To
Our Brothers in the Episcopate
Marcel
Lefebvre, Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
When
We received you in audience on 11 September last at Castelgandolfo,
We let you freely express your position and your desires,
even though the various aspects of your case were already
well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have
of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as
of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service
of the Church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you
will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial
communion. After the particularly serious actions that you
have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before
God concerning your duty.
We
have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and
acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It
is true that We have before Us your letter of 16 September
in which you affirm: "A common point unites us: the
ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that
disfigure the Church. How I wish to collaborate in this
salutary work, with Your Holiness and under your authority,
so that the Church recover Her True countenance.” How must
these few words to which your response is limited – and
which in themselves are positive – be interpreted? You speak
as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gesture
against ecclesial communion – words and gestures that you
have never retracted.
As
these "scandalous words and gestures" are not
specified it is hard to decide to what the Holy Father can
be referring. Is it scandalous to reiterate the traditional
teaching of the Church; to protest against abuses; to demand
that Catholic children should be taught their faith; to
celebrate Mass in the manner utilized by so many popes and
holy priests for five centuries-and in all essentials for
1,000 years? No, if we are to look for scandal we should
look to those bishops who cooperate in the devastation of
the Lord 's vineyard or, if they do not actively cooperate,
make not the least effort to intervene in the interests
of orthodoxy. Dietrich von Hildebrand writes:
"One
of the most horrifying and widespread diseases of the Church
today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the
Church. I am not thinking here of those bishops who are
members of the 'fifth column,' who wish to destroy the Church
from within, or to transform it into something completely
different. I am thinking of the far more numerous bishops
who have no such intentions, but who make no use whatever
of their authority when it comes to intervening against
heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous
performances of public worship. They either close their
eyes and try, ostrich-style, to ignore the grievous abuses
as well as appeals to their duty to intervene, or they fear
to be attacked by the press or the mass media and defamed
as reactionary, narrow-minded, or medieval. They fear men
more than God. The words of St. John Bosco apply to them:
'The power of evil men lives on the cowardice of the good.'
One is forced to think of the hireling who abandons his
flocks to the wolves when one reflects on the lethargy of
so many bishops and superiors who, though still orthodox
themselves, do not have the courage to intervene against
the most flagrant heresies and abuses in their dioceses
or in their orders.
But
it is most especially infuriating when certain bishops,
who themselves show this lethargy towards heretics, assume
a rigorously authoritarian attitude toward those believers
who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are thus doing what
the bishops ought to be doing themselves! The drivel of
heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated; the bishops
tacitly acquiesce in the poisoning of the faithful. But
they want to silence the faithful believers who take up
the cause of orthodoxy the very people who should by rights
be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a
source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead,
these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace...
The failure to use holy to protect the holy Faith leads
necessarily to the disintegration of the Church."2
If
we are looking for scandal we need only look as far as the
campaign to destroy the Society of St. Pius X. It is in
perfect conformity with the spirit of the “Conciliar Church”
that legitimate resistance to an abuse of power should be
termed scandalous, and not the abuse of power itself.
You
do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your
suspension a divinis.
It
is precisely the Archbishop’s refusal to submit to an abuse
of power that caused his suspension. It is those guilty
of the abuse of power who should repent.
You
do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority
of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See – and
this constitutes the basis of your problem – and you continue
in those personal works of yours which the legitimate
Authority has expressly ordered you to suspend.
The
Acts of the Second Vatican Council are only Acts of the
Ordinary Magisterium. The Council Fathers deliberately chose
not to invest even one conciliar document with that infallible
status which demands immediate and total acceptance. Mgr.
Lefebvre's attitude is the correct attitude of a Catholic
towards documents
of the Ordinary Magisterium- to receive them with respect
and to accept them where they conform with Tradition but
to exercise a prudent reserve where they do not -for in
such cases the possibility of error does exist.3
What Pope Paul demanded was that the Archbishop must accept
the fallible Acts of Vatican II as if they were infallible.
Not only was the Archbishop required to accept all the Acts
of the Council itself -as has been shown in this book on
several occasions, he was required to accept the post-conciliar
orientations. Where the Acts of the Council themselves are
concerned, there is no bishop in the world who, comes closer
to implementing them than Mgr. Lefebvre. The only documents
he refused to sign were those on The Church in the Modern
World and Religious Liberty. His reasons for doing so
are set out in Appendix IV.
Ambiguity
results from the duplicity of your language.
Yes,
it is quite true. Pope Paul VI is accusing Mgr. Lefebvre
of ambiguity and duplicity after approving in forma specifica
all the devious actions taken against the Archbishop -and
this must include an invitation to a discussion which turned
out to be a trial (see p. 45).
On
Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending
you the conclusions of Our reflections.
1.
In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and
spokes- man of the faithful and of priests "torn
apart by what is happening in the Church,” thus giving
the sad impression that the Catholic Faith and the essential
values of Tradition are not sufficiently respected and
lived in a portion of the People of God, at least in certain
countries.
As
Mgr. Lefebvre made clear during his sermon at Lille, he
has never put himself forward as the leader of the traditionalists
(as Chapter XIII). The Vatican thus invests him with a title
to which he has never laid claim, and then attacks him for
laying claim to it! Another example of the “Conciliar Church”
in action!
If
Mgr. Lefebvre has given the impression that the essential
values of Tradition are not respected in certain countries,
he is doing no more than state a fact which has been so
obvious for so long that it is something which truly faithful
Catholics now take for granted. The fact that there is not
a single hierarchy in the West prepared to uphold and teach
the truths and traditions of our faith is now accepted as
quite normal rather than a cause of scandal. Organizations
such as Pro Fide in Great Britain of Catholic United for
the Faith in the U.S.A.., which have never been connected
with Mgr. Lefebvre, have produced thousands of pages of
ducumented evidence detailing liturgical, doctrinal, and
catechetical abuses which almost invariably remain uncorrected.
This is a charge which I would not have the least difficulty
in proving where Great Britain is concerned. When they are
presented with irrefutable proof that their catechetical
directors are preventing Catholic children from learning
their faith, the reaction of British bishops is to ignore
the interests of the children and leap to the defense of
their “experts.” I repeat, this is something I can prove
if challenged.
In
a message to the People of God issued on 11 October 1977,
the Synod of Bishops included the following:
“…the
vitality and strength of the entire catechetical activity
of the Church is clearly felt almost everywhere. This has
produced excellent results for the renewal of the entire
community of the Church. ...Despite some areas which cause
concern, the number of present initiatives in this field,
visible almost everywhere, is striking. Over the past ten
years, in all parts of the world, catechesis has become
a primary source of vitality leading to a fruitful renewal
of the entire community of the Church."
There
is only one possible comment regarding this statement-it
is quite untrue. As a result of the initiatives taken over
the past ten years the results are indeed striking -the
accelerating decomposition of the Church throughout the
West. To paraphrase once more a statement by Tacitus with
which I concluded my book Pope John's Council: "When
they create a wilderness they call it a renewal."
But
in your interpretation of the facts and in the particular
role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in
which you accomplish this role, there is something which
misleads the People of God and deceives souls of good
will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual
and apostolic progress.
