Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume II

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

Volume 2, Chapter XXXVIII

A Warning from Louis Salleron
25 October 1979

The following article by Professor Louis Salleron appeared in the October 1979 issue of the French daily L’Aurore.  It seems more pertinent today than when it first appeared. Professor Salleron warns us of a sociological phenomenon which is extremely relevant to traditional Catholics. They are consistently rejected, denigrated, and even ridiculed by those in authority in the Church, and sometimes by the parish clergy and their Catholic acquaintances. When a minority group is treated in such a fashion it is far from unusual for its members to develop the characteristics which they had been falsely accused of possessing. Traditional Catholics are frequently accused of being schismatic and after years of consistent rejection by the official Church it is hardly surprising if, for practical purposes, some no longer continue their fight for tradition within the Church but as a clearly defined group outside her. Professor Salleron's warning was confirmed dramatically in October 1981 when a group of such Catholics, who had declared that the Holy See was vacant, took the ultimate step of having their own "sedevacantist" bishops consecrated by an elderly Vietnamese Archbishop, Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc.

These "bishops" have since consecrated others, and now in Europe, Mexico, and the United States there exists a de facto schism, what can be termed accurately a sedevacantist sect. The fact that those adhering to this sect may have been provoked and scandalized beyond what they could humanly endure does not alter the gravity of their action. Archbishop Lefebvre has rejected sedevacantism firmly and consistently, and has taken what must have been for him the very sad step of expelling priests from the Society of St. Pius X for accepting the thesis that the Holy See is vacant. A statement which he made on this subject is included as Chapter XL.

Professor Salleron 's article follows:

What is a Schismatic?

On 12 May 1965 – already fourteen years ago! Mgr. Pailler, the Archbishop and Coadjutor of Rouen, stated at a meeting of Catholic Action: "I do not think that I am being pessimistic when I say that by the end of this year, that is to say at the end of Vatican II, especially after the promulgation of the texts on Religious Liberty and the Schema XIII, there will be a grave risk of schism within the Church."

Schema XIII, it must be remembered, was the first "seed" of what was to become the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes which dealt with the Church in the modern world.

This remark by Mgr. Pailler was hailed by the Progressives and the Modernists as a condemnation of the Traditionalists. The majority of Catholics were no less astonished. The first shock was caused by the ambiguity of the remark, as Mgr. Pailler's pessimism seemed to welcome a complete extinction of the Traditionalists: they would be excommunicated proprio motu. On the other hand, it was difficult to understand how a Council which claimed to be pastoral and not doctrinal, a Council which proclaimed liberty for all and the end of condemnations, could cast out of the Church those Catholics who wished to remain faithful both to dogma and to Tradition.

In fact, the whole thing was perfectly logical. Father Congar has described Vatican II as "the October Revolution." By this he meant that the liberty granted by Vatican II was the liberty proclaimed by the Revolution which meant, in effect, “No liberty for the enemies of liberty." This was quickly to become evident: “The Conciliar church” as it was called by those who were fashioning it, proved to be a thousand times more authoritarian, more sectarian than anything that had been previously seen in the traditional Church. We are still living in a climate of persecution and de facto excommunication.

While reading the book entitled Letter to John Paul II, Pope of the Year 2,000 I was brought to a halt by a penetrating remark made by Saint-Beuve and quoted by Father Bruckberger, author of the book. The remark referred to the Jansenists of Port Royal:

“Many imputations and provocative accusations themselves create, in the long run, the very evils which they had supposed to exist.”

This is a subtle idea but completely true. It can happen that when a tendency, a perfectly legitimate religious opinion, is attacked fiercely by a powerful body within the Church, its supporters become so hardened in its defense, that they justify the accusations of schism and heresy levelled against them. This happened to the Jansenists. Today certain groups of traditionalists are on the brink of making the same error. It is precisely because of this that Father Bruckberger, himself a traditionalist, quotes Saint-Beuve.

In fact, if one were to take at its face value what is said and what is written in some circles and in some publications, where John Paul II is almost denouced as the anti-Christ, one could conclude that schism already exists.

