Archbishop
LEFEBVRE and the
VATICAN
April 8, 1988
Letter of Pope John Paul II
to Cardinal Ratzinger
To my Venerable Brother Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
In this liturgical
period, when we have relived through the Holy Week celebrations
the events of Easter, Christ’s words by which He promised the Apostles
the coming of the Holy Spirit take on for us a special relevance:
“And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor,
to be with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth—whom the Father
will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to
your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn. 14:16-17;26).
The Church
at all times has been guided by faith in these words of her Teacher
and Lord, in the certainty that thanks to the help and assistance
of the Holy Spirit she will remain for ever in the divine Truth,
preserving the apostolic succession through the College of Bishops
united with their Head, the Successor of Peter.
The Church
manifested this conviction of Faith also at the last Council, which
met to reconfirm and reinforce the teaching of the Church inherited
from the Tradition already existing for almost 20 centuries, as
a living reality which progresses vis-à-vis the problems
and needs of every age and deepens our understanding of what is
already contained in the Faith transmitted once and for all (cf.
Jude 3). We are profoundly convinced that the Spirit
of truth who speaks to the Church (cf. Apoc. 2:7, 11, 17,
et. al.) has spoken—in a particularly solemn and authoritative
manner—through the Second Vatican Council preparing the Church to
enter the third millennium after Christ. Given that
the work of the Council taken as a whole constitutes a reconfirmation
of the same truth lived by the Church from the beginning, it is
likewise a “renewal” of that truth (an aggiornamento according
to the well-known expression of Pope John XXIII), in order to bring
closer to the great human family in the modern world both the way
of teaching faith and morals and also the whole apostolic and pastoral
work of the Church. And it is obvious how diversified
and indeed divided this world is.
Through the
doctrinal and pastoral service of the whole College of Bishops in
union with the Pope, the Church took up the tasks connected with
the implementation of everything which became the specific heritage
of Vatican II. The meetings of the Synods of bishops
are one of the ways in which this collegial solicitude finds expression.
In this context the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod
in 1985, held on the 20th anniversary of the end of the Council,
deserves special mention. It emphasized the most important
tasks connected with the implementation of Vatican II, and it stated
that the teaching of that council remains the path which the Church
must take into the future, entrusting her efforts to the Spirit
of truth. In reference to these efforts, particular
relevance attaches to the duties of the Holy See on behalf of the
universal Church, both through the ministerium petrinum of
the Bishop of Rome and also through the departments of the Roman
Curia which he makes use of for the carrying out of his universal
ministry. Among the latter the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith led by Your Eminence is of particularly special
importance.
In the period
since the Council we are witnessing a great effort on the part of
the Church to ensure that this novum constituted by Vatican
II correctly penetrates the mind and conduct of the individual communities
of the People of God. However, side by side with this
effort there have appeared tendencies which create a certain difficulty
in putting the Council into practice. One of these
tendencies is characterized by a desire for changes which are not
always in harmony with the teaching and spirit of Vatican II, even
though they seek to appeal to the Council. These changes
claim to express progress, and so this tendency is given the name
“progressivism.” In this case progress consists in
an aspiration towards the future which breaks with the past, without
taking into account the function of Tradition, which is fundamental
to the Church’s mission in order that she may continue in the Truth
which was transmitted to her by Christ the Lord and by the Apostles
and which is diligently safeguarded by the magisterium.
The opposite
tendency, which is usually called “conservatism” or “integralism,”
stops at the past itself, without taking into account the correct
aspiration towards the future which manifested itself precisely
in the work of Vatican II. While the former tendency
seems to recognize the correctness of what is new, the latter sees
correctness only in what is “ancient,” considering it synonymous
with Tradition. But it is not what is “ancient” as
such, or what is “new” per se, which corresponds to the correct
idea of Tradition in the life of the Church. Rather,
that idea means the Church’s remaining faithful to the truth received
from God throughout the changing circumstances of history.
The Church, like that householder in the Gospel, wisely
brings “from the storeroom both the new and the old” (Mt. 13:52),
while remaining absolutely obedient to the Spirit of truth whom
Christ has given to the Church as her divine Guide. And
the Church performs this delicate task of discernment through her
authentic magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, §25).
The position
taken up by individuals, groups or circles connected with one or
the other tendency is to a certain extent understandable, especially
after an event as important in the history of the Church as the
last Council. If, on the one hand, that event unleashed
an aspiration for renewal (this also contains an element of “novelty”),
on the other hand certain abuses in the realization of this aspiration,
in so far as they forget essential values of Catholic doctrine on
faith and morals and in other areas of ecclesial life, for example
in that of the Liturgy, can and indeed must cause justified objection.