When
the Synod of Bishops met to vote upon the document just
cited it was approved almost unanimously. If the Pope had
wished to accuse bishops of misleading the People of God
and of deceiving souls of good will, there was clearly no
lack of suitable candidates for such a reproach-the fact
that he reserved it for one of the very few bishops to whom
it is not applicable is another example of the Conciliar
Church in action.
Deviations
in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly
very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of
time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and
pastoral attention.
What
exactly did Pope Paul mean by his "full doctrinal and
pastoral attention"? The manner in which he exercised
his authority was well described by Hamish Fraser in the
July 1977 issue of Approaches. He comments:
"Having
promulgated the New Mass, which was intended by its authors
to initiate a permanent liturgical revolution, Pope Paul
undoubtedly bears a terrifying responsibility for the consequent
liturgical (as well as doctrinal) chaos. Similarly, he bears
grave responsibility for the subversion of catholic education.
On the one hand, although details concerning catechetical
subversion have been reported to the Holy See time and again,
nothing has been done to discipline the bishops guilty of
imposing heretical catechisms on the schools under their
control. On the other hand, by sanctioning the continued
use of the New (Dutch) Catechism (subject only to its carrying
an Appendix adverting to its most egregious error, which
Appendix is simply ignored by those who use this compendium
of Neo-Modemist heresies), he gave great comfort to the
New Catechists responsible for catechetical subversion…
Pope Paul must bear responsibility for the breakdown of
Law within the Church and the consequent abuse of power
at all levels. His pontificate, probably the most disastrous
in history , has been characterized less by 'a suspense
of the functions of the ecclesia docens' (teaching
Church - Cardinal Newman's description of the state of affairs
in the fourth century), than by a suspense of the ecclesia
sanctificans
(the sanctifying Church) and of the ecclesia gubernans
(the governing Church) It is undoubtedly true
that, but for this partial suspense of the functions of
the ecclesia docens, and the near total chaos concerning
the functions of the ecclesia sanctificans and the
ecclesia gubernans there would have been no need
for Mgr. Lefebvre to found the Econe seminary and there
would certainly have been no danger whatsoever of his coming
into conflict with the Holy See."
Mr.
Fraser's allegations concerning the total inactivity of
the Holy See in the face of liturgical, doctrinal, and catechetical
abuses are fully corroborated by the letter sent to Pope
Paul by twenty-eight French priests on 27 August 1976 and
included in this book under that date.
Certainly
one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal
or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics...
With
all due respect to the late Holy Father, there is not one
indication of renewal anywhere in the Church which can be
ascribed to Vatican II. There are, it is true, fruitful
and inspiring apostolates such as that of Mother Teresa
of Calcutta; however, this was not inspired by Vatican II
but pre-dated it. An indication of the true nature of the
fruits of Vatican II is provided in Appendix VIII to my
book Pope John's Council.
...or
the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense
change: in today's world affects believers at the depth
of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic
concern for those "who are far away." But it
remains true that some priests and members of the faithful
mask with the name "conciliar" those personal
interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious,
even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious.
Take
careful note: sacrilege is being committed; the Council
is used to justify sacrilege; and it is the Pope him- self
who testifies to this fact. It is quite clear that any fault
Mgr. Lefebvre might be guilty of would pale into insignificance
beside a single act of sacrilege-but it was against Mgr
. Lefebvre alone that the Pope took positive action.
But
these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council
itself or to the reforms that have legitimately issued
therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity
in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that
the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong
interpretation of the Council, and that it flows from
the Council itself.
Pope
Paul was correct in stating that Archbishop Lefebvre claims
that the Council is the cause of the crisis but the Pope
contradicted all the available evidence in claiming that
neither the Council nor the official reforms could, in fact,
be blamed for the erroneous, scandalous, and indeed, sacrilegious
practices which exist. It must be clearly understood that
in making such a statement the Pope was expressing his opinion
on a question of fact-i.e.: Have or have not the official
reforms helped to create the atmosphere which engendered
the abuses? Pope Paul said "No"; Mgr. Lefebvre
said "Yes.” In a dispute concerning a matter of fact
we must base our decision upon the available evidence and
not upon the status of the parties concerned. In his diary
giving the background to the encyclical Apostolicae Curae,
Cardinal Gasquet relates how, in January 1895, Pope Leo
XIII explained to Cardinal Vaughan that a small concession
on the part of the Holy See would bring the majority of
Englishmen into communion with Rome. He asked for the Cardinal's
help in achieving this objective. The Cardinal felt bound
to tell the Pope bluntly that his opinion had no "foundation
in fact." Subsequent events proved the Cardinal to
be right and the Pope to have been completely mistaken -he
had put too much faith in the opinions of ecumenically-minded
French priests who were totally ignorant of the situation
in England. No one in authority likes to admit making an
error of judgment and there is a natural tendency among
subordinates never to suggest that their superiors have
erred. A prelate of lesser character than Cardinal Vaughan
would not have spoken so bluntly; the same can be said of
St. Paul, Bishop Grosseteste, and St. Catherine of Siena
-to name but three of those who have rightly rebuked the
Pope of their day for pursuing policies which harmed the
Church (See Appendix II). Pope Paul's personal prestige
had become inextricably linked with the Council and the
post-conciliar reforms and orientations to which he was
committed. It is an incontestable fact that never in the
history of the Church had there been so sudden and so widespread
a decomposition of Catholicism. Historians will certainly
record that the Pontificate of Pope Paul VI proved to be
the most disastrous during the history of the Church. There
is, however, considerable scope for a difference of opinion
on the reason for this collapse.
One
version, and it is a version which deserves consideration,
is that a series of sincere but misguided pontiffs failed
to keep pace with an unprecedented advance in human progress,
that they failed to adapt the Gospel to the profound developments
manifest in every other branch of society and contented
themselves with repeating archaic and stereotyped formulae
that were meaningless to a mankind which had "come
of age." The capital fault of these pontiffs had been
to fail to "read the signs of the times." These
particular signs were, through the intervention of the Holy
Ghost, made manifest to the Fathers of the Second Vatican
Council, who at last undertook the urgently needed task
of adaptation. It is argued that due to the short-sighted
policies of pontiffs prior to Pope John XXIII, the Church
was totally unprepared for this process of adaptation and
that, to a large extent, it had come too late. Thus, this
school of thought argues, the decomposition of the Church
would have come anyway; Pope Paul and his policies are in
no way to blame (except where he tried to uphold the traditional
positions as in the case of Humanae Vitae); and if
it had not been for the post-conciliar orientations the
disaster would have been even greater.
Archbishop
Lefebvre's view is that it is precisely the post-conciliar
reforms and orientations to which Pope Paul himself was
committed, and the virtual carte blanche which this
Pope had given to Modernists to undermine the faith in any
way that suited them (rarely opposing them with anything
more than pious exhortations), to which the present crisis
is due. Humanly speaking, it would have been almost impossible
for Pope Paul VI to admit this -even to himself. He would
have thus admitted not simply that his pontificate had been
the most disastrous in the history of the Church but that
his policies had been responsible for the disaster. When
someone in authority initiates a policy which does not succeed,
the almost invariable reaction is to find some explanation
other than that the policy itself was wrong. When an education
official introduces a new system of teaching reading which
results in illiterate children, he will blame the teachers,
their methods, lack of parental cooperation -anything and
anyone but his own judgment. The history of the papacy makes
it clear that the popes themselves are only too human. We
should not be surprised that Pope Paul attempted to justify
the orientations to which he was committed -it would have
been a miracle of grace if he had not. If we read the history
of the papacy we shall find many occasions when we could
wish miracles of grace had occurred but didn't!