But this is only the result of irritation and will undoubtedly die in time, and in any case, it applies to only a limited number of people and should not be confused with that vast number of Traditionalists, wounded in their faith and the practice of their Religion by the destructive violence of those who have entrenched themselves within the Church in France, and whose power is precisely  more and more schismatic in view of their systematic opposition both to Rome and to the Pope. It is this official or officious "Church of France" which tends to become mother and teacher - mater et magistra - of  which Jansenism, Gallicanism, and early Modernism were but a faint shadow.

If one may speak of a schismatic situation, this situation is not necessarily a full-blown schism in the strict sense of the word which implies a minimum of coherence and a structure with a known leader. A spreading of schismatic ideas, a proliferation of various heresies, does not constitute a schism. A general weakening of the Faith cannot lead to a denial of belief which is the essential characteristic of a schism. It should be regarded more as a heretico-schism.

However, an aspirant to the leadership of the subversive organization is becoming even clearer. It is Hans Küng, the Swiss theologian who writes on many subjects, and who has long since abandoned the role of a controversialist for that of a magisterial teacher to whom everyone, beginning with the Pope, must defer with humility because the evidence for what he says is so overwhelming that it must convince us as totally as it has convinced him. As "an act of charity" he has just sent John Paul II a "fraternal reprimand" (sic) and he has no doubt that the Pope will receive it "without preconceived ideas" (Le Monde, 17 October).

The Pope of Rome, enlightened by the pope of Tübingen, will then realize that the rights of man must be respected by those in high places within the Church. What then are these rights? Well! The right of priests to marry and their right to leave the ministry: the right of women to be ordained, etc. All this in the name of the Gospel and in the name of Truth.

We do not know whether French theologians will have been flattered or annoyed that their Swiss colleague chose the French language and a French newspaper to "reprimand " the Pope in a brotherly way, and to invite him to reconcile himself with progress, with Liberalism, and with modern civilization. In any case, most of them share his views. Like him, they want the destruction of the Priesthood, and the democratization of the Church by the people of God – Soviet style.

Such is the Conciliar Church clearly defined by its pope. Will John Paul II submit, or will he declare Hans Küng a schismatic?

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XXXIX

Christ the King - A Sermon by His Grace
28 October 1979

Archbishop Lefebvre preached this sermon on 28 October 1979, the Feast of Christ the King. It provides a pertinent reminder to traditional Catholics that their lives should be motivated by a profound love for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and a sincere effort to do His will. Living by the precepts expounded by the Archbishop in this sermon is the most effective means by which traditional Catholics can avoid the danger of schism against which Professor Salleron warned in the preceding chapter. A movement which does not define itself by what it is for, but by what it is against, can have no spiritual dimension. It will inevitably degenerate into an introverted, bitter, and declining minority. "Are our hearts truly attached to Our Lord Jesus Christ?" asks the Archbishop. "Are we conscious that Our Lord Jesus Christ is our ALL – Omnia in omnibus? Jesus Christ is all and in all things." The full text of the Archbishop’s sermon follows:

Christ the King

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

My dear brethren,

In the magnificent Encyclical Quas Primas of His Holiness Pope Pius XI, instituting the Feast of Christ the King, the Pope explains why Our Lord Jesus Christ is truly King, and he gives two particular and profound reasons. There are indeed many scriptural proofs. We have just read the Gospel in which Our Lord Jesus Christ proclaims Himself King. There are many passsages from the Psalms and in the New Testament which express this same quality of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King. But His Holiness Pius XI takes care to deepen our knowledge of the reasons of this royalty.

The first reason is what the Church calls the "hypostatic union," the union of the Divine Person of Our Lord with His human nature. Our Lord is King because He is God. Indeed, there are not two persons in Our Lord, there is not one Divine Person and one human person. There is only one person – the Divine Person who directly assumed a human soul and a human body without passing by the intermediary of a human person. Consequently, when we speak of Jesus Christ, we say the Person of Jesus Christ. Now, this person of Jesus is a Divine Person. Certainly, Jesus Christ is both God and man since He assumed a human soul and a human body. Thus, the human soul and the human body of Our Lord Jesus Christ have become so intimately united to God that they cannot be separated. It is the Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is entirely Divine, and by His Person, His Body and Soul are "deified."

