Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume III

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XL

Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre
20 October 1980

Your Excellency,

In the last few months of 1976 Pope Paul VI entrusted the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith with the task of examining your stance with respect to the teaching and the discipline of the Apostolic See.

In the execution of this mandate, the Congregation studied your position according to the norms of its Ratio agendi of 15 January 1971; following the standard examination of the dossier by canon lawyers and cardinals, you were sent two letters – on 28 January 1978 and 16 March 1978 respectively – asking for explanations of points which raised difficulties. On receiving your replies, still in conformity with the Ratio agendi, a meeting was agreed, which events delayed and which could be held on 11/12 January 1979.1 On leaving this meeting you saw fit to take exception to the pursuit of the normal procedures and to appeal directly to His Holiness Pope John Paul II, whom you had met some weeks earlier.2 It was then that the Sovereign Pontiff personally mandated me to pursue the dialogue with you which took place in a series of private meetings on five occasions between 8 May 1979 and 27 March of this year (i.e., 1980). Several questions were broached at various points. I must now attempt an appraisal with a view to reaching a concrete solution if possible.

Thanks to your explanations, I believe I can say that certain aspects of your situation, intentions, and actions are now more clear than they were in your previous writings or sermons, and this has not been without some positive elements. Unfortunately the gap between your position and that of the Holy See has not been reduced for all that, for difficulties still exist in certain statements made by you during the meeting or in the course of our private discussions.

Furthermore, you have continued to do and to say things in public which present obstacles to the desired solution. For the sake of clarity I must mention them here.

Despite what you said at the end of the meeting in January 1979, and the promise that you gave me during our conversation on 23 June 1979, you have again administered Confirmation in certain dioceses, without good reason and in defiance of the prohibition legitimately imposed by the Ordinaries of the dioceses;3 worst of all, you have continued to confer the Sacrament of Orders, at Ecône and at other places, in June and October 1979 and in March, May and June 1980. Yet you know what representations have been made to you on this matter!

During the aforementioned meeting, you recognized the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass, something that you reaffirmed in writing to the Holy Father on 8 March 1980: "As for the Novus Ordo Mass, despite the reservations which must be shown in its respect, I have never affirmed that it is in itself invalid or heretical." Yet, on November 8 1979, in a pamphlet entitled "Mgr. Lefebvre's Position on the New Mass and the Pope" you state the following:4 “It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics or schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass…manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestant.” Further on you add: "One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it." You affirm that they cannot satisfy Sunday obligation, and you cast suspicion on all those – priests and bishops – who celebrate them. Such clear and pointed statements do not allow me to accept the explanation that you gave me in our conversation of 27 March 1979, that is, that you had merely “failed to make yourself clear.”

Finally, it is not possible to pass over in silence the introduction which you signed for the publication in the periodical Itinéraires (May 1979) of  “des actes de la procédure” (“Tradition face to face with Liberal Ecumenism: Ecône and the former Holy Office”); and still less what you have said on your travels, constant remarks – and, allow me to say so, with hasty generalizations which are as many grave injustices – concerning some of the Acts of the Second Vatican Council, the reforms issuing from it, the Roman Curia, and the entire Catholic hierarchy. Let me remind you only of the lectures that you gave in Brussels on 30 November 1979 and in Madrid on 19 April1980, as well as your sermon in Venice on 7 April last5, and also the one that you gave on 27 June at Ecône.6

Despite all this, as I believe that I reminded you at each of our private meetings, the Holy Father has always shown that he wishes to find a solution in your case. While awaiting a clear expression of regret on your part for the unjust attacks that you have made upon the Council, the bishops, and even the Apostolic See, as well as for the difficulties, indeed the disquiet that your activities have caused the faithful, Pope John Paul II maintains feelings of fraternal charity for you. I now present you with our final proposals, dictated by him in person.

1. As far as the teaching of Vatican II is concerned: that you declare yourself ready to accept it in the sense suggested by Pope John Paul II, that is to say, "the Council must be understand in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church." (Allocution to the Sacred College, 5 November 1979, d. A.A.S. LXXI [1979-11], p. 1452: “quatenus intelligitur sub sanctæ Traditionis lumine et quatenus ad constans Ecclesiæ ipsius magisterium refertur"). The Holy Father also expects from you what is demanded of all in the Church, that is religiosum voluntatis et intellect us obsequium owed to the true Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, and to the teaching on Faith and Morals given in Christ’s name by the bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff (cf. the Constitution Lumen Gentium, No.25).