This
has been a long comment on a short passage in the Pope's
letter -but it involves what is perhaps the most crucial
issue for faithful Catholics in the whole controversy between
the Archbishop and Pope Paul VI. The faithful Catholic tends
to presume that anyone who disagrees with the Pope on any
topic whatsoever must certainly be wrong -and he cannot
be condemned for this attitude as it has been one that has
been inculcated for centuries, particularly in Protestant
countries. “Keep the faith " has been equated with
"Give uncritical support to every papal act and opinion."
Now that it has come to the point that there can be a contradiction
between keeping the faith and supporting the Pope, few orthodox
Catholics are able to make the necessary distinction. I
am arguing here that the Pope's interpretation of the reasons
for the crisis is incorrect and that of Archbishop Lefebvre
correct, simply that the Pope could be mistaken. I will
leave readers to examine the evidence presented in my book
Pope John's Council and decide for themselves whether
or not it establishes that the Council and the official
reforms and orientations are responsible for the present
crisis.
I will
content myself here with citing just one specific example.
I am sure that every orthodox Catholic, whatever his views
about Mgr. Lefebvre, would agree that there has been a great
decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, particularly
among children. Pope Paul VI insisted that this has nothing
to do with the official reform, Mgr. Lefebvre insists that
it does. Before the reform children knelt to receive Holy
Communion on the tongue from the consecrated hands of a
priest. Now it is quite common for them to receive it standing,
in the hand, from one of their teachers or even from a fellow
pupil. How can it be argued that these revolutionary changes
have not contributed to the decline in reverence? Yet these
revolutionary changes were official orientations to which
the Pope himself was committed.
Moreover,
you act as if you had a particular role in this regard.
But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses
is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops
who work together with Us. Indeed, We do not cease to
raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse
to the Consistory of 24 May last repeated this in clear
terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of
distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the
faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This
is not the place to remind you, Brother, of all the acts
of Our Pontificate that testify to Our constant concern
to insure for the Church fidelity to the true Tradition,
and to enable Her with God's grace to face the present
and the future.
Pope
Paul was quite correct in stating that the Pope and the
Bishops have a mission to discern and remedy abuses -but
having a mission is not the same as discharging it faithfully.
The
"acts " to which the Pope referred consisted in
the main only of words, and even here he made only generalized
condemnations. The legion of Modernists which proliferated
throughout the Church, often in official positions, could
rest assured that its members would remain exempt from specific
papal condemnation; this was reserved for Mgr. Lefebvre.
Cardinal Heenan remarked as early as 1968 that the Pope:
"...constantly returns to the theme of the erroneous
teaching of theology. Unfortunately, his condemnations are
made in general terms. Since nobody knows which theologians
are being condemned it is impossible for bishops to take
any action.”4
As for the response of the bishops to "the suffering
of distressed Christians"-as many distressed Christians
can confirm, appeals to bishops frequently remain unanswered,
a convenient way of avoiding responsibility. And when an
answer is received, that given to the People of God by the
Synod of Bishops regarding catechetics is only too typical
– a great renewal, we are told, is taking place in every
country!
Finally,
your behavior is contradictory .You want, so you say,
to remedy the abuses that disfigure the Church; you regret
that authority in the Church is not sufficiently respected;
you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the
ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in
its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would,
in itself, merit Our encouragement, since it is a question
of exigencies which, together with evangelization and
the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations
and of Our mission. But how can you at the same time,
in order to fulfil this role claim that you are obliged
to act contrary to the recent Council, in opposition to
your brethren in the Episcopate, to distrust the Holy
See itself -which you call the "Rome of the Neo-Modernist
and Neo-Protestant tendency"-and to set yourself
up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work
"under Our authority, " as you affirm in your
last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put
an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.
Mgr.
Lefebvre's behavior is not in the least contradictory. Respect
for authority does not involve an obligation to submit to
an abuse of power. True respect for authority means that
where it is abused it must be resisted -witness the case
of Bishop Grosseteste (see Appendix 11).
2.
Let us come now to the more precise
requests which you formulated during the audience of 11
September. You
would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass
in various places of worship according to the Tridentine
rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for
the priesthood according to your criteria, ''as before
the Council," in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But
behind these questions and other similar ones, which we
shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary
to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is
theological. For these questions have become concrete
ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential
points.
All
that Mgr. Lefebvre wishes to do is to uphold the teachings
and traditions which he upheld as a bishop during the pontificates
of Popes Pius XII and John XXIII. Pope Paul's response can
only mean that he considered the ecclesiology of the pre-conciliar
Church to be warped. Well, it's a point of view!
What
is indeed at issue is the question-which must truly be
called fundamental -of your clearly proclaimed refusal
to recognize, in its whole, the authority of the Second
Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is
accompanied by an action that is orientated towards propagating
and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called
a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is untenable.
To
repeat a point which has been made already, the Archbishop
does not refuse to recognize the authority of the Second
Vatican Council -he refuses to accord its documents with
the status of infallible Acts of the Extraordinary Magisterium
when, as Pope Paul himself admitted, they are only Acts
of the Ordinary Magisterium which, although infallible on
occasions, can be fallible and even contain error. And the
action described by the Pope as a "rebellion "
is no more than a refusal -to submit to an abuse of power.
It is not the position of Mgr. Lefebvre which is untenable.
Is
it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in
the Episcopate and moreover -a fact that obliges you to
remain even more closely united to the See of Peter -that
you have been named an assistant to the Papal Throne?
Christ has given the supreme authority in His Church to
Peter and to the Apostolic College, that is, to the Pope
and to the college of Bishops una cum Capite. In
regard to the Pope, every Catholic admits that the words
of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter's
legitimate successors: " ...whatever you bind on
earth will be bound in heaven" (Mt 16:19); "
...feed my sheep"(Jn 21:17); “confirm your brethren"
(Lk 22:32).
There
is no little irony in the fact that whereas Archbishop Lefebvre
would accept what the Pope has written here in its totality,
it is stated in the Agreement on Authority, produced by
the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission in
1976, that:
“Claims
on behalf of the Roman See as commonly presented in the
past have put a greater weight on the Petrine texts (Matt.
16. 18. 19; Luke 22. 31, 32; John 21. 15-17) than they are
generally thought to be able to bear. However, many Roman
Catholic scholars do not now feel it necessary to stand
by the former exegesis of these texts in every respect (para.
23a).”