Thus, Our Lord Jesus Christ as He presented Himself along the roads of Palestine, and even as He presented Himself as an infant in Bethlehem, is King. Not only does He possess the character of this royalty but also the Church teaches that by this union of God with human nature, with a soul and with a body, which He assumed, Our Lord Jesus Christ is essentially, by nature – Savior, Priest and King. He cannot be but Savior, for He alone may say that He is God. He alone is able to say that He is the Priest, the Pontiff – He who truly makes the link between heaven and earth – and also He alone is able to say that He is the King. He is not king according to the kingships of this world, that is to say, over a given territory and limited to the earth, to men. Indeed, Our Lord is King not only of the earth but also of heaven. This is the first profound reason for the royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and of this we must be convinced in order to see Our Lord as King, our personal King. Our Lord Jesus Christ is our King.

But He is King for another reason as well. Pope Pius XI explains perceptively that Our Lord Jesus Christ is King by conquest. By what conquest?

It is because Our Lord Jesus Christ has conquered all by His Blood, by His Cross and by Calvary. Regnavit a ligno Deus, God has reigned from the wood, i.e., from the Cross, Our Lord has conquered all souls, whomsoever they may be, by right – a strict right. All souls since they are created by God, even if they live for only a moment here on earth, are, by right, subjects of Our Lord Jesus Christ because He conquered them by His Blood. He wants to save them. He desires to redeem them all by His Blood, His Divine Blood, in order to lead them to heaven. Yes, Our Lord, by His Precious Blood and by His Cross, is by right Our King. This is the very reason why in the early centuries after the peace of Constantine, when the Christians were officially able to present the Cross in their churches, in their chapels and in other places of worship, they usually represented Our Lord Jesus Christ as a crowned King; crowned with the crown of kings. Christ is surely our King and He is King by His Cross.

We must then consider the principles of this nature of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of this conquest which Jesus has made upon our hearts and our souls by His death upon the Cross. Is Our Lord Jesus Christ daily in practice, in all our actions, in all of our thoughts, truly our King? Pope Pius XI continues in his encyclical to describe the manner in which Our Lord must be our King.

He must be the King of our intellects and of our thoughts because He us the truth. Jesus Christ is the Truth, because He is God.

Is then Our Lord Jesus Christ truly King of our thoughts? Is it He who truly orients all of our thoughts, our reflections, our intellectual life, in the life of our Faith? Is it truly Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is the light of our intellects? Is He King of our wills?

He is the Law. If the Tablets of the Law were found in the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament, they represented precisely Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who today is found in our tabernacles. But today with a tremendous superiority have we the Law in our tabernacles, in our "arks of the covenant." It is no longer the cold stones of the Old Testament but rather it is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself Who is the Law. The Word of God is the Law by Whom all has been made, in Whom all things have been created. He is the Law not only of souls, of minds, of wills, but He is the Law of all nature. All the laws which we discover in nature come from Our Lord Jesus Christ – come from the Word of God. It suffices to consider that all creatures follow with incomparable fidelity the laws of God, that they follow physical laws, chemical laws, and all the laws of vegetative nature, of animal nature. These laws are followed impeccably.

And we, too, must follow in a diligent manner, in a free manner, the laws of God inscribed in our hearts. It is precisely due to our liberty that we must attach ourselves to this law which is the path of our happiness, the way to eternal life.

Man has turned away from this law.

Our Lord Jesus Christ must then be – must again become – the King of our wills and we must conform our wills to His Law, to His Law of love, to His Law of charity, to the Commandments which He has given us and which He Himself told us encompass all other Commandments: To love God and to love one's neighbors. Are not these two in fact one and the same Commandment? It is He Who tells us so. Do we then truly conform our wills to the law of Our Lord Jesus Christ? Is Jesus Christ truly King of our wills?

