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

[Stone]

May 5, 1988

Protocol of Accord

This protocol contains a doctrinal declaration which Archbishop Lefebvre judged barely acceptable. Only two of the seven members of the proposed Roman Commission were to be upholders of Tradition, which was a grave handicap. Nevertheless, at that moment, His Grace saw fit to sign this Accord. In the Protocol Rome recognizes, in principle, that the episcopate is to be conferred on a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. Note how vague is left the date of an eventual consecration. Note also, that since the jurisdiction would come from the local bishop, the bishop proposed by Rome for the Society would be a powerless bishop, not able to protect the priests and faithful from modernist influences.


I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION

I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well as the members of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X founded by me:

a) Promise to be always faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his primacy as head of the body of bishops.

b) We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §2541 of the dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.

c) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics.

d) Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.

e) Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special discipline granted to the Society by particular law.


II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS

Considering the fact that the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X has been conceived for 18 years as a society of common life—and after studying the propositions formulated by H. E. Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon— the canonical form most suitable is that of a society of apostolic life.

1. Society of Apostolic Life

This solution is canonically possible, and has the advantage of eventually inserting into the clerical Society of apostolic life lay people as well (for example, coadjutor Brothers).

According to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this Society enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and can insure the common life of its members.

In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and inventive possibility with respect to the known models of these Societies of apostolic life, a certain exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. Canon 591) for what concerns public worship, the cura animarum, and other apostolic activities, taking into account Canons 679-683. As for jurisdiction with regards to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the Ordinaries of the place or by the Apostolic See.


2. Roman Commission

A commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation at the request of the faithful of a house of worship where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem, Canon 683, §2).

This commission will be composed of a president, a vice-president, and five members, of which two shall be from the Society.42

Among other things it would have the function of exercising vigilance and lending assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to regulate questions relative to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond with the Society.


3. Condition of Persons Connected to the Society

1) The members of the clerical Society of apostolic life (priests and lay coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical Right.

2) The oblates, both male and female, whether they have taken private vows or not, and the members of the Third Order connected with the Society, all belong to an association of the faithful connected with the Society according to the terms of Canon 303, and collaborate with it.

3) The Sisters (meaning the congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who make public vows: they constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own structure and proper autonomy, even if a certain type of bond is envisaged for the unity of its spirituality with the Superior of the Society. This Congregation—at least at the beginning—would be dependent on the Roman Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.

4) The members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) and who have a moral bond with the Society: these are to be given, case by case, a particular statute regulating their relations with the respective Order.

5) The priests who, on an individual basis, are morally connected with the Society, will receive a personal statute taking into account their aspirations and at the same time the obligations flowing from their incardination. The other particular cases of the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman Commission.43

Regarding the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of the Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but—notably by reason of the liturgical rites of the communities of the Society—they can go to them for the administration of the sacraments (for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Marriage,44 the usual notifications must still be given to their proper parish; cf. Canons 878, 896, 1122).

Note: There is room to consider the particular complexity:

1) Of the question of reception by the laity of the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, in the communities of the Society.

2) Of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and such a religious institute, without belonging to it.

The Roman Commission will have the responsibility of resolving these problems.


4. Ordinations

For the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:

1) In the immediate future: For the ordinations scheduled to take place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by himself.

2) Once the Society of apostolic life is erected:

• As far as possible, and in the judgment of the Superior General, the normal way is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who agrees to ordain members of the Society.

• In view of the particular situation of the Society (cf. infra): the ordination of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be able to proceed with ordinations.


5. Problem of a Bishop

1) At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection as a Society of apostolic life of pontifical right, and the approval of its statutes by the Holy Father.

2) But, for practical and psychological45 reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre. In consequence of the principle indicated above (1), this bishop normally is not the Superior General of the Society, but it appears opportune that he be a member of the Roman Commission.


6. Particular Problems to be Resolved (By Decree or Declaration)

1) Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.

2) Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam, of the marriages already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required delegation.

3) Provision for an “amnesty” and an accord for the houses and places of worship erected—or used—by the Society, until now without the authorization of the bishops.

