Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican by Fr. François Laisney [1988]

[Stone]

August 18, 1988

Declaration of Dom Gérard

By this declaration which follows, Dom Gérard, superior of the Benedictine Monastery of St. Madeleine of Le Barroux, France, publicly explained the reasons why he signed the Protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected and the conditions he included with his signature.

I deny, first of all, as absolutely unfounded, the rumor that was spread that I would have been chosen to be consecrated bishop.127

Why have I accepted the Protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected just after he signed it? This is a long story, for which I ask a few minutes of attention. For the past 15 years we asked to be relieved from our suspension, and to be re-integrated into the Confederation of the Benedictine Monasteries; but since the conditions were unacceptable (renouncement of the traditional Rite) we refused, resigned to remain in the illegality rather than to lack the Truth. Then, a long time after these efforts, on Friday, June 17 of this year, a phone call from the Vatican asked for the Prior. Cardinal Mayer asked to pay us a visit. He would arrive on Monday, June 20, at 6:30pm with Msgr. Perl in order to propose on behalf of the Holy Father, the Protocol signed [by Archbishop Lefebvre] on May 5, and rejected [by His Grace] on the night of May 5-6.

The next day, we gathered ten fathers around the Cardinal to study the proposal of the Pope; thus there were morning and afternoon meetings of intense discussion where no aspect of the question was ignored. The adaptation of the Protocol that was offered to us represented the total of our requests submitted to the Holy See since 1983. What we asked from the beginning (Mass of St. Pius V, catechism, sacraments, all in conformity to the centuries-old Tradition of the Church), were granted to us, without doctrinal counter-part, without concession, without denial.128

The Holy Father was thus offering us to be integrated into the Benedictine Confederation as we are.


Our Reasons

After having weighed everything, after several meetings of the council of the fathers, I have thus accepted the proposal and explained to our faithful at the Sunday Mass the reasons which, in our case, support our acceptance:

a) That the tradition of the Church be pushed out of her official, visible perimeter brings prejudice to it. This is contrary to the honor of the Spouse of Christ. The visibility of the Church is one of its essential marks.

b) It is sad that the only Benedictines who are put aside from the great Benedictine family are precisely those who keep its liturgical tradition. Isn’t this a proper mark of the Benedictine Order?

c) All things being equal, i.e., the Faith and the Sacraments being intact, it is better to be in agreement with the laws of the Church rather than contravene them.

Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspens a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop? I think, especially, of some young college students, scouts and seminarians who have never seen a traditional Mass.

It seems that we would be guilty if, because of our refusal to take the occasion, thousands of young people would be forever deprived of the Latin Gregorian Mass, of the Mass facing God, where the Canon is surrounded by silence, where the Holy Host, Center of adoration for the faithful, is received on the tongue, kneeling.

The stakes are not small, as one can see.


Our Conditions

We have placed two conditions on the signing of this agreement.

1) That this event be not considered as a discredit on the person of Archbishop Lefebvre: this was brought up several times in the course of our discussion with Cardinal Mayer, who agreed to it. Indeed, isn’t it thanks to the tenacity of Archbishop Lefebvre that such a status is being granted to us?

2) That no doctrinal or liturgical counterpart be requested from us and that no silence be imposed on our anti-Modernist preaching.


The Reactions

Many of our uninformed correspondents had fears and suspicions. We hoped to have appeased their worries. We regret, here or there, certain bitter reactions, which come more from a partisan spirit than from the sense of the Church. They summoned the faithful to choose their camp, disregarding the respect due to the souls, which is the first condition of any apostolate. It would be a grave error to constitute within the Church a sort of great unified party, choosing at its head a leader who maneuvers his troops at will. Forced by the events, the faithful attached to Tradition were placed in a posture of resistance. We, ourselves, remain strongly attached to the requirements of an integral Faith and to the immutable Tradition of the Church, but our legitimate resistance should not become resistentialism, where suspicion and purges are the law: the holy liberty of the children of God would be the first victim of this, and many other precious virtues would suffer too—charity, in the first place.


Our Three Wishes

I would like to finish with three wishes which I hold dear to my heart.

1) That rash judgment on complex situations, without having all the elements in hand, be avoided. Precipitation and ill will work for the enemy. With a little patience one will be able to judge the tree by its fruits—Isn’t this the evangelical criterion?

