Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume III

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter X

The Condemnation of Küng

The Pope Silences Dr. Küng
The Universe – 21 December 1979
In the years following the condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre in 1975, many Catholics had commented upon the injustice of the severe action taken against a totally orthodox prelate when contrasted with the Vatican toleration of the flagrant heresies of Hans Küng. Mgr. Lefebvre commented upon this himself in his first letter to Pope Paul VI, remarking: "When I think of the toleration Your Holiness shows with regard to the Dutch bishops and theologians like Hans Küng and Cardonnel, I cannot believe that the cruel decisions taken against myself come from the same heart” (Apologia I, p. 104).

In Bulletin No.17 of the International Federation Una Voce, Dr. Eric de Saventhem commented:

More profoundly though: what are the criteria for “authentic fidelity?” Surely the chief criterion is that of total acceptance and public profession of the Church’s own doctrine concerning and particularly her supreme hierarchical authority, i.e., the Pope and any legitimate council whose decisions the Pope has endorsed? In that case the accusation of "lack of authentic fidelity" would have to be made in the first place against those who, like Professor Küng have openly attacked this doctrine. And if the cardinals have found it necessary, in the case of Mgr. Lefebvre, to withdraw the ecclesiastical approbation which makes Ecône a proper "seminary," then Professor Küng should long ago have been deprived of his missio canonica, i.e., the authority by virtue of which he instructs future priests in fundamental theology.1

On 18 December 1979 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith did precisely this, and withdrew Küng’s missio canonica, stating that he could “no longer be considered a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role. The Universe reported the news in its 21 December issue in the following terms:

“The Pope Silences Dr. Küng”
By Ronald Singleton: Rome

Professor Hans Küng, the Church’s most controversial theologian, was on Tuesday forbidden to teach theology.

The Pope on Tuesday approved a censure by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the 51-year-old, Swiss-born Fr. Küng. Theology professor at Tübingen, West Germany.

The Vatican announced: “Professor Küng may no longer teach theology and may no longer be considered to be a Catholic theologian.

“We are obliged to declare that in his writings he fell short of integrity and the truth of Catholic Faith.”

Fr. Küng has continually declined to be questioned by the Congregation “until I am assured of receiving a fair trial.” The announcement was simultaneously confirmed by the president of the West German Episcopal Conference, Cardinal Höffner, leader of West German “conservatives.”

The professor was shocked. Neither he nor his advocates expected such a move, made swiftly and with no warning.

The warning has reinforced arguments that the Holy Father has decided to hit dissidents harshly. On

Sunday he told a Jesuit gathering: “Beware of perilous allies, dangerous deviations.”

Fr. Küng was born on March 19, 1928. He was ordained at Rome’s Pontifical German College on October 10, 1954, and the following day celebrated his first Mass in St. Peter’s. He is a priest of the Basle diocese in Switzerland.

In 1970, he published a powerful, theological argument against the doctrine of papal infallibility.

The investigation of his writing has been conducted for years.

More then 20,000 Swiss Catholics signed a petition asking the Congregation to treat him with “justice and impartiality.”

He has criticized persistently dogmas and traditions such as the apostolic succession of the bishops, the sinlessness of Mary and rules on priestly celibacy.

His 720-page book, On Being a Christian, was a first edition best-seller of 150,000 copies.

Fr. Küng is under no obligation to resign from Tübigen University. It is a state institution.

* * * *

There are several interesting aspects of this report. Firstly, unlike Universe reports concerning Mgr. Lefebvre, the tone here is decidedly mild, if not actually sympathetic towards Küng.2 Ronald Singleton, who is consistently virulent in his references to the Archbishop, writes of Küng in almost reverential terms.

As subsequent events made only too clear, the Pope had no means silenced Hans Küng, in fact it prompted this far from taciturn Swiss cleric to a degree of unprecedented loquacity. The removal of Küng’s mandate to teach as a Catholic theologian also prompted Liberal theologians in a number of countries to considerable loquacity in defense of a colleague they clearly regarded as a martyr for truth. Similar support came from his many Protestant admirers who had come to imagine that the Catholic Church no longer objected to Protestantism, as Küng had been allowed to preach Protestant theology for so many years in his official capacity as a Catholic theologian. Küng was soon to embark on what appeared to be a triumphal international tour to receive in person the fulsome tributes of his admirers and to express his contempt for the Vatican and for the teaching of the Church, sometimes even within Catholic institutions.

The 14 January 1982 issue of The Wanderer reported that on 7 December 1981 Küng gave a lecture to a standing-room only audience at the University of Notre Dame, the foremost Catholic university in the United States. He was introduced by Father Richard McBrien, Chairman of the Theology Department at the University, as “a fellow Catholic theologian,” a statement which can only be described as an insolent and cynical rejection of the judgment of the Sacred Congregation. Needless to say, the audience considered Father McBrien’s statement highly amusing and he received loud applause. McBrien himself is the author of a two volume work, Catholicism, which should, in fact, entitled Modernism. It is a menace to the faith of any Catholic who reads it, but is now a standard textbook in many English-speaking seminaries, and receives praise from bishops. It is hardly necessary to remark that under no circumstances whatsoever would Archbishop Lefebvre have been permitted to speak at Notre Dame University, or on any other Catholic campus in the English-speaking world. Liberal-Catholic belief in academic freedom is restricted to those propagating views acceptable to Liberal Catholics.

The decision to act against Hans Küng was a courageous one of the part of Cardinal Seper and Pope John Paul II. They knew it would incite the fury of Liberal Catholics and Protestants. It would be churlish for traditional Catholics to withhold their gratitude for this decision, but at the same time they could observe quite reasonably that it was a long overdue and that the only sanction imposed upon Dr. Küng, the withdrawal of his missio canonica, was far too mild, even ludicrously mild. Archbishop Lefebvre, who has never questioned a single defined teaching of the Church, has been suspended a divinis, and is forbidden to offer Mass in public, while Kung, who has questioned such fundamental dogmas as papal infallibility and the nature of the priesthood, has incurred no such sanction.


Some Interesting Reactions

The complete text of the condemnation of Hans Küng by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is included in Appendix I to this book. This appendix also includes Küng’s contemptuous and pompous rejection of his condemnation, and a reaction to this rejection by Josef Cardinal Höffner on behalf of the German Bishops' Conference. It should be noted that Kung's contempt for the authority of the Holy See was such that, unlike Mgr. Lefebvre, he refused to appear before the Sacred Congregation to explain his case in person.

Reference has already been made to the fact that Küng received considerable support from Protestants and Liberal Catholics. The World Council of Churches stated that: "The Pope's decision could not be regarded as an internal affair of the Catholic Church since it had immediate ecumenical repercussions." This is a most interesting point of view! The supreme authority in the Catholic Church is no longer entitled to say  who shall or shall not represent the Church as an official teacher without first consulting the World Council of Churches! Dr. Stuart Blanch, the Anglican Archbishop of York, claimed that Kung was a great theologian who had put the whole world in his debt in a courageous if sometimes provocative attempt "to explain the Gospel in intellectual categories more appropriate to our time..." In an act of charming ecumenical courtesy, the Anglican Church Times asked whether Pope John Paul II “is going to turn out to be the Ayotollah of the West" (11 January 1980).

The Liberal Catholic establishment was equally indignant. The Tablet fulminated against the removal of Küng’s missio canonica in an editorial which compared this action to the pattern of "life under a Communist regime." It praised Küng as a "noble thinker," and actually demanded the abolition of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. I showed this editorial to Cardinal Seper during a meeting  which I had with him (see page 151). The Cardinal was highly amused, and remarked that The Tablet was a journal that "used to be Catholic." Fifty Swiss theologians announced that they were "profoundly disturbed…our faith in the Vatican is shaken." Seventy American and Canadian theologians informed the world that: "We publicly affirm our recognition that Professor Kung is indeed a Catholic theologian." The directors of Concilium, mouthpiece of the parallel magisterium of Liberal theologians, insisted that they did not see " any well-founded reason not to consider our colleague 'Hans Küng as a Catholic theologian."

The question of "human rights" was raised by many of Küng’s defenders, but not one of them explained why an individual has the right to represent any organization, religious or secular, and publicly repudiate its most fundamental principles. Some of Küng’s defenders stated that while they did not necessarily agree with his theology they defended his right to teach it. Nothing was heard from these zealous defenders of human rights and free speech when Archbishop Lefebvre was condemned and persecuted, indicating that their concern for these issues is, to put it mildly, somewhat selective.

Opinion in the secular media was typified by a comment in U.S. News and World Report, dated 31 December 1979, under the headline: "Vatican's Hard Line on Dissent":

Religious conservatism runs high at Roman Catholicism's world center – and so does controversy over the Vatican 's December 18 verdict of heresy against Liberal theologian Hans Küng.

The Vatican's boldness in barring the popular Swiss-born theologian from teaching is seen by some Liberals as the sign for a papal drive against Church dissenters.

They argue that the ruling mirrors Pope John Paul II's determination to strengthen Catholic traditions as an anchor in a tumultuous world. This, they say, was already evident in his pronouncements on birth control, abortion and the role of women during his visit to the U.S.

Not all the reaction to the condemnation of Küng was hostile. A very interesting article by Thomas P. McDonnell appeared in the 4 January 1980 issue of The Pilot, (Boston). Mr McDonnell had some particularly pertinent comments to make concerning the manner in which the Küng case had been reported in the so-called Catholic press:

It was inevitable that the Hans Küng affair should have turned into an overblown media event for those who somehow presume that the private interpretation of public (or Church) doctrine has not become the primary act and privilege of the theological mind. The private interpretation of Catholic doctrine, however, makes no more sense to the essential integrity of the teaching Church than does the private interpretation of Holy Scripture itself. Küng, indeed, offends on both counts. In extension of this premise, the case of Hans Kung exemplifies nothing so much as that chief heresy of our age which demands that everything must be tolerated in name of individual rights. I call this the libertarian heresy: If anything goes, then so will everything else in due time…

I happen to have a concern for the Hans Küng case, moreover, that comes somewhat closer to the nature of my job and the geography of the vineyard in which I strive to do my work. At this point, I see the Küng story as yet another brilliant example of the almost exclusively liberal bias of the NC (National Catholic) wire service. This wire service, which is no less than a branch of the USCC (United States Catholic Conference), provides practically all the news and information that is disseminated to well more than 150 Catholic newspapers in this country…

In the Hans Küng story at hand, and others like it, NC invariably rushes forth to garner the reaction angle to any given controversy itself, but seldom provides the reader with any real understanding of the issues clearly involved. What’s more, the initial reaction NC invariably seeks out is that which is lodged in the fixations of the Liberal left. First quotes and reactions usually derive from the same old crowd: Charles Curran, Richard McBrien, Gerard Sloyan, Rosemany Reuther, Gregory Baum, Leonard Swidler, et al. Shall we ever see, I wonder, a highly controversial church press story in which NC first seeks out and reports the commentaries of James Hitchcock, Michael Novak, Bishop Gaughan, Thomas Molnar, Christopher Derrick and others? I hardly think so. You will not see it in the NC wire service, and you have not seen it in regard to the Hans Kung story.