Thus
the interpretation which the Pope has placed upon these
texts is challenged by Catholic bishops appointed to this
Commission by the Vatican in an Agreement published with
the approval of the Vatican. It is true that the three Agreed
Statements have not been approved by the Vatican, only approval
to publish them has been given; and that they only represent
the personal opinions of the signatories. But up to this
point not one of these three betrayals of the faith has
been denounced by the Vatican, nor has any action been taken
to discipline the bishops concerned. Unlike Mgr. Lefebvre,
they could count on an effusive welcome from Pope Paul whenever
they cared to visit the Vatican. This is something which
Bishop C. Butler, one of the Catholic signatories, pointed
out with considerable relish in a broadcast on B.B.C. Radio
on 9 October 1977, when he stated:
"The
Roman Catholic members of this Commission didn't choose
themselves, they were chosen by the authorities at Rome,
the authorities at Rome didn't presumably intend to choose
either inefficient people or people whose loyalty to the
Church and her traditions was in doubt, that these members
have been able unanimously to sign each of these statements
as they came along, that the statements were communicated
to Rome and, of course, on the Anglican side to the Archbishop
of Canterbury, before they were published, that the first
of these statements has now been before the world for six
years, and if we have seriously compromised the Catholic
faith or shown intentional or unintentional disloyalty to
it, all I can say is that it is about time the Church authorities
stepped in and either sacked us or showed that they disapproved.”
Bishop
Butler is, of course, speaking with his tongue in his cheek
here. He knows very well that in the "Conciliar Church"
no one will be disciplined for betraying the faith, only
for upholding it.
And
the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the
assent due to the Sovereign Pontiff: "The pastors
of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each
separately and all together, are bound by the duty of
hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not
only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those
that touch upon discipline and the government of the Church
throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity
of communion and profession of faith with the Roman Pontiff,
the Church is a single flock under one Pastor. Such is
the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can
separate himself without danger for his faith and his
salvation " (Dogmatic Constitution, Pastor Aetemus,
ch. 3, DZ 3060). Concerning bishops united with the Sovereign
Pontiff, their power with regard to the universal Church
is solemnly exercised in the Ecumenical Councils, according
to the words of Jesus to the body of the Apostles: whatever
you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven"(Mt. 16:19).
And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must
be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is
exercised.
An
important distinction must be made here between a refusal
to recognize the existence of an authority and a refusal
to submit to it in a particular instance. Those who refuse
to accept the existence of the papal prerogatives as such
are guilty of schism and heresy. Those who refuse to submit
to the exercise of papal authority in a particular instance
are only guilty of disobedience; if the instance in question
involves an abuse of power this disobedience involves not
guilt but merit. This distinction between schism and disobedience
is explained in the Dictionnaire de Theologie Catholique
by less an authority than Father Yves Congar, a virulent
opponent of Mgr. Lefebvre.
Pope
Paul continues:
Each
bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to
the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide
their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that
menace the flock. But, by their nature, "the charge
of teaching and governing… cannot be exercised except
in hierarchical communion with the head of the College
and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21;
cf. Also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical
mission does not have, in actu expedito ad agendum, the
faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith
is or of determining what Tradition is. In practice you
are claiming that you alone are the judge of what Tradition
embraces.
Needless
to say, Mgr. Lefebvre has never made any such claim. All
that he is doing is what every Catholic – bishop, or layman
– has not simply the right but the duty to do, and that
is to speak up in defense of the faith when it is endangered
no matter by whom. Thus when Pope John XXII claimed in 1331
that the souls of the just do not enjoy the Beatific Vision
immediately after death, but must await the final judgment
of God on the Last Day, he was rightly denounced by some
Franciscan theologians who demanded that he be brought before
a council for trial and condemnation. The Pope appointed
a commission of theologians to examine the question; the
commission convicted him of error; he made a public retraction
on 3 December 1334 and died the next day.
Similarly,
the General Instruction (Institutio Generalis) to
the New Order of the Mass was approved by Pope Paul VI.
Certain articles, notably Article 7, provoked such outrage
among the faithful that the Pope felt himself bound to order
their correction. Had the faithful waited for those with
a canonical mandate to denounce these articles they would
still be waiting!
You
say that you are subject to the Church and faithful to
Tradition, by the sole fact that you obey certain norms
of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of Him
to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter.
That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “Tradition”
that you invoke is distorted. Tradition is not a rigid
and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which
at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active
organism which is the Church, that is, the Mystical Body
of Christ.
On
the contrary, particularly where the liturgy is concerned,
it is Mgr. Lefebvre who is the defender of that salutary
development expounded by Cardinal Newman. It is the proponents
of the New Mass who wish to fly in the face of history and
impose a rigid, dead, static notion of liturgical development
by reverting to more primitive liturgical forms on the grounds
that what is earlier must be better. This is an attitude
that was condemned most forcefully by Pope Pius XII in his
encyclical Mediator Dei (paras. 64-69).
It
is up to the Pope and to Councils to exercise judgment
in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that
which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord
and to the Holy Spirit – the adapted to facilitate the
prayer and the mission of the Church throughout a variety
of times and places, in order better to communicate it,
without an unwarranted surrender of principles. Hence
Tradition is inseparable from the living Magisterium of
the Church, just as it is inseparable from Sacred Scripture.
“Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium
of the Church... are so linked and joined together that
one of these realities cannot exist without the others,
and under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation
of souls” (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).
This
is all true, but it does not follow that every decision
of ecclesiastical authority is automatically infallible
and could not constitute an abuse of power.
With
the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the Popes and
the Ecumenical Councils have acted in this common way.
And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council
did.
Quite
the contrary. Vatican II, in contrast with preceding Councils,
took the unprecedented step of declaring that it had not
availed itself of the special assistance of the Holy Ghost
given to Ecumenical Councils when it stated specifically
that none of its teaching was to be considered infallible.
In an address delivered on 12 January 1966, Pope Paul himself
stated explicitly:
"Some
ask what authority -what theological qualification -the
Council has attached to its teachings, knowing that it has
avoided solemn dogmatic definitions backed by the Church's
infallible teaching authority .The answer is familiar to
those who remember the conciliar declaration of 6 March
1964, repeated on 16 November 1964. In view of the pastoral
character of the Council, it has avoided pronouncing in
an extraordinary way dogmas carrying the note of infallibility.
Nevertheless its teachings carry the weight of the supreme
ordinary teaching authority."
Pope
Paul thus contradicted himself in claiming that Vatican
II acted precisely as previous councils had done. This is
precisely what it did not do!
Nothing
that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that
We enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is
opposed to what the two-thousand-year-old Tradition of
the Church considers as fundamental and immutable. We
are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal
qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has
conferred upon Us as legitimate Successor of Peter, and
in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised
to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you
that your faith may not fail" (Lk 22:32). The universal
episcopate is guarantor with Us of this.
As
Appendix IV will show, some teaching in the Declaration
on Religious Liberty is opposed to what a series of popes
has taught consistently with the authority of the Supreme
Ordinary Magisterium, possibly even in an extraordinary
and infallible manner in the encyclical Quanta Cura.
It has also been the consistent teaching of the Magisterium
that Catholics should not take part in the services of heretical
or schismatic bodies, yet this is now encouraged. This prohibition
derives from the very nature of the Church founded by Christ.
Those who organize religious services outside and in opposition
to the one, true Church are in opposition to Christ Himself,
Whose Mystical Body the Church is. To permit Catholics to
take part in services organized by, say, Protestants must
be, and is, taken to imply that these bodies are legitimate
branches of the Church.
