Ecône
December 4, 1990
Very
dear Msgr. Antonio de Castro Mayer,
Rumors
reach me from Brazil concerning your health, which they
say is declining! Is the call of God drawing nigh? The mere
thought fills me with deep grief. How lonely I shall be
without my elder brother in the episcopate, without the
model fighter for the honor of Jesus Christ, without my
one faithful friend in the appalling wasteland of the Conciliar
Church!
On
the other hand there rings in my ears all the chant of the
traditional liturgy of the Office of Confessor Pontiffs...
Heaven's welcome for the good and faithful servant! if such
be the good Lord's will.
Under
these circumstances, I am more than ever by your bedside,
close to you, and my prayers mount unceasingly towards God
for your intentions, entrusting you to Mary and Joseph.
I would
like to make use of this opportunity to put in writing,
for you and for your dear priests, my opinion - for it is
only an opinion - concerning the eventual consecration of
a bishop to succeed you in the handing down of the Catholic
Faith and in the conferring of the sacraments reserved to
bishops.
Why
envisage such a successor outside of the usual norms of
Canon Law?
Firstly,
because priests and faithful have a strict right to have
shepherds who profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety,
essential for the salvation of their souls, and to have
priests who are true Catholic priests.
Secondly,
because the Conciliar Church, having now reached everywhere,
is spreading errors contrary to the Catholic Faith and,
as a result of these errors, it has corrupted the sources
of grace, which are the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the
Sacraments. This false Church is in an ever-deeper state
of rupture with the Catholic Church. Resulting from these
principles and facts is the absolute need to continue the
Catholic episcopacy in order to continue the Catholic Church.
The
case of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X presents itself
differently from the case of the Diocese of Campos. It seems
to me that the case of the Diocese of Campos is simpler,
more classical, because what we have here is the majority
of the diocesan priests and faithful, on the advice of their
former bishop, designating his successor and asking Catholic
bishops to consecrate him. This is how the succession of
bishops came about in the early centuries of the Church,
in union with Rome, as we are too in union with Catholic
Rome and not Modernist Rome.
That
is why, as I see it, the case of Campos should not be tied
to the Society of St. Pius X. Resort would be had to the
Society's bishops for an eventual consecration, not in their
role as bishops of the Society but as Catholic bishops.
The
two cases should be kept clearly separated. This is not
without its importance for public opinion and for present-day
Rome. The Society must not be involved as such, and it turns
over the entire responsibility - altogether legitimate -
to the priests and faithful of Campos.
In
order for this distinction to be quite clear, it would be
altogether preferable for the ceremony to take place at
Campos, at least outside the diocese. It is the clergy and
the Catholic people of Campos who are taking to themselves
a Successor of the Apostles, a Roman Catholic bishop such
as they can no longer obtain through Modernist Rome.
That
is my opinion. I think it rests upon fundamental principles
of Church Law and upon Tradition.
Very
dear Monsignor, I submit my thinking to you in all simplicity,
but it you who are the judge and I bow to your judgment.
May God vouchsafe to grant you strong enough health to perform
this episcopal consecration!
Kindly
believe, most dear Monseigneur, in my profound and respectful
friendship in Jesus and Mary.
+
Marcel Lefebvre