For the convenience of our readers, we put here the text of §25 of Lumen Gentium (including footnotes found in the original), oftentimes referred to in these documents [Taken from, Flannery, Austin, O.P., Vatican Council II, The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1975), pp.379-381]. The passage to which Archbishop Lefebvre refers in his conference of May 10 and which condemns all the modernist bishops is the following: “This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded.” How many bishops in our days are “religiously guarding and faithfully expounding” the Deposit of Revelation?

Lumen Gentium, §25

25. Among the more important duties of bishops that of preaching the Gospel has pride of place.46 For the bishops are heralds of the faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach the faith to the people assigned to them, the faith which is destined to inform their thinking and direct their conduct; and under the light of the Holy Spirit they make that faith shine forth, drawing from the storehouse of revelation new things and old (cf. Mt. 13:52); they make it bear fruit and with watchfulness they ward off whatever errors threaten their flock (cf. II Tim. 4:14). Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.47 This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council, they are, for the universal Church, teachers of and judges in matters of faith and morals, whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.48

This infallibility, however, with which the divine redeemer wished to endow his Church in defining doctrine pertaining to faith and morals, is co-extensive with the deposit of revelation, which must be religiously guarded and loyally and courageously expounded. The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)—he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.49 For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, in as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church’s charism of infallibility is present in a singular way.50 The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme teaching office. Now, the assent of the Church can never be lacking to such definitions on account of the same Holy Spirit’s influence, through which Christ's whole flock is maintained in the unity of the faith and makes progress in it.51

Furthermore, when the Roman Pontiff, or the body of bishops together with him, define a doctrine, they make the definition in conformity with revelation itself, to which all are bound to adhere and to which they are obliged to submit; and this revelation is transmitted integrally either in written form or in oral tradition through the legitimate succession of bishops and above all through the watchful concern of the Roman Pontiff himself; and through the light of the Spirit of truth it is scrupulously preserved in the Church and unerringly explained.52The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, by reason of their office and the seriousness of the matter, apply themselves with zeal to the work of enquiring by every suitable means into this revelation and of giving apt expression to its contents;53 they do not, however, admit any new public revelation as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.54

41. Complete text of §25 found at the end of this chapter, pp.77-79.
42. This paragraph replaces the notes in the April 15 minutes. See how this does not correspond to the suggestions of the representatives of the Society, but rather gives full majority to the members from outside Catholic Tradition. This is perhaps the major point of failure in this whole Protocol.
43. This whole paragraph is new. See again how it separates these priests from the moral support they were getting from their connection with the Society.
44. Here they allow the possibility to give these Sacraments.
45. Please note the choice of words! As if the need for a bishop from among Tradition would not be, first of all, for a reason of Faith: to have an authority without any compromise with the errors of the day.
46. Cf. Council of Trent, Deer. de reform., Session V, can. 2, n. 9, and Session XXIV, can. 4; Conc. Oecr. pp.645, 739.
47. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Dei Filius, 3: Denzinger, 1712 (3011). Cf. the note added to schema I de Eccl. (taken from St. Rob. Bellarmine): Mansi 51, 579C; also the revised schema of Const. II de Ecclesia Christi, with Kleutgen's commentary: Mansi 53, 313 AB. Pius IX, Letter Tuas libenter: Denzinger, 1683 (2879).
48. Code of Canon Law, Canons 1322-1323.
49. Cf. Vatican Council I, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus: Denzinger, 1839 (3074).
50. Cf. Gasser's explanation of Vatican Council I: Mansi 52, 1213 AC.
51. Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1214 A
52.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1215 CD, 1216-1217 A.
53.Gasser, ibid.: Mansi 1213
54. Vatican Council II Const. Dogm. Pastor Aeternus, 4: Denzinger, 1836 (3070).

[Stone]

May 5, 1988

Press Release

The following press release was given to Archbishop Lefebvre on May 5 at the same time as the Protocol, and was due to be published on May 8. Cardinal Ratzinger cancelled its publication. The date written on it at the bottom was May 7, 1988.


Following the Apostolic Visit of His Eminence Edward Cardinal Gagnon to the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, in conformity with the will of the Holy Father expressed in the letter to Cardinal Ratzinger dated April 8, 1988, meetings with the interested parties took place recently in Rome. The dialogue was concluded with the participation of His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Founder of the Society. An agreement on the essential points was reached which allows us to foresee in the near future a formal act of reconciliation with the relative canonical consequences.

