Newsletter of the District
- February 2000
The Light of the Council
of Archbishop Lefebvre's Struggle
A new and objective look at the Society of St. Pius X... This is
what we are inviting you to have through a series of three articles.
In this first one, we will analyze the Society at its conception,
at the time of Council Vatican II. This will be followed by the
historical development of the Society, which will take us eventually
to the question of the consecration of new bishops in 1988.
Today, Archbishop Lefebvre’s work is only thought of in terms of
the episcopal consecrations of 1988. These consecrations cannot
be considered as an incidental event in Archbishop Lefebvre’s life,
but rather as the continuation of his work, as the major deed in
his struggle initiated on November 1, 1970, with Rome’s blessing,
not to start a new Church, but “to preach Our Lord Jesus Christ
to the whole world, the Cross, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to
preach the need of grace, to give the Church priests able to preach
Our Lord Jesus Christ in the same way, to preach the good, true,
sound and holy Catholic teaching; to celebrate the holy Sacrifice
of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice for the forgiveness of the
sins of all mankind.”
In order to explain the reasons for the consecrations, to give a
justification for the Society of St. Pius X, we have to understand
in what spirit Archbishop Lefebvre went through the Council, and
the actual reasons which urged him to go into action. The Council
broke in upon him, and those who lived it with him. It was itself
a breaking point: breaking off with the pre-Conciliar Church, in
its language, teachings and actions; a rupture which gave birth
to the state of necessity in the Church.
Innovations claimed by their authors
That rupture was confessed, and even claimed as a victory, by those
who caused it. And Cardinal Congar to begin with, who despite his
condemnation under Pius XII, was appointed as one of the experts
at the Council. He himself stressed the three great innovations
brought about by the Council: collegiality, a new concept of the
Church giving way to Ecumenism and religious liberty.
- Fr. Congar’s
comment about collegiality is famous: “The Church worked out
its October Revolution.”
- Regarding the Church he wrote: “Lumen Gentium gave up the
thesis according to which the Catholic Church would be the Church
in an exclusive way.” Which means the Church has given
up a “thesis”, a thesis which is essential to the oneness
of the Church of Christ: there is but one Catholic Church, which
is visible and to which it is absolutely necessary to belong in
order to be saved. Hence a new concept of ecumenism was accepted
however much it was previously condemned. Fr. Congar acknowledges
it: “It is clear, it would be useless to hide it, that on several
issues conciliar decree Unitatis Redintagratio says something else
than the “Out of the Church, no salvation” in the way that axiom
has been understood for centuries.” This is why he acknowledges an obvious contradiction between
that decree and Pius XI’s Mortalium Animos.
- And what did he say about religious liberty? “It cannot be
denied that the conciliar Declaration on religious liberty does
materially say something different to the Syllabus of 1864, and
even almost the opposite.”
In Eric Vatré’s book, he confesses: “On the pope’s request, I participated
in the drafting of the last paragraphs of the Declaration on religious
liberty: I was to make the point that the religious liberty theme
is in the Holy Scriptures – well, it is not.” Fr. Congar consequently openly confirms a total
lack of bases for the religious liberty thesis as defined by the
Council. Fr. Laurentin commented: “With its limits, and in
spite of its imperfections, the Declaration on religious liberty
shows a real progress, it confirms on the one hand a rupture with
moorings of past notions symbolized by the Syllabus letter, and
on the other hand the realistic insertion of the Church, and its
testimony, in the only possible place in today’s world.”
In a nutshell: a breaking off, a rupture. Let us quote Fr. Congar
for the last time: “The Church of Vatican II with its Declaration
on religious liberty and its pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes
on the Church and the today’s world, clearly placed herself in today’s
pluralist world, and without disowning what has been great, burst
its fetters which would have chained it down to the bank of the
Middle Ages. One just cannot cling to one period in history.” Such is the confession of someone
who received the cardinal’s purple from John Paul II for his unequaled
work during the Council.