2) That we do not exhaust ourselves in quarrels among ourselves, rivalry of clan or jurisdiction. On the contrary, let all those who fight for Tradition, doctrine, preaching, Mass and Sacraments, remain attached in fraternal charity. Who can divide us if we all fight for Christ the King?

3) Lastly, I wish that we all profit from the passage in the Gospel where St. John says to Our Lord: “Master, we saw a certain man casting out devils in Thy Name and we forbade him because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said to him: Forbid him not for he that is not against you is for you” (Lk. 9:49).

Dom Gérard, O.S.B.

Fr. Schmidberger’s Remarks on Dom Gérard’s Declaration

Rev. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X from 1983-1994, responded to Dom Gérard’s Declaration (of August 18, 1988) by rebutting individual citations. These citations from the Declaration (see pp.199ff.) appear indented while Fr. Schmidbergers remarks are not.

    “a) That the tradition of the Church be pushed out of her official, visible perimeter brings prejudice to it. This is contrary to the honor of the Spouse of Christ. The visibility of the Church is one of its essential marks.”

It seems rather contrary to the plan of Divine Providence that the Catholic Tradition of the Church be re-integrated into the pluralism of the Conciliar Church, as long as the latter dishonors the Catholic Church and scandalizes its unity and visibility. “Jesus…suffered without the gate” of Jerusalem, says St. Paul, “let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13).

    “b) It is sad that the only Benedictines who are put aside from the great Benedictine family are precisely those who keep its liturgical tradition....”

On the contrary, it is an honor for Le Barroux to have been rejected by the other Benedictines for its integral fidelity to the Mass of All Times, and thus to have become a wonderful sign of contradiction.

    “c) All things being equal, i.e., the Faith and the Sacraments being intact, it is better to be in agreement with the laws of the Church rather than contravene them.”

On the contrary, when the laws of the Church are abused everywhere, in such a way as to desiccate the living sources of Faith and grace, it is better not to succumb to this scheme.

    “Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspens a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop?”

If the priests of Le Barroux considered that they were validly suspended, they have been living for 15 years in mortal sin. If they think that the so-called suspens a divinis merely damages their apostolic influence, they are wrong. The hard way of the Cross is more fruitful than the easy way. Moreover, they should have placed the missionary influence of the whole of Tradition in its necessary cohesion above the influence of their own monastery alone. The common good should be given pride of place over the individual good.

    “It would be a grave error to constitute within the Church a sort of great unified party, choosing at its head a leader who maneuvers his troops at will.”

The truly Catholic faithful have acknowledged in Archbishop Lefebvre the good shepherd that the Good Lord provided to them when they were scattered by the modernists. Neither on May 6 nor on June 30 has the grace of his mission left this good shepherd. Much to the contrary! The fidelity of the sheep to the shepherd is a grace for the sheep. The infidelity is first of all an ingratitude and, in the end, a great tragedy.

    “We, ourselves, remain strongly attached to the requirements of an integral Faith and to the immutable Tradition of the Church, but our legitimate resistance should not become resistentialism, where suspicion and purges are the law: the holy liberty of the children of God would be the first victim of this,....”

It is not “suspicion,” it is a fact. It is the height of the battle; friends are struck by the enemy. Is it the opportune moment to negotiate private peace with the enemy? There is only one name for such an attitude.

    “On the contrary, let all those who fight for Tradition, doctrine, preaching, Mass, and Sacraments, remain attached in fraternal charity. Who can divide us if we all fight for Christ the King?”

For 15 years [i.e., since the early 1970’s], there had been a wonderful covenant of charity between all the traditional communities. All that was needed was to continue it through June 30 in doctrinal and prudential unanimity. This was needed to continue the fight for Christ the King. The one who had broken this covenant now was calling for a new covenant!

Fr. Franz Schmidberger
Superior General,
The Society of Saint Pius X



127. On the question of bishops, it must be noted that a very important point of the May 5 Protocol was the granting of a bishop from those attached to Tradition. Cardinal Mayer, President of the new Commission, himself admits that. “The question of a specific bishop is no longer being posed”—much less solved! (See 30 Days, October 1988).
128. Note Cardinal Mayer’s comment on Dom Gérard’s statement at the end of this chapter (see p.204)!