Now
if it is conceded that previous teaching on Religious Liberty
and common worship was erroneous, or at least not immutable,
why should we have any confidence that the teaching of Vatican
II is correct? We are reduced to the situation that it is
only teaching which has been solemnly declared as infallible
to which we can give our wholehearted acceptance! The great
French bishop Bossuet recognized the importance of the continuity
of teaching in a pastoral letter to the new Catholics of
his diocese:
"We
never disparage the faith of our fathers but hand it on
exactly as we have received it. God willed that the truth
should not come down to us without any evident novelties,
it is in this way that we recognize what has always been
believed and, accordingly, what must always be believed.
It is, so to speak, from this word always that the truth
and the promise derive their authority, an authority which
would vanish completely the moment an interruption was discovered
anywhere.”
The
example concerning common worship illustrates this point
perfectly. Unless the Vatican expects the faithful to behave
like robots, programmed to change direction at the whim
of their controller, what reaction does it expect of us
when in 1963 (in accord with a 2,000-year tradition) we
are taught that it is wrong to worship with heretics and
then in 1964 (Decree on Ecumenism) we are taught that it
is not wrong?
Again,
you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic
and what is pastoral, to accept certain texts of this
Council and to refuse others. Indeed, not everything in
the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only
what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith
or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith.
And
there is not a single document of the entire Council which
demands the assent of faith.
But
the rest also forms part of the solemn Magisterium of
the Church, to which each member of the faithful owes
a confident acceptance and a sincere application.
This
is quite true, but in the accepted sense of the assent to
be given to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, particularly
with regard to novelties. Once again, Dorn Nau's study which
was referred to on page 178 should clarify the nature of
this assent for those in any doubt concerning the difference
between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. It should
be added that this study is intended to reinforce the authority
of the Ordinary Magisterium and not to diminish it in any
way.
It
must also be noted with respect to this passage from the
Pope's letter that he most certainly does not require each
and every member of the faithful to accept and apply the
teaching of the Council. The Council ordered (Liturgy
Constitution, para. 116) that Gregorian Chant be given pride
of place in liturgical services. Apart from those institutes
controlled by Mgr. Lefebvre, this instruction is almost
universally ignored -and ignored with impunity.
You
say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile
certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions
which We have enacted in order to put the Council into
practice, with the wholesome Tradition of the Church and
in particular with the Council of Trent or the affirmations
of Our predecessors. These are for example: the responsibility
of the College of Bishops united with the Sovereign Pontiff,
the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the
attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modern world.
...It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each
of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents,
with the totality of its nuances and its context, the
authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries
which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you
to overcome these personal difficulties. Absolutely secure
counsellors, theologians, and spiritual directors would
be able to help you even more with God's enlightenment,
and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance
for you.
On
18 June 1977 the Secretariat of State received an offer
from the Archbishop to "accept all the texts of Vatican
II either in their obvious meaning or in an official interpretation
which ensures their full concordance with the authentic
teaching of the Church." His offer, together with other
proposals aimed at healing the breach with the Vatican,
was rejected as unacceptable by Pope Paul in a letter dated
20 June 1977. These documents will be dealt with under their
respective dates.
But
how can an interior personal difficulty – a spiritual
drama which We respect – permit you to set yourself up
publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted,
practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion
of the faithful into your refusal?
This
is a far from subtle attempt to insinuate that the Archbishop
is the instigator of resistance to the reforms of the “Conciliar
Church.” On the contrary, this resistance long predated
the emergence of the Archbishop and his seminary as focal
points of inspiration and encouragement to Catholics wishing
to remain true to the traditional faith. For example, the
Latin Mass Society of England and Wales sent every priest
in the country a copy of the Critical Study of the New Mass
sent to the Pope by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci in 1969.
The name of the Archbishop was hardly known in Britain at
that time. I support the Archbishop because he upholds the
beliefs and traditions which I already upheld when I first
came to know of him.
If
justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual
acceptance -and We hope that the troubled or reticent
faithful will have the wisdom, honesty, and humility to
accept those justifications -that are widely placed at
their disposal-they are not in themselves necessary for
the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical
Council and to the decisions of the Pope. It is the ecclesial
sense that is at issue.
The
type of justification given to the faithful has already
been indicated in the response of the 19?7 Synod of Bishops
to documented complaints concerning the "New Catechetics"
-that we are in the presence of an almost universal and
fruitful catechetical renewal!
In
effect you and those who are following you are endeavoring
to come to a standstill at a given moment in the life
of the Church. By the same token you refuse to accept
the living Church, which is the Church that always has
been: you break with the Church's legitimate pastors and
scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge.
The
term "the living Church " is yet another novelty.
The Pope says that it is the Church that always has been,
but the use of the term "living" only makes sense
in opposition to "dead "-just as the term "Conciliar
Church ': only makes sense in opposition to the "Preconciliar
Church." As has already been stated, where the liturgy
is concerned it is the "living Church " which
wishes to reverse a process of development lasting almost
2,000 years under the guidance of the Holy Ghost by reverting
to what it terms more "primitive forms "-precisely
the argument used by the Protestant Reformers when they
made similar changes to destroy the sacrificial nature of
the Mass. The term "living Church" is also a useful
example of the manner in which the language used in the
"Conciliar Church " is approximating more and
more closely to the Newspeak of Nineteen Eighty-Four. In
Newspeak words frequently imply the opposite of their apparent
meaning, and we now have the term "living Church "
used to describe a Church which has not been closer to dying
since the Arian crisis – when a weak Pope confirmed the
excommunication of the great champion of orthodoxy, St.
Athanasius. There are no signs of new vitality anywhere
in the Church today – whatever is vital and fruitful is
a survival from the “Preconciliar (dead?) Church.” The frenetic
hysteria of the Pentecostal movement - so often cited as
a sign of renewal – is one of the clearest indications of
approaching death, the final paroxysms of the dying body.
But the Body of Christ cannot die – the Church has been
written off on many occasions but has always survived –
just as She will survive the present crisis – if only as
a remnant. It is far from fanciful to see Econe as a source
of the antibodies which are already emerging to fight the
contagion and restore the Mystical Body to health.
And
so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of
the Pope, or by the suspension a divinis, as you
lament "subversion' in the Church.
Is
it not clear proof of the extent of the subversion in the
Church during the Pontificate of Pope Paul VI that Her most
courageous and orthodox bishop was suspended a divinis
the crime of forming orthodox priests? As has already been
made clear in this book on several occasions, the refusal
of the Archbishop to accept any of the sanctions following
his refusal to close his seminary is not more than the logical
corollary of his contention that the order to do this was
unjust.
Is
it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests
without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command,
thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular
situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical
penalties? Moreover, you hold that the suspension you
have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments
according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly
introduced into the Church, which you go so far as to
call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction
when you ad- minister the formulas of the past and against
the established forms (cf: 1 Cor 14:40).
Mgr
.Lefebvre has indeed referred to the "Conciliar Church
" being in schism, but in a light-hearted manner. He
has a highly-developed sense of humor and can be provocative
at times. When charged with being in schism he has replied
that in so far as it has broken with the Traditional Church
it is the "Conciliar Church " which is in schism.
However, he has always made it clear that he recognizes
the authority of the Pope, a fact proved by all his letters
to Pope Paul. They are not the letters of a bishop who is
seriously maintaining that the Pope is in schism!