Church press papers in service to the Church (quaint notion, isn't it?) should provide readers with the fullest possible information on the very solid case that in fact exists against Hans Kung. We have had very little of that story, but have been stuffed instead with more than we have to know about some benighted theologians of the fifth rank running around North America with frantic petitions in their hot little hands. To Hans Kung's "I am deeply ashamed of my Church," Archbishop Quinn of San Francisco has replied that he, on the contrary, is proud of his Church – and so am I.

The bias to which Mr. McDonnell refers was well illustrated by the Universe report which was quoted earlier, even to the seeking out of spokesmen from the Liberal left. It would have been encouraging if Mr. McDonnell had shown similar concern for the distorted version of Mgr. Lefebvre's case presented in the so-called Catholic media, but, perhaps, that is asking too much, and to the best of my knowledge he has never done so.

I have quoted Protestant opinion supporting Hans Kung, support which is hardly surprising as he is, to all intents and purposes, himself a Liberal Protestant. It was thus pleasant to find two letters from Protestants defending the Vatican in the 5 January 1980 issue of The Times:

ANSWERING VATICAN CHARGES
From the Reverend N. M. de S. Cameron

Sir, While remaining as distant from Rome in theology as in miles, may I voice the secret envy that many Protestants must feel for the present vigorous discipline at work in the Roman Catholic Church? It is a thousand pities that the churches of the Reformation have discarded their historic concern for truth and are pusillanimous in their refusal to deal with even the rankest heretics in their midst.

But we cannot escape the logic of revelation. Revelation implies truth, truth implies orthodoxy, orthodoxy implies heresy. If we balk at the idea of discipline, then we implicitly abandon our birthright that the Christian faith is a revealed faith, and that Christian truth is something other than simply the accumulated wisdom of Christian thinkers. If God has revealed Himself, in Scripture and in history, then that deposit of revelation must be safeguard and preserved.

And it is this that shows up talk of "human rights" (whatever that phrase may mean) as the red herring that it is. If men do have fundamental rights, their only ground is in their bestowal at the hand of God. It was Adam who first considered that he had the right to believe what he chose; and, as we all know, he was unfortunately mistaken. Learned theologians who deny truths that are integral to the Christian revelation have no God-given “right” to do so. On the contrary, it is the Church which has not only the right, but the duty, to discipline them and prevent them from influencing others. For a century Protestantism has refused that duty. Shame on us that the Church of Rome has not!

From Mr. J. W. P. Hubbard

The Subdeacon of Lincoln (December 21) may chose to characterize the Roman Catholic Church as sectarian, but there must be many Anglicans like myself who are profoundly grateful for the firm and vigorous manner in which Pope John Paul both upholds fundamental moral principles and defends the deposit of truth passed down by the Church through the centuries.

* * * *

The condemnation of Hans Küng, and the reactions to it which have been cited in this chapter, should prove a useful correctives to those traditional Catholics who see Pope John Paul II solely as a Liberal. The present Holy Father is an enigma, and to regard him either as an arch-Liberal, as many traditionalists do, or an arch-Conservative in the mold of St. Pius X, as many Liberals do, is far too simplistic an attitude. Many of his actions and attitudes are clearly harmful to the Church, and they will be criticized in this book, but this should not blind traditional Catholics to the fact that many of his actions and attitudes are totally orthodox. The condemnation of Kung also provides a useful reminder for traditional Catholics to bear in mind the fact that since the Second Vatican Council the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has published a series of documents upholding orthodox teachings on faith and morals which have been questioned by Liberals. A careful study of these documents can help to balance an exaggerated view of the extent to which Modernism has penetrated the Vatican. While its influence is clearly discernible in some Sacred Congregations, this is most certainly not the case with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.3



1. Apologia I, pp. 105-6.

2. See Apologia I, pp. 46 and 259; Apologia II, pp. 251-254.

3. A comprehensive selection of documents published by this Congregation is provided in the second volume of the collection of conciliar and post-conciliar documents compiled by A. Flannery (see bibliography).

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XI

Letter of Mgr. Elchinger to Mgr. Lefebvre
7 January 1980

My Lord and Brother,

We have known one another for a long time, since we studied together in Rome. We have often met since, especially during the Council years. Often we discussed the urgency and the gravity of our task of proclaiming the Gospel.

In Alsace, a land of faith and missions, we are faced, as elsewhere, with the crisis of spirit and conscience that inevitable cultural changes have brought about. In the same way as you, I think, aware of our feebleness and sinfulness we strive, as you know, to live and to defend the values of the Gospel in such a context.

Why, then, do you come to Alsace believing it necessary to form or encourage groups of Christians who you practically render dissidents with regard to the diocesan authorities? You have been the pastor of many dioceses and ought to realize the gravity of what you are doing in opposing the Ordinary of the place.

You confirmed children at Thal in a break with the bishop of the diocese. On 18 November 1979 you inaugurated a place of worship at Colmar, celebrating Mass a few hundred yards from the church where I myself was on a pastoral visit.

Now, no place of worship dependent upon the Roman Catholic Church may be opened in administrative districts subject to the "Concordat" without the consent of the diocesan bishop and the permission of the authorities. By failing to obey this legislation – well known to your lawyers – do you really want to put yourself forward as no longer belonging to the Roman Catholic Church and, by virtue of this fact, to form with your faithful a group legally equivalent to a mere sect?

What a contradiction, Brother mine, with the steps that you have taken in Rome since the accession of His Holiness Pope John Paul II!

I would like you not to put the pastor of the Church in Alsace under the unhappy obligation of openly opposing you. Why do you, who were an ardent missionary in Africa and whom so many Alsatians know, wish now to introduce new divisions amongst the Christians of Alsace?

In the name of the bonds of friendship and trust that have bound us for many years I beg you, My Lord, to desist from leading astray the faithful for whom the Apostolic See has entrusted me with pastoral responsibility. There are other wars to wage so that the Gospel may be heard by the men of today. To do this we must begin by humbly bearing witness to the will of Christ: "May they all be one."

I hope that you will listen to the appeal of one who remains your brother, and that you will be able to take the necessary decisions without delay.

I await your reply.

In communion of prayer and struggle for Church unity,

Léon Arthur Elchinger
Bishop of Strasbourg

* * * *

This very courteous letter contains two points which require some comment. Church/State relations in France are regulated by a Concordat. Mgr. Elchinger refers in his letter to a clause in the Concordat requiring the permission of the diocesan bishop for any building to be opened as a place of Catholic worship. Protestant denominations require no such permission before opening their chapels. Mgr. Elchinger claims that, because he has not authorized the centers established by Archbishop Lefebvre, the Society of St. Pius X is in the same legal position as any Protestant sect. His use of the phrase "sect" is very interesting, because, as will be shown below, Mgr. Elchinger is an extremely ecumenical prelate. It would be hard to imagine him ever informing his beloved Protestant brethren, when engaged in an earnest ecumenical dialogue, that they constitute a "mere sect."

The second point concerns Mgr. Elchinger's admonition of Mgr. Lefebvre for entering the diocese of another bishop in which he has no jurisdiction: "You have been the pastor of many dioceses and ought to realize the gravity of what you are doing in opposing the Ordinary1 of the place." This is one of the most frequent criticisms made of Mgr. Lefebvre. It is one  which appears in a number of the complaints made against him which are cited in this book. It is therefore worth examining it in some detail now.

Under normal circumstances the argument put forward by the Bishop of Strasbourg is perfectly correct. The intrusion of one bishop into the diocese of another has been considered an outrage throughout the history of the Church. But all forms of law must be understood within the context of the purpose they are intended to serve. Jurisdiction is the power to govern the faithful for the supernatural end for which the Church was established by Christ. This supernatural end is the salvation of souls. This is the basis for an axiom which is fundamental to all Catholic theology and to Canon Law: Salus animarum suprema lex– "The salvation of souls is the supreme law." When, in any particular case, a law is manifestly impeding the salvation of souls it can and sometimes must be disregarded. St. Thomas Aquinas repudiated the idea of unqualified obedience to any human law, and quotes Acts 5:29 in this respect: Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus– "We ought to obey God rather than men."

A detailed account of a prelate who chose to obey God rather than men is given in Appendix II to Apologia, Volume I. It examines the case of Robert Grosseteste, the thirteenth-century Bishop of Lincoln who is probably the greatest Catholic in the history of the English Church. Pope Innocent IV had developed the practice of appointing his relatives to ecclesiastical offices throughout the Church simply as a means of providing them with an income. These men had not the slightest intention of ever visiting the flocks entrusted to their pastoral care. Their only objective was to extract every penny from them that they possibly could. Robert Grosseteste was the only bishop in the entire Church who refused to accept a papal nominee to a benefice within his diocese. The Pope had every legal right to make such an appointment, but the Bishop pointed out that visitation of the flock was a particular duty of the pastoral office. The Pope, he claimed, had no right to use his authority in a manner that would militate against the salvation of souls. This, he stated, was an abuse of his supreme power. Salus animarum suprema lex.

