|
Archbishop
LEFEBVRE and
theVATICAN
Prologue
November
21, 1974
The
Declaration
Detractors
say that Archbishop Lefebvre “upped the ante” in his later years
prior to the consecration of bishops. We include the following
document which is an evident proof to the contrary.
Let
us recall the situation. Two Apostolic Visitors, sent from Rome
to inspect the Society of Saint Pius X Seminary in Ecône on November
11‑13, 1974, created considerable scandal as a result of
the opinions they expressed in the presence of His Grace’s seminarians
and professors. These two Visitors from Rome considered it normal
and inevitable that there should be married clergy; they did not
believe there was an Immutable Truth and they also had doubts
concerning the traditional concept of Our Lord’s Resurrection.
In reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the
Apostolic Visitors, Archbishop Lefebvre considered it necessary
to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented
by this attitude of mind. His Grace rejected the views expressed
by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the
Rome which they represented in an official capacity.4
In
the words of Archbishop Lefebvre: “After telling me of the favorable
impression the Seminary had made on the Apostolic Visitors no
further reference was made to the Society or to the Seminary,
either on February 13, or March 3. It was exclusively a question
of my Declaration of November 21, 1974, which had been made as
a result of the Apostolic Visitation.”5
Thus,
this document is at the very beginning of the clash between Rome
and Archbishop Lefebvre and his work. The “stakes” have never
changed!
The Declaration
We
adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic
Rome, the Guardian of the Catholic Faith and of those traditions
necessary for the maintenance of that Faith, to eternal Rome, Mistress
of Wisdom and Truth.
Because
of this adherence we refuse and have always refused to follow the
Rome of neo‑Modernist and neo‑Protestant tendencies,
such as were clearly manifested during the Second Vatican Council,
and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.
All
these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to
the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, to
the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and the Sacraments, to the
disappearance of religious life, and to naturalistic and Teilhardian
teaching in universities, seminaries, and catechetics, a teaching
born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the
solemn magisterium of the Church. No authority, even
the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain us to abandon or
to diminish our Catholic Faith, such as it has been clearly expressed
and professed by the Church’s magisterium for 19 centuries.
“But
though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides
that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” (Gal. 1:8).
Is
this not what the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And
if a certain contradiction is apparent in his words and actions,
as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose
what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations
which are destroying the Church.
The
lex orandi (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed without
changing the lex credendi (law of belief). The
New Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood,
new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or Pentecostal
church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age‑old
magisterium.
This
reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism,
is entirely corrupt. It comes from heresy and results
in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.
It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic who is aware
of these things to adopt this reform, or to submit to it in any
way at all. To ensure our salvation, the only attitude
of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical
refusal to accept the reform.
It
is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment,
we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of
the age‑old magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus
do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign
Pontiff, and to future generations.
For
this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practiced
by the Church of all time, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical
instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified
in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the
late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true Light
of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the sky of Eternal
Rome.
By
acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of
the Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, of remaining
faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors
of St. Peter, and of being fideles dispensatores mysteriorum
Domini nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto.
† Marcel
Lefebvre
Rome
on the Feast of the Presentation
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
Some
conservative Catholics may object that it seems illegitimate to
distinguish between two Romes, or rather, two tendencies in Rome.
However, this distinction of an “eternal Rome, Mistress of
Wisdom and Truth” versus a “neo‑Modernist Rome and neo‑Protestant
tendencies,” can be put in parallel with a frightening passage
of the discourse of Pope Paul VI to the Council Fathers, on the
very last day of the Council, December 7, 1965: “At the Council,
the Church...dealt with man—with man as he presents himself in
reality to the modern world: the living man, the man wholly occupied
with self, with man not only making himself the center of all
his occupations, but also daring to pretend to be the principle
and the last end of all things. The whole phenomenal man,
i.e., clad with his innumerable appearances, raised himself
in front of the gathering of the Fathers of the Council….The lay
and profane humanism at last appeared in its terrible stature,
and, in a certain way, has defied the Council. The religion
of God Who made Himself man encountered the religion (it is, indeed,
one) of man making himself God. What happened? A
shock, a fight, an anathema? That could have happened;
it did not take place. The old story of the Samaritan was
the model of the spirituality of the Council. A boundless
sympathy filled it....At least, acknowledge its merit, you modern
humanists, who renounce the transcendence of the Supreme Things,
and recognize our new humanism: we, more than anyone, have the
worship of man.”6
The
“religion of God Who made Himself man” is what Archbishop Lefebvre
calls the “eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth.” The
Vatican’s “new humanism” that “more than anyone has the worship
of man,” is what Archbishop Lefebvre calls the “neo-Modernist
Rome and neo-Protestant tendencies.”
May
I say that the Society of Saint Pius X does not have “the worship
of man”! We adore the only One, True God, Father, Son and
Holy Ghost! We adore Jesus Christ, God made man, but we
do not adore man making himself God. With St. Paul, we
reject the compromise with modern humanism: “Bear not the yoke
with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with
injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial? Or what part
hath the faithful with the unbeliever? And what agreement
hath the temple of God with idols?” (II Cor. 6:14‑16).
When the Pope returns to the spirit of St. Paul, there
will be no need of a “Protocol” nor even the lifting of any penalty.
He will see that all these were but a persecution waged by
the worshippers of “man making himself God,” against the adorers
of “God Who made Himself man.” A clash between these two
different attitudes towards modern humanism was thus inevitable.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
|
