains received funeral honors according to the traditional rite which was his last wish.

Mgr. Lefebvre insisted upon singing a Pontifical Requiem Mass to show the gratitude of the Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary of Ecône towards this humble Christian, an industrialist from Saxon, who was at the very root of our International Seminary at Écône.

It was in 1968 that the Vice President of the little commune of Saxon (we should say in France, the deputy mayor) a former Retreatant of the work founded by Father Vallet at Chabeuil, heard one evening a group of men engaged in a pretty sharp discussion in a cafe: the old house of the Canons of St. Bernard – over 600 years old – was apparently for sale; they were discussing buying it and turning it into a casino. Of course, the Chapel of Our Lady of the Fields would be demolished. The business could not but be a success, etc., etc. The tall, silent Alphonse, sitting at the next table, took no part in the conversation but he heard everything.1

He was thunderstruck by the thought that this religious house, sanctified by so many holy religious, was to become a house of sin! …the Chapel of Our Lady of the Fields, dear to every native of the Valais, was to be demolished to make way for a center of iniquity. No! Never while he lived could a Retreatant tolerate such a sacrilege! Back home, he telephoned his brother, Marcel, with whom he had made his first retreat at Chabeuil: "We cannot allow this profanation!”

From the other end of the wire came the response: “What sort of business are you rushing into? I've heard that the Canons need the money and will really call the tune. Keep out of it! The price would be prohibitive!"

"We have no right to stand for this! The problem is not insoluble. Let them demolish that Chapel where the holy Canon Gabioud said his First Mass in our presence? Unity is strength. We are a group of determined Retreatants. All it needs is for a few determined Retreatants to unite!"

Accustomed to business affairs, Alphonse did not shrink from the difficulties. Without trouble he found a few friends able to put up the money: a notary in Fully, an insurance agent in Sion, a friend in Orsiéres who was to become a councillor of the Canton, some others in Martigny, the young curé of Riddes, the two Pedronis. They would use the land for growing apricots, vines, etc.

Alphonse boldly telephoned the Provost of St. Bernard: "We are willing to buy at the highest price to be offered  by any bidder. Give us priority. We cannot allow such a profanation."

The word is given, the deed of purchase is signed (note the date) on 31 May, 1968 – the Feast of Mary, Queen of the World.

The deal is complete, the House is bought. How to use it? There is a God! Alphonse believed in Providence. A Carmelite community comes to see it…no good, there are no walls. The Sisters of Chabeuil come, too. Hummm! At this, the beloved and revered Abbé Bonvin, Curé of Fully, who has in his parish the strongest parochial section of Retreatants in the Valais, in Switzerland, in the world – invites one of his old friends from the French Seminary in Rome to come and preach a week’s mission to the men. It is His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, former Archbishop of Dakar, former Apostolic Delegate for all French-speaking Africa, former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, former Archbishop of Tulle, etc. In the course of the mission, Monseigneur asked his friend:

"I suppose you couldn't find me a house large enough for a seminary? Several seminarians, ill-pleased with the distortions of the Faith which are served up to them in various seminaries, have sought me out. I have agreed; I have bought a small villa at Fribourg but it is too small…"

The curé was only too happy to be able to reply, "I have exactly what you want, and it will be given to you for nothing, and ready at once. The notary of my parish, a former Retreatant, is the secretary of a society which has just what you want."

A dinner was organized in Monseigneur's honor. This group of Retreatants had refused to change their Missals. The conversation was lively. Everyone had a firm faith which rejected the intrusions of the modernist Mafia who want to force the church into Modernist Protestism. However, one of the gentleman had not yet said a word: it was the very one who had begun the whole business.

Then Monseigneur invited him gently thus: “We should very much like to know what M. Pedroni thinks of all this.”

The silent one answered, concise and prophetic: “Monseigneur, if you establish your seminary at Écône, before long Écône will be known throughout the world!”

“There’s a prophecy!” – which was followed by general laughter.

And at the committee meeting every year on the arrival of Alphonse, his colleagues would tease him: "Here's the prophet!" Because, in truth, people were soon speaking of Ecône in every country of the world.

Is it necessary to say that, on that autumn morning in 1978 when the entire seminary of Ecône sang the Requiem Mass for a friend universally regretted, the seminarians surrounded the coffin of Alphonse Pedroni represented not only most of the countries of Europe, but Canada, the Mexico, Colombia, Argentina, and even the very antipodes of Switzerland: Australia and New Zealand.

Yes, after ten years, not only was Écône known throughout the world but the whole world was there around him. And Mgr. 'Lefebvre, during that Requiem Mass could not subdue his emotion.

On this first Saturday of November, sacred to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, dear Alphonse, that Queen to whom you had consecrated your whole life, whom you loved so much and so greatly caused to be loved by others, came herself to fetch you.

All we who knew you intimately believes, as Monseigneur said in his address: “On high you will continue your work of defending the Roman Catholic Faith, defending the True Mass, the priesthood and Ecône, which reminds the whole of the anti-modernist oath of Saint Pius X.”



1. See Vol. I, pp. 13-14.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXIX

An Audience with Pope John Paul
18 November 1978

Before presenting Mgr. Lefebvre's account of his audience with Pope John Paul II, it would be instructive to refer to the account given by Ronald Singleton in The Universe (London) on 24 November. Ronald Singleton's reporting is dominated by a pathological dislike of the Archbishop and Catholic Tradition. The London Universe is characterized by an almost total ignorance of the nature of Catholicism, and hence of the values which Mgr. Lefebvre upholds. The report began as follows:

A thaw in the cold war waged for years by Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre against the Pope and the Vatican began a few moments after the suspended French Archbishop (now aged 73) was on Saturday ushered into the presence of Pope John Paul II.

The truth is that the Archbishop had never waged any form of war against the Vatican. The Society of St. Pius X was canonically erected (see Vol. I, p. 444), received praise for its work from Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy (ibid., p. 445), and was not officially in conflict with the Vatican until the Archbishop refused to terminate the existence of his Society and Seminary in response to an arbitrary and uncanonical demand following a discussion with three cardinals, which he was subsequently informed was a trial. The order came from a judge, who was not named, who had found him guilty of an offence which was not specified (ibid., pp. 45-49, and p. 284). This had taken place in 1975, which means that one could refer accurately to a war waged by the Vatican against Archbishop Lefebvre for three years, but not to "the cold war waged for years by Mgr. Lefebvre against the Pope and the Vatican."

Singleton's phrase "the Pope and the Vatican" is of particular significance in view of the traditional loyalty of British Catholics toward the Holy Father. The reigning Pontiff when this report was written was Pope John Paul II, and Archbishop Lefebvre had not uttered a single word critical of him when Singleton wrote his report. We are thus faced with a calculated falsehood. Singleton might, in attempting to exculpate himself, claim that he was referring to the Archbishop’s attitude to Pope Paul VI. If he had meant this he could have said so. In point of fact the Archbishop never referred to Pope Paul VI in terms of anything but the most profound respect. I would challenge Singleton to cite a single instance where this was not the case (ibid, p. 287-288).

Singleton went on to state that the Archbishop had "for a week waited for a response to his plea for a talk with the Holy Father." It would be interesting to learn how he came by this information since, as was the case with the audience with Pope Paul VI, the Archbishop: had not requested the audience, but had accepted an invitation to an audience arranged through the intervention of a third party.

Singleton also revealed that the Archbishop had gone to the Vatican “in a state of humility.” One would hope that any Catholic received by the Vicar of Christ would go into his presence in a state of humility, but this is evidently not what Singleton meant, and in the sense which he obviously meant it the allegation is totally false.