In the meantime, the Holy See shall make opportune contacts with the competent and especially interested ecclesiastical authorities.

May 7, 1988

[Stone]

May 5, 1988

Draft of a Letter Given to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Holy Father

Fr. Klemens, secretary to Cardinal Ratzinger, gave to Archbishop Lefebvre, with the Protocol, a draft of the following letter which the Cardinal wanted Archbishop Lefebvre to write to the Pope:


Most Holy Father,

I have learned with joy that you have favorably received the declaration made in my name and in the name of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X—in which is expressed our adhesion to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff—as well as the proposals drafted during the recent dialogues between Cardinal Ratzinger and myself, in order to give to the Society a regular canonical status in full communion with the Apostolic See.

It seems to me that the moment has arrived to present to Your Holiness the humble but pressing request that the agreement which we reached be now implemented so that my personal situation and that of the Society be normalized for the good of holy Church.

Most Holy Father, it is this good of the Church that I have pursued in all conscience in the sight of God during these past years through much suffering. However, I know that even in good faith, one can make mistakes. Therefore, I humbly ask you to forgive all that in my behavior or that of the Society may have hurt the Vicar of Christ or the Church, and on my part, I forgive from the depth of my heart what I had to suffer.

Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its specific needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be not in the too distant future?

With confidence putting all these matters into your hands, please, would you deign to receive the homage of my filial and deeply respectful sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

✠ ✠ ✠

In his own hand writing, Archbishop Lefebvre corrected the third and fourth paragraphs of this draft but never sent even the corrected letter. The two questionable paragraphs were corrected as follows:

“Most Holy Father, it is this good of the Church that I have pursued in all conscience in the sight of God during these past years. However, if in my behavior or that of the Society we may have pained you, we are deeply sorry.”

“Lastly, I wish to express my gratitude for the intention that you manifested to take into account the particular situation of the Society, proposing to nominate a bishop chosen from its members, and especially in charge of providing for its specific needs. Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen from among the names submitted to your judgment.”

You will notice that, by upholding the Tradition of the Church, His Grace does not consider that he hurt the Successor of Peter as such. It is only as a private person that Pope John Paul II may have been pained by the strong stand of Archbishop Lefebvre. You will also notice that the vague expression regarding the date has been deleted (i.e., “May I just express the wish that this be not in the too distant future?”).

[Stone]

May 6, 1988

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger

On the very evening the Protocol was signed, May 5, 1988, after mature reflection and, he says, by a grace of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, Archbishop Lefebvre clearly perceived that, in spite of the principle recognized by Rome that the episcopate was to be conferred on a member of the Society, this Accord was not satisfactory; thus the very next day, May 6, he wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger to express his misgivings, on the grounds that Rome was not willing to fix a date for the episcopal consecration.

Eminence,

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me,55] bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.

Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed.56

The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.

I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.

Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.

In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop member of the Society.

The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.

The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops, transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.

In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.

† Marcel Lefebvre

Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle

✠ ✠ ✠

Recalling the evening of May 5 to a reporter for 30 Days magazine,57 the Archbishop himself described how he came to write the preceding letter:

Yes, I signed the accord, but with extreme distrust. The same distrust I had when I came to Rome. I had made an effort in order to see whether something had changed in Rome, if they had decided to return to Tradition.

But all the disillusionments of these years kept coming back into my mind. The climate of distrust that characterized the meetings first with Cardinal Seper, then with Cardinal Ratzinger. The immense, laborious exchange of correspondence, and then all the things that happened against Tradition, in France and elsewhere. And the tricks that were played on us: Fr. Augustine at Flavigny forced to celebrate the Mass of Paul VI after he had returned to communion with Rome, the two seminaries set up in Rome for the deserters from Ecône over the years. Both were closed, and the seminarians sent back to those bishops from whom they had fled. And the last attempt, the Mater Ecclesiæ, will close down next year. The letter that I received from the Abbé Carlo58 is proof to me of the ill-will of Rome. And the apostolic visit of Cardinal Gagnon about which they obstinately refused to tell me anything. “These meetings are the result of that visit,” Ratzinger’s secretary said to me. But not a word about the report presented to the Pope. Just as it happened in 1974 after the visit of the two Belgian visitors. Still today I know nothing about the report they made.