The same principle can certainly be applied to the question of jurisdiction. If a bishop is failing to meet the spiritual needs of his flock, or, even worse, is governing them in a manner which is spiritually harmful, then any other bishop has the right and duty to come to their aid. Once again there is a precedent for this principle, particularly in the case of St. Athanasius which is explained in Appendix I to the first volume of the Apologia. When writing that Appendix I, overlooked an important passage in Newman's The Development of Christian Doctrine, in which he deals specifically with the question of interference by one bishop in the diocese of another.2

In The Development of Christian Doctrine, Cardinal Newman refutes the opinion that interference by one bishop in the diocese of another necessarily constitutes schism. Faithful Catholics have a duty to divide themselves from schismatic or heretical bishops, and where division is a duty, it is not a sin. An orthodox bishop does not sin by interferring in the diocese where the bishop is guilty of division from the Faith through schism.

"If interference is a sin," wrote the Cardinal, " division which is the cause of it is a greater; but where division is a duty, there can be no sin of interference." St. Athanasius did not cause division when he entered the dioceses of Arian bishops. He was interferring in order to uphold Tradition and sustain the faith of true Catholics as a legitimate response to the division caused by the schism of these bishops. The first loyalty of every bishop must be to the Church as a whole. During a period of schism and heresy, their duty to defend the integrity of Tradition extends beyond any single diocese. Cardinal Newman illustrates this by pointing out that St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius, Bishop of Samasota, a fierce opponent of Arianism, both ordained priests outside their own dioceses. “St. Athanasius," wrote Cardinal Newman, "driven from his church, makes all Christendom his home, from Treves to Ethiopia."

There can be no doubt at all that since the Second Vatican Council, a good number of Catholic dioceses are in a state of de facto schism. The Homiletic and Pastoral Review is among the leading English-language journals for priests in the world. It is not connected in any way with the traditionalist movement. In its January 1983 issue, Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., noted that in the United States we are witnessing the rejection of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ, to be replaced by a by Protestant American Church, separated from Rome. Could interference in the dioceses of bishops who are establishing this Protestant American Church be called schism?

The life of St. Athanasius provides us with a valuable antidote when we are tempted to succumb to one of the most popular of contemporary heresies, i.e., that truth must necessarily lie in the opinion espoused by the greatest number. St. Athanasius is not alone among great saints who, at times, have seemed to be in a minority of one. St. John Fisher, alone among the English hierarchy, had the courage to repudiate the claim of Henry VIII that the Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction in the realm of England. Those who defend the truth against the prevailing consensus must often face the prospect of appearing stubborn, proud, intransigent, or even ignorant. They must be willing to face persecution, as St. Athanasius did; or even to sacrifice life itself rather than compromise, which was the price paid by St. John Fisher. Christianity is not a religion which can compromise and survive. Its Founder died a lonely death upon the Cross. Thousands of its members were expected to die a cruel death in the Roman arenas rather than burn a small bowl of incense before a statue of the emperor.


The Case of Mgr. Elchinger

It is not my intention here to claim that Mgr. Elchinger should be considered as a formally schismatic or heretical bishop. It is more than probable that, if questioned closely, he would profess the same faith as Mgr. Lefebvre. His fault, like that of almost every bishop in the advanced Western countries today, would consist principally in failing to provide for the spiritual needs of his flock by ensuring the celebration of Masses in which God can be worshipped with reverence and dignity ,by providing sound religious education in Catholic schools and parish classes, by ensuring that sound Catholic moral teaching is preached throughout his diocese, and by taking particular care to ensure that seminarians from his diocese are formed in accordance with the Vatican II Decree on the Training of Priests, Optatam totius, 28 October, 1965.3 This decree is observed more faithfully in the seminaries of the Society of St. Pius X than in any other seminaries throughout the West. It also forms the basis of the formation given at the new seminary opened at Rolduc in Holland in 1974 by the two most conservative Dutch bishops, Gijsen and Simonis, after every other seminary in Holland had closed.

All the French bishops have mandated for use in their dioceses a course of religious instruction entitled Pierres vivantes– "Living Stones." Every other course of instruction is forbidden, just as the Baltimore Cathechism is forbidden in certain dioceses in the U.S.A. The most moderate assessment of Pierres vivantes is that it is a travesty of the Catholic Faith. To give just one example, the Mass is nowhere presented as a Sacrifice, simply as a fraternal meal. This, of course, is also the case in most of the contemporary episcopally-approved catechetical series used throughout the English-speaking world. The French bishops, to their great chagrin, failed to obtain Vatican approval for Pierres vivantes. They even went to the extent of lying to the faithful, and told them that it had been approved by Rome, but their lie was exposed by the  publication of a 1979 letter from Cardinal Oddi revealing that no such approval had ever been given.4

A primary task of every bishop, as a successor of the Apostles, is, as St. Paul admonished Timothy, to keep that which is committed to his trust (1 Tim. 6:20). "0 Timothee, despositum custodi!" "Blessed be God!" wrote Cardinal Newman, commenting upon this text, "we have not to find the Truth, but it is put into our hands; we have but to commit it to our hearts, to preserve it inviolate, and to deliver it over to posterity. This is the meaning of Saint Paul's injunction in the text, given at the time when Truth was first published. 'Keep that which is committed to thy trust,' or rather, 'Keep the deposit'."5

It is not simply arguable but objectively demonstrable that Mgr. Elchinger, and the overwhelming majority of his fellow bishops throughout the West, are not preserving the Deposit of Faith inviolable and delivering it over to posterity. This alone would justify Mgr. Lefebvre coming into their dioceses at the request of their abandoned flocks. It is also objectively demonstrable that throughout the dioceses of France, and most dioceses in Western countries, liturgical abuses proliferate which in many cases make it a moral impossibility for a layman to have a true sensus catholicus, a sense of being Catholic, to worship in his parish church. This again would more than justify Mgr. Lefebvre for coming into such dioceses to make it possible for faithful Catholics to offer their Creator reverent and fitting worship in accordance with the Church's age old tradition. Ample documentation is available to prove the defective nature of episcopally imposed religious instruction in France, and the widespread extent of liturgical abuses.6Where liturgical abuses are concerned, an example from Mgr. Elchinger's own diocese will help to put his letter in its proper perspective.

On Saturday, 13 December 1975 an ecumenical " concelebration" took place in a Strasbourg church. A congregation of about sixty to eighty Protestants and Catholics sat in a semi-circle around a table without a cross on it. There was singing, praying, and reading aloud.

Two men sitting in the first row get up and stand behind the table facing the people. They are in civil costume. One is a Protestant minister and the other a Catholic priest.

Each one has before him a plate with altar breads upon it and a cup filled with wine.

“Let us give praise to God!"

“Hosanna! You alone are holy."

There is singing.

The Catholic priest takes his plate and holds it before the people. “This is the memorial, the sign, the bread broken for the scattered community which we eat in order to receive His spirit."

In his turn the Protestant minister raises his cup and holds it before the people – the wine “which will become the wine of eternal happiness."

Everyone recites the Our Father. Those present gather round the table. Each of the two celebrants communicates from his plate and cup. The plates are then passed to those present, each being invited to give his neighbor Communion in the hand. The two cups are then passed around the assembly.

“Go in peace."

The blessing and dismissal are given by the two concelebrants. The assembly then recites a mini-credo. The ceremony is over. Those present get up, chat with each other and leave.7

With all due respect to Mgr. Elchinger, a bishop who can tolerate such an outrageous profanation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist8can hardly be taken seriously when he reprimands a truly Catholic bishop for making possible for the faithful to participate in the Immemorial Mass of the Roman Rite.

It will be noted that in this reply Archbishop Lefebvre stresses the fact that if only Mgr. Elchinger would make it possible for faithful Catholics to worship in accordance with tradition in the diocese of Strasbourg then there would be no need of intervention from priests of the Society of St. Pius X.


Mgr. Lefebvre's Reply to Mgr. Elchinger
10 January 1980

My Lord,

Believe me when I say that I am deeply devoted to you and that what I have done in your diocese was certainly not meant to harm your authority or your apostolate.

You could very easily resolve in a happy and helpful way s situation for which neither you nor I are to blame: many of the faithful, and not the least fervent amongst them, remain attached, with good reason, to what the Church, you yourself, and good and holy priests, have taught them with care and zeal for many years. They were put on their guard against novelties after the manner of St. Paul and of all the popes. They are then right to ask to retain the liturgy, the catechism and the Bible of former times. In every sphere the facts prove them right.

The time has come for the diocesan bishops to be objective and to produce a fair solution to this wretched problem, in the hope that such a solution would also resolve many other lacunæ that presently afflict dioceses.

The Pope, Mgr. Bugnini himself, and more of the Cardinals than is commonly thought – the Archbishops of Westminster and Munich for instance – are very favorable to a free choice liturgies old and new and to regulation of time and place by the local bishop.

The bishop who implemented such a solution in his diocese would do the Church and the Pope an enormous service, and would be thanked and encouraged by the Pope. Many bishops would follow his lead and the problem of Ecône and the traditionalists would be solved by such an act. Why should you not be this bishop? You are under a “concordat," and hence freer, in the heart of Europe. Open churches at Strasbourg, Sélestat, Colmar and Mulhouse for those of the faithful who wish to retain the pre-conciliar rites (perhaps I ought to say "conciliar rites," for changes only came about after the Council). These Masses will draw crowds of fervent, generous people, a seedbed of true vocations, which will give you holy priests, provided that the seminary also conforms to the principles of all time. Your diocese would experience true renewal.

After that we would be a problem no more. We would no longer have any reason to come to your diocese, the traditionalists being satisfied. When the problem of Ecône is solved, if you ask us we will come to help you, as the sons of St. Vincent de Paul or of St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort once did.

In doing this, by the grace of God, you would deliver many bishops from vexation, and the Pope would hardly know how to thank you. You would have brought about in practice the solution that he desires, at any cost, in theory. Cardinal Seper keeps on telling me so.

I pray to Our Lord Jesus Christ very sincerely and very fraternally for this intention. I  too so wish both for the Church’s sake and for the salvation of souls that a happy solution should be found to the problem of this ever growing mass of the faithful who hunger and thirst after grace and aspire to receive it by the means that the Church has always used, and which they knew in their youth.