Singleton expressed surprise that the Pope had granted the Archbishop a private audience of one hour, forty-five minutes: "a historic record for a private audience." He continued:

When on Saturday at 2:30 p.m. the Archbishop left his house at Albano there was the usual drama: the green gates with sharp spikes, the only access to the Lefebvre enclave surrounded by unclimbable walls, opened, and "seminarians," who looked more like bodyguards than men of prayer flanked him.

This is a typical example of the gutter-press standards adopted by Singleton and The Universe in their campaign of denigration against the Archbishop. The objective is obvious. The typical Universe reader, who will have no alter- native source of information, is intended to see the Archbishop as some sort of ecclesiastical Mafia godfather escorted by a band of gangsters. But what are the facts? What Singleton intends the reader to accept as a fascist/traditionalist fortress, an "enclave" accessible only through gates protected with "sharp spikes," was the official seminary of the Diocese of Albano. As the Society of St. Pius X was a religious order enjoying full recognition by the Vatican, the Bishop of Albano had had no scruples about selling it to Archbishop Lefebvre when a lack of vocations made its continued existence under his own auspices impracticable. The seminary was sold to the Society in strict accordance with the requirements of Canon Law. The "unclimbable walls" and "green gates with sharp spikes" were a feature of the property when the Archbishop bought it, and not something added to it by the Society, as Singleton could easily have discovered had he troubled to ask. In fact, this was so obvious that there was scarcely any need to ask. One has no alternative but to speak of a deliberate attempt to mislead the readers of The Universe.

Note also the manner in which Singleton put the word "seminarians" in quotation marks. This means that he does not believe them to have been seminarians. If they were not seminarians what were they? Mafia gangsters perhaps? I have had the good fortune to visit this seminary and can confirm from my own experience that I have never  met a more refined, cultured, tolerant, and totally Catholic group of young men than the professors and seminarians at Albano.

Singleton cited a comment he had obtained from an "aide" of Archbishop Lefebvre. I quote:

Later his aide, Mgr. Arrigo Pintonello said: "Let me remind you that Archbishop Lefebvre is not a rebel but a man of God. He is simply against the extravagances of Vatican Council II."

Evidently, Singleton concludes that no Universe reader will attach any credence to a statement made by an "aide" of Archbishop Lefebvre. The fact is that the prelate in question is not an "aide" of the Archbishop, but a young Italian Archbishop who is outstanding for his defense of orthodoxy, and is in perfectly good standing with the Holy See. Like a number of other prelates, he admires the stand Mgr. Lefebvre has made for tradition, and I have been honored to receive a letter from Mgr. Pintonello thanking me for my defense of the Archbishop.

Singleton then went on to quote the Archbishop’s “aide” at Ecône, Mgr. Williamson. The word "aide" is, in itself, loaded, applicable to gangsters rather than prelates. In point of fact "Mgr." Williamson, an English priest, has never been granted or even aspired to the title of Monsignor.

We shall now turn from the gutter-journalism of Singleton and The Universe to read the truth.

Audience with Pope John Paul II
Conference given by His Excellency Mgr. Lefebvre
to the Seminarians at Ecône
21 December 1978

My dear friends,

I hope there is no representative of the press among you! Somebody in disguise! In any case, I ask you to be discreet and not, after this evening, to be running to the telephone to spread what I shall be saying about the audience. The business is not yet ended, and talks are in progress; there will be further meetings, not perhaps with the Holy Father himself but probably with Cardinal Seper, so what has been begun must not be hampered. This is a new stage in our relations with Rome, with a Rome somewhat changed, not the old Rome with which we had no difficulty.


Cardinal Siri’s Mediation

The Holy Father was informed that I was in Rome by Cardinal Siri whom I had gone to visit on my arrival in Rome. Cardinal Siri wanted to intervene so that I should have this audience. I did not myself ask Cardinal Siri for the audience – I was thinking of having it later, as it was still too soon and it would be better to wait until the Pope had been informed and events would show what line the Pope would take, what he was thinking. But as soon as I met Cardinal Siri he said: “Fine! Next week I have an audience with the Pope, and if you like I'll talk to him about it. We'll certainly discuss it."

He did have an audience the next week, on the Monday. I had visited him on Friday and on the following Monday he had his audience (he hadn't told me the day: it could have been Thursday, Friday). That Monday evening he told me, saying: "Good. It is arranged. The Holy Father will receive you on Saturday at 4:30 in his private apartments"- on Saturday, for, as the Pope had said to him, he wanted the meeting to be on Our Lady's day so that it would be under her patronage. I was to get in touch with one of his friends who would bring me to the Holy Father's private apartments – as it was not an official audience it could not take place in the offices where the Pope is accustomed to receive those who have an audience with him.

I have often been to see the Popes, one after another, Pope Pius XII, Pope John XXIII, Pope Paul VI – but always in the official places, never in the private apartments. So I thought it better to keep out of sight for a day or two so as to avoid being eventually interrogated by people in the Vatican, who always know everything. It is difficult, I said to myself: I don't know how I can get to the Vatican without the news being in the press beforehand. Monday to Saturday evening! It would be a miracle if nothing appeared in the press. And, if it did get in, would I have the audience?



Arrival at the Vatican
Saturday afternoon, 18 November 1978

However, things were so well arranged that nobody knew. I started on Saturday afternoon in Monsieur Pedroni’s car. He drove me to the little Holy Office Square where the entrance to the Vatican now is. There we were joined by the car of the secretary appointed by Cardinal Siri, and I went off in that car, so that no one should see a car with a Swiss – still less a Valais! – registration, especially as no one comes to the Vatican on Saturday afternoons: they are all away on holiday. But the Swiss Guards saw me change from one car to another. And it seems, though I did not notice it myself, that when Monsieur Pedroni and the Abbé du Chalard stayed on in the Holy Office Square, and were strolling under the colonnade of St. Peter's waiting for me to return from the audience, they were spotted by a young man who was already there, and who waited as they did, smiling from time to time. They both said: "That is surely someone in the know. He saw Monseigneur leave and is waiting for him to come back. He is certainly up to something!" And that is just what happened. As soon as I got back he rushed to the telephone to pass on his news, so that the same evening on the radio and the next the Italian newspapers the news was out.


In the Pope’s Private Apartments

When we got to the Court of Saint Damasus, there was nobody there except a Swiss Guard. Mgr. Magee, an Irishman, who had been secretary to Pope Paul VI, came down as soon as he saw the car and led me to a private life which goes up directly to the Holy Father’s private apartments. That made things easier. I did not know of that lift, and I should have taken the official lift up to the third floor – I knew where it was. So we reached the private apartments, and the secretary took me for a short visit up to the Chapel, a Chapel which is completely standard, not in the modern but totally in the old style – a fine simple altar, altar screen, candlesticks, the Cross, tabernacle; a nun dressed as a nun was praying before the Blessed Sacrament. I genuflected, stayed there for a few moments, and left. I was led then into a salon where there was a round table and seven or eight armchairs, all alike. I asked myself: “Where is the Holy Father going to sit?” I could not say. Was I be led into another salon, nearby? I stayed where I was, and the secretary said: “The Holy Father will be coming.”