We could also interview all the great theologians of the Council;
all would have the same opinion. Let us simply quote Cardinal Suenens:
“One could make an astonishing list of these taught in Rome before
the Council as the only acceptable ones, and which were eliminated
by the conciliar Fathers.” This is why Cardinal de Lubac did not hesitate to speak of a
Hence Hans Küng’s reaction: “Lefebvre has every right to question
the conciliar Declaration on religious liberty, because Vatican
II completely reversed Vatican I’s position without explanation.”
Cardinal Ratzinger’s analysis is in no way different. In his book
on the Principles of Catholic Theology , he acknowledges, with
regard to Gaudium et spes, that “if one looks for a general diagnosis
about the text, one could say that it is (in connection with the
text on religious liberty and on religions in the world) a reconsideration
of Pius IX’s Syllabus, a sort of anti-Syllabus. (...) this text
plays the part of an anti-Syllabus in so far as it stands for an
attempt to officially reconcile the Church and the world such as
it has become since 1789.”
His recent writings are in fact most enlightening when they express
the state of mind that prevailed during the Council. “I found
the atmosphere to be more and more excited in the Church, and among
theologians. We were more and more under the impression that nothing
was stable in the Church, that everything had to be reconsidered.
The Council looked more and more like a grand parliament of Churches
capable of modifying and reshaping everything in its own way. The
Council’s debate was more and more presented in the partisan way
that is typical of the modern parliamentary system. (...) There
was however and even more profound process going on. If the bishops
of Rome could change the Church, and possibly the faith (this is
the impression they were giving), why them alone, indeed? We could
– apparently – modify the faith, which is the opposite of what had
been thought so far; it looked as though it no longer evaded the
power of human decision, and it was the latter which seemed to define
it (...). The creed no longer looked infallible, but subject to
the control of specialists (...). If I had gone back home with
the blithesome feeling of renewal which prevailed everywhere at
the end of the first Council session, I was disturbed by the more
and more glaring change in the Church.”
Finally, Pope John Paul II, in his Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei
adflicta “condemning” Archbishop Lefebvre (we will look
at this document at another time), explicitly acknowledges the newness
of conciliar theses. After explaining Archbishop Lefebvre’s “offence”,
he points out the necessity for theologians “to study thoroughly
the Council to bring out the continuity of the council with Tradition,
especially on doctrinal points which possibly, due to their newness,
have not yet been well understood in certain part of the Church.”
Everyone consequently agrees that there have been novelties in the
Council, theses, thoughts and considerations that had never been
heard in the holy Church of God, which never been accepted in the
Church. New theses following from a new state of mind, perfectly
described by Paul VI himself in his speech for the closure of the
Council: “The religion of God who made Himself a man has met
with the religion (and it is a religion) of man who made himself
God. What happened then? A clash, a fight, an anathema? That
could have happened, but it did not. A boundless sympathy drove
the whole Council (...). A move of affection and admiration overflowed
from the Council into the modern human world (...). All the doctrinal
wealth of the Council only aims at one thing: to serve man (...).
the Catholic religion and human life thus confirm their alliance,
their convergences towards only one human reality: the Catholic
religion is for mankind.”
Such was the “rupture” worked out by the Vatican II Council:
the Church resolutely turned away from its purely supernatural aim:
sanctification of souls, to wend its way towards a human goal:
serve man. Paul VI confesses it himself, it is the root of all
the doctrinal novelties in the Council.
Novelties condemned by the popes
It is precisely that spirit of novelty, and its doctrinal consequences,
which Archbishop Lefebvre opposed. His fundamental book “I accuse
the Council”, published in 1974, must be read. Since we just
cannot, within the limits of this article, show the opposition between
Tradition and everyone of these Council novelties (this issue will
be addressed later), we will simply show how the very spirit of
novelty had earlier been condemned by the magisterium.