A little while ago Mgr. Bugnini wrote to Cardinal Oddi, saying that it had never been the intention of the Commission on the Liturgy to suppress the so-called "Mass of St. Pius V."

May the Virgin Mary, our tertela domus, come to your aid.

My Lord, please accept my respectful and fraternal best wishes in Christo Jesu et Maria.

Marcel Lefebvre



1. Ordinary, a term used frequently to describe a diocesan bishop. It refers to his power of “ordinary jurisdiction" in the external forum. Jurisdiction is ordinary or delegated. Ordinary jurisdiction is attached to a particular office, and the holder of that office exercises his power of jurisdiction permanently and irremovably as long as he occupies the office. A delegated power of jurisdiction is given to a person by his superior.

2. An expanded version of that appendix is now available in pamphlet form from The Angelus Press. It is entitled “St. Athanasius, Defender of the Faith."

3. The full text is available in Flannery, Vol. I (see bibliography).

4. See Approaches, No. 81, p. 13.

5. Sermon, “Keep the Deposit, a Trust Committed to Us," included in Newman Against the Liberals.

6. Extensive documentation on the catechetical situation in France is available from l'Action familiale et scolaire, 31, rue Rennequin, 75017, Paris, France. This organization is not connected in any way with the Society of 5t. Pius X. Its publications are available only in French. Documentation on the liturgical anarchy prevailing in France is provided in the book l.es Fumées de Satan (The Smoke of Satan) by Andre Mignot and Michel de Saint Pierre {Paris, 1976). Some examples from this book are cited in Pope Paul's New Mass.

7. See Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 217.

8. If the Catholic priest used the form of consecration quoted here then no consecration would have taken place and, strictly speaking, no profanation would have taken place. Even if he had used the correct consecration formula for the bread, but had not consecrated the chalice, leaving this to the Protestant minister, then, once again, no consecration would have taken place as the celebrant must have at least the intention of consecrating the chalice for the consecration of the bread to be valid. If a priest who had consecrated the bread dropped dead before consecrating the chalice, then transubstantiation of the bread would have taken place, but another priest would be required to consecrate the chalice and receive Holy Communion.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XII

The Dutch Synod
The Remnant - 15 February 1980

Especially convened by the Pope because of the crisis of authority reached by the Church in Holland, the Synod of Dutch Bishops ended in Rome on January 31st, with a 22-page document definitely ruling out certain innovations in the Catholic Church in Holland, and leaving some of the more hotly contested issues to "further study."

Commissions were set up to probe conditions at Holland’s theological seminary education, and to examine the activities of "pastoral workers" - the unordained men and women who have taken over much of the work of priests in the Netherlands in recent years.

Pope John Paul II attended all the sessions and, in a major address emphasizing doctrinal positions, urged the bishops in effect to "lead, not follow, their people."

According to Religious News Service, some observers summed up the conference as " a blow to liberal movements in the 5.6 million-member Church in Holland, looked to by progressives around the world as a leader of post-conciliar reform." But whether the Synod outcome can be looked upon as a victory for conservatives depends in large measure upon whether rank-and-file Catholics in Holland will respond to these initial steps, all of which are merely committed to paper at this time, and whether the bishops will make good their pledge to cooperate with the Vatican.

Meanwhile and whatever the outcome will be, Synod document ruled out definitively any alternative to a celibate, all-male clergy. Though "pastoral workers" could continue their jobs, they cannot be considered a "parallel clergy," the document said. It outlawed what it termed a "third path" between priestly celibacy and marriage, referring to this as an "ambiguous state" which is not acceptable in any circumstances.

The 17-day special Synod was called by Pope John Paul II to bring order to the Church in Holland, wracked by internal conflict between various factions. In recent years, Holland’s bishops - two of whom are labelled conservative, four liberal, and one moderate - were often at loggerheads over issues ranging from ecumenism to birth control to priestly education.

The Dutch Church’s 276 lay "pastoral workers" were told in the document that they cannot replace priests or perform priestly functions. The conclusion reaffirmed Pope John Paul’s previous emphasis on the need for a clear distinction between the priesthood and the laity. "The building up of the Church community and the exercise of its mission are entrusted to the whole community," the Pope said on 31 January during a homily at the Synod’s closing Mass. "But...this responsibility is exercised according to the charism and the place of each person in the Body of Christ."

The 46-point Synod resolution condemned several commonplace, but unauthorized, practices of the Church in Holland. It specifically vetoed inter-communion between Catholics and Protestants, thus setting a precedent also for other countries to follow. The document stated: "Inter-communion with separated brothers is not the response to the appeal of Christ for perfect unity."

Individual private Confession, a Sacrament which has virtually disappeared in Holland to be replaced by group penitential services, was reaffirmed. Collective confession "is an extraordinary method," the document said, calling on the bishops "to restore in the faithful esteem for the [traditional] sacrament...especially in its form of personal colloquium."

The Synod, which included six top Vatican officials and other religious experts in addition to the Pope and the seven Dutch bishops, reaffirmed the obligation incumbent upon the faithful to attend Mass at least every Sunday and every holy day of obligation.

It also criticized both liberal and conservative Church critics, especially those groups which bring "too great a pressure in the Church."

The Synod reaffirmed the bishops' authority to appoint and dismiss professors in Catholic institutions in Holland, an important issue in light of the Vatican's recent decision to strip Fr. Hans Küng of his teaching post at Tübingen University. The bishops must exercise their duties "in matter of the nomination or dismissal of professors," the document said. It also said that the bishops should be careful to "safeguard the ecclesial atmosphere, notably on the point of celibacy."

* * * *

"Time alone will determine the outcome," are the concluding words of The Remnant report. While there can be no doubt that John Paul II convened the Dutch Synod with the very best of intentions, time has made it clear that the Liberal bishops returned to Holland and totally ignored the decisions of the Synod. Everything continued exactly as before along the path to doctrinal, liturgical and moral anarchy. It is no longer accurate to speak of the Catholic Church in Holland. Catholicism has virtually vanished from that unhappy country, with the exception of a few isolated priests and laymen who have remained orthodox, and the seminary of Rolduc opened by two conservative bishops, Gijsen and Simonis. In the years following the Synod the Pope has appointed other conservative bishops, but the Church in Holland has degenerated to such an extent that there is little that they can do to remedy the situation. This was made clear by the widespread hostility which marred the Pope's visit to Holland in 1986, hostility which erupted into violent demonstrations.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre

Volume 3, Chapter XIII

On the Feast of the Purification
A Sermon given by Mgr. Lefebvre
2 February 1980

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

My dear friends, my dear brethren:

The Feast of the Purification brings us together once more to confer Minor Orders on some of our seminarians and on some members of communities who have asked us to do so; but we are here today especially for the clerical investiture of those preparing for the grace of the priesthood. It is particularly you, my dear friends, whom I shall address, and firstly, those who are going to receive the cassock. I shall insist not so much on the role of every ordination - indeed, the receiving of the cassock is not an ordination, but a preparation to Orders, and consequently, a preparation like ordination for tasks in relation to the Mystical Body of Our Lord, the Church; rather, I shall particularly stress with the Church, by the prayers which the bishop is going to recite over you in a few moments in the name of the Church, the interior dispositions which you must have in order to receive the graces which are going to be given to you by the receiving of the cassock.

In a certain way, the cassock can be compared to the cloister, for you are going to enter the cloister, withdrawing in a certain sense into a hermitage. Henceforth, you will be separated from the world, as the prayer says: a mundi impedimento et a sæculi desiderio - "from the burden of the world and worldly desires." You are going to be separated from the world and from temporal desires. Ab omni cæcitate spirituali et humana. You are also going to separate yourselves from the blindness given by the things of the world, this blindness not only spiritual but human - as Holy Church says: humana - "human," because it is a fact that, when the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ has been lost by the world (the world of sin, subject to Satan and his influences), then good common sense is lost also, together with plain, simple and upright intelligence; through error, the simple understanding of reality, of the truth, is lost. In the Psalms which have been chosen for this ceremony, it is also written: Beatus qui non accepit in vano animam suam - "Blessed is he who has not received his soul in vain." Profound thought indeed, which makes us truly reflect: have you, or have you not, received your soul in vain? Certainly not. The precise reason for your coming to the seminary was to reply to this question put by God and to say: no, I do not want to have received my soul in vain. Why then, this separation and detachment from the world? Why this aversion from the blindnesses of the world? Why reflect upon the grandeur of your soul and on the great goodness of God in giving it to you? It is in order to receive the light: lumen gratiæ æternæ, gratiæ vitæ æternæ - "the light of eternal grace, of the grace of eternal life."

It is this that the bishop asks for you: that you receive the light of the grace of eternal life. This light of eternal life, which you will receive all the more fully precisely because you will be separated from the world by the cassock itself, by your habit separating you from the world from now on, gives you once again a cloister; this cloister must be for you an opportunity to receive this light. What does this light signify? It is the light of eternal realities, of the everlasting truths, of the simple eternal values. You will reflect upon what eternity is in relation to time, what spirit is in relation to matter; finally, you will reflect upon what God is in relation to yourselves, poor creatures: upon Him Who is Everything, as St. Theresa of Avila said so well, and upon him who is nothing, as she said. You will reflect upon Him Who is Everything, and upon what you are, that is to say, nothing, because you are only creatures; and not only creatures, but sinners also. You will then reflect upon the great love of Our Lord Jesus Christ for you, this immense love which is preparing you for the grace of the priesthood, thanks to His Cross, thanks to His Blood, which has redeemed you and been given to you by baptism, by all the sacraments which you have received - an immense love indeed.

So then, you will reflect upon these things in the solitude of the seminary, and even out in the world, though separated from it. And the light shall descend upon you; this light is nothing other than Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself: ego sum lux mundi - "I am the Light of the World," said Our Lord. He is the Light of the World, the light which enlightens every man coming into this world, as St. John says in his Prologue. And St. Louis Marie Grignon de Montfort tells us in very simple but very significant words: qui scit Christum omnia scit - "He who knows Our Lord Jesus Christ knows everything." On the other hand, he says that: "He who does not know Our Lord Jesus Christ knows nothing" - even if he knows all the sciences of this world, all that man can know here on earth, he knows nothing if he does not know Our Lord Jesus Christ. You, on the other hand, will apply yourselves to knowing Our Lord Jesus to loving and serving Him. This will be your consolation, your happiness and your joy. And in so doing, as the prayers of the ceremony for the clerical investiture say, you will receive the portion of your inheritance. When the aged Simeon received the Infant Jesus from the arms of the Blessed Virgin, he said his nunc dimittis...uia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum - "mine eyes have seen Thy salvation," my eyes have seen Jesus Christ the Savior of the world; he then asked God to take him to be with Jesus Christ forever in eternity. In a moment you also will recite Dominus pars hereditatis meæ - "O Lord, be the portion of my inheritance.