A Warm Welcome

And so it was. Scarcely had he closed the door when the Holy Father arrived and embraced me warmly. I confess that it occurred to me that he had done the same with the communist mayor a few days before! However, ecumenism is the current practice! So he gave me a friendly embrace, sat at my side, and, very simple, without ceremony, he got straight into the conservation: “I am glad to see you. I know one of your good friends, Cardinal Thiandoum. I had met him before, but he came specially to talk to about you.” So we spoke of Dakar and such-like subjects. I said that I had ordained him priest. The Pope asked: “Did you also consecrate him?”

I replied: "No, I did not consecrate him as I had already left, but it was he who succeeded me: it was the Apostolic Delegate, my successor, who consecrated him."

"Ah," he replied, "so you have been an Apostolic Delegate?"

"Yes, indeed. I was Apostolic Delegate for eleven years."

"So, then, you must have been engaged in diplomacy.

"Oh, ever so little, ever so little."

Though by his office an Apostolic Delegate is not a diplomat, he is nonetheless the delegate of the Holy Father and the French government agreed to give him all the honors of a Nuncio, which made him the diplomatic representative of the Holy Father.


The Archbishop Explains the Seminary

We chatted like that for a while. Then: "But we had better get down to business."

"Yes, Holy Father. If you wish I will tell you briefly the position of the Fraternity, how it began, etc."

I gave him the story that you know already, from Fribourg with Mgr. Charriere, the decree of erection, the canonical existence of the Fraternity for five years, perfectly legal in its foundation; the seminary authorized by Mgr. Adam; the Albano House authorized by Mgr. Mamie (though he is not very favorable, as I told the Pope) and by Mgr. Maccario.1

The Pope interjected: "So your Albano House is quite legal?"

And I replied: "Yes." Someone must have told him it was a wildcat house!


The Plan for the Suppression of the Fraternity

“The French Bishops then became jealous of this seminary which was growing fast." And I quoted to him what Cardinal Lefebvre (whom I knew well: he is my cousin) had written and had printed: that there could be no pardoning Mgr. Lefebvre for taking up, at the Council, positions contrary to those of the French Bishops. I said: "You can see what the French episcopate already thought of me. Obviously, seeing this growing seminary and the prospect of its training priests as they could not do themselves, they were disturbed. So they entered into a veritable conspiracy, with Cardinal Villot and Cardinal Garrone, and later with Cardinal Wright and Cardinal Tabera: they decided to pretend to have an official investigation. They sent two Apostolic Visitors2 who did not even visit the Chapel, and who left no word behind them, no report. I do not know what the conclusions were from their visit, but what they said was scandalous. I myself said to them: “I know very well why you are here – to condemn and to suppress this seminary. That means so many fewer priests, although the whole world is short of them and here in France the number of seminarists is going down rapidly. Why come to this seminary? What shall we do when there are no more priests?' To which they both replied at once: 'Oh, we’ll ordain married men!' They were from Rome, and that, you will agree, was a bit too much!"

He listened, with great attention. I went on: "The meeting which I had with the Cardinals just for information was not a tribunal! Cardinal Garrone himself said so: it was merely an interview in which explanations could be given to supplement the (Apostolic) visitation of 11 November 1974.3 Yet, a few weeks later came the condemnations, totally illegal, for it was Mgr. Mamie who withdrew the canonical institution, which he had no right to do: when a bishop has accepted a Congregation in his diocese he cannot suppress it: Rome has to issue a decree of suppression, not the bishop of the place (Canon 493). When that happened I went back to Rome, to the Signatura Apostolica, where Cardinal Staffa received my protest. I even paid the fee due for its reception; and, together with my lawyer and Cardinal Staffa 's delegate, we signed the protocol of the reception of my complaint at the Signatura. But a few days later Cardinal Villot wrote a letter in his own hand forbidding the examination of my case and an investigation into whether I was right or not."

I said then to the Holy Father: "I don't know if the communists can improve on that!" He laughed. "Faced with that contempt for natural rights, good sense and canon law, it seemed to me that I was not obliged to submit to such a measure. That is why I kept the seminary going. Obviously that has made our relations with Rome delicate; but I hope the priests trained in the Fraternity are good priests, devoted to Rome."


The Same Old Accusation: You are Against the Pope: NO!

"Now what, precisely, are we accused of? Since this difficulty with Rome we are accused of being 'against the Pope, against the Council, and against the reforms, especially the liturgical reform.' Listen: we are not at all against the Pope – that is absolutely false! We were calumniated on those points to Pope Paul VI, and that is why it was made so difficult for us to see him, and why he was so hard on us. He was made to believe that I got the seminarians to take an oath against the Pope. He accused me of that in my audience with him. That is too bad! I can understand why they did not want me to go near the Pope – they had told him such serious calumnies." I added: "It was not through Cardinal Villot that I saw the Pope. It happened quite unexpectedly. A Father LaBellarte, whom I did not know, said to me one day: 'Go to Rome and see the Pope. He wants to see you.' I replied: “I shall not see the Pope. They have always prevented me from seeing him. I’ve been waiting for five years to see him, and they have refused me every time.’ ‘Oh, yes, you'll see him.' In fact, I saw Pope Paul VI, but against the will of Cardinal Villot who, the evening before, learning that I was to have the audience, forced the Pope to have Mgr. Benelli present at our audience.”4

I could tell that he was listening to me with great attention and interest. I told him again: "We pray for the Pope. We are perhaps one of the few seminaries which still pray for the Pope. At Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament we sing the prayer for the Pope, in the Canon of the Mass we name the Pope. The Albano House was founded precisely for the acquisition of romanita,5 to attach us to Rome, to the successor of Peter to all that is represented by Rome and the Roman Church.”

It was then that he asked me: "How many seminarians have you?”

“One hundred and seventy."

“Ah, one hundred and seventy!"

“Yes, there are thirty at Albano, ninety at Ecône, and the rest at our two other seminaries in the U.S.A. and Germany."


You are Against the Council! No!

I continued: “As to the Council, there are certainly things in the Council which are hard to admit; but I should be ready to sign a sentence like this: 'I accept the Acts of the Council interpreted in the sense of tradition.' That is a sentence which I think I could eventually accept and sign, if you so wish.”

“But that is fine, fine! But that is ordinary and obvious! Would you really agree to sign such a sentence?"

I replied: "Certainly, I am ready to sign it, provided it contains the phrase 'interpreted in the sense of tradition'."

He said again: "But that is just ordinary," He seemed to be thinking that that settled the business of the Pope and the business of the Council, Both questions were settled, so now what about the question of the Liturgy?


The Liturgical Reform…in Poland!

I said, "Oh, yes. The question of the liturgy…We are evidently very attached to the Mass of Saint Pius V and also to the traditional rites. All around us we see these reforms and their consequences: the destruction of churches, the closing of seminaries, the lack of respect for the Blessed Sacrament."

At that point, of course, and without a pause, as though his mind were still in Poland, he said to me: "But, you know, in Poland it is all going very well! The reforms have been effected, but I assure you there is plenty of respect for the Blessed Sacrament. Besides, we have had lots of difficulties with the communists. Our people are very respectful to the Blessed Sacrament, and are very devout. We fight for devotion to the Holy Eucharist, processions, any show of devotion: we fight. And what has caused us most pain, let me tell you, and made us suffer, is the suppression of Latin. I myself think that it was most painful for us. But now! What do you want to do? The seminarians no longer know Latin; they all read the breviary in the vernacular; Latin is not taught any- where; what do you want to do? What do you want us to do? Besides, perhaps the people understand the Mass better, what is said at Mass."

I then permitted myself to say: " Are you not afraid, all the same, that because of those reforms a certain Protestant and neomodemist spirit will in the end creep slowly but surely into seminaries, parishes, everywhere?"