And Assisi, the visit to the Synagogue,59 the Cardinals who a few days before had gone to genuflect in front of Gorbachev. And now they were deceiving us again.

During the night between May 5 and May 6, I said to myself: “All this is impossible. I cannot accept Ratzinger’s answer, which avoids fixing the date of the ordination.” Then I thought that I should write a letter to the Pope and to Ratzinger: if they would not grant me the ordination on June 30, I would do it anyway. On the morning of May 6, I wrote the letter and I sent it to them.

Was this letter the cause of the cessation of the negotiations?

This May 5 Protocol had several flaws. In the present letter His Grace highlights one, the most urgent one, i.e., the vagueness of the Protocol concerning the consecrations of bishops: No date was fixed, no candidate agreed upon.

Many accused Archbishop Lefebvre of having reneged on the Protocol by this letter. However, a careful reading of both cannot show any opposition between them. No date was mentioned in the Protocol, therefore he asked for a date. This was not to oppose the protocol, but rather to take steps to put it in practice. Archbishop Lefebvre did threaten in this letter, because, as he said, every step forward in the negotiation had only been obtained upon the pressure of such threats.

Such a threat did achieve its purpose, as Cardinal Ratzinger did give a date in his letter of May 30, 1988.

In that letter of May 30, 1988, by asking for “a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates,” Cardinal Ratzinger practically rejected all the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre. That was the real cause of the break of negotiations. Indeed what guarantee that the new names His Grace would have proposed, would be accepted by August 15? By rejecting the candidates proposed by Archbishop Lefebvre, Cardinal Ratzinger made clear that the Vatican was not sincere in fulfilling its promises for a Bishop.


55. This sentence would seem to indicate that there was a letter from the Pope to Archbishop Lefebvre given on May 5. There was no such letter. It rather refers to the “Draft of a Letter Given to Archbishop Lefebvre for the Holy Father” (See previous document, p.81); it refers in particular to the two sentences: “Of course, I leave to Your Holiness the decision concerning the person to be chosen and the opportune moment. May I just express the wish that this be not in the too distant future.” The vagueness of such expression naturally aroused the fears of Archbishop Lefebvre.
56. The first date had been set for the 40th anniversary of his episcopal consecration (Oct. 3, 1987). Late September, upon the report of some improvement of attitude in Rome with the hope of a proper visit of the Society, it was postponed to the Feast of St. John the Evangelist (Dec. 27, 1987); at the time of the visit, with the new hope of a true solution, it was postponed to Good Shepherd Sunday (Apr. 17, 1988), and later, due to the slowness of the negotiations to St. Paul’s Commemoration (June 30, 1988).
57. 30 Days, July 1988, pp.12-13.
58. One of the seminarians at Ecône staying at Mater Ecclesiæ.See his letter of June 2, 1988, in Part II, p.167.
59. i.e., the ecumenical day of prayer held in Assisi on October 27, 1986 and the Pope’s visit to the synagogue of Rome on April 13, 1986.

[Stone]

May 6, 1988

Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre

Excellency,

I have attentively read the letter which you just addressed to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30 next.

Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4, and which have been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.

I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué60 may be released.

In this hope, please Excellency,...

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger



60. See Press Release, May 5, 1988, p.80.

[Stone]

May 10, 1988

Conference of Archbishop Lefebvre at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet

In this conference less than a week after the crucial moments in the relations between himself and the Vatican, Archbishop Lefebvre gives to his priests gathered at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (Paris, France), for their monthly meeting, a detailed account of these moments. The text of this conference is appropriately included here.

If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition, that will require infinite precautions.

Why do I say, “if” there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words.

Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions, and the others on disciplinary questions.

On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not. They put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.

And they had added that we acknowledge him as “the head of the college of bishops.” I said “I don’t like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what ‘college’ meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college.” So I said, “You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept Collegiality.” So they said, “Let’s put ‘the body of bishops.’” The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.

Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium which deals with the magisterium of the Church, §25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph which expresses traditional doctrine.

Then they added a Number Three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this Number Three, we were “saved from the waters.” In this Number Three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the Canon Law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as Religious Liberty, they used to say, “You can’t say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition.”

Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized that “the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal.” It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition—I wanted to add, “taking into account what was stated in §3...” but they did not accept it.

Number Five was on Canon Law. We promised “to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II.” They wanted to say “all ecclesiastical law.” I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new Canon Law.61  So they took away the word “all.” As you see, it was a constant fight.

At the conclusion of Number Three they put “we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics,” as we had done on Religious Liberty (with the Dubia). “Without polemics,” I said, “We never did any polemics!” “Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope.” They were referring to the little drawings which the Pope looked at attentively—and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile—So I said, “This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting.” They said nothing They did not answer.

Then we spoke of the juridical questions.

The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would be of the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. But they said, “No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too.” Thus the President would be Cardinal Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, “Well! That’s very few.”

Please note that. You shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear. They want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations which surround the Society would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put “the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order.” One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.

Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.

Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, “You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations...even Cardinal Gagnon and Cardinal Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!” I said, “This is impossible. This is condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?” With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, “you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition, you must respect our new rights. No difference.”

So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, “for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful.”

What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges—so-called privileges—on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.

I signed it on Thursday, Feast of St. Pius V. They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date….

Thus I have said, “We must know where to stand concerning June 30; it’s coming soon.” So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep all night. I told myself, “They are going to get us.” Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. “Well! There is only one Church....As we respect your feelings, you must also respect Religious Liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass...For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Cardinal Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition.” I said, “Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!”

They call all this a “reconciliation.” This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin62 and Fongombault.63

This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We have asked the Cardinal when shall we be able to consecrate a bishop. On June 30? He said, “No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop.” When I told that to Cardinal Oddi, he said, “That must be a beautiful baby then!” I said, “Well, give us a date. Let’s be precise. The 15th of August?” “No, on August 15 there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15 to September 15.” “What about November 1?” “I can’t tell you.” “What about Christmas?” “I don’t know.”

I said to myself, “Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop.” They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don’t need a bishop.

So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: “It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father’s answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.” Indeed, in that letter—I do not have it here—which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes like, “It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration,” as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that.

[Here, the Archbishop read the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. See pp.83,84.]

So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30 p.m. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, “Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?” He did not even wait.

[Here, the Archbishop read the Cardinal’s letter of May 6, 1988. See p.86.]

Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, “Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have difficulty in travelling by car.64

I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations.” I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.

Again, for them, this reconciliation means, “We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then, your community Masses will be the New Mass—as for Dom Augustin—you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II.”

One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, “If there is a bishop we cannot stop it.” They want none of this.

But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while, they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, “Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations.” This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, “For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop.” But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, “Eminence, couldn’t we...?”

I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, “Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop.”

I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the Visit, they could have said a little word such as, “We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue.” But, no, not even the least compliment.

One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, “Be open-minded. Don’t be against the New Mass....” They will give conferences to the sisters....Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...

We shall see what Providence shall manifest.

We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall “get us,” and we bet that we will “get them!” They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won’t be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes.

I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.

[At this point, a priest interrupted the Archbishop to ask two pertinent questions.]

Fr. Boivin65: “Shall there be one or several bishops?”

Archbishop Lefebvre: If there is no authorization from Rome, there shall be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa—no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...

Fr. Boivin: “What about the churches?”

Archbishop Lefebvre: The existing places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese. But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions. It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish—Cardinal Decourtray at Lyon has promised a beautiful church—they would require that one New Mass be said in that parish. Cardinal Decourtray did that with Fr. Cottin. He said to him, “I allow you to say the old Mass, but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant priest.” Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who accept the New Mass. They would like to re-align us along these lines. This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have fought for.