It is Thou Who hast restored this inheritance to me" - Tu es qui restitues hereditatem meam mihi. And I am sure that you will recite it with all the fervor of your souls. You will say these words which the bishop recites over you at the moment when he gives you the tonsure. May Jesus truly be the portion of your inheritance so that you receive the crown of this inheritance just as you receive the crown of the tonsure.

This is what the Church asks of you, my dear friends; these are the thoughts of the Church. May you be enlightened by the light of Our Lord Jesus Christ so that you yourselves be the lights of the world, as Our Lord was. Vos estis lux mundi, just as Our Lord said that He was the Light of the World, He said it to you also, starting with the disciples when He said in the Sermon on the Mount, "You are the light of the world." If you receive the light of this world, you will then be able to give it. If you do not receive it, you will not be able to give it.

You, my dear friends, you who are going to receive the Order of Porter, you will simply repeat the words which the bishop is going to say to you in a few moment's time, when the keys of the Temple of God are entrusted to you: sic agite quasi reddituri Deo rationem pro his rebus quæ iis clavibus recluduntur - "act as men who will have to give an account to God concerning all those things locked up with these keys." Those are the bishop's words. Imagine, then, that Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself is in this temple, together with all the things which are used for adoration, for the worship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Church asks you to have fidelis-sima cura - a very careful watch over all that is enclosed by these keys, the keys of the Temple of God. It is certainly of no small importance to have charge over the Temple of God where Our Lord dwells, the God of heaven and earth He Who created and redeemed us. Be faithful, therefore, and if you are so, you also will have a share in his inheritance  which God has promised us in His goodness.

My dear friends, you who are going to receive the Order of Lector, the Church exhorts you to practice a special degree of virtue; as the prayers and the bishop's admonitions say at this moment, you must stand in a sufficiently high position, and pronounce the words of the Gospel distinctly and clearly, in order to teach the faithful. Just as you are high up in order to diffuse the Word of the Gospel, you must also be "in a high degree of virtue" - in alto gradu virtutis. Again, the Church tells you: quod agenda dicant, opere compleant - "may they also fulfill in act what they exhort in speech," may they not only speak to the faithful, may they not only preach virtue to the people, but may they practice it themselves, giving by their actions the example of a person who practices virtue.

That is what the Church asks of you, my dear friends, and if you do that, dear lectors, then you will have a share in the inheritance of those who have preceded you and who have already preached worthily the Word of the Gospel. That is what the bishop says when you receive the book of the Gospels: partem cum iis qui bene administraveruent ab initio, you will have a share with those who have been good ministers of the Word of God from the beginning of the words of the Gospel.

My dear friends, that is what the Church promises you and asks of you. As you have noticed, it was from the arms of the Blessed Virgin Mary that the aged Simeon received Our Lord Jesus Christ and the light - this light which illuminated his eyes and his soul. It is certainly through Mary that you also will receive Jesus, the light which you need. Go to Mary, appeal to Mary, for she will give you Jesus, she will give you this light which will enlighten your souls; and you will ask her to help you to understand better the great mystery of Our Lord Jesus Christ as she did so well, and she will make you participate in the love which she herself had for her Divine Son.

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XIV

A Day in the Life of Archbishop Lefebvre
September 1979

To see Archbishop Lefebvre officiating at ordination or confirmation ceremonies, robed in his pontifical vestments, surrounded by gold and incense, one would think that he lives continuously in episcopal splendor. Nothing could be further from the truth. Christian simplicity inspires all his daily actions.

In everyday life Archbishop Lefebvre wears a simple black cassock with the cincture of the Holy Ghost Fathers. The only signs of his episcopacy are his ring and his pectoral cross. When he is at Ecône, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X rises at 5:30 a.m., a half hour before the Community. He celebrates Mass at 6:00 at a small chapel on the second floor of the seminary for groups of faithful who come before beginning their day's work.

Around 6:45 a.m. His Grace goes to the main chapel where the seminaries are finishing Prime, and with them prays and attends the community Mass. At 8:00 he goes to the refectory for breakfast, sitting at the head of the faculty table.

After that His Grace is in his office, a little room next to his bedroom, exactly like the offices of all the priests at seminary. There he remains until noon. On the shelves of his library can be found books of spirituality, the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, Acts of the Popes, a dictionary. The former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers has not forgotten his vow of poverty: he gives all books presented to him to the seminary library.

During the morning hours, Archbishop Lefebvre answers his mail, prepares the spiritual talks which he gives to the seminarians each Thursday, does research for the course on papal teachings which he gives every week to the first-year students.

He receives most of his visitors in the parlor. Saturday morning is devoted to discussions with professors.

At 12:15 p.m. His Grace goes to chapel for Sext in community, and leads the Angelus. He takes his lunch in silence, listening with the professors and seminarians to the table reading.

The former missionary is not hard to please, much less fastidious; his food is the same as for the others. Still, one attentive seminarian thinks he has spotted in him a certain predilection for grapefruit.

During recreation after lunch, His Grace loves to be with his sons, to walk and talk with them; unfortunately his many responsibilities seldom give him the opportunity to do so. The afternoon finds him again in his office, where he sees informally the seminarians who wish to speak with him after their classes.

When time permits, he visits the sacristy, the library, the supply room, to make sure that things are running smoothly in these areas.

At 7:00 p.m. His Grace recites the Rosary with his seminarians for the intentions of the friends of the Society. In spite of ferocious demands on his time, he is rarely absent from community exercises. Dinner, then evening recreation, then finally Compline chanted at 8:45 and his day is ended. As he leaves the chapel, before retiring to his room, the Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X kneels on the tile floor of the cloister, before the statue of the Blessed Virgin, for a short prayer. It would not be hard to guess what he is saying to her.

Until the next morning, throughout the house, it is Grand Silence.1



1. This article appeared in the September 1979 issue of Fideliter.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XV

Dominicæ Cenæ

Letter of His Holiness Pope John Paul II
to the Bishops of the World
on the Mystery and Worship of the Eucharist1

24 February 1980


This is the second Holy Thursday Letter of Pope John Paul II. It complements the Letter on the Priesthood of 1979, and like that letter, contains much sound traditional theology. Although, as always, the Pope makes frequent references to the teaching of Vatican II, the theology of this letter is far more reminiscent of the Council of Trent.

The Pope teaches that the Mass is above all else a sacrifice directed to the Father through Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the unity of the Holy Ghost. The celebrant confects the Holy Sacrifice acting in the person of Christ, in persona Christi, and the Eucharist is the very raison d’être of the priesthood. Great stress is laid on all traditional forms of devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. The necessity of frequent confession to avoid the unworthy reception of Holy Communion receives considerable stress: "It is not only that Penance leads to the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist also leads to Penance. For when, we realize Who it is we receive in Eucharistic Communion, there springs up in us almost simultaneously a sense of unworthiness, together with sorrow for our sins and an interior need for purification.” The Pope expressed his disquiet concerning a contemporary phenomenom: entire congregations receive Holy Communion with very few of the faithful having taken "due care to approach the Sacrament of Penance." He attributes this phenomenon to a false conception of the Mass as nothing more than" a banquet in which one shares by receiving the Body of Christ in order to manifest above all else, fraternal communion."

The Holy Father makes no attempt to conceal his disquiet concerning the practice of Communion in the hand. He notes that in some cases this has led to" a deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species." He reminds bishops that the hands of priests are consecrated, and that "to touch the sacred species and to distribute them with their own hands is a privilege of the ordained." It might have been hoped that he would order the bishops to bring an end to the abuse of Communion in the hand, but, alas, he went no further than making his own preference clear. He was certainly aware of the fact that any such command would have been almost totally ignored where the abuse had been established, particularly as it had, in fact, been established as an act of rebellion to which the Holy See capitulated.2 The Pope urged bishops to bring an end to some of the more flagrant liturgical abuses which, he commented, could be said to denote a lack of faith on the part of the priests perpetrating them.

One of the most interesting and enigmatic sections of the letter refers to the duty of bishops to respect and accommodate the sentiments and desires of those educated on the basis of the old liturgy in Latin, and who experience a lack of this one language. “The Roman Church has special obligations towards Latin, the splendid language of ancient Rome, and she must manifest them whenever the occasion presents itself.” Unfortunately, the Pope seemed to imagine that the sentiments and desires of traditional Catholics could be accommodated “as is provided for in the new dispositions.”

There is some reason to believe that, in fact, the Pope had orginally intended to cater for traditional Catholics by removing restrictions placed upon the celebration of the Tridentine Mass, but had been assured by Cardinal Knox, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Sacraments and Divine Worship, that the desire among the faithful for the Tridentine Mass had been greatly exaggerated, and was confined to a minuscule and unrepresentative minority. This, he is alleged to have assured the Pope, could be proved by a consultation with

Dominicæ Cenæ contains one of the most astonishing statements which can ever have been made by Roman Pontiff:

I would like to ask forgiveness – in my own name and in the name of all of you, venerable and dear Brothers in the Episcopate – for everything which, for whatever reason, through whatever human weakness, impatience or negligence, and also through the at times partial, one-sided and erroneous application of the directives of the Second Vatican Council may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the interpretation of the doctrine and veneration due to this great Sacrament. And I pray the Lord Jesus that in future we may avoid in our manner of dealing with this sacred mystery anything which could weaken or disorient in any way the sense of reverence and love that exists in our faithful people.