"Oh, I know very well that there have been complaints from the faithful who are afraid. We are not altogether free from difficulties, but, after all, they don't amount to much."

Then I said to him: "Holy Father, listen. I have in my pocket a letter from a Polish bishop."

He looked at it: "N..., he is the communists' Enemy Number One. They are scared of him." He read part of the letter and then he said to me: "Yes, but you have to be careful. I wonder if this letter is genuine. One of the communist tricks is to compose false letters and spread them left, right and center as to divide the Catholics and divide the bishops."

“Of course, I am no judge of that."

“Anyway," he said, "these liturgical questions: they are disciplinary questions, disciplinary: perhaps we had better look into the question."


Religious Liberty

He went back to the Council: "You know, the Decree on Religious Liberty has been a great help to us in Poland."

“No doubt. It can serve in that way – an argumentum ad hominen; but all the same there have been serious consequences of that declaration since its approval by the Council, above all the laicization and de-Christianization of Catholic States." I quoted Colombia, the Canton of Valais, and the words of the Nuncio at Berne whom I had myself asked why Mgr. Adam had written to his diocesans inviting them to vote suppression of the first article in the Valais Constitution according to which the Catholic religion is the only one officially recognized in the Canton of Valais. I said to the Nuncio: “That is a bit too much!”

The Nuncio replied: “But the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ is very difficult these days.”

Then I said: "And the Encyclical Quas Primas. What about that, then?" He replied: "Today, Pope Pius XI would not write it!”

The Holy Father then said to me: "That's not the way to say it. We should say, rather: 'He would not write it in the same way’."

I replied: “That may be so…but the social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ should certainly be acknowledged in Catholic States. There are plenty of communist States based on the communist religion, and Muslim States whose official religion is Islam, and Protestant States whose official religion is Protestantism. I don't see why Catholic States…why there can't be officially Catholic States." The Pope answered: “Oh, yes, yes, that's true."


“We Must Come to a Practical Solution”

"But now," he said, "we must be practical, we must come to a conclusion."

I answered: "Could you nominate an intermediary with whom I could discuss, and examine things more closely?"

He said: "Precisely! I thought of that, and it will be Cardinal Seper. I very much want it to be Cardinal Seper, he is a friend of mine, I know him well, he knows your business and will be dealing with it. I'll call him at once."


Cardinal Seper: “You are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V!”

"Good! He is efficient!"

The Pope got up at once – smartly, I can tell you! He is lively. He went to his office and phoned for Cardinal Seper to come, and he arrived three or four minutes later. He sat on my right. I wish a photograph could have been taken! The Pope on my left, Cardinal Seper on my right – very democratic!

The Pope summed up quickly for the Cardinal and said: "We must find a solution without delay."

But the Cardinal then proved difficult. "Yes," he said. "But wait a moment. They are making a banner out of the Mass of Saint Pius V."

"Oh," I said, "Not a banner! The Mass is of capital importance, essential in the Church, and that is why for us it is a grave and primary problem.”

The Cardinal answered: "What Pope Paul VI said to me was true! He would have made it possible to say the Mass of Saint Pius V if you had not turned that Mass into a banner!”

By that he meant that we criticize the other Mass, that we do not want it: and, upon my word, that is exactly true.

He went on: "Monseigneur, two and a half years ago you came to see me.

"So I did."

"You came to ask my advice. What did I tell you? I told you: 'Obedience, obedience, obedience, obedience!' There!"

"Yes. And what did obedience require me to do?"

"If you had closed your seminary and all your Houses, if you had stopped everything, stopped it for a year and a half or two years, everything could then have been arranged."

"That I think is a totally gratuitous assertion. I do not know what would have become of us. We should have been dead, and we should have continued dead, just that!"


The End of the Audience

The Pope intervened: "Yes. Look into that…stay here, I have to go, Cardinal Baggio is waiting for me with dossiers this high! Your Eminence, stay and talk."

But the Cardinal had no wish to stay with me. He got up, saying: “No. Not now. In any case, Monseigneur, you will be receiving a letter in two or three weeks asking you to come again to Rome for an interview. We can talk of these things then. Besides, you must be given the results of the study we made of what you sent to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith." That was the end. I paid my respects to the Pope who once more embraced me warmly. I said good-bye to Cardinal Seper, and we parted. And that's how matters stand for the moment.


Can We give a Direction to the Reform, and Limit the Damage?

What I noticed in the Holy Father is that he is very pious, that he has a great love for the Blessed Virgin, that he is completely anti-marxist (I do not say anti-communist, but anti-marxist), and that he will do all he can to suppress abuses and keep the reform within limit; but I must confess that he appears to be basically in agreement with the Council and with the reforms – he just does not question them. And that is serious, because it means that he is for ecumenism, for collegiality, and for religious liberty.


Always the same Three Things!

Those are the three capital ideas from the Council. It is they which make the spirit of the Council. They are what the progressives wanted and what in practice they obtained – watered down perhaps, but they got them, and they will not loosen their hold on them! Study those ideas, and see how serious they are!

1. Collegiality: that means number against person, the law of number against the authority of the person. It is no longer the person who has authority, but number! It is democracy, or at least the democratic principle. It is no longer Our Lord Who commands through the authorities (it is Our Lord Who is the Authority, and in the Church all those who have authority – Pope, Bishops, Priests – share in the authority of Our Lord). By the very fact that number is put in the place of the person, that authority is given to number, authority is in the people, in the rank and file, in the group. That is absolutely contrary to what Our Lord wanted, to the personal authority which He always wanted to give: the Pope has a personal authority; the Bishop has a personal authority by his consecration; the Priest has a personal authority by his sacramental character, his ordination; in the Church authority is personal. The subject of authority (he who is going to exercise it) may be designated democratically, but the authority cannot be so given. That is an important principle. On a false principle Our Lord could lose His crown.

2. Ecumenism: Fraternity. That is not directly contrary to Our Lord, but ecumenism is, for it is a fraternity which destroys paternity. Who makes the unity of brothers? It is the father. Ecumenism makes us all brothers in a sentimental communion but no longer in the faith, no longer in the faith taught us by Our Lord, no longer in the "Father" we have in the Creed. That unity is not in the Father but in a vague feeling of subjectivism, of religious sentiment : it is Modernism.

3. Religious Liberty: that is conscience in place of law. Once more something subjective in place of law, which is objective. And what is this law? It is the Word of God. The Word of God is the Law: Our Savior Himself is our Law. You can see how all that is directly opposed to the authority of Our Lord!


On Those Three Principles the Church Cannot Survive.

That, for the Church, is a catastrophe. The Church cannot live in an atmosphere directly opposed to Our Lord, its Founder, opposed to what makes the unity of the Church, her truth and her law. They have no hope of damming the harm done by those principles. They will try to set limits, to make the catechisms a little more orthodox; but until they have gone back to those fundamentals of the Council and brought them into line with tradition there is nothing to be done. It is that which is serious.


He is no Longer a Polish Bishop!

It is a pity. He seems to be attached to order and discipline; but he is certainly filled with Liberal ideas. Cardinal Wyszynski could well tell himself: "He did well as Archbishop of Cracow, because he fought the communists."  That is what makes the unity of Poland, anti-communism and devotion to the Blessed Virgin – the devil is in communism, and then there is the Blessed Virgin: with two such elements it is easy to see how  the Poles can be united among themselves and with their bishops. But Poland and the circumstances of Poland are one thing: what matters is what he is going to do as Pope. For in the West, communism does not have such a hold, and as for devotion to the Blessed Virgin, he himself has it, but where is it now in the surrounding world? And that is the problem. What he was able to do as bishop united with the other Polish bishops to save the reign of Our Lord from disappearing – will he be able to do that as Pope, in other, completely different, circumstances?