Finally, Jesus has to be, as Pope Pius XI tells us, the King of our hearts. Are our hearts truly attached to Our Lord Jesus Christ? Are we conscious of the fact that Our Lord Jesus Christ is our ALL – Omnia in omnibus? Jesus Christ is all and in things. It is He in ipso omnia constant as St. Paul says. In Him all is sustained, in Him we live, in Him we are and we act. It is this that St. Paul explains in his discourse to the Areopagite: "In ipso vivimus, in ipso movemur, in ipso sumus” – He holds all in His hand.

We must then wonder what the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph must have thought. I believe that there is an admirable example for us. If we truly desire that Jesus Christ be our King we must try to imagine what Nazareth must have been. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. What must Mary have thought of Jesus? What must Joseph have thought of Jesus? It is incredible! It is a great mystery, an impenetrable mystery of goodness, of the charity of God. To think that He permitted two creatures chosen by Him, to live with Him! For St. Joseph during thirty years, for the Blessed Virgin during thirty-three years, in the intimacy of Jesus, in the intimacy of Him Who is God. It is He without Whom neither Mary nor Joseph could speak, think, nor live. Mary bearing Jesus in her arms, bearing God in her arms! As the Gospel often says it was not she who was bearing Jesus but Jesus who was bearing her. For Jesus was much greater than she, for He is God. Just think what must have been in the soul, will and heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary living with Jesus, seeing Him with His young companions, seeing Him working with St. Joseph.

We also have the joy to live with Our Lord.

Even under the delicate envelope of her body, the Blessed Virgin Mary adored the Living God for she knew – she knew that the living God was in her womb. She knew this through by the Annunciation by the angel. And St. Joseph knew it perfectly as well.

We, too, know that we have the living Jesus in our tabernacles under the delicate Eucharistic species. Jesus is there! Not only do we have Him in our tabernacles, but moreover in a manner which I would say is almost more intimate than that of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Joseph, when Our Lord gives Himself to us as our spiritual food.

Imagine, that truly in our bodies, in our hearts we bear Jesus – we bear God who sustains us, for without Him we would not be able to live nor exist nor say a single word nor even think a single thought. And we bear this God in the Holy Eucharist!

Let us ask Our Lord Jesus Christ when we receive Him in us that He be our King – that He may give us the thoughts of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of St. Joseph; that He may grant us the affections of the hearts of the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph, these creatures whom He chose from all eternity to be His guardians, to be those with whom He was to live.

Ask them – ask Mary and Joseph – to help us live under the sweet Kingdom of Our Lord Jesus Christ. One day, we hope that we shall be in that Kingdom and that we shall see Him in His splendor and in His glory as we say so often when we recite the Angelus: ut per passionem ejus et crucem ad resurrectionis gloriam perducamur – in order that by His Passion and Cross we may be brought to the glory of His Resurrection.

Indeed, we also must pass now by the Passion and Cross of Jesus upon the earth in order that one day we may be able to join in the glory of His Resurrection, this glory which illuminates heaven, which is heaven, for God is heaven. That Our Lord Jesus Christ is heaven. In Him we will live in the grace of God by the grace of God. If we have Him as our King here on earth, then we shall have Him as our King for all eternity.

Beseech the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph today, not only for us, but for our families, for all those who surround us, that they may come to the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that they recognize evil, and also for those who do not obey Him or who have withdrawn themselves from Him. Have pity on all these souls who do not know the King of Love and of Glory, in Whom we have the happiness to believe, in Whom we have the happiness to love. Beseech Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph to convert all these souls to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the King.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XL

The New Mass and the Pope
8 November 1979

In the following statement dated 8 November 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre clarified his position and that of the Society of St. Pius X on the subject of the New Mass and the Pope. This clarification had been made necessary by the growing number of traditional Catholics who claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, even in its papally approved Latin version, and that the Holy See was vacant.