Until the years following the Second Vatican Council no Catholic would have believed it possible that a day might come when the Vicar of Christ, the visible head of the Church on earth, would feel obliged to apologize to the faithful for the fact that on many occasions they were unable to fulfil their Sunday obligation without being scandalized by the manner in which Mass was celebrated. Yet, impossible as it may seem, there is an even more astonishing statement in Dominicæ Cenæ. Bear in mind the unprecedented papal apology which has just been cited; bear in mind the Pope’s anxiety concerning the sacrilegious reception of Holy Communion as a result of the decline in confessions; bear in mind his alarm at the deplorable lack of respect towards the Eucharistic species resulting from the abuse of Communion in the hand; bear in mind his concern at the widespread impression that the Mass is no more than a fraternal banquet (which is precisely what is taught in most contemporary catechetical publications), bear in mind the fact that he found it necessary to ask bishops to curb serious liturgical abuses which indicated a lack of faith in the priests concerned; bear all these facts in mind and then consider the statement which follows. In the very same letter in which he had shown that beyond any possibility of doubt there had been an alarming decline in reverence for Eucharist, Pope John Paul II felt able to inform the bishops of the world that: “The encouragement and the deepening of the eucharistic worship are proofs of that authentic renewal which the council set itself as an aim and of which they are the central point.” (Emphasis in original.) This, of course, is sheer fantasy, and, surely, the Pope must have known it. He must also be aware that throughout the West there has been a catastrophic decline in Mass attendance, in countries such as France and Holland of well over fifty percent. How can the Pope possibly describe as a renewal a process which is emptying our churches?

The 24 December 1984 English edition of L’Osservatore Romano included an admission from Cardinal Ratzinger that the Council had been followed not be a renewal but by “a progressive process of decadence.” The Cardinal also accepted that “it is incontrovertible that this period has definitely been unfavorable for the Catholic Church.” The fury of the Liberal establishment was vented upon the Cardinal for what The Tablet termed “his pessimism.” B. A. Santamaria, undoubtedly the greatest Australian layman of this century, came to the defense of Cardinal Ratzinger in the 3 August 1985 issue of The Tablet. He pointed out that since the Second Vatican Council in France, Italy and Holland over 80% of Catholics do not practice their faith. In his own country of Australia, Mass attendance has plummeted from 53% in 1960 to 25% in 1985. Mr. Santamaria commented:

If we project these figures into the future, short of a religious miracle, what figures are we seriously entitled to expect ten years from now? Facts cannot be “optimistic” or “pessimistic.” Facts can only be true or false. If these facts are false, let them be shown to be so. If they are true let us not conclude our assessment with the monumental absurdity that, in proportion as Catholics vote with their feet and empty once-full churches, the Holy Ghost is "renewing” what is visibly ceasing to exist.

Dominicæ Cenæ provides an only too typical example of the enigmatic personality of Pope John Paul II, and of the effectiveness of his pontificate. It contains much admirably orthodox teaching, manifests a clear desire to curb abuses, shows pastoral concern for traditional Catholics, and combines all this with statements concerning the Council and its reforms which fully deserve to be described as monumental absurdities. Furthermore, this letter had no more effect in bringing an end to liturgical abuses and initiating a return to more reverence than did Catedtesi tradendæ in bringing about a return to orthodox catechesis. As Mr. Santamaria observed so aptly, facts can only be true or false, and the fact concerning Catechesi tradendæ is that since its publication the progressive decadence in the religious education given to Catholic children has intensified; and the fact concerning Dominicæ Cenæ is that since its publication the progressive decadence in the liturgy of the Roman Rite has intensified. However good the Pope's intentions, he has been unable to implement them. In this respect his pontificate resembles that of Pope Paul VI very closely. This is not to deny that in certain isolated instances, the case of Hans Küng for example, he has had the courage to implement his decisions.


1. Complete Text in Flannery II (see bibliography).
2. Detailed documentation concerning the abuse of Communion in the hand is available in the Angelus pamphlet A Privilege of the Ordained (see bibliography).
the bishops of the world. While this allegation cannot be proved, it is certainly significant that the Cardinal did indeed conduct such an enquiry in which the results were carefully manipulated to give a totally false picture of the desire for the traditional Mass among the faithful throughout the world.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XVI

From the Superior General’s Desk

Archbishop Lefebvre
16 February 1980
Translated from Cor Unum – March 1980

My dear brethren,

The happy suggestion of starting the periodical Cor Unum came from Father Tissier de Mallerais, who is already overworked in his assignment as Rector of the Seminary at Ecône. We are sincerely grateful to him for the idea. In fact, this is quite the normal thing in religious orders: a periodical publication to strengthen the family ties, in this case, of the members of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X; the more necessary because it has grown so rapidly and the demands of the times have forced it to spread itself so thinly.

We certainly feel the need of this bond of internal union. At the same time, and for even greater unity and efficiency in running the Society, the need for a Mother House1 has arisen – a house more able to maintain the close ties between the head and members of the Society. Thus in the very old and very sound tradition of the Church, religious orders, priestly and missionary societies have been organized and developed – with a view to a more fruitful apostolate. The goal of everything we do is to lead souls to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Now in these difficult times, when everything seems designed to confuse the mind and corrupt the heart, we must have some kind of authority in order to establish unity of thought and of Conviction and of faith, and unity in charity. And we have seen the painful spectacle of what happens when authorities in the Church fail to do their duty through blindness, weakness and cowardice, and thus contribute to the self-destruction of the Church.

Our beloved Fraternity of St. Pius X received its charter from the Church and therefore participates in the legitimate authority of the Church. The illegal and unjust attacks against it have not succeeded in suppressing it – any more than the immemorial Mass or the immemorial catechism have been suppressed. It continues to do the work of the Church, faithful to the recognition it has received from the Church, and faithful to its statutes (praised by the Congregation for the Clergy),2 while waiting for the injustice to be lifted.

We must not be surprised if, in the fury of the storm which the Church is now undergoing, our little Fraternity is violently attacked. Some people consider it too much opposed to the Council and to Rome, too much attached to Tradition, dogma and liturgy; too much opposed to the reforms, too unecumenical, etc. Others, by contrast, think we are too close to Rome, which they call the seat of Antichrist, an antechamber of hell; they think we are not vigorous enough in opposing the reforms.

To all these attacks we reply not so much in words as in deeds. We have always had a horror of empty polemics. Our attitude has always been clear and unchanged from the beginning. We continue to do what the Church has always done and always taught – especially regarding the formation of priests. We have never acted as if the See of Peter was vacant. We have always maintained contact with the Holy See, but we have never been afraid to defend the Truth to the popes themselves and those whom they send to question us. The pages of ltinéraires are proof of this. In all these cases we have affirmed that we consider the Novus Ordo Missæ dangerous for the faith of people and of priests, and that as a result it is impossible to train young priests for this new Ordo. The facts are clear. The Catholic instinct of the faithful, wherever it has not been corrupted, approves of us entirely, even among those who no longer practise the Faith. I will go so far to say that those who still have a little common sense congratulate and encourage us. What is a society or a family without a past, without tradition? And what should we say of the Church which is itself the embodiment of a Tradition?

The history of the Church teaches us how to act in these difficult times, and it teaches us above all that we must realize that “man proposes but God disposes." What are we in the hands of God? Nothing. But with

The Fraternity is the will of God. Its whole history proves this: all the good it has done, all the evil it has prevented. This shows where it came from and how necessary it is.

Please do not ask me to change my line of conduct – either in the direction of the Roman authorities or in the direction of those advocating schism. Such conduct is not for me. My path, rather, draws its strength from the Truth and from the Wisdom of the Church and from its Tradition, its dogma and history, especially the conduct of the last two popes to be canonized: St. Pius V and St. Pius X. This was the path of all the bishops of the present day for the greater part of their lives: it is what put their faith into daily practice. My path is not a mystery, therefore, nor unique, nor the result of imagination or pride.

My dear brethren, let us remain united in these convictions. Let us not be turned aside by the sophisms of disobedience or the sophisms of abstract logic. Let us keep the Faith – the simple and solid faith of the just and faithful soul, according to the model of Mary and Joseph and all who have followed their example.

†Marcel Lefebvre

Rickenbach
16 February 1980



1. The address of the Mother House to which correspondence concerning the Society of St. Pius X should be sent is: Prieuré Saint Nicholas de Flüe, Solothurnerstrasse, 35, CH-4613, Rickenbach (Soleure), Switzerland.
2. See Apologia, 1, page 445.
nothing God can do everything. An unshakeable faith in Jesus Christ sustains and inspires us – nothing else. He holds all destinies in His Hand and His Truth shall not perish, even if the enemy has succeeded in entering the corridors of the Vatican.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XVII

The Religious Life

A Sermon Pronounced by His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre
On the Occasion of The Golden Jubilee of the Religious Profession of His Sister, Mother Marie Gabrielle
20 March 1980


On Thursday, 20 March 1980, at the Motherhouse of the Sisters of St. Pius X, located at St. Michel-en-Brenne, France, Mother Marie Gabrielle, a sister of Archbishop Lefebvre, celebrated the Golden Jubilee of her religious profession. It was one-half century before, that, having completed her postulancy and novitiate, Mother Marie Gabrielle pronounced officially the evangelical vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. The celebration of this anniversary was peaceful and reserved. Archbishop Lefebvre offered a Pontifical High Mass. This was followed by a dinner in honor of Mother Marie Gabrielle, whose sentiments were those of profound thanksgiving for the joy, the privilege, and the honor of having served Almighty God faithfully for fifty years.