Hope of Recovery

At least we can pray to the Blessed Virgin that when he becomes aware of the gross difficulties he will meet in the exercise of his power as Pope he will reconsider himself and perhaps conclude that he must return to Tradition. That is a grace for which we should pray to the Blessed Virgin. In another three or four months we shall know one way or another, when he has had a look at his surroundings and at what is happening in Western Europe.



1. Mgr. Maccario was bishop of the Diocese of Albano, near Rome, from whom Archbishop Lefebvre acquired, and established canonically, his Italian seminary.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXX

Further Correspondence with Cardinal Seper
30 November 1978


Sacra Congregatio
pro Doctrina Fidei
Prot. N.1144/69
00193 Romae,
Piazza del S, Uffizio,11


Your Excellency,

Because of events you know, I have not been able until now to send you the sequel of my letter under the same protocol dated 16 June 1978. I am now able to do so.

I mentioned a probability to you in that letter, and I now ask you to be so good as to take part in a conference which will be held at the seat of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Such a meeting is the normal conclusion to the examination of your positions by our Congregation, an examination in which you assisted in our previous exchange of letters. The conference will take place according to the prescriptions and with all the guarantees of the Ratio agendi in doctrinarum examine of this Congregation, notably articles 13 and 14 (cf. AAS 63,1971, pp. 234-236). It is of course indispensable that it take place in the most absolute discretion.

As for its duration, I ask you to count on two consecutive days (as far as possible a Thursday and a Friday, to allow for the other regular meetings of the Congregation); and as to the date I suggest that you choose between next 21 and 22 December and 11 and 12 January 1979.

I shall be grateful if you will kindly let me know as soon as possible, through the Apostolic Nuncio in Switzerland, which of those dates you choose, or an alternative date if you are unable to accept either of them.

I thank you in advance for your reply, and with respect and devotedness in the Lord I am Your Excellency's

Franc. Card. Seper
Prefect

+++

12 December 1978

Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper


Your Eminence,

Through the Nunciature I have received your invitation to come to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

You offer me two dates. The 11 and 12 January suits me better, and I shall go to Albano to be ready for that date.

It would help me very much to know beforehand the special subjects of the interview. I should tell you, in this connection, that if it is a question of doctrine it would be more effectively dealt with in writing than in speech.

Is it possible for you to tell me who are the persons I shall be meeting?

On the occasion of my conversations with R. Fr. Dhanis and R. Fr. Duroux, Mgr. Benelli authorized me to have a companion. I think you will allow me to be accompanied on this occasion also.

With respect and cordial devotion in Christ and Mary,

+Marcel Lefebvre

+++

19 December 1978

Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre

Sacra Congregatio
pro Doctrina Fidei
Prot. N.1144/69
00193 Romae,
Piazza del S, Uffizio,11


Your Excellency,

I thank you for your reply, dated 12 December last, to my letter of 30 November 1978, which reached me through the Apostolic Nunciature in Switzerland.

I note that you accept the date, 11 and 12 January 1979. We shall expect you at the seat of this Congregation on Thursday, 11 January, at 10 o'clock.

As I have already told you in my previous letter, the conference will be held according to the prescriptions and with all the guarantees of the Ratio agendi in doctrinarum examine of this Congregation. That Ratio does not provide that the person being heard shall be assisted by anyone else. Its article 14 prescribes the drawing up of a protocol – the only document receivable in evidence – submitted for approval and for possible observations to the person heard, who can later be given a copy.

I can tell you that your interlocutors will be the higher Authorities of the Congregation, assisted by one or two experts. The interview will not deal with the sum of the doctrinal questions, which have already been touched upon extensively in writing, but only with some precise points concerning doctrine and the discipline of the Church together, points already raised in our correspondence and on which the questions to be asked will not require previous preparation.

At the approach of the Christmas feasts I send you my best wishes, with an assurance of prayers.

Yours respectfully and devotedly in the Lord,

Franc. Card. Seper
Prefect

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXXI

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to the Pope
24 December 1978


Holy Father,

There is no doubt that the audience you granted me was willed by God. For me it was a great comfort to be able quite freely to explain the circumstances and the grounds for the existence of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X and of its seminaries, and the reasons which led me to continue the Work in spite of the decisions by Fribourg and Rome.

The flood of novelties in the Church, accepted and encouraged by the Episcopate, a flood which ravages everything in its path – faith, morals, the Church’s institutions – could not tolerate the presence of an obstacle, a resistance.

We then had the choice of letting ourselves be carried away by the devastating current and of adding to the disaster, or of resisting wind and wave to safeguard our Catholic faith and the Catholic priesthood. We could not hesitate.

Since 5 May 1975, the date of our decision to hold fast whatever the cost, three and a half years have gone by and they justify us. The ruins of the Church are mounting: atheism, immorality, the abandonment of churches, the disappearance of religious and priestly vocations are such that the bishops are beginning to be roused and that the fact of Ecône is constantly evoked. Opinion polls show that a large part of the faithful, sometimes a majority, are in favour of the attitude of Ecône.

It is plain to any impartial observer that our Work is a nursery of priests of the sort the Church has always desired and the true faithful want. We are justified in thinking that if the Church would admit the fact and give it the legality to which it is entitled vocations would be even more plentiful.

Holy Father, for the honor of Jesus Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beg you to say a single word as Successor of Peter and Pastor of the Universal Church to the bishops of the whole world: "Let them carry on - We authorize the free use of what multisecular Tradition has used for the sanctification of souls.”

What difficulty is there in such an attitude? None. The bishops would decide the places and the times reserved for that Tradition. Unity would be discovered again at once at the level of the bishop of the place. On the other hand, what advantages for the Church: the renewal of seminaries and monasteries, great fervor in the parishes. The bishops would be stupefied to find in a few years an outburst of devotion and sanctification which they thought had disappeared forever.

For Ecône, its seminaries and its priories, everything would become normal, as it is for the Congregations of Lazarists, Redemptorists…the priories would serve the dioceses by preaching parish missions, giving Ignatian Retreats, and supplying in parishes, in full submission to the Ordinary of the place.

How the state of the Church would be improved by that simple means, so like the maternal spirit of the Church, which does not reject what comes to the help of souls, and does not extinguish the smoking wick, but rejoices that the sap of Tradition is still full of life and hope!

This is what I thought I should write to Your Holiness, before going to meet His Eminence Cardinal Seper. I am afraid the prolonged and subtle discussions will not have a satisfying result but will drag out the search for a solution which I am sure you see as urgent.

The solution cannot, in fact, be found in a compromise which in practice would bring about the disappearance of our Work, adding one more item to the work of destruction.

I am entirely at the disposition of Your Holiness, and I beg you accept my profound and filial respect in Jesus and Mary.

+Marcel Lefebvre
formerly Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXXII

Archbishop Lefebvre before the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
11 January 1979

Introduction to the Conference

This Introduction was read on 11 January at 10 o’clock, at the inauguration of the conference which was to run on into 12 January. At the interview those present were His Erninence Cardinal Seper, His Excellency Mgr. Harner, Secretary for the S.C. for the Doctrine of the Faith, R. Fr. Duroux, two other experts and a secretary.