Council Vatican I already recalled that “the Holy Ghost was not
promised to Peter’s successors in order to teach a new doctrine
as the revelation.” On the contrary, according to the very words
of Saint Pius X, the doctrinal authority in the Church has as its
first object the transmission and the defense of the deposit of
the faith: “To the mission that has been bestowed upon us from
on High to feed the Lord’s flock, Jesus Christ Has assigned as our
first duty to keep with a jealous zeal the traditional deposit of
the faith against profane novelties in language, as well as false
contradictions in science.” In his first encyclical, this
holy pope had sounded the alarm to the clergy: “Members of the
very clergy should not be deceived by the insidious scheming of
a certain new science, which parades under the mask of truth, and
where the odour of Jesus Christ cannot be breathed.”
He has condemned Modernism in his too often forgotten encyclical
Pascendi. He made his own Gregory XVI’s words: “Under
the sway of a blind and unrestrained love for novelty, they will
overlook searching for some kind of support to the truth, and, despising
the holy and apostolic traditions, they will embrace vain, futile
and uncertain doctrines which have been condemned by the Church...
It is deplorable to see where such wandering of human reason can
lead, as soon as way is given to the spirit of novelty, as soon
as, trusting oneself too much, one thinks he can look for the truth
outside of the Church, where it lies without the least possible
Novelties fought by Archbishop Lefebvre
Despite countless warnings from their predecessors, clergymen of
our times have succumbed to that Aggiornamento temptation. Such
is the evidence Archbishop Lefebvre had to face during the Council,
he and other prelates, as he was not the only one to be astonished,
to resist and to fight in the Council. Mgr. Adam, bishop of Sion,
Switzerland, only went to the first Session. He came back home
saying he would never go back there, and he did not. Others, like
Cardinal Browne, died of a broken heart, only a few months after
the Council, distressed as they were by that upheaval.
It is important to go back to the origin of Archbishop Lefebvre’s
opposition to understand him. Looking back to these conciliar years,
as many prelates have lived them, it can be realized that Archbishop
Lefebvre’s fight is first and foremost a doctrinal struggle, before
being a liturgical one. He did not start with opposing the liturgy,
since on the contrary – surprisingly enough – he signed the decree
on liturgical reform (the new mass did not exist then, only a decree
on liturgy outlining modifications with which Archbishop Lefebvre
agreed). But he refused the doctrinal decrees, and particularly
the two newest ones: Gaudium et spes and Dignitatis humanae,
to which he did not give his “placet”. It was four years
later that Archbishop Lefebvre started to fight on liturgical grounds,
when, in 1969, what is now known as Paul VI’s mass was drafted.
It became a liturgical combat, because the new rite became the vehicle
and the manifestation of the new conciliar theology.
In our combat, what do we concentrate on? Essentially the new ecclesiology,
from which follow the current concept of ecumenism and religious
liberty. This is the heart of our resistance. We saw, at the end
of the Council, the setting up of a new Church within the Catholic
Church – which Mgr. Bugnini called himself the “Conciliar Church”
– the outline and boundaries of which are difficult to ascertain.
What appears to define the Conciliar Church is the conscious and
willful adhesion to these new theses, which are by nature evolutionary
and developing from their implied contents, such that the limits of the new Church are
quite blurred. In consequence, one can witness a strange paradox:
those who, on behalf of Tradition, dare to question the “spirit”
of Vatican II, are excluded from that Conciliar Church, while those
who, on behalf of that same conciliar “spirit”, tie up again
with the oldest heresies so many times condemned, are supported
in their theological search.
It is this Conciliar Church which we resist. We do not refuse to
submit to the pope as such, but to the Conciliar Church, because
it has a way of thinking which is different from that of the Catholic
Church. Our combat is not only liturgical. What needs reforming
is that conciliar thinking, expressed and made manifest through
the new liturgy. We have to come back to the sound doctrine.