The Religious Life

In the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

My dear brethren:

Is it not indeed appropriate that on the occasion of this golden jubilee – the fiftieth anniversary of the religious profession of Mother Marie Gabrielle – is it not appropriate that we try to meditate for a few moments on what the religious life really is? You yourselves, my dear sisters, are destined for this privileged life; this life to which you have been called by the Good Lord, for which you have been chosen from the moment that Almighty God decided that you could be part of His family, that you could enter into the very dwelling of the Blessed Trinity; from that day forth a man's life is changed. Thenceforth, by mysterious means, by the means which Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself chose, He draws souls to Himself, permitting them to enter into this intimacy with God; this intimacy that we call grace – the grace of baptism. Our Lord willed to come and dwell among us, He willed that we be temples of the Holy Ghost while here upon earth, during this terrestrial life in preparation for the bliss of eternity. Thus Our Lord exercises this attraction upon souls from the moment when He takes possession of them on the day of baptism. From that moment onwards Our Lord does not cease to call these souls to a greater union with Him, to a greater union with the Blessed Trinity. And thus it is during the course of our entire existence; by the grace of God, we are given opportunities willed by Providence, willed by Our Lord, which lead us to this intimacy with Him, with Almighty God. Our Lord calls certain souls to give themselves more fully to Him even while here on earth; He calls them to unite themselves more fully to Him. I think that I know particularly well the atmosphere in which Mother Marie Gabrielle received the grace of baptism and was able to grow in the life of grace. It was by our family. A Christian family, a family profoundly Christian; a family profoundly attached to God. As children we had the example of our parents; we lived in a home that was truly Christian, where our entire life was centered on religious ceremonies, assistance at Mass and Holy Communion. We were also placed by our parents in schools which were profoundly Christian, profoundly Catholic. We were thus able to find in these schools the continuation of that which had already been prepared in us at home. Grace was thus developed in our hearts and the Good Lord willed to choose five of eight children in our family to be especially consecrated to Him. This does not mean, of course, that those who chose the state of marriage are not sanctifying themselves in marriage, but nevertheless, it is evident that by a religious vocation Almighty God calls and draws souls to a life more profoundly Christian, more perfect, simple, and detached from the things of this world; a life which facilitates union with Our Lord.

This religious life Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself willed to institute – it is entirely natural that at the beginning of Christianity souls consecrated themselves to Our Lord by the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and that families were constituted to live these vows.

Why these three vows? They are necessary in order to detach our souls more than radically from the attraction of the things of this world, from the enjoyments of this world. There is a disorder which was introduced into our nature by sin. The attractions caused by this disorder are diametrically opposed to the call of Our Lord Jesus Christ and seek to remove us from Him. These attractions are the influences of the devil and all the agents of Satan.

Therefore, in order to provide us with the dispositions which facilitate our attachment to Our Lord Jesus Christ and the service of souls, there is nothing in all the world as effective as the three vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. These vows submit our entire being to the Faith, our body and souls to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Experience teaches is that the practice of this poverty, chastity and obedience helps us to unite ourselves to Our Lord during the course of our lives.

This is why it is a great grace, a very great grace, that Our Lord grants to a soul in choosing it to enter into the religious life and give itself entirely to Almighty God. During the course of a long religious life, such as that of Mother Marie Gabrielle – fifty years of religious profession, which is no small thing – the Good Lord gives many occasions to detach oneself more fully. These occasions are many and diverse; it could be by changes in assignments, changing countries in the missionary life, leaving one’s family, leaving for distant countries, detaching oneself from the affections of one's family – but never in one's heart. We remain attached to our families, we pray for them. We are attached to them, but we detach ourselves from them in order to serve more fully Our Lord Jesus Christ. Thus this missionary life spent in diverse countries known to Mother Marie Gabrielle, gave her the occasion to detach herself even from European customs which are ours and to which we are attached in a special manner. All of this serves to detach us more fully from the things of this world in order that we may be filled by the gifts of the Holy Ghost and the spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And the devotion which one has towards these poor people, miserable in their condition, serves to excite our fraternal charity. Thus the spirit of Our Lord pushes us to devote ourselves entirely to these souls who have need of His grace, of His example, of His charity.

If there is one thing that in the missions, in the countries which one might describe as rather abandoned – abandoned materially, spiritually and intellectually – if there is one thing that greatly impresses the natives in these countries, it is indeed the religious life. The life of the religious sister strikes more profoundly than the life of the priest in the peoples of these primitive countries. It is with great difficulty that they are able to understand why a priest leaves his country and his loved ones to come and evangelize these mission countries; but it is much more difficult for them to understand why young ladies, women, detach themselves from their homes and loved ones in order to come and devote themselves entirely to these natives. They find it difficult to understand for they cannot imagine a young lady not becoming the mother of a family, establishing a home and having children. These natives are therefore stupefied to think that these women are able to come and replace, in a certain manner, the comfortable home that they have had by total and complete dedication, without limits of times or affections, to these natives. In this way, these natives touch as it were with their finger the Truth and the holiness of the Catholic Church, for they see it manifested in a very special manner. I have frequently heard from the Africans themselves that the presence of a religious sister in their country was for them one of the greatest proofs of the sanctity of the Catholic Church. This charity, this apostolate exercised in these poor countries has certainly been for Mother Marie Gabrielle, the occasion to develop a great fraternal charity. The bodies of these poor natives ravaged by disease, ravaged by tropical maladies, permitted Mother Marie Gabrielle to practice this virtue of fraternal charity, and certainly in the given special graces.

It was later necessary for her to leave these African countries for a certain time in order to exercise a more specialized and important function in her congregation. There is, without doubt, a certain rupture on such occasions, but these are opportunities of greater detachment; this time it was not the abandoned populations of Africa which were calling her but rather the interests of her society, her congregation recalling her to Europe. It was necessary for her to accept this because of holy obedience – yet another means of detachment.

She therefore spent several years as Assistant General of her congregation and then returned to Africa. She returned to Senegal, where the Good Lord had yet another trial awaiting for her. It was perhaps the most painful, the most crucifying, it was the sorrow that we have all unfortunately seen in our religious congregations: the decadence of the religious life. By an incomprehensible mystery we saw bit by bit, the fervor of the religious dissipate, diminish and disappear – the religious life to which we were all consecrated, these religious families that we loved and admired, for they were truly beautiful religious families, holy, religious families in which we could truly sense the presence of the Holy Ghost in souls and in the apostolate; it is truly incomprehensible! And thus one no longer found in one's congregation the necessary spiritual support which is normal and which is part of the religious profession which one pronounced at the beginning of one's religious life. The Good Lord therefore asked yet a greater sacrifice which was necessary in order to prepare a religious family to keep the religious life. But then again, the Good Lord has permitted her to have new consolations in the midst of immense trials; consolations precisely in order to transmit this religious life to which she has remained profoundly attached, consolations in order to transmit the principles of this religious life to those who, like you, have been chosen by Almighty God to benefit from the religious life in order to unite yourselves to Our Lord Jesus Christ in a special manner, a more profound and total union.

What joys then, what great joys! I can say both for her and for myself what a great joy it is to transmit authentically what we received in our early years when we gave ourselves totally to Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a joy to be able to transmit in a really authentic manner that which the Church gave us in the first years of our religious formation. Consequently we are able to allow you to benefit, and to allow the seminarians to benefit, in a truly authentic priestly formation such as the Church gave us. By experience we are persuaded that the formation which has been given by the Church is the true formation; the formation which has always been given by the Church and which unites us to Our Lord Jesus Christ. We cannot break the structures which have been formed by the Church: poverty, chastity and obedience. We cannot break the cloisters without spreading therein the spirit of the world, the evil spirit of the world, the spirit which reigns in the world submitted to Satan and the other evil spirits.

It is therefore a great consolation, a great joy that the Good Lord has permitted Mother Marie Gabrielle to be with us today to transmit to us that which the Church has given to her and that which her experience has gained for her through the course of her religious life. We have known holy religious brothers and sisters who truly lived the religious life and who now certainly rejoice in the union of Our Lord Jesus Christ in which they share for all eternity.

We, therefore, rejoice with Mother Marie Gabrielle for all the graces that she transmits to you by her experience, and for the opportunity which Providence has given her to start this Congregation of the Sisters of the Society of St. Pius X. May Almighty God be praised for this. And we shall close, I think, with a glance towards our heavenly Mother, for if ever there was a religious soul, a soul that was drawn by Our Lord in such a manner that she never sinned and was exempted by Our Lord from original sin, it was indeed the soul of the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is truly the model of the religious sister. She is the great model that we must imitate, that we must follow, through whom we must pray, in order that through her we might keep the authentic religious life that she has transmitted to us, since in all truth no grace comes to us except through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Consequently let us be attentive and careful in order that we be true and holy religious. This is, in fact, the best way that you can show your gratitude to Mother Marie Gabrielle for the dedication she has shown you.

In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XVIII

Thirty Pieces of Silver

This chapter includes three documents, two of which have been taken out of their chronological sequence in order to put the third into its correct context. This third document is a condemnation by Archbishop May, in the name of loyalty to the Pope, of a visit to St. Louis by Mgr. Lefebvre. Archbishop May's protestations of fidelity to the Holy See must be examined in the context of his refusal to forbid a public lecture by Charles Curran within his diocese. His excuse was that no judgment could be made concerning Curran until the Holy See had pronounced upon his orthodoxy. This claim is cowardly, nonsensical and hypocritical. The incompatibility of Curran's theories with Catholic moral teaching is obvious enough for a reasonably instructed high school student to discern. This is made clear in the courageous editorial by Father Paul Crane, which begins this chapter, by the refusal of Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge to allow Fr. Curran to preach in his diocese, by the condemnation of the book Human Sexuality, to which Curran contributed as a consultant, and by his eventual condemnation by the Hole See in 1987.


Jesuit Editor Condemns Curran Visit to Great Britain
Christian Order – August 1981

With the approval of a considerable number of the English bishops, Father Charles Curran was invited to give “in service” (i.e., brain-washing) course for priests. In the August 1981 issue of Christian Order, the Edition, Father Paul Crane, S.J., condemned the invitation extended to Father Curran as an act of betrayal. He commented:

Most readers will know about Father Curran anyway; or, at least I imagine they will. What they may not know is that Father Curran was scheduled – to my personal knowledge, at least as long ago as March – to give an "in service" (O blessed word!) course for priests on "Contemporary Moral Theology" at the Upholland Northern Institute from August 24-28 of this year. He was described in the language of contemporary clerical double-speak as:

"A famous moral theologian from the Catholic University, Washington, (who) will lead an examination into current developments in this important area of Church teaching. It will be an opportunity to discuss and study with this theologian who has made such an enormous contribution to the pastoral as well as the theoretical side of moral theology."