61. i.e., including Canon 844. See Part II of this volume, p.150.
62. Dom Augustin had founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 1970’s. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement from himself. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4) unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of this monastery.
63. A conservative Benedictine monastery in France which accepted the New Mass only in the mid-1970’s, under pressure from the local bishop.
63. Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône (1983-88), told me that the health of the Archbishop was greatly affected by these negotiations. A choice between being strangled or shot is hard! But after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was made, without accepting the Protocol, a great peace and a better health in the Archbishop was noticeable to all those around him.
65. Fr. Claude Boivin, then District Bursar (Treasurer) of the District of France for the Society of Saint Pius X.

[Stone]

May 17, 1988

Note of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre

Monseigneur,

Through the good services of Fr. du Chalard, I submit again to you the project of a final letter to the Holy Father more in conformity with requirements of the style of the Roman Curia. Your first letter was well received by the Holy Father who is now waiting with a paternal confidence for your final letter.

United in prayer with you I am very devotedly yours in Our Lord,

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger



This “first letter” of May 5 must not have been as “well received” as Cardinal Ratzinger implied. Another was demanded of Archbishop Lefebvre.

Suggestions for a Definitive Letter to be Written by Archbishop Lefebvre to the Roman Pontiff

I. General Considerations

1) It would be most convenient that this letter be such as to remove the barriers and allow the Holy Father not to ask for a solution of the problem other than the first one,66 and to publish this solution in the first half of June, as planned.

2) To this end, apart from being accompanied by the Doctrinal Declaration (since it has already been sent to the Pope, it is not necessary to repeat it), this letter should have the following general characteristics:

a) It must be a humble request for the canonical regularization of the whole vicissitude, without entering into the details of the accord: this one remaining totally in force but being presented as a solution given by the Pope. In fact, it is not logical that the solution appear as the fruit of an agreement between two parties, in order to avoid as much as possible a negative reception from the other part of the Church. On the other hand, this letter shall be published simultaneously with the answer from the Pope, in which explicit reference to the concrete solution already stated would be made.

b) In the right way, which does not hurt the sensibilities of anyone, it would be most opportune that Archbishop Lefebvre—while reaffirming that he has always acted in good faith and pursuing the glory of God and the good of the Church—asks for pardon for anything in his actions which may have displeased the Holy Father.

c) Given the last letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger in which he affirms his will to consecrate a bishop at the end of June, no matter what, in this new letter to the Pope it would be opportune to make a reference to this, but in a more humble tone, as a prayer or suggestion, without requesting a definite date.67

3) Summarizing: it is important to take into account the fact that the more humble and unconditional the letter shall be, the easier it will be for the Pope to accept it publicly, and to grant to Archbishop Lefebvre what he desires (as, after all, this is also the desire of the Roman Pontiff).


II. Suggestions for the Text of the Letter

Most Holy Father,

As I had the occasion to manifest to Your Holiness in one of my previous letters, the Apostolic Visit to the Society of Saint Pius X performed by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon has raised in me and in all the members of the Society a great hope for a solution to the problem concerning the full union of the Society with the Holy See, being aware that such a union is a vital condition for all members of the Church.

This hope of ours has been further reinforced by the public letter of Your Holiness to His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger of April 8 last, and was increased and made concrete after the recent intense meetings which were held with Cardinal Ratzinger.

It is with great confidence that I write this new letter to humbly ask Your Holiness to deign to provide the full canonical regularization of all the diverse aspects regarding my person and the entire Society of Saint Pius X. To this end, I delivered to Your Holiness, with my previous letter a formal declaration, signed in my own name and in the name of the Society, in which I express our full adhesion to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff.

Most Holy Father, through all the past years, through much suffering, I have always acted following my conscience in the sight of God, searching for the good of the Church. Nevertheless, I am aware that even in good faith, one can make mistakes. Yet, for this, I put in your hands all the questions and humbly ask pardon for all that, notwithstanding my good faith, may have caused displeasure to the Vicar of Christ.

Lastly, I would like to share with Your Holiness a special preoccupation of mine, which refers to my advanced age. Indeed, the canonical regularization of the Society does not provide for the consecration of a bishop who would take my place because it is not necessary, per se. However, paying attention above all to the practical need of one who would perform the pontifical functions according to the rite anterior to the liturgical reform, I would be most happy for Your Holiness to nominate a bishop who could, in a certain sense, succeed me.