Nevertheless, if by reason of these excesses every healthy
kind of “renewal” conforming to the teaching and spirit of the Council
is rejected, such an attitude can lead to another deviation which
itself is in opposition to the principle of the living Tradition
of the Church obedient to the Spirit of truth.
The duties,
which in this concrete situation, face the Apostolic See require
a particular perspicacity, prudence and farsightedness. The
need to distinguish what authentically “builds up” the Church from
what destroys her is becoming in the present period a particular
demand of our service to the whole community of believers.
The Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith is of key importance in the context
of this ministry, as is shown by the documents which your Department
has published in this matter of faith and morals during the last
few years. Among the subjects which the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently had to concern itself
with, there also figure the problems connected with the “Society
of Saint Pius X,” founded and led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
Your Eminence
knows very well how many efforts have been made by the Apostolic
See since the beginning of the existence of the “Society,” in order
to ensure ecclesial unity in relation to its activity. The
latest such effort has been the canonical visit made by Edward Cardinal
Gagnon. Your Eminence is concerned with this case
in a special way, as was your predecessor of venerable memory, Franjo
Cardinal Seper. Everything done by the Apostolic See,
which is in continual contact with the bishops and episcopal conferences
concerned, has the same purpose: that in this case too there may
be fulfilled the words of the Lord in his priestly prayer for the
unity of all his disciples and followers. All the
bishops of the Catholic Church, inasmuch as by the divine command
they are solicitous for the unity of the universal Church, are bound
to collaborate with the Apostolic See for the welfare of the whole
Mystical Body, which is also the body of the Church (cf.
Lumen Gentium, 23).
For all these
reasons I would assure Your Eminence once more of my desire that
these efforts should continue. We do not cease to
hope that— under the protection of the Mother of the Church—they
will bear fruit for the glory of God and the salvation of men.
From the Vatican,
on April 8, in the year 1988, the tenth of my pontificate.
In fraternal
charity,
Joannes Paulus
PP. II
This
letter is quite important since it gives the whole spirit in which
the negotiations were conducted by the Vatican. One can distinguish
three parts in this letter: the first stresses the importance
of Vatican II; the second opposes progressivism and conservatism;
and the third draws some practical conclusions.
In
the first part we notice the euphoria of Vatican II. No distinction
is made, as if each and every word of Vatican II was directly
inspired by the Holy Ghost. There are certainly many beautiful
passages in the documents of Vatican II; yet, there are other
passages directly inspired by Liberalism and Modernism.
This lack of
distinction ignores the hijacking of the Council by a Modernist
faction, a fact witnessed by both Cardinal Wojtyla and Fr. Ratzinger
at the time. When the latter became Cardinal, he explicitly recalled
it in his interview with Vittorio Messori: “After Pope John XXIII
had announced its convocation, the Roman Curia worked together with
the most distinguished representatives of the world episcopate[25] in the preparation of those schemata
which were then rejected by the Council Fathers as too theoretical,
too textbook-like and insufficiently pastoral. Pope John had not
reckoned on the possibility of a rejection but was expecting a quick
and frictionless balloting on these projects which he had approvingly
read....”[26]
Archbishop
Lefebvre, when recalling the same fact, says that the rest of
the Council was spent trying to purge the worst passages from
the new schemata proposed by the modernists. These two conflicting
influences can be easily found in the texts of the Council. Many
conservative priests try to draw only the good side of the Council,
ignoring the other side; many modernists only refer to the bad
side, despising the other. To be objective, one has to recognize
both sides. Even Cardinal Ratzinger is no longer too euphoric
about the fruits of the Council.
“The
Church took up the tasks connected with the implementation of
everything which became the specific heritage of Vatican II...the
teaching of that Council remains the path which the Church must
take into the future....” These sentences, in the letter of April
8, 1988, were the stumbling block that made the negotiations fail.
The
second part caricatures the attitudes of the faithful who are
attached to Tradition, as if they were “stuck in the past.” There
may be no younger order in the Church than the Society of Saint
Pius X. Archbishop Lefebvre is not attached so much to the letter
but rather to the spirit of Tradition. When he drew up the rules
of the Society of Saint Pius X he took care to adapt them to the
necessities of the modern apostolate.
Regarding
the accusation of an incorrect understanding of Tradition, please
see the comments on the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei.
The
third part of this letter was perhaps the most noticeable. It
stresses the confidence of the Pope in Cardinal Ratzinger. It
also reminds all the bishops of the Catholic Church of their duty
“to collaborate with the Holy See for the welfare of the whole
mystical body.”
This
produced fear in some conciliar bishops but hope in members of
the Society of Saint Pius X, including Fr. Schmidberger.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
|