"An enormous contribution"? Is this how the sponsors of this series of short courses, those who have graciously lent their patronage to this effort, view Father Curran's dissent from Humanæ Vitæ, his advocacy of stable relationships between homosexuals, his insolent criticism of Pope John Paul? Patrons of this series of nineteen short courses, which included Father Curran's, were the bishops of the Northern Provinces of England and Wales, and of Shrewsbury. And so, I would ask you, My Lords, by what authority do you lend your patronage to such a course? That of the Holy Father whom you are pledged to serve and whose teaching Father Curran has so insolently attacked? Do you claim his authority for placing his attacker under your patronage? By what authority then? I leave the answer to yourselves. Our Lord said: "He who is not with Me is against Me." His words apply equally to His Vicar on earth.

I notice that the fee for Father Curran's course was £45. I suggest it would have been more appropriate had it been thirty pieces of silver.


Charles Curran

A Clarification by Archbishop May
St. Louise Review – March 1980

A number of you have asked my opinion about the lectures to be given some months hence by Father Charles Curran at St. Louis University. I will try to answer your questions fully and clearly. This will be my policy whenever there is need for explanation about any matter whatever. Please do not reply on hearsay or conjecture. Just ask for the facts by writing to the St. Louis Review. I will be glad to answer.

Father Charles Curran is a tenured professor on the theology faculty of the Catholic University in Washington, D. C. As such, he was invited to give some guest lectures in an academic setting here at St. Louis University. This is what I learned on my arrival in St. Louis.

St. Louis University is within its rights in tendering this invitation of course. Some local Catholics have, however, questioned the judgment of the University authorities in this regard because Father Curran has taken some controversial theological positions in recent years. In fact, he has himself allegedly revealed that Rome has requested some explanations of his teachings. Presumably there will be some decision forthcoming as to his position as an accepted theologian at our Catholic University. Meanwhile, it is just perennial Catholic and American tradition not to condemn a man until a decision is rendered.

Personally, I question rather definitely some positions taken by Father Curran although I know he is a rather able theologian. Accordingly, I would prefer not to invite him to speak as a Catholic theologian before a general convocation of our people. That is my opinion as a bishop.

It is my considered conviction that it would be best for the Catholic people of St. Louis to entrust the judgment of Father Curran’s orthodoxy to Rome. I would hope that our people would not interfere with Father Curran’s lectures to the academic community who want to hear him at the University. It would seem best not to stir up a controversy over his appearance here. (I wonder how many Catholics here have ever read any of Father Curran's books or heard any of his lectures.) Those who object to his coming to St Louis might best completely ignore his presence here rather than make it the event of the year with the inevitable attendance of thousands.

That is my position. I hope it is clear.

* * * *

Archbishop May's expression of hope that his people would not interfere with Father Curran's lectures is reminiscent of a police chief allowing a burglar to rob homes within his jurisdiction and expressing the hope that the citizens would not interfere with the activities of the criminal in question.

* * * *

Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre

A Clarification by Archbishop May
The St. Louis Review – May 1980

Just a few days back in the daily papers I learned that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre will be visiting our city soon. Allegedly he will be dedicating a chapel in a converted school building. I believe it necessary for me to make the following statement.

Some years ago Pope Paul VI was forced to suspend this French prelate from his episcopal functions. The Pope' s action was taken only after years of fruitless effort to reconcile the Archbishop to the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Pope John Paul II has made similar efforts in a series of personal meetings with Archbishop Lefebvre. The suspension remains in effect even though both Popes have mercifully not excommunicated this aging Archbishop who has caused so much misunderstanding in the Catholic Church.

Let no one tell you that the issue is the Latin Mass. As I mentioned recently in this column, Mass may be offered in Latin wherever it will be pastorally helpful. The issue is simply the authority of the Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre will not accept it.

Accordingly, no Catholic may support in any way this tragic movement headed by Archbishop Lefebvre. I regret very much his coming to St. Louis because of the disunity he represents. I call upon all Catholics at this time to reaffirm our loyalty and allegiance to our Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, by ignoring this visit and this chapel. Let us show all who would come to this archdiocese to divide us that we stand strong with the Pope as one flock and one shepherd.

* * * *

The refusal of this cowardly prelate to take any action when Charles Curran came to lecture in St. Louis, despite many protests from outraged members of his flock, certainly constituted a case of a shepherd allowing the wolf to enter the shepherd with impunity. When the shepherd becomes a wolf the flock has every right to defend itself.1 It is hardly surprising that with such a shepherd faithful Catholics in the Archdiocese of St. Louis were anxious to have a true Catholic bishop come to minister to them, just as St. Athanasius had come to the assistance of pockets of faithful Catholics in the dioceses of Arian bishops. The arguments put forward by Archbishop May are similar to those expressed by Mgr. Elchinger of Strasbourg, though expressed in a far less courteous manner (see page 73).

Archbishop May who had tolerated the manifestly unorthodox views of Charles Curran within his diocese has the effrontery to suggest that Archbishop Lefebvre needed to be reconciled to the official teaching of the Catholic Church, a teaching from which Mgr. Lefebvre has never deviated on any occasion. His suspension was solely the result of his ordaining priests contrary to the prohibition of Pope Paul VI.

Archbishop May accuses his brother in the episcopate of causing disunity. What, one wonders, did he consider would be the effect of the visit of Charles Curran? Archbishop May's appeals for loyalty and allegiance to the Pope must be considered as one of the most repellent examples of hypocrisy to come from an American bishop in the years following the Council.


1. See Apologia I, page 394.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XIX

An Encyclical from the Pope Tübingen

22 March 1980

Volume II of the Apologia contains an article by Louis Salleron in which he comments on Küng's action in sending the Pope a "fraternal reprimand" as "an act of charity." Professor Salleron referred to Küng as "the pope of Tübingen,” and wondered whether the Pope of Rome would submit to him or declare him a schismatic (pp. 356-357). There is, alas, little in the Church today which can give traditional Catholics cause for mirth. But sometimes, like Molière, we must laugh to prevent ourselves from crying. The statement which follows is the full text of what can only be described as an "encyclical" from the "Pope of Tübingen." The only sane reaction to it must be one of unmitigated hilarity. I must assure readers that it is totally genuine, really was written by Küng, and really is meant to be taken seriously. It is definitely not a hoax, something written by a conservative to deflate what must be the most massively inflated Liberal ego of the post-conciliar epoch. Pope Küng's “encyclical” was published in the 22 March 1980 issue of The Tablet, and in numerous journals in numerous languages throughout the world. The fact that the editors of such publications did take this "encyclical" seriously indicates the lack if seriousness with which we should take them.


Open Letter from Hans Küng

Your many demonstrations of solidarity from all over the world have been overwhelming; I received around 6,000 letters and telegrams – not counting the numerous oral expressions of support – from people of all occupations and age groups. With this letter I would like to express my deepest thanks to you. You can imagine that the past weeks have not been easy for me and for my aides here in Tübingen. The burden often reached the limits of our physical and emotional capacity, but it was above all your support which enabled us to survive in spite of everything. It gave us the feeling that we are not alone in our fight to have people in our Church treated in a Christian way, and for a renewal which is guided by the message of Jesus Christ Himself.

Many distortions and untruths have been disseminated in the past three months, particularly by the official Church. For the sake of my own credibility, I therefore felt it necessary to publicly set forth my basic theological position once again in the article, "Why I remain a Catholic." I am enclosing this article. It can serve you and your friends as a basis for information and discussion.

You know that the conditions under which my missio canonica was taken away from me cannot be called just and fair. One cannot detect a trace of honesty or Christian fraternity in them; on the contrary, they breathe the spirit of the Inquisition! In the past three months it has become more than clear that the present conflict is certainly no longer the " Küng case" (if it ever was), although Church officials would like to reduce it to that. No, what is at issue here – in the context of the "cases" of J. Pohier, E. Schillebeeckx, J. G. Metz, of North American moral theologians and South American liberation theologians – is nothing more and nothing less than the direction which the Catholic Church intends to take in the coming decade. Will it be back to Pius XII, to the pre-Vatican II era, in which, in the early fifties, there were also "purgings," or forward along the lines of John XXIII towards a church of dialogue, a church which is open, humane, Christian?

Many are asking, "What can one do? Put up with everything? Is it worth it working for a Church which treats people like this?" Many have been overcome with sorrow, resignation, bitterness, and I can certainly understand these reactions well enough. And yet, resignation would be the worst possible reaction at the moment! One should not give this pleasure to the opponents of, nor this grief to, the friends of renewal. No, we must, once again, soberly and with realistic hope, assert our position in this Church of Jesus Christ, which I am still not prepared to confuse with the ecclesiastical apparatus. Already over eight years ago 33 Catholic theologians published a manifesto in the National Catholic Reporter and The Tablet entitled “Against Resignation in the Church." Today, applied to our situation, it is as up to date as it was then. It does not offer quick, pet solutions, but it does suggest concrete principles for how to proceed in a difficult situation, one which also varies from place to place.

We must not be silent. The requirements of the gospel and the needs and hopes of our time are in many outstanding questions so unambiguous that silence out of opportunism, lack of courage or superficiality can involve guilt just as much as the silence of many responsible people at the time of Reformation. We must act ourselves. Complaining about Rome and the bishops is not enough. Whenever human rights are violated in the Church today, it always depends on the initiative of individuals to set change in motion. We must advance together. One member of the parish who goes to the parish priest does not count, five can be troublesome, fifty can change the situation. One parish priest does not count in the diocese, five are given attention, fifty are invincible. We must seek provisional solution. Discussions alone do not help. It is often necessary to show that we are serious. Pressure on the ecclesiastical authorities in the spirit of Christian fraternity can be legitimate when office-holders fall short of their mandate. Many changes in Church history (liturgy, tolerance, democracy, human rights) have been achieved only as a result of continual pressure from below in a spirit of loyalty. We must not give up. The greatest temptation in the renewal of the Church is the excuse that there is no point in it all, that we can make no headway and we had better get out of it: we leave altogether or withdraw into ourselves. But if there is no hope there can be no action. Therefore: particularly in a phase of stagnation and setbacks the important thing is to endure it and hold out with confident faith. Opposition can be expected. But there is no renewal without a struggle.

Once again, thank you very much, and remember that the most important thing is not to lose sight of the goal, to proceed steadily and decisively and not to cease hoping for a truly Christian Church.