From
the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating
the Mass called that of St. Pius V.
So
it is now an abuse to celebrate a form of Mass dating back
in all essentials over 1,000 years and which, during that
time, has been a source of sanctification for countless
millions of the faithful. Well, it's a point of view!
You
know full well that this rite had itself been the result
of successive changes, and that the Roman Canon remains
the first of the Eucharistic Prayers authorized today.
Yes,
but the Roman Mass had developed by gradual and natural
process for over 1,000 years until it was finally codified
by St. Pius V. I have provided its history in some detail
in my pamphlet The Tridentine
Mass.5
Surely the Holy Father, or whoever wrote this letter for
him, cannot expect any Catholic with a rudimentary knowledge
of Church history to take seriously a comparison between
the evolution of the traditional Mass and the concoction
of a new Mass (something the Council did not order) within
the space of a few years and with the cooperation of heretics.
Leaving aside the fact that the New Mass has been constructed
in such a fashion that it can be celebrated in a form containing
hardly a reference to the sacrificial nature of the Mass,
in which form it is entirely acceptance to some Protestants.
The New Mass has also proved to be a disaster pastorally
and aesthetically. No layman was better qualified to comment
on the liturgy than Dietrich von Hildebrand. He wrote:
“The
new liturgy was simply not formed by saints, homines
religiosi, and artistically gifted men, but has been
worked out by so-called experts, who are not at all aware
that in our time there is a lack of talent for such things.
Today is a time of incredible talent for technology and
medical research, but not for the organic shaping of the
expression of the religious world. We live in a world without
poetry, and this means that one should approach the treasures
handed in from more fortunate times with twice as much reverence,
and not with the illusion that we can do it
better ourselves.”6
The
present reform derived its raison d’être and its
guidelines from the Council and from the historical sources
of the Liturgy.
In
my pamphlet The Roman Rite Destroyed I have quoted
from such irreproachable authorities as Cardinal Heenan,
Archbishop R. J. Dwyer, and Father Louis Bouyer to the effect
that the liturgical reform is far more radical than that
envisaged by the Council Fathers (who were given the opportunity
of discussing only general principles). It is actually a
contradiction of both what the Fathers intended and the
entire papally-approved liturgical movement of the present
century.
It
enables the laity to draw greater nourishment from the
word of God.
In
this case it seems permissible to wonder why millions of
Catholics who attended the Old Mass have ceased attending
since the imposition of the New.
Their
more effective participation leaves intact the unique
role of the priest acting in the person of Christ.
This
statement is quite true in that only the priest can consecrate,
but in practice many of the changes have served to obscure
the nature of the unique priestly role. This minimization
has occurred by allowing the laity to perform functions
which had been reserved to the celebrant in the Tridentine
Mass. Sacred vessels which only he could touch are now handled
by all and sundry; laymen and women can now read the lessons
or preach the sermons; only his consecrated hands had been
allowed to touch the host -now it can be distributed by
teenaged girls into the hands of standing communicants.
No distinction is made in the new Eucharistic Prayers between
the role of the celebrant and that of the congregation.
With Eucharistic Prayer II in particular, the priest can
appear
to be no more than the spokesman for a concelebrating congregation.
We
have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring
that it be adopted by all Catholics.
The
original General Instruction (lnstitutio Generalis)
to the New Mass and the new rite of Baptism were also sanctioned
by the Pope's authority -but they subsequently required
modifications in the interests of orthodoxy. It is not correct
to state that the Pope has required all Catholics to adopt
it - the Instruction applies only to Catholics of the Roman
Rite and does not affect the Eastern Churches. Nor has it
ever been made clear whether such variants of the Roman
Rite as the Dominican Rite are affected. Nor is it certain
that the Pope has imposed the New Mass with the required
legal forms necessary to make it mandatory even for the
Roman Rite. But this is a very complex question which will
be examined in detail in my book Pope Paul's New Mass.
If,
in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further
delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view
to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesial
community, because for Catholics of the Roman Rite, the
Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity.
With
all due respect to the late Holy Father, such a claim constitutes
a mockery of the faithful. Where in the Roman Rite is that
unity which was once its most precious characteristics?
There are now so many permutations officially permitted
that it is possible for every priest in any diocese to celebrate
the Mass in a different manner-not to mention the countless
unofficial and even sacrilegious variations which are perpetrated
throughout the West with total impunity. In their book Les
Fumees de Satan, Andre Mignot and Michel de Saint-Pierre
have presented nearly 300 pages of documented instances
of catechetical and liturgical abuses -selected from 4,000
cases which they had investigated. All the examples they
give can be substantiated with names, dates, and places.
Every Catholic who reads French should obtain a copy. It
will have a place in history as perhaps the most terrifying
indictment of the "Living Church " yet assembled.
And what was the reaction of the French bishops? Without
making the least attempt to deny the factual nature of the
documentation in the book they issued the most vicious public
denunciation of the authors. No less a person than Father
Henri Bruckberger sprang to their defense. Father Bruckberger
is a hero of the French Resistance and the most distinguished
man of letters among the French clergy today. As for the
French bishops, he wrote:
"They
knew Michel de Saint-Pierre and Andre Mignot only too well;
they knew that the authors had such respect for the sacred
character of the episcopacy that, in formulating so outrageous
a communiqué the bishops knew that they risked neither a
beating nor a summons before the courts, which they fully
deserved. Thus our bishops are transformed into men without
fear for the simple reason that they are not putting themselves
at risk. ...They have the sudden temerity of men overcome
with terror who try to cover up facts which accuse them
personally. This episcopal communiqué constitutes the most
terrible admission. Our bishops have acknowledged publicly
not only that they are aware of the abuses brought to light
in Les Fumees de Satan, but that they are the knowing
and willing accomplices. Here and now the object of the
book has been achieved. It is the hour when Tartuffe's mask
has been torn away completely.”7
The
type of abuse cited in Les Fumees de Satan is common
to all the countries of the West-as is the complicity of
all the Western hierarchies whose members, if they don't
actually approve of the abuses, tolerate them. The only
form of Mass which they will not tolerate is the one they
were ordained to offer. So much for the New Mass as "a
privileged sign " of the unity of the Catholics of
the Roman Rite.
It
is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact
the expression of a warped ecclesiology, ...
It
is quite true that the Tridentine Mass is the most fitting
expression of the traditional Faith, the Faith expressed
with such clarity by the Council of Trent. The Tridentine
Mass expresses clearly the concept of a Church with Her
eyes fixed firmly on heaven; a solemn sacrifice offered
to a transcendent, omnipotent God; the exalted role of the
priest at the altar as mediator between God and man. A warped
ecclesiology? Well, it's a point of view!
...and
a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms,
under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved,
without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice
of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood. We cannot
accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation,
nor can We tolerate that the Lord's Eucharist, the sacrament
of unity, should be the object of such division (cf. 1
Cor 11:18), and that it should even be an instrument and
sign of rebellion.