Fr. Patrick de la Roque
of Saint Pius X
Did you know
what they really said?
following quotes, gathered from different sources and from authoritative
people, show by their clarity the true spirit of the Council. It
is always good to have some of these quotes at hand when someone
says that what is going wrong in the Church is merely an abuse of
the real Council texts which apparently were good in themselves.
Many of the quotes below come precisely from the very authors of
the conciliar texts. “A good tree cannot bear bad fruits...”
on Doctrinal Changes
could make an astonishing list of propositions taught yesterday,
and the day before, in Rome, as the only acceptable ones, and which
were eliminated by the conciliar Fathers.”
INTERVIEW, I.C.I., 15/5/69,
has wiped out what I would call the unconditionality of the system.
By “system”, I mean a coherent set of notions conveyed by the Roman
universities, codified by Canon Law, protected by a tight and rather
efficient control under Pius XII, with reports, calls to order,
control of writings by Roman censorship, etc. The Council just
( O. P ) Une vie pour la verite [ A life for the truth
], p. 220, Centurion, I975, interviewed by Jean Puyo
on how the Council was conducted
even say that the experts were the ones who actually conducted the
Council. It is not totally wrong. I remember a minute but revealing
episode. At the time when the Decree on the laity was to be discussed,
I had noticed a paragraph still (…) inspired by a dual vision:
the world on the one side, and the Church on the other. I was there
with another French expert, and we agreed that it was bad. That
paragraph had however already been adopted by the commission; it
was consequently impossible to change it. We then drafted an additive,
a second paragraph which was more or less saying the opposite.
The first paragraph was in a way establishing that dualism, and
the second one was saying, the action of the Church must go beyond
it. Bishops from Western France proposed our new text, and it was
M. D. CHENU
( O.P. ) Un theologien en liberte [A theologian without
restraint] pp. I6-17, Centurion, 1975, interviewed by Jacques Duquesne.
“..a very efficient
infiltration was carried out through notes proposed to the various
Ibid, p. I88 [ or I87].
“It all consisted
in outvoting men from the Curia and the Holy Office.”
( OP) Une vie pour la verite [A life for the truth ].p.
I40 (op. cit.).
on Conciliar Texts
be denied that a text like this [the conciliar declaration on Religious
Liberty] says materially something different than the Syllabus of
I864, and even almost the opposite of propositions I5, and 77 to
79 of that document.”
(OP)La Crise de I’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre [The Crisis in
the Church and Archbishop Lefebvre],Cerf, Paris, I977, p.54.
(chapter 3 on collegiality)
did peacefully its October Revolution.”
(OP) Le Concile au jour le jour, deuxieme session [The Council
day by day, second session], Cerf, Paris, I964, p. II5.
in his subsequent book La Crise de l’Eglise [The Church’s
Crisis], page 49, note 2, Congar realized his mistake and tried
to rectify it:
(integrists) have scurrilously misused a word, questionable, as
a matter of fact, which we have written about a vote on the college
of the Council. (…) They intended to see in it a statement on
the sovietization of the Church! It was only an author’s word,
neither very good, nor very adequate. To give it another meaning
comes down to ascribe to it a sense which it never had and which
we clearly reject.”
a conference which I had given to bishops in Rome. Minister Roux,
who attended it as a Protestant observer, came to see me in the
end. ‘This is wonderful, he said; but I disagree. You are too
much of an optimist, the world is involved in a permanent tragedy,
and we must speak of the Cross of Christ. The world which
you are building is too beautiful.’
“We took that objection into consideration; we inserted perspectives
on sin, here and there; but they looked like added parts.
It is true that we have not integrated the world’s tragedy enough.