Deign to accept, Most Holy Father, my most respectful homage and filial respects in Jesus and Mary.



66. i.e., not to negotiate another Protocol.
67. Please note that the vagueness of the date is intentional, not a “mistake.”

[Stone]

May 20, 1988

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II

After the previous letters, Cardinal Ratzinger went on retreat and the Pope went on a pastoral journey. After their return, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote the following letter to the Pope, insisting on the date of June 30, 1988, and more than one bishop to be consecrated.


May 20, 1988
Ecône

Most Holy Father,

While a certain hope was raised regarding a possible solution to the problem of the Society after the signing of the Protocol, a grave difficulty now arises with respect to the episcopacy granted to the Society, to succeed me in my episcopal function.

It clearly appears that this conferring of the episcopacy is a source of apprehensions and concern to the Holy See, for the following reasons:

• in the first place this episcopacy is superfluous. After the legal recognition of the Society as one of pontifical right, the Superior General can give dimissorial letters to a bishop of his choice.
  
• in the second place, this granting of the episcopacy might seem to be a distinct mark of disapproval of the bishops now in office, and might turn the bishops against the Holy See.
  
• finally, this episcopacy could eventually create difficulties in the dioceses, occasioned by the apostolate among the faithful.
  

No doubt these apprehensions are what provoke the delays, the evasive responses of the Holy See for over a year and which morally oblige me to put an end to this waiting, after having insisted several times on the urgent necessity of having several bishops, for the continuation and development of the work.

June 30 now appears to me as the final date to bring about this succession. Providence seems to have prepared this date. The accords have been signed, the names of the candidates have been proposed. If Cardinal Ratzinger is overworked and does not have time to prepare the mandates, perhaps Cardinal Gagnon could be entrusted with it.

Most Holy Father, deign to put an end to this sorrowful problem of priests, the faithful and your servant, who in keeping Tradition have had no other desire than to serve the Church, the Pope, and to save souls.

Permit me to add some considerations on the renewal of the Church, obtained by means of the Society and the episcopacy which would be granted to it.

In reporting the instances of Vienna in Austria, and Coire in Switzerland, regarding episcopal appointments, the press has alluded to a change of orientation on the part of the Holy See in the choice of bishops. This is a good sign, but the reactions show that these bishops will have enormous difficulties in the realization of their apostolate, and they will be forced to manifest their adherence to the modern spirit by ecumenism, as well as the charismatic movement, to calm people down.

Even if they observe a certain discipline and a greater piety, their seminaries will be imbued with this modern spirit, and only with difficulty will they contribute to the true renewal of the Church.

Henceforth this renewal can only be brought about by bishops who are free to revive Christian Faith and virtue by the means Our Lord entrusted to the Church for the sanctification of priests and the faithful.

Only an atmosphere entirely detached from modern errors and modern ways will permit this renewal. This atmosphere is the one encountered by Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl, an atmosphere made up of profoundly Christian families having many children, and from which come numerous and excellent vocations.

The development of this renewed atmosphere, encouraged by your decisions, Most Holy Father, will restore the dioceses through contacts with the bishops and the clergy. Certain bishops will entrust to us the formation of their seminarians and thus, by the grace of God, the Church will find a new youthfulness—and transform pagan society into Christian society.

You will easily understand why only one bishop will not suffice for such a vast field of the apostolate.

If I allow myself to submit these considerations to your judgment, it is in the most profound desire of coming to your aid in solving these grave problems which you are striving to resolve in the course of your apostolic journeys.

Deign to accept, Most Holy Father, the expression of my most respectful and filial sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

† Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
Founder of the Society of Saint Pius X

[Stone]

May 24, 1988

Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger

On May 24, Archbishop Lefebvre met with Cardinal Ratzinger once again. He insisted once more on the necessity of consecrating several bishops and of having a majority of members on the Roman Commission, indispensable requirements for protecting Catholic Tradition from the deleterious influences of Modernist Rome and conciliarist bishops. He was asked by a reporter from the magazine 30 Days: “A few weeks later, on May 24, the Holy See fixed the date of the ordination for August 15, as you had requested. Why didn’t you accept?” His Grace replied: “I had lost faith. It was necessary to threaten continually in order to obtain something. No collaboration was any longer possible. The case of the Roman Commission, in which they wanted to put us in a minority, confirms this.”68

The Archbishop gave to the Cardinal the following letter, insisting on the same requests he had already made to Cardinal Gagnon in November 1987.