In the latter case, some claimed that Pope Paul VI had been a heretic before assuming office, and had never been truly Pope, and others alleged that he had lost his office through heresy. These two opinions certainly have an emotional rather than a theological basis. The New Mass is so frequently celebrated with such banality and even profanity that many Catholics cannot convince themselves that it is truly a Mass. Pope Paul VI was so inactive in stemming the tide of heresy which was engulfing the Church that many Catholics could not convince themselves that he was truly the Pope. Some, who were not prepared to claim that he had lost his office through heresy, concocted the most bizarre theories purporting to prove that Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by an impostor, adducing photographs of his ears and recordings of “voice patterns” to prove their case! Quite frequently the “impostor pope” thesis formed part of an alleged private revelation. The explanation for the “vacant see” and “kidnapped pope” theses probably lies in the fact that for well over a century we have had a series of fine popes whose teaching and example have fulfilled the highest expectations of the faithful. But such popes have by no means always been the norm in the Church, as is made clear in Appendix I, to Volume I of the Apologia.

In the statement which follows, the Archbishop reminds us that a pope can fall far short of the standards we would like to find in a successor of St. Peter, but still be a true pope in the legal sense, i.e., in that he is the legitimately elected successor of St. Peter who has not forfeited his office through formal heresy.

In the case of the New Mass, it is evident that while still upholding its intrinsic validity, the Archbishop has adopted a more negative stance towards assisting at it than he did in earlier years. This is not surprising, because, as the years have passed, the manner in which the New Mass is celebrated has become consistently more unacceptable in many parishes. Matters had reached the stage in 1980 that Pope John Paul II needed to offer an apology to the faithful for the scandal and disturbance caused to them by the way the New Mass was so frequently celebrated.1 In the same year he felt it necessary to order the publication of an Instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, intended to curtail some of the more flagrant abuses.2 This Instruction has been largely ignored.

Unfortunately, the Archbishop's statement was not as clearly worded as it might have been on the matter. One passage in particular gave some readers the impression that the Archbishop had stated that a Catholic could never fulfil his Sunday obligation by assisting at the New Mass. Among those who had received this impression from the statement was Cardinal Seper, who mentioned the anxiety it had caused him during an interview he granted me at Easter 1980. I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:

Those who feel themselves obliged in conscience to assist at the New Mass on Sunday can fulfil their Sunday obligation. But one cannot accuse a person of a grave fault because he prefers not to assist at Mass on Sunday rather than assist at the New Mass.

Thus where the Archbishop states that “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.

It has also been suggested that the Archbishop exaggerated in claiming that most celebrations of the New Mass today “are sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” It is quite possible that he has overstated the extent to which the liturgy has declined to this level. Not unnaturally, in his travels around the world he tends to meet Catholics who have felt unable to assist at their parish churches any longer because of such abuses. But there are many priests, perhaps more than he imagines, who have felt it their duty to remain in their parishes and celebrate the New Mass in the most reverent way possible for the good of their people. In such cases far fewer of their people would be likely to assist at the Masses of society priests, and hence meet or write to the Archbishop. But as the years pass, these conservative priests die, retire, or are replaced, and so it is inevitable that the state of the liturgy will degenerate with each succeeding year, unless drastic action is taken by the Pope to remedy the situation; the issuing of an Instruction such as Inaestimabile Donum, which is defied with impunity, does not constitute such action.3 The text of the Archbishop's statement follows:

8 November 1979

The New Mass and the Pope

How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;

- that the Sacrifice and the Sacrament are effected by the words of the Consecration alone, and not also by those which either precede or follow them.

It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

- the Epistle read by women;

- Holy Communion brought to the sick by laity.

All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.

Let us now pass to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the Throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI posed, and continues to pose, a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but realize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can, in so little time, have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.

Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass, and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.

As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.