But that optimism, which imbued the whole Council still appeals
(OP) UN théologien en liberté [A theologian without restraint],
p. 182, Centurion, 1975, interviewed by Jacques Duquesne.
father of the new ecclesiology which triumphed at the Vatican II
Council, received several warnings from Rome in the 1950’s. He
then determined, in writing, not to submit; “Continue to write
in this way to a maximum, using all these opportunities which I
still have. This is what my fight is all about. I know (and ‘they’
know) that sooner or later all that I am saying and writing is just
the opposite of the system. Yes, this really is my struggle: my
theological, historical, ecclesiastical and pastoral labor. The
class I am teaching at present, De Ecclesia, as if nothing
happened, this is my real answer, this my real dynamite under
the seats of the scribes”.
(OP) Handwritten notes of February 1954, quoted by Francois LEPRIEUR
(OP), Quand Rome condamne [Sentenced by Rome], Plon/Cerf,
Paris, 1989, p.259.
II Council: the Preliminary Conspiracy
The Agreement with Moscow
for the coming of Russian Orthodox observers (i.e. KGB agents),
a promise was made not to condemn communism. “France Nouvelle”
(French Communist Party central weekly magazine), issue for January
16 –22, 1963, page 15:
“ Because the
world socialist system undeniably proves to be the best and that
it is supported by hundreds and hundreds of millions of men, the
Church can no longer be content with vulgar anti-communism. She
has even entered into an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church
that no direct attacks against the communist regime would be made
during the Council.”
of this agreement is to be found in “La Croix” (French Catholic
daily newspaper) of February I5, I963, page 5:
“It is in Metz
that Cardinal Tisserant met with Bishop Nicodem, archbishop in charge
of foreign affairs for the Russian Church, and it is there that
was prepared the message which Bishop Willebrands took to Moscow.
Bishop Nicodem, who had come to Paris during the first half of
August, had, as a matter of fact, wished to meet with Cardinal Tisserant.
The meeting took place at Father Lagarde’s, the chaplain for the
Little Sisters of the Poor, at Bordes, who has always shown interest
for international problems. Subsequent to that conversation Bishop
Nicodem accepted that someone would go to Moscow to bring an invitation
on condition that guarantees would be given regarding the non-political
attitude of the Council.”
the Rome-Moscow agreement, see “Itineraires” , # 280, pages 1 to
The Agreement with the Jews
in “Tribune juive”, issue # 1001, of (December 25-31, 1957):
“On a foggy
and frosty night of the 1962-63 winter, I went to an extraordinary
invitation at the Community Center for Peace, in Strasbourg. The
Jewish leaders were receiving secretly, an envoy of the Pope in
the basement. At the end of the Sabbath, about ten of us welcome
a Dominican in white garb, Rev. Fr. Yves Congar, who had received
a mission from Cardinal Bea, on behalf of John XXIII, to ask us,
on the threshold of the Council, what we were expecting from the
Catholic Church (…).
held on the fringe of Christian society for nearly 20 centuries,
often treated as subalterns, enemies and deicides, were asking for
their total rehabilitation. Descending in direct line from Abraham’s
monotheist lineage, out of which came out Christianity, they were
requesting to be regarded as brothers, partners equal in dignity,
of the Christian Church. (...)
messenger – without any ornament or symbol – went back to Rome with
innumerable requests comforting ours. After difficult proceedings
(…) the Council acceded to our wishes. The Declaration Nostra
Aetat, no. 4, was – as Fr. Congar and three drafters of that
text confirmed to me – a true revolution in the Church’s doctrine
about the Jews (…).
catechism books changed within a few years. In France, the flower
of this renovated doctrine was offered by the Editions du Centurion
under the title: La Foi des Catholiques [The Catholics’
Faith]. The French episcopate-with L.A. Elchinger, bishop of Strasbourg-
had played a decisive part in the presentation during the Council
of today’s ‘Jewish problem’. The clergy adopted the conciliar decisions
with alacrity. That attitude had a precious guide in the Pastoral
Orientations of the episcopal committee for relations with Judaism,
published by the French episcopal conference on April I6, I973.