Introduction by His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect

I thank Your Excellency for being willing to come to this meeting, the object and spirit of which I must now specify.

Our talks result from the mission entrusted to our Congregation by Pope Paul VI on 19 October 1976, which was confirmed by his two successors, Pope John Paul I and His Holiness John Paul II, that is to say, the examination of your case, not only under its doctrinal aspect but also under such disciplinary and pastoral aspects as it may have.

We have fulfi1led this task according to the prescriptions of our Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine of 15 January 1971. It is within that framework that I sent you, on 26 January and 22 March 1978, two letters of "contestation" to which you gave written replies on 28 February and 13 April of the same year. It is within that framework that this conference is taking place.

Our business is, in fact, the conference provided for in articles 13-15 of that Ratio agendi. It will help if I read the articles now. (The three articles were then read.)

These articles lead, for our reunion, to these consequences:

1. We are acting at the level of the external forum, without entering that of your subjective intentions and your conscience.

2. We are not here to proceed to a judgment, nor even to make decisions, but to provide full information for those who have to judge and decide, that is to say, the Cardinals who are members of this Congregation and, in the last resort, the Sovereign Pontiff.

3. Our questions will be therefore limited, taking account of the two written answers you have already given; they are formulated for the purpose of clarification and are not intended to be controversial.

4. Your answers to these different questions will be written down, and the completed version will be submitted to you for approval and for any requests for rectification. When signed by yourself and by me they will constitute the only document receivable as evidence of this interview. It will be submitted to examination by the Cardinals of this Congregation and will be passed on to the Holy Father.

Let me add that silence and total discretion will surround all that happens in this reunion. All those participating in the name of the Congregation are, besides, bound to rigorous observance of pontifical secret (cf. Instruction of 4 February 1974, art. I, para. 3).

I should like to conclude by remarking that we should not confine ourselves to what is necessarily technical in this conference. It is meant as a stage in a process of reconciliation which is ardently desired; but I think it is an indispensable stage, for the reconciliation must be without ambiguity and it can only take place if there is absolute clarity.

It is on the basis of those reflections that I now wish to open the conference properly so called.


EXAMINATION
11 and 12 January 1979

The answers to this "questionnaire" were first of all drawn up by the secretary after the interview. I was allowed to modify them as I liked.

The whole set of questions and answers had then to be signed by H.E. Cardinal Seper and by myself.

The answers published here are the corrected answers.1

In the main the answers were written up well, and there were few corrections or modifications.


I

In a preliminary note (12 July 1976) to a letter addressed to the Holy Father, you wrote:

Let there be no mistake, it is not a question of a dispute between Mgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radical incompatibility of the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church, the Mass of Paul VI representing the program of the Conciliar Church.

That idea is made explicit in the homily given on the preceding 29 June during the ordination Mass at Ecône:

Well! It is precisely the insistent demands of those sent from Rome that we change our rite which makes us reflect. And we are convinced that this new rite of Mass expresses a new faith, a faith which is not ours, a faith which is not the Catholic Faith. This new Mass is a symbol, an expression, an image of a new faith, a Modernist faith…It is plain that this new rite is subtended, so to say, it supposes another conception of the Catholic faith, another religion… Smoothly the Protestant notion of the Mass is being introduced into Holy Church.

QUESTION:
Are we to conclude from those statements that according to you, the Pope, promulgating and imposing the new Ordo Missae, and all the bishops who have received it, have founded and assembled visibly around them a new "Conciliar" Church radically incompatible with the Catholic Church?

ANSWER:
I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church."2

I consider that a spirit tending to Modernism and Protestantism shows itself in the conception of the new Mass and in all the Liturgical Reform as well. Protestants themselves say that it is so, and Mgr. Bugnini himself admits it implicitly when he states that this Liturgical Reform was conceived in an ecumenical spirit. (1 could prepare a study showing how that Protestant spirit exists in the Ordo Missae.)


II

QUESTION:
Do you hold that a faithful Catholic can think and say that a sacramental rite, in particular that of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or "favoring heresy"?

ANSWER:
That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.

What is astounding is that an Ordo Missae savoring of Protestantism and therefore “favoring heresy” should be spread abroad by the Roman Curia.


III

QUESTION:
Do you admit that the doctrine of the Council of Trent on the Eucharistic Sacrifice is expressly and absolutely reaffirmed in no. 2 of the Proemium of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani promulgated by Pope Paul VI?

ANSWER:
I admit that in the Proemium of the edition of 1970 the doctrine of the Council of Trent is expressed materially. But the fact that it had been necessary to make an addition shows clearly the incomplete character of the edition of 1969. Besides, the whole rite of Mass has remained just as it was in the edition of 1969.


IV

QUESTION:
You have administered the sacrament of Confirmation in various dioceses against the will of the bishop of the place, sometimes even to children who had already received it. You justify these acts saying that the sacramental formula of the new Ordo Confirmationis is often badly translated or shortened, or even omitted, and that in certain dioceses Confirmation is no longer given.

a) In administering Confirmation which sacramental formula have you used yourself? (If Mgr. Lefebvre says he used the old one, ask him if he recognizes the new one as valid, and, if he says Yes, ask him why he did not use it.)

b) If the facts you have alleged to justify the exercise of this ministry were found to be true, would that give you the right to act without taking account of the Church's discipline fixed by Canon Law?

ANSWER:
To a) I used the old sacramental formula. But I recognize the validity of the new Latin formula. I use the old formula to meet the wishes of the faithful.

To b) "Salus animarum suprema lex" – the salvation of souls is the supreme law. I cannot refuse the sacrament to the faithful who ask me for it. 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.


V

QUESTION:
According to Catholic doctrine, it is forbidden to repeat the conferring of a sacrament which imprints a character if the minister is not certain of the invalidity of the sacramental rite conferred before or at least unless he has a prudens dubium of validity.

How did you ascertain that each of the children already confirmed had been confirmed invalidly?

ANSWER:
I asked each of the parents and the children to find out if they had been confirmed and how it had been done. Most of the children had not been confirmed before. For those who had been I could have a prudent doubt of the validity of the sacrament they had received. I add that I give Confirmation only with reluctance, delaying as long as possible in the hope that the bishops will do it.


VI

QUESTION:
The reiteration of a sacrament without there being at least a prudens dubium of validity is objectively speaking a serious lack of respect for sacramental worship.

Did it ever occur to you that you were running such a risk?

ANSWER:
No, for, as I have just said, I asked parents and children beforehand, and I could thus have a prudens dubium of the validity of the sacrament administered before.


VII

QUESTION:
In your answer of 13 April 1978 to the Sacred Congregation and, more explicitly, in your minor work Le coup de maitre de Satan, pp. 46-47, you maintain that the priests ordained by you now find themselves, in view of the present circumstances (the liturgical reform everywhere, bringing doubt of the validity of the sacraments), in that necessity in which Canon Law itself grants the jurisdictional powers required for the validity of the sacraments. Thus, referring to canons 882, 1098, and 2261, par. 2, you consider that they have the right to adminster Baptism, Penance, Anointing of the sick and to receive the consent of spouses. That ministry is exercised in the priories you have founded on your own initiative in various dioceses.

a) Who are the auctores probati (approved authors) who share your interpretation of the above-mentioned canons?

b) Is not that to think and act as though the legitimate hierarchy did not exist, and to begin to form, willingly or not, a dissident community?