But we can say that in the two cases cited above, as in many another, Paul VI acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy. For when one informed him of the danger that he ran in approving certain conciliar texts, he would proceed to render the text contradictory by adding a formula contrary in meaning to affirmations already in the text, or by drafting an equivocal formula. Now, equivocation is the very mark of the Liberal, who is inconsistent by nature.

The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.

Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has aways condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.

Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.

The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.

Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.

We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.

And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.

Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.

Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.

In conclusion, we must have that missionary spirit which is the true spirit of the Church. We must do everything to bring about the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the words of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo. We must restore all things in Christ, and we must submit to all, as did Our Lord in His Passion for the salvation of souls and the triumph of Truth. "In hoc natus sum," said Our Lord to Pilate, "ut testimonium perhibeam veritati."

“I was born to give witness to the Truth."

1. See Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 240.

2. Ibid., pp. 65-66.

3. Inaestimabile Donum forbids girls to serve on the altar, but this instruction is widely defied in the U.S.A. The Apostolic Delegate has been made aware of this but no action has been taken to curtail the abuse (see The Angelus, December 1982).

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Chapter XLI

Three More Letters


18 November 1979

Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to the Sovereign Pontiff

Most Holy Father,

A year has passed since I had the honor of being received in audience by you. Conversations with Cardinal Seper in the course of the year have, I hope, been sufficient to show that nothing on our part is opposed to a solution being found.

In these few lines I should like to show you clearly our wish to see this solution come about for the good of the Church and of souls.

Through your discourses you have made evident your attachment to Our Lord Jesus Christ Who is the only solution to all problems, your fidelity to Catholic morality, and your wish to restore the priestly and religious life. This is, moreover, what we have never ceased to uphold and to put into practice. It is because we believed that these aims could only be attained by worship which corresponds to them, worship utilized by the Church from its origins up to and including the Second Vatican Council, that we have been cruelly condemned.

The Liturgy is more than a mere ritual used in worship, it is the expression of Faith and the source of Grace. It is thus of fundamental importance in the Christian life. The Sacrifice of the Mass is truly the mysterium fidei in all its plenitude. It manifests the great mystery of Christ Crucified, a mystery of charity through self-sacrifice. Finally, the Liturgy puts the soul into direct contact with Our Lord, communicating to us His own divine life.

The restoration of the Church will be brought about through this divinely instituted heritage which is the treasure and the heart of the Church. This is why we ask insistently for the use of this Liturgy which will imbue the Church with a new youthfulness. Priests will rediscover the sense of their priesthood and the greatness of its demands; religious of both sexes will discover the meaning of their self-oblation; married couples will rediscover the true meaning of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and obtain the graces necessary to live out their married life according to divine law.

The Mystery of the Cross and the Sacrifice of Our Lord are the inexhaustible source of the graces necessary for the fulfilment of the Christian life. The considerable decrease in the number of Masses now being offered explains the acceleration of the crisis in the Church.

May Our Lady of Mercy inspire you, and come to your aid, to bring about the solution which is so ardently desired.

As soon as the liturgical problem is solved, the particular problems of Ecône and other (traditionalist) groups, as well as of the nuns, will also be solved, providing that the bishops show understanding and good will.

I beg Your Holiness to accept my personal homage, and my filial sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

†Marcel Lefebvre

☩ ☩ ☩

20 November 1979

Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper

Your Eminence,

The anniversary of the audience granted to me by the Holy Father on 18 November last year seemed to me a favorable occasion to express anew to him our desire that the problem of the Liturgy should not drag on any longer, for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls. The climate for such a solution is far more favorable now than a year ago, even in France where many bishops would rejoice at a peacemaking intervention. The Cardinal of Paris has just promised a Solemn High Requiem according to the Old Rite on the occasion of the death of General Vautier, the father of one of our friends, and this he had always refused up till now, even for President Pompidou.

An opinion poll has just shown that five million French Catholics are in favor of the traditional liturgy. If a solution is too long delayed, many will lose the Faith, and others will join sects such as Palmar de Troya, and all the Pentecostal and Protestant sects.

I expect to be in Rome, or, rather, at our house in Albano, on 5 December and the following days. I am always at your disposal.