“At the Vatican
itself, this trend of thought was confirmed in an exceptional way.
In the very presence of the Pope John-Paul II and the bishops of
the whole world, Cardinal Etchegaray, minister of the Holy See,
on October 4, I983, pronounced an astonishing statement with sums
up all the Jewish “problems” in two points:
1. Total and
final reconciliation with Judaism and the Jews;
and forgiveness asked for all the evil caused in the passed.
the secret visit of Fr. Congar in a hidden location of the synagogue,
on a cold winter night, the Church’s doctrine really had been through
a total transformation.”
that agreement, see “Itineraires”, # III.
An Agreement with the Protestants?
Willebrands recounted in his work on “Vatican II – La Liberte
religieuse” (coll. Unam Sanctam, Paris, Cerf, 1967) how
the Ecumenical Counsel of (Protestant) Churches published, on the
eve of the last conciliar session a list of its seven basic demands
on religious liberty.
“On the eve
of the last conciliar session, which was to adopt the Declaration,
the Commission for international affairs of the Ecumenical Counsel,
in July 1965, presented the seven essential demands for religious
liberty as follows:
‘1. While maintaining
a clearly Catholic basis for religious liberty, the civil liberty
which Christians claim for themselves must be guaranteed everywhere
to everyone, whatever his religion or belief may be.
liberty includes freedom for everyone to change religion or belief
without any effect on his political, economical and social status.
This right implies the right to keep one’s belief or disbelief without
incurring any constraint or incapacity
‘3. In addition,
religious liberty includes freedom to express one’s religion or
belief. Cult, teaching, practice and observance of rites are the
basic forms of religious expression, and any elaboration of a norm
on religious liberty must expressly guarantee them.
‘4. The right
to express one’s religion or belief must be guaranteed to everyone,
individually or collectively, publicly or privately.
liberty also includes freedom to maintain individual or collective
ties with religious communities or associations, whose nature transcends
national boundaries. It also includes freedom to express one’s
opinions and beliefs, and to communicate information and ideas through
any possible media, without considering borders.
‘6. The norm
of religious liberty should be international. It should not be
interpreted in a restrictive way to comply with existing national
laws and constitutions, but every effort should be made so that
constitutions and national laws comply with the international norm.
‘7. The practice
of religious liberty, like the practice of other civil laws, may
be subordinated to the limitations defined by law, only in the interest
of public order. Religious rights will be applied to all, without
any distinction of religion or belief”
(July 22, 1965)
“At the last
conciliar session, the bishop of Monaco, Bishop Rupp, in a very
welcomed speech, ask the Council to just make its own these seven
demands and to confirm them with its authority. That request was
the sign that these seven demands were perfectly acceptable to the
Church. In fact, the Council did more than that. Not only did
it make its own these seven demands, in equivalent terms, but it
established them firmly on justifications taken from the Bible,
human experience and philosophical consideration.”
All of these
seven demands were adopted in Dignitatis Humanae – through
eagerness to come to an understanding with the Protestants. Had
some preliminary agreement taken place with the [quite masonic]
Ecumenical Counsel of Churches?
“With the new
liturgy, non-Catholic communities will be in a position to celebrate
the Last Super with the same prayers as the Catholic Church. Theologically,
this is possible.”
Thurian, of the Taize Protestant community, in La Croix,
May 30, 1969.
one takes into account the decisive evolution of Catholic liturgy,
the possibility to substitute other prayers to the canon of the
mass, the obliteration of the notion according to which the mass
would be a sacrifice, the possibility to communicate in both kinds,
then there is no more reason for the Reformation Churches to forbid
their faithful to participate in the Eucharist in the Roman Church.”
Mehl, Protestant, in Le Monde, September 10, 1970.
“In my parish
of Hamburg, we constantly use eucharistic prayer II, with the Lutheran
form of the words of the institution and omitting the prayer for
the pope (…). To me, the new Roman Catholic eucharistic prayers
prove an open attitude of surprising proportions.”