ANSWER:
To a) In my interpretation I join together canon 882 and 2261 par. 2. For both of them I refer to the explanations given in Jones's treatise. It is a very broad interpretation but it is justified by an exceptional situation. One can see in these canons the maternal spirit of the Church which does not wish to leave souls in danger of eternal death.

To b) It may be thought that in a general way, in some countries, the hierarchy is not playing its part. There is no question of my founding a dissident community, but of ensuring that the Catholic Church continues on a basis of Canon Law and the great principles of theology.


VIII

QUESTION:
You have founded, or taken the responsibility for, religious communities which are independent of any regular authority; you have opened a Carmel (Quiévrain) and you are preparing to found a monastery of Cistercian monks; you admit auxiliary brothers and cooperators; you do not hesitate to receive religious professions.

Who has authorized you to do all that? Is such activity of yours in conformity with the Canon Law of religious life?

ANSWER:
As for the Fraternity of St. Pius X, its statutes provide for the reception of auxiliary brothers and women religious.

As for the Carmel at Quiévrain, it is not I who founded it; it is an enterprise of my sister's who left her Carmel in Australia with the authorization of her Prioress to found another monastery.

I have not made a Cistercian foundation, nor do I foresee one.


IX

QUESTION:

The "Pieuse Union" which bears the name "Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X" was erected 1 November 1970 by H.E. Mgr. François Charriére, Bishop of Fribourg.

a) Does the juridical statute of the Fraternity allow you to proceed to ordinations?

b) If Yes, on the basis of what canon or of what other juridical document?

ANSWER:
To a) Initially, I think not. In any case, before 1976 the members of the Fraternity were incardinated in different dioceses. However, I began to have doubts, at first when H. E. Mgr. Adam told me that the Fraternity allowed me to incardinate (which I did not do at that time), and especially when Cardinal Antoniutti gave two priest religious an indult permitting them to enter the Fraternity straight from their religious order. That meant that the Sacred Congregation for Religious considered the Fraternity capable of incardinating. In any case, before 1976 I never proceeded to ordain without having dimissorial letters.

To b) No answer required.


X

QUESTION:
a) Before proceeding to the different diaconal and sacerdotal ordinations that you have done, but especially be- fore those of 29 June 1976, did you receive for all candidates the dimissorial letters required by law?

b) If not, why were you not withheld from proceeding with those ordinations by the knowledge of the grave penalties incurred in that case both by the ordaining bishop and by the seminarians ordained?

ANSWER:
To a) I have just answered affirmatively for the ordinations prior to 1976. I shall have to make sure about those on 29 June 1976. At present I consider the seminarians I ordain to be incardinated in the Fraternity.

To b) I reckon that all the measures that have been taken against me are illegal, and that consequently neither I nor the seminarians I ordain incur canonical penalties.


XI

QUESTION:
Before proceeding to the ordinations on 29 June 1976, you were twice informed of the Holy Father's express wish that you should refrain from doing them.

a)That being so, on what provisions of the law do you base yourself to legitimize the ordinations you did on that day?

b) Did you understand that in proceeding to those ordinations you were increasing the gravity, for yourself and for the seminarians ordained, of the responsibilities and the penalties already incurred?

ANSWER:
I should first of all recall the reasons which make me think the measures taken against me to be illegal:

The decree of suppression of the Saint Pius X Fraternity should not have been issued by H.E. Mgr. Mamie but by Holy See.

I was not informed of any result or any act relating to the Apostolic Visitation of the Ecône Seminary.

The Commission of Cardinals before which I was summoned had neither a mandate nor a precise purpose; in spite of the promises made, I was refused the written account of the proceedings and the registration of the interviews.

I entered an appeal before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Five days later, a letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State forbade that Tribunal to act on my appeal. That was pressure by the executive power on the judicial power.
For those reasons I could not consider valid the decisions taken in my regard.

To a) I therefore answer that I do not recognize as legal the measures taken against me. Moreover, I could not obey the will of the Holy See, for I could not verify what exactly was the will of the Holy Father.

To b) No answer required.


XII

QUESTION:

On the following 22 July you received official notification of the suspension a divinis declared against you by the Holy Father. That disciplinary measure forbade you to say Mass, administer the Sacraments, or preach. You did not submit to the new order you had received.

a) Abstracting from your subjective responsibility, and therefore from the censures which may or may not weigh on your conscience, do you admit that, in the external forum, you are under the penalty of suspension and therefore obliged to behave publicly as suspended?

b) If No, why not?

c) If Yes, what justification do you give for your behavior which causes and continues scandal in the Church?

ANSWER:
To a) No, I do not admit that I am under the penalty of suspension, not even in the external forum.

To b) The reason is that all the measures taken against me (since November 1974) are illegal and invalid. The first measure is plainly so, and the others are only the consequences of the first.

To c) The scandal which exists is the destruction of the Church, and not what I do. I think on the contrary that my action has served the Church, prompting reactions to that destruction.


XIII

QUESTION:
The First Vatican Council defined that the Roman Pontiff has “a plenary and sovereign power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in what pertains to faith and morals but also in what pertains to the discipline and government of the Church,” and this power is ordinary and immediate "over each and all of the pastors and the faithful" (DS, 3064).

a) Do you accept these assertions as a dogma of faith?

b) Supposing – for the sake of argument-that the Pope were to make errors, do you think he loses his power of jurisdiction on that account?

ANSWER:

To a) Yes.

To b) No, I do not think so if it is a question of errors in government and discipline. It is clear that one may not follow him in his errors, especially if they have consequences for the faith.

On the other hand, one must know if it is the Pope who commands. My uncertainty about the real will of the Pope is based on the fact that for a long time I was prevented from seeing Pope Paul VI, and that, when I met him, I found that he had been told calumnies against me.


XIV

QUESTION:
Do you not make a selection in the texts of Vatican II, rejecting not only disciplinary measures which trouble you but also doctrinal assertions which you consider contrary to the faith?

According to what principle do you decide what can be retained and what must be rejected?

Who decides in the last resort in the Church what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition?

By publicly criticizing Vatican Council II and progressively enlarging your accusations against it, have you not cast discredit on the supreme magisterial authorities, the Pope and the Bishops united with him in Council under his authority? And have you not contributed to the division of Catholics?

ANSWER:
To 1) I am ready to sign a declaration accepting Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition. I consider that in certain texts there are things contrary to Tradition and to the Magisterium of the Church as it has previously expressed itself, notably in the Declaration on Religious Liberty.

To 2) According to Tradition.

To 3) It is the Magisterium of the Church. But here I observe:

that the Second Vatican Council must be understood as a pastoral magisterium;

that after this Council there have not been, on the part of the Pope or on the part of the Commission for the interpretation of the decrees of Vatican Council II, acts establishing an authentic elucidation of the conciliar texts, in particular those concerning religious liberty.

To 4) I do not think so. However, if my criticisms have seemed stronger after the Council, it is because of its application in reforms which have confirmed the fears of interpretation of the texts of the Council in a Liberal and progressive sense.

I may have used somewhat exaggerated expressions in my addresses, but their literary genre must be kept in mind. But nobody should be forbidden to criticize a text, even if, in so doing, he indirectly attacks the authorities. It is the authorities who ought to give a fuller explanation of the texts of the Council in the sense of Tradition. Finally, I do not divide Catholics. I think it is the Council which has been the occasion for the divisions already existing in the Church to show themselves in a crucial way.


XV

QUESTION:
Canon 1325, par .2, which treats of schism, runs as follows: “After being baptized, if anyone (…) refuses to be the subject to the Supreme Pontiff or to be in communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is schismatic."