The
issue here is whether the Archbishop's judgment is correct
or erroneous. I have already provided ample evidence in
my pamphlet The Roman Rite Destroyed to prove that
the doctrine of "the true sacrifice of the Mass and
the ministerial priesthood" are, at the very least,
expressed far less clearly in the new rite than the old,
particularly where Eucharistic Prayer II is used. The most
conclusive proof of this is the fact that a number of Protestants
are cited in the pamphlet as stating that they are happy
with the new prayers and recognize a Protestant theology
in them. This is the most striking corroboration there could
be of Mgr. Lefebvre's allegation -which is, of course, that
put forward in the Critical Study sent to Pope Paul by Cardinals
Ottaviani and Bacci. It is also only necessary for anyone
conversant with Protestant eucharistic theology to examine
the traditional Mass carefully and make a note of any prayers
he considers incompatible with Protestant belief. He will
find at once that almost all such prayers have been eliminated
from the new rite.
Of
course there is room in the Church for a certain pluralism,
but in licit matters and in obedience. This is not understood
by those who refuse the sum total of the liturgical reform;
nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the
holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of His Sacrifice.
What
we are witnessing in the Church today is not pluralism but
anarchy-anarchy in which anything is tolerated but the traditional
Mass. Those guilty of irreverence and sacrilege are (occasionally)
rebuked in general terms-but their excesses are tolerated.
In
the same way there can be no question of a priestly formation
which ignores the Council.
As
was shown on pages 69-70, there can be no doubt that Econe
comes closer to the norms laid down by the Council and subsequent
instructions than almost any other seminary in the West.
We
cannot therefore take your requests into consideration
because it is a question of acts which have already been
committed in rebellion against the one true Church of
God. Be assured that this severity is not dictated by
a refusal to make a concession on such and such a point
of discipline or liturgy, but, given the meaning and the
extent of your acts in the present context, to act thus
would be on Our part to accept the introduction of a seriously
erroneous concept of the Church and of Tradition. This
is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We
say to you, Brother, that you are in error. And with the
full ardour of Our fraternal love, as also with all the
weight of Our authority as the Successor of Peter, We
invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease
from inflicting wounds upon the Church of Christ.
3.
Specifically, what do We ask of you?
(a)
First and foremost a Declaration that will rectify matters,
for Ourself and also for the People of God who have a
right to clarity and who can no longer bear without damage
such equivocations.
This
Declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely
adhere to the Second Vatican Council and all its documents-
sensu obvio -which were adopted by the Council
Fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority.
For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the
Church, since the beginning in the matter of Ecumenical
Councils.
It
is not a question of the Archbishop's accepting all the
documents, there are only two that he didn't sign. And,
as has been pointed out already, when he offered to accept
these in June 1977, on the understanding that they would
be interpreted in the light of the traditional teaching,
his offer was rejected. And once again, the Pope is referring
to Vatican II as if it did not differ from preceding Ecumenical
Councils. He is asking the Archbishop to give the assent
due to the Extraordinary Magisterium to documents of the
Ordinary Magisterium.
It
must be clear that you equally accept the decisions that
We have made since the Council in order to put it into
effect, with the help of the Departments of the Holy See;
among other things, you must explicitly recognize the
legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo
Missae, and Our right to require its adoption by the
entirety of the Christian people.
In
his letter delivered to the Vatican on 18 June 1977, the
Archbishop asked for co-existence of the old and new rites,
which makes it quite clear that he accepts the legitimacy
of the new. In the Archbishop's letter to Dr. Eric M. de
Saventhem dated 17 September 1976 he had already made this
point, stating that he would be prepared to accept the peaceful
co-existence of the two rites with the faithful -being given
the choice of which "family" of rites they preferred
to adhere to. The text of this letter is included under
the date given.
You
must also accept the binding character of the rules of
Canon Law now in force which, for the greater part, still
correspond with the content of the Code of Canon Law of
Benedict XV, without excepting the part which deals with
canonical penalties.
As
far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting
from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations
which you have publicly levelled against Us, against the
orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge
as the Successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.
It
is significant that the Pope gives no details of these alleged
accusations. Those who have read this far will have noted
the profound respect of the Archbishop towards the person
of the Pope, either when writing to him or speaking of him.
This respect is also manifest throughout Mgr. Lefebvre's
book, A Bishop Speaks. The Archbishop explained his
own attitude to the person of Pope Paul VI and to other
bishops in an address delivered in Montreal on 31 May 1978.
"Pray
for the Pope; pray that God will guide him to abandon the
path along which he has allowed himself to be led, a path
which is not the way of the good God. Ecumenism is not God's
way. Pray for the Bishops, do not insult them. I do not
think that a single expression of disrespect towards the
Holy Father can be found anywhere in my writings. I do not
insult the Bishops. I consider them to be my brothers and
I pray for them that they will return to the way of the
Tradition of the Church. I am sure that this will happen
one day. We must have confidence. We are passing through
a tornado; the only anchor to which we can attach ourselves
is the tradition of the Church because it cannot err; our
Catholic faith has been, is, and will always be the same."8
With
regard to the Bishops, you must recognize their authority
in respective dioceses, by abstaining from preaching in
those dioceses and administering the sacraments there:
the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc., when these
Bishops expressly object to your doing so.
Finally,
you must undertake to abstain from all activities (such
as Conferences, publications, etc.) contrary to this Declaration,
and formally to reprove all those initiatives which make
use of your name in the face of this Declaration.
It
is a question here of the minimum to which every Catholic
Bishop must subscribe: this adherence can tolerate no
compromise. As soon as you show Us that you accept its
principle, we will propose the practical manner of presenting
this Declaration. This is the first condition in order
that the suspension a divinis be lifted.
(b)
It will then remain to solve the problem of your activity,
of your works, and notably of your seminaries. You will
appreciate, Brother, that in view of the past and present
irregularities affecting these works, We cannot go back
on the juridical suppression of the Priestly Fraternity
of St. Pius X.
What
cruel irony! Has there ever been an instance in the History
of the Church involving more irregularities, more disregard
for the most elementary demands of justice than in the suppression
of the Society of St. Pius X?
This
has inculcated a spirit of opposition to the Council and
to its implementation such as the Vicar of Christ was
endeavoring to promote. Your Declaration of 21 November
1974 bears witness to this spirit; and upon such a foundation,
as Our Commission of Cardinals rightly judged, on 6 May
1975, one cannot build an institution or a priestly formation
in conformity with the requirements of the Church of Christ.
So
once more the Declaration is the only evidence that can
be cited against the Archbishop and the "spirit"
of his Fraternity. Remember the origin of this Declaration,
remember the manner in which the Cardinals conducted their
inquiry, and then the case against the Archbishop can be
evaluated at its true worth. As for the spirit that permeates
certain "approved" seminaries, a young friend
of mine, who is totally orthodox and a student at an English
seminary, told me that when the Vatican issued its recent
Declaration on Sexual Ethics it was not simply rejected
but ridiculed by staff and students alike. He added that
such is the unanimity among staff and students in their
rejection of papal teaching that he sometimes has to fight
off serious doubts as to whether
they could be right and he could be wrong for accepting
it.
This
in no way invalidates the good element in your seminaries,
but one must also take into consideration the ecclesiological
deficiencies of which We have spoken and the capacity
of exercising a pastoral ministry in the Church of today.