Jordahn, Lutheran minister, conference of June 15, 1975 in Maria
in the now renewed mass can really embarrass the Evangelical Christian.”
G. Siegvalt, Protestant teacher of dogmatic theology
Strasbourg, in Le Monde, November 22, 1969.
eucharistic prayers II and IV show ‘a structure which agrees with
the Lutheran mass’.”
Schulz, report of the Lutheran liturgical conference of May 15,
Roman liturgy now looks very much like the Anglican liturgy.”
Anglican archdeacon, in his book Rome and Canterbury, during four
current forms of the eucharistic celebration in the Catholic Church
and as a result of the existing theological convergence, many obstacles
which might have prevented a Protestant from participating to its
eucharistic celebration seem to be vanishing. It should be possible
today to a Protestant to see in the Catholic eucharistic celebration
the Last Supper of the Lord, i.e. the Protestant holy communion...
We hold out for the new liturgical prayers which agree with us and
which fortunately shade the theology of sacrifice, which we used
to allot to Catholicism.”
declaration of the Higher Consistory of the Confession of
of Alsace and Lorraine of December 8, 1973.
of the Pius V mass (even through the back door and in the revision
of the Roman Missal of 1962) is much more than a question of language:
it is a doctrinal question of utmost importance, at the heart of
the debate between Catholics and Protestants, a debate which, I
believed, had come to an end (…). Many of our forefathers in the
faith, reformed according to the word of God, had rather die at
the stake than attend such a mass which pope Pius V made official
against the Reformation. Consequently we were glad to see the decisions
made by Vatican II on that subject, and the steadfastness of Rome
with all those who did not want to accept the Council and were continuing
to use a mass which to us is contrary to the Gospel.”
Michel Viot, after the October 3, 1984 indult, given for the celebration
St. Pius V Mass under certain conditions, in the readers’ column,
in Le Monde.
 Y. Congar, “Le Concile au jour le jour, 2º session”,
le Cerf, 1964, p. 115.
 Y. Congar, “Essats oecumeniques”, le Centurion,
1984, p. 216.
 Y. Congar, ibid., p. 85.
 Y. Congar, ibid., Mortalium Animos is the
Encyclical by which Pius XI condemned ecumenism as it is now defined
by the conciliar decrees.
 Y. Congar, “La Crise de l’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre”,
le Cerf, p. 54; cf. “Essais oecumeniques”, p. 85. Pius
IX’s Syllabus is a list of condemned propositions.
 Fr. Vatré, “ A la Droite du Père”, Edition
de Maismic, 1994, p. 118.
 F. Laurentin, “Bilan du Concile”, le Seuil,
1967, p. 207 and 213.
 Y. Congar, “La Crise de l’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre”,
le Cerf, 1977, p. 54.
 Cardinal Suenens, Informations Catholiques Internationales,
May 15, 1969.
 Cardinal de Lubac, “Entretiens autour de Vatican
II”, le Cerf, 1985, p. 20.
 Hans Küng, National Catholic Reporter, October
 Cardinal Ratzinger, “Principes de théologie catholique”,
Téqui, pp. 426-427.
 Cardinal Ratzinger, “Ma vie mes souvenirs”,
Fayard, 1998, pp. 115-118.
 John Paul II, Ecclesia Dei adflicta, Documantation
Catholique, # 1967, August 7, 1988, p. 789.
 Paul VI, speech for the closure of Council Vatican
II, Dec. 7, 1965, Documentation Catholique, January 2,
1966, # 1462, p. 63.
 Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, July 18, 1870.
 St. Pius X, Pascendi Domini gregis, September
 St. Pius X, Esupremt apostolatu, October
 Gregory XVI, Singulari nos, June 25, 1834.
 John Paul II, first message to the world, October
17, 1978, Documantation Catholique, # 1751, November 5, 1978,