In requesting you to pass on the enclosed file to the Holy Father, I beg Your Eminence to accept my respectful and fraternally devoted wishes in Christo et Maria.

†Marcel Lefebvre

☩ ☩ ☩

8 March 1980
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to the Sovereign Pontiff1

Most Holy Father,

To put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America, concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the Pope, the Council, and the Novus Ordo Mass, and fearing lest these rumours should reach Your Holiness, I may make so bold as to reaffirm my consistent position.

1. I have no reservation whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.

2. I am fully in agreement with the judgment that Your Holiness gave on the Second Vatican Council, on 6 November 1978, at a meeting of the Sacred College: "that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church."

3. As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical.

I would be grateful to God and to Your Holiness if these clear declarations could hasten the free use of the traditional liturgy, and the recognition of the Society of St. Pius X by the Church, and likewise of all those who, subscribing to these declarations, have striven to save the Church by perpetuating its Tradition.

I beg Your Holiness to accept my profound and filial respect in Christo et Maria.

†Marcel Lefebvre



1. Although this volume takes the Archbishop’s story only up to the end of 1979, this letter has been included as it removes any ambiguity concerning the Archbishop’s position on certain fundamental points.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 2, Appendix

An Interview with Archbishop Lefebvre

Interview granted by Mgr. Lefebvre to Dr. Eric M. de Saventhem
President of the International Federation Una Voce

Dr. de Saventhem: Excellency, it is known that you were in Rome on the 10th and 11th January for further discussions with Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Was it at Pope John Paul’s request that the Cardinal received you?

Mgr. Lefebvre: There has been some misunderstanding on this matter. It is true that an investigation has been in progress since January, 1978, and that it was to be continued by talks in Rome. Meanwhile, during the audience, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, assigned to Cardinal Seper, as to a trusted friend, the question of Ecône. It does not seem that he had in mind a procedure already in progress, hence the misunderstanding.

Dr. de Saventhem: Have you been interrogated?

Mgr. Lefebvre: Yes, twice, for three-hour periods. Seventeen series of questions by five interrogators accompanied by a secretary; but I was refused permission to bring even one witness.

Dr. de Saventhem: Early in January, a large circulation American magazine stated that, during the audience of the 18th November last, the Holy Father confronted you with an ultimatum: either you submitted to the Pope, or else you left the Church. Since then numerous papers have repeated the, burden of that report, as if your excommunication was imminent.

Mgr. Lefebvre: That is pure invention. The object of the discussions, I suppose, was to clarify the position with a view to finding a solution.

Dr. de Saventhem: Nevertheless, the report that the Pope might soon lift the canonical sanctions imposed on you has not been confirmed. In fact, one wonders how the a divinis suspension could be lifted unless you agreed to refrain forever from ordaining seminarians without dimissorial letters.

Mgr. Lefebvre: This problem arises from the canonical status of our confraternity. The ordinations branded by some as "wildcat" had become necessary from the moment when the Secretariat of State, in a circular letter to all Episcopal Conferences, forbade diocesan bishops to incardinate our seminarians: and to give them dimissorial letters. This prohibition is an encroachment without precedent on one of the oldest episcopal prerogatives. Without it we would always have found resident bishops willing to regularize the canonical status of our young men. In order to solve this problem, it would be sufficient for our Society to be recognized as coming directly under pontifical authority.

Dr. de Saventhem: Would not such an official recognition imply that you had previously answered Pope Paul's priority request to you to declare publicly your sincere adherence to the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican and to all its texts?

Mgr. Lefebvre: In reply to that request I had already written the following to Pope Paul VI: "1 accept everything that, in the Council and its reforms, is in full agreement with Tradition." I have never been told why this declaration was considered inadequate; After all, a Catholic can adhere to the texts of a Council only in the light of the continuing constant teaching of the Church. That is a fundamental principle of the Catholic Faith, and my very clear impression is that, under Pope John Paul II, we shall see it confirmed; as much in the interpretation as in the application of conciliar texts.