The
ecclesiological difficulties cited consist of the Archbishop's
Declaration! And now we have yet another neologism -the
"Church of today." One fact to which any seminarian
from Econe could testify is that wherever they go it is
made abundantly clear to them that they are precisely what
"the Church of today" wants -the Church, of course,
being the faithful. The seminarians are approached wherever
they go, on public transport, in the streets, by ordinary
Catholics, who say to them, "How wonderful to see a
real priest again!"
If
by his reference to the "Church of today" the
Holy Father is implying that the so-called "modern
man" needs a new type of priest, then he has been effectively
answered by Dietrich von Hildebrand, who has made it clear
that this so-called "modem man" does not exist
-he is a myth.
"As
long as one only refers to the immense change in the external
conditions of life brought about by the enormous technological
development which has taken place, then one is referring
to an indubitable fact. But this outward change has had
no fundamental influence on man -on his essential nature,
on the sources of his happiness, on the meaning of his life,
on the metaphysical nature of man. And yet only some such
fundamental change in man would have any bearing at all
on his ability to understand the language in which the Church
has been announcing the Gospel of Christ to mankind for
thousands of years.
A knowledge
of modern history and an unprejudiced view of it could not
fail to convince anyone that the 'modern man’ who is radically
different from the men of all other periods is a pure invention,
or rather, a typical myth.9
Faced
with these unfortunate mixed realities, We shall take
care not to destroy but to correct and save as far as
possible. This is why, as supreme guarantor of the faith
and of the formation of the clergy, We require of you
first of all to hand over to Us the responsibility of
your work, and particularly for your seminaries. This
is undoubtedly a heavy sacrifice for you, but it is also
a test of your trust, of your obedience, and it is a necessary
condition in order that these seminaries, which have no
canonical existence in the Church, may in the future take
their place therein.
The
Archbishop is thus asked to hand over the responsibility
for his work as a test of his trust. Cardinal Mindszenty
had also been asked to put his trust in Pope Paul VI. We
learn from his memoirs that he was given a solemn promise
by the Pope's personal envoy that his "titles of archbishop
and primate" would not be affected if he agreed to
leave Hungary (p. 223). After he had arrived in Rome he
was told by the Pope: "You are and remain Archbishop
of Esztergom and primate of Hungary. Continue working, and
if you have difficulties, always turn trustfully to Us"
(p. 239). And then, "exactly on the twenty-fifth anniversary
of my arrest, I was pained to receive a letter from the
Holy Father dated 18 December 1973, in which His Holiness
informed me with expressions of great appreciation and gratitude
that he was declaring the archiepiscopal See of Esztergom
vacant" (p. 246). The Cardinal begged Pope Paul to
rescind this decision not because he desired to cling to
office but to avoid sowing confusion in the minds of the
Hungarian faithful. Despite this plea, on the twenty-fifth
anniversary of the Cardinal's show trial the news of his
removal from his see was published as if he had resigned
voluntarily. He issued the following statement:
"A
number of news agencies have transmitted the Vatican decision
in such a way as to imply that Jozef Cardinal Mindszenty
has voluntarily retired. ...In the interests of truth Cardinal
Mindszenty has authorized his office to issue the following
statement:
Cardinal
Mindszenty has not abdicated his office as Archbishop nor
his dignity as Primate of Hungary .The decision was taken
by the Holy See alone" (p. 246).
It
is only after you have accepted the principle, that We
shall be able to provide in the best possible way for
the good of all the persons involved, with the concern
for promoting authentic priestly vocations and with respect
for the doctrinal, disciplinary and pastoral requirements
of the Church. At that stage We shall be in a position
to listen with benevolence to your requests and your wishes,
and, together with Our Departments, to take in conscience
the right and opportune measures.
As
for the illicitly ordained seminarians, the sanctions
which they have incurred in conformity with Canons 985,
7 and 2374 can be lifted, if they give proof of a return
to a better frame of mind, notably by accepting to subscribe
to the Declaration which We have asked of you. We count
upon your sense of the Church in order to make this easy
for them.
This
makes it clear that the formation given at Econe must be
regarded as satisfactory if the only condition required
to regularize the position of those ordained there is to
a declaration.
As
regards the foundations, houses of formation, "priories,
" and various other institutions set up on your initiative
or with your encouragement, We likewise ask you to hand
them over to the Holy See, which will study their position,
in its various aspects with the local episcopate. Their
survival, organization, and apostolate will be subordinated,
as is normal throughout the Catholic Church, to an agreement
which will have to be reached, in each case, with the
local bishop – nihil sine Episcopo-and in a spirit
which respects the Declaration mentioned above.
This
constitutes a straightforward demand that the assets of
the Society of St. Pius X be handed over to the Vatican-
and simply for protesting against this demand the Archbishop
is accused of spreading "a distorted interpretation
of the Pope’s intervention." The buildings belonging
to the Society, and which constitute its assets, have been
purchased with the contributions of tens of thousands of
Catholics specifically because they wished their money to
be used to preserve the traditional Church and not to finance
the "Conciliar Church," the "Living Church,"
the "Church of today."
It
would be an offense against justice to put buildings purchased
with these donations at the service of the "Conciliar
Church.”
All
these points which figure in this letter, and to which
We have given mature consideration,- in consultation with
the Heads of Departments concerned, have been adopted
by Us only out of regard for the greater good of the Church.
You said to Us during our conversation of 11 September:
"I am ready for anything, for the good of the Church."
The response now lies in your hands.
If
you refused-quod Deus avertat-to make the Declaration
which is asked of you, you would remain suspended a divinis.'
On the other hand, Our pardon and the lifting of the suspension
will be assured you to the extent to which you sincerely
and without ambiguity undertake to fulfil the conditions
of this letter and to repair the scandal caused. The obedience
and the trust of which you will give proof will also make
it possible for Us to study serenely with you your personal
problems.
May
the Holy Spirit enlighten you and guide you towards the
only solution that would enable you on the one hand to
rediscover the peace of your momentarily misguided conscience
but also to insure the good of souls, to contribute to
the unity of the Church which the Lord has entrusted to
Our charge, and to avoid the danger of a schism. In the
psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize
that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard
for you humbly to change your line of conduct: is it not
therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange
a time and place of recollection which will enable you
to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?
Fraternally, We put you on your guard against the pressures
to which you could be exposed from those who wish to keep
you in an untenable position, while We Ourself, all your
Brothers in the Episcopate, and the vast majority of the
faithful await finally from you that ecclesial attitude
which would be to your honor.
In
order to root out the abuses which we all deplore and
to guarantee a true spiritual renewal, as well as the
courageous evangelization to which the Holy Spirit bids
Us, there is needed more than ever the help and commitment
of the entire ecclesial community around the Pope and
the Bishops. Now the revolt of one side finally reaches
and risks accentuating the insubordination of what you
have called the “subversion” of the other side: while,
without your own insubordination, you would have been
able, Brother, as you expressed the wish in your last
letter, to help Us, in fidelity and under Our authority,
to work for the advancement of the Church.
Therefore,
dear Brother, do not delay any longer in considering before
God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn
adjuration of the humble but legitimate Successor of Peter.
May you measure the gravity of the hour and take the only
decision that befits a son of the Church. This is Our
hope, this is Our prayer.
From
the Vatican, 11 October 1976.
Paulus
PP. VI.