How does your way of acting in the concrete differ from the schismatic behavior defined in this canon?

ANSWER:
I do not refuse to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff. The best proof of that is my recent visit to the Holy Father and my presence here. I think I am allowed, as many others have done in the course of history, to show that I have reservations about some decisions of the Pope and the Roman Curia. But I do that out of love for the Church and the Successor of Peter, hoping that things will come right quickly; and I do not consider myself as a leader. If papal infallibility is not involved, a bishop’s public presentation of his difficulties does not constitute an act of rebellion if he is relying on Tradition. The difficulties that I raise about the whole of the liturgical reform take account of the fact that Pope Paul VI considered it to be a disciplinary reform.


XVI

QUESTION:
In your letter of 13 April 1978 to the Sacred Congregation you enclosed "General considerations on the state of the Church since Vatican Council II which alone permit of an adequate reply to the questions asked about the Ordo Missae, our continuation of the activity of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X in spite of the interdictions received from the bishops and from Rome."

On the basis of those considerations, it seems to us that your position can be stated in the following thesis:

A bishop, judging in conscience that the Pope and the Episcopate are in general no longer using their authority to ensure the faithful an exact transmission of the faith, may legitimately, so as to maintain the Catholic faith, ordain priests without being a diocesan bishop, without having received dimissorial letters and against the formal and express prohibition of the Pope, and may assign to those priests the exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry in different dioceses.

a) Does that thesis state your position correctly?

b) Is that thesis in conformity with the traditional doctrine of the Church to which you mean to hold fast?

ANSWER:3
To a) No. I have not acted, starting from a principle like that one. It is the facts, the circumstances in which I found myself, which compelled me to take certain positions, and in particular the fact that I had in the Fraternity of St. Pius X a work already legally constituted which I had to continue.

To b) I think that history can furnish examples of similar acts done, in certain circumstances, not against but aside from the will of the Pope. But this question is too serious and too important to be answered at once. I prefer, therefore, to postpone my answer.

Written Answer Given by Mgr. Lefebvre the Next Day, 13 January 1979

In the case where the Roman Curia sends out documents or performs acts inspired by a Liberal and Modernist spirit, it is the duty of the bishops to protest publicly and to object.

Similarly, if the Catholic Universities and the Seminaries are themselves infested with Liberalism and Modernism, it is the duty of the bishops to found Seminaries in which Catholic doctrine is taught.

It whole countries fall into Modernism, Liberalism and Marxism, and the faithful, aware of the danger to their faith, ask for faithful priests to serve them and their children, it is the duty of the bishops who have stayed Catholic to respond to their appeal.

St. Athanasius, St. Eusebius of Samosata, and St. Epiphanius asserted and acted on those same principles, which stand to reason when the state of the Church is catastrophic.

It is also obvious that those bishops should make every effort to help the Pope provide remedies for that situation.


XVII

QUESTION:
How do you envisage the return to a normal state of affairs of yourself and of the priests, seminarians and faithful who count on you?

What you reckon you can ask and hope for:
a) from the Holy See: in what concerns your seminaries, your priories, and the celebration of the Mass of Saint Pius V?
b) from the bishops and from the episcopal conferences dependent on them?

What are you ready to do, yourself, to that end? What undertakings are you prepared to subscribe?
a) in what concerns the works established by you, notably the seminaries and the priories?
b) in what concerns your teaching (on the Mass and the Council…) and your behavior (ordinations, confirmations, eucharistic celebrations, etc.).

ANSWER:
To 1) a) The Fraternity of St. Pius X includes both seminaries and priories; its purpose is to found seminaries (in the spirit of the Council, that is to say, international seminaries with a view to better distribution of the clergy, and with a whole year of spirituality),4to train priests, to give spiritual help to priests and to open houses for spiritual exercises. I should hope to obtain that this Fraternity be recognized as a society of common life without vows, directly under the Pope, and dependent on the Sacred Congregation for Religious. That implies that I ask for the continuance of both seminaries and priories: the priories, purposely established in the countryside, are meant to be at the disposition of the bishops chiefly for the apostolate of spiritual exercises and the spiritual support of priests. I shall send you a copy of the statutes of the Fraternity. Finally, with regard to the liturgy, I ask that the members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X:

may use for the celebration of Mass the Ordo of St. Pius V, it being understood that they will celebrate only according to that ;

may use the old liturgical rites;

and in particular may be ordained according to the old rite of ordination, which includes the tonsure and minor orders.
To 1) b) I am prepared to go and see the bishops of those where the Fraternity has a foundation. I expect from them a recognition of the priories according to Canon Law, the acceptance of the ministry performed by the members of the Fraternity living there.

To 2) a) I am prepared to subscribe the undertakings imposed by Law, without asking for special privileges. I can accept transitory phase, including the nomination of an Apostolic Delegate.

To 2) b) As I said above (under ~IV, 1) I am ready to sign a declaration accepting Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition. As to my teaching on the Mass, it can only be what is in conformity with the traditional Magisterium of the Church. As to my behavior, on the hypothesis of normalization, I shall conform myself to the prescriptions of the Law. Moreover, I can accept to suspend ordinations and confirmations for several months if I can be certain of a favorable response to the foregoing request. That proposition is one that I have already made in the past.



12 January 1979
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper

Your Eminence,

When I left this morning's interview, I read in Tempo the communiqué issued by the head of the Vatican Press Office.

I was greatly surprised to see that the interviews we have had are in preparation for a meeting of Cardinals who will make a decision that will be submitted to the Holy Father.

But this is not at all what you told me at the beginning of the interviews, and I do not think this is what the Holy Father had in mind when he told me he was choosing you, as a friend in whom he has complete confidence, to take charge of this business.

The Director of the Press Office, moreover, named the Cardinals who are to be judges; and it appears that those who will be present are those who have already condemned me. What is the use of giving them a new dossier? They will act as they have already acted in that Commission of Cardinals for whom interviews were just a matter of form, as they had already decided on condemnation.

I must say that the refusal to let me have a witness in face of five interrogators, the way in which traps were set for me, particularly this morning when attempts were made to get me to affirm statements which I did not want to accept, give me no confidence in the outcome of this trial, though the formal desire of the Pope is the other way, as you yourself have said many times.

I therefore appeal to the Pope himself, as I did in my letter on Christmas Eve.

As to the procés-verbal. I am willing to sign it, but after I have been able to examine it at leisure. These two meetings have tired me, and I am in no shape to come back to the Holy Office to make corrections and to sign. The business is too serious, too important, to be ended with such speed.

For that reason I shall take the liberty of sending the priest who is my companion to collect the proofs, so that I may have time to reflect and to suggest some slight changes before I sign.

I think that is a simple measure of prudence and will present no difficulty. I shall send back the document within a week, through the Nunciature in Berne.

I shall therefore ask the Holy Father, and not those who have already condemned me, to act as judge after studying this document.

This letter is written in the hope of reaching not a condemnation but a solution, which is the Holy Father’s wish, and yours.

Yours respectfully and cordially devoted in Christ and Mary,

+Marcel Lefebvre


1. On the signing and delivery of these answers, see the Explanatory Note on p. 301.

2. See Apologia, Vol. I, p. 199.

3. Mgr. Lefebvre’s first oral reply was: You are setting a trap for me!

4. See Apologia, Vol. I, P. 445 for the testimony of Cardinal Wright to the effect that the society of St. Pius X conformed to the end proposed by Vatican Council II for the distribution of the clergy in the world