Dr. de Saventhem: Did you discuss this matter with the Holy Father during your audience?

Mgr. Lefebvre: I am thinking rather about what he declared publicly in his very first message to the world after the election. Referring to the conciliar Magna Carta – the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church – the Pope said that it must be read in "the light of tradition," and that we must "integrate into it the dogmatic formulations laid down by the First Vatican Council." Only thus would the text become for all, priests and faithful, "the secret of an unerring orientation." If I were asked to declare my adherence to the conciliar texts "read in the light of tradition and integrated with the dogmatic formulations previously laid down by the Magisterium of the Church," I would sign without hesitation.

Dr. de Saventhem: Have you, in fact, signed a text of this nature, either before the audience with the Holy Father, or during your discussions with Cardinal Seper?

Mgr. Lefebvre: I can say that, in the course of the audience, the Pope accepted that declaration regarding the Council, and that it will be signed with Cardinal Seper at some time.

Dr. de Saventhem: Excellency, your confraternity now runs not only seminaries; but a dozen priories and two convents. All these institutions continue their liturgical life notwithstanding the rule of conduct promulgated by Pope Paul VI. Moreover, they refuse to conform with the "new orientations" adopted almost everywhere else. Even if Rome were willing to allow you to perform "the experiment of tradition," is there not a risk that, at diocesan government level, very serious problems would arise?

Mgr. Lefebvre: Let us begin with liturgical norms. They should, and could be made more flexible; that is the sole responsibility of the Holy See. With regard to the Mass, Pope Paul VI certainly never officially forbade the use of the Old Rite. Indeed, Mr. President, it was thanks to your wife that we have had oral confirmation of this from Cardinal Benelli himself. * On the other hand, it is known that a good number of cardinals and bishops have expressed the desire to see the pre-conciliar rites re-admitted everywhere. Without doubt, there would be local problems, but there would also be the immense relief of numerous priests and faithful on recovering traditional rites and the devotion that accompanies them. Bishops would straightway experience the benefit to their dioceses. I dare to hope that the new Pope, in his pastoral solicitude, will not long delay this conciliatory gesture.                       

Dr. de Saventhem: There still remain the various post-conciliar "orientations" which Your Excellency has stigmatized as incompatible with the tradition and Magisterium of the Church and which your confraternity resolutely continues to oppose. Would you say that the claim that these orientations are derived from Vatican II is exaggerated?

Mgr. Lefebvre: It is true that in many fields – ecumenism: the institutions of the Church; liturgy; reform of seminaries and of religious life - the standards set by the Council have been left far behind. In their application, the new orientations have been used as a pretext for leaping into "creativity" and continuous evolution.

Dr. de Saventhem: There are nevertheless other new orientations manifestly favored by the Council. I am thinking especially of the so-called liturgical renewal.

Mgr. Lefebvre: I think I can state that all the novel orientations were favored by the spirit of the Council, as well as by the too often ambiguous written word. The liberal spirit of the Council, by its nature, leads to compromise with the spirit of man and of the modern world-which is in opposition to the Catholic spirit. That is especially the case in documents such as those on religious liberty; on the Church in the world and on non-Christian religions. Our fidelity to the Church prompts us to labor resolutely and patiently for a return to her great traditions. Our priories might be seen as beacons to mark our way on the long road ahead of us.

Dr. de Saventhem: Have you found, in your conversations with him, Cardinal Seper open to the ideas you have just expressed?

Mgr. Lefebvre: I value the Cardinal's sincerity very highly and I hope that he will seize the opportunity given to him by the Holy Father to manifest courageously the attachment which he certainly has for Tradition; but about which he has deemed it right, in obedience, to maintain silence during the last years. Millions of Catholics await with longing the application of religious freedom to the centuries-old tradition of the Church.

Dr. de Saventhem: In thanking you, Excellency, for this interview, I take the liberty, on behalf of those millions of Catholics, of assuring you and His Eminence Cardinal Seper of our most fervent prayers.