Eminence,

It seems necessary to me to stress what I wrote to you on May 6 past.

Upon reflection, it appears clear that the goal of these dialogues is to reabsorb us within the Conciliar Church, the only Church to which you make allusion during these meetings [emphasis mine].

We hoped that you would give us the means to continue and develop the works of Tradition, especially by giving us some coadjutors, at least three, and by giving a majority to Tradition in the Roman Commission.

Now, on these two points which we deem necessary to maintain our works outside of all progressivist and conciliar influence, we are not satisfied.

Therefore, with much regret we feel obliged to ask that, before the date of June 1, you indicate clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two points: consecration of three bishops asked for June 30, and a majority of members from Tradition in the Roman Commission.

Without an answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30 with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.

My health and the apostolic necessities for the growth of our work, do not allow for any further delay.

In the hope that these requests will be taken into consideration, please accept, Your Eminence, my respectful and fraternally devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

† Marcel Lefebvre



68. 30 Days, July 1988, pp.13 14.

[Stone]

May 30, 1988

Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre

The Pope’s reply to the previous letter came in a letter of Cardinal Ratzinger. The Holy Father granted the date of August 15, but refused a majority for Catholic Tradition on the Commission, and kept silence on the number of bishops. Moreover the names already presented by Archbishop Lefebvre were deemed insufficient, and other names are requested. There was no guarantee that any name would be accepted by August 15, 1988.


Excellency,

After having been received in audience by the Holy Father on Friday, May 27, as I had indicated to you during our conversation on the 24th, I am in a position to respond to the letter you had given to me the same day, concerning the problems of a majority of members of the Society on the Roman Commission, and the consecration of bishops.

Concerning the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles fixed in part II, section 2 of the Protocol (see p.74) which you accepted. This Commission is an organism of the Holy See in the service of the Society and the diverse instances which will have to be handled to establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the fears which you have expressed with respect to the other members are groundless, since the choice of members will be done by the Holy Father himself.69

Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you in his behalf, namely that he is disposed to appoint a member of the Society as a bishop (in the sense of part II, section 5, para. 2 of the Protocol [see pp.76, 77]),70 and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the closing of the Marian Year, this coming August 15.

From the practical point of view this requires that you present without delay to the Holy See a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates, to allow him to freely choose a candidate who corresponds to the profile envisaged in the accords and at the same time the general criteria of aptitude which the Church maintains for the appointment of bishops.

Finally, you know that the Holy Father awaits from you a letter containing essentially the points which we spoke of more particularly in our conversation of May 24. But, since you have recently once again announced your intention of ordaining three bishops with or without the permission of Rome on June 30, it is necessary that in this letter (cf. part II, section 4 of the Protocol, [see p.76]), you state clearly that you renounce the idea, and that you place yourself in full obedience to the decision of the Holy Father.

With this final step, accomplished in as little time as possible, the process of reconciliation will have been completed, and a public announcement of this fact can be given.

Excellency, as I conclude this I can only repeat to you as I did last Tuesday, and with still more gravity if possible: when one considers the positive content of the accord which the benevolence of Pope John Paul II has allowed us to reach, there is no proportion between the last few difficulties you have expressed and the damage which would be caused now by a break, a rupture with the Apostolic See on your part, for these motives only. You must have confidence in the Holy Father, whose goodness and understanding he has shown in your regard and with regard to the Society, and which constitutes the best guarantee for the future. Finally, you must—as must we all—have confidence in the Lord, who has allowed the way of reconciliation to be opened as it is open today, the conclusion of which is now in sight.

Deign to accept, Excellency, the expression of my fraternal and respectfully devoted sentiments in the Lord.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger



69. The book, Peter, Lovest Thou Me? (available from Angelus Press) offers the evidence that this was no sufficient guarantee the members of the Commission would be dedi¬cated to upholding the Tradition of the Church.
70. i.e., a powerless bishop.