Of course, such adherence must take account of the theological qualification that the Council itself wished to give to its teachings, and which figures in its Acts as a Note made during the 125th Congregation, on 16 November 1964. I do not feel it inappropriate to call to mind the essentials of this here: “In view of conciliar practice and the pastoral purpose of the present Council, this sacred Synod defines matters of faith and morals as binding on the Church only when the Synod itself openly declares so. Other matters which the sacred Synod proposes as the doctrine of the supreme teaching authority of the Church, each and every member of the faithful is obliged to accept and embrace according to the mind of the sacred Synod itself, which becomes known either from the subject matter or from the language employed, according to the norms of theological interpretation."

2. As far as the Liturgy is concerned, the Holy Father expects you to accept without qualifications the legitimacy of the reforms demanded by the Second Vatican, both in principle and in practice, in conformity with Missal and the other liturgical books promulgated by the Holy See. He also expect you to desist from casting doubt upon the orthodoxy of the Ordo Missæ promulgated by Pope Paul VI.

You are to understand that this is a preliminary and indispensable condition. If it is fulfilled, the Holy Father could envisage authorizing the celebration of Holy Mass according to the rites of the Roman Missal before the reform of 1969.

3. As far as the pastoral ministry and its tasks are concerned, the Holy Father expects you to accept and to conform to the norms of Canon Law, especially in so far as Ordinations, Confirmations, pontifical ceremonies, the foundation of religious institutes, the training of the clergy and apostolic activity in the dioceses are concerned.

To this end, the Holy Father would be ready to designate a delegate directly responsible to himself, who would be entrusted with the task of studying, jointly with you, the means of regularizing your position as well as that of members of the Society of St. Pius X, by the drawing up of a statute appropriate for solving a question that is indeed complex.

In this respect may I remind you that you yourself said during the colloquium of January 1979 that you might accept such a nomination of a pontifical delegate in due course.

Once you have accepted the aforementioned points – and this must be in a declaration that can be published – the Sovereign Pontiff would be prepared to lift the canonical censure upon the irregularities, these censures having been incurred both by you yourself and by the priests you have ordained in breach of Canon Law since 1976 (as far as the latter are concerned, provided of course that they abide by your actions).

Such, Your Excellency, are the proposals that Pope John Paul II has asked me to put to you.

I entrust them to your attention and consideration in the sight of Our Lord and His holy Mother, asking you to remember that they demand a reply from you befitting the serious nature of the decisions that must now be taken.

Please accept, Excellency, the expression of my devoted and fraternal sentiments.

Fran. Card. Seper.


1. See Apologia II, pp. 277-295.
2. See Apologia II, pp. 302-304.
3. Ordinary, I.e., diocesan bishop.
4. See Apologia II, p. 368-373
5. See pages 134-140.
6. See pages 204-212.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLI

The Bishops’ Synod – 1980
The Remnant – 17 October 1980

The following report indicates very clearly the extent to which Catholic teaching on marriage has been repudiated by a large proportion of the faithful throughout the report. It is even more alarming to note the extent to which national hierarchies endorsed this repudiation, rather than teaching those entrusted to their pastoral care that it is the duty of a Catholic to adhere to the teaching of the Magisterium. It was evidently hoped that the Pope might capitulate to such extensive pressure, but to his credit he did not. This will be made clear in a subsequent report dated 17 November 1980.


The Bishops’ Synod – Challenge to the Pope

The first serious challenge to Pope John Paul II’s pontificate since his election two years ago may be facing him now, at the Synod of Bishops meeting in the Vatican. More than 200 cardinals and bishops, representing the world’s Catholic hierarchies, have joined there with the Pope and senior prelates of the papal government in a month-long discussion of marriage and the family in today’s runaway world.

The challenge to the Pope, which has been more or less low key thus far, is apparently a result – at least in part – of the Vatican document prepared as an agenda for discussion. The document has been criticized as backward by the usual neo-Modernist theologians and has been challenged by some as misunderstanding the “realities” of present-day family life.

Ironically, the most severe criticism of the Synod agenda came from Africa, where the Pope spoke frequently last year on the ideals of Christian marriage, during his 10-day visit. A pastoral consultation in the diocese of Arusha in Kenya called the Vatican document "flawed," saying it gave its attention exclusively to the European concept of monogamous marriage. This marital structure does not represent the "reality" of the Universal Church, the Africans say.

Pastoral consultations in other sectors of the Church, while less extreme, also have criticized the Vatican document. They fault its alleged failure to confront the “actualities” of married love, divorce, the sexual revolution, homosexuality, and the population problem in a “realistic” fashion.

The French bishops coming to the Synod have also been prepared by a "consultation" with their priests and people to demand “an honest debate” on the papal encyclical Humanæ Vitæ the 1968 ban on artificial birth prevention.

In a national pastoral consultation last fall, the bishops of England and Wales were reportedly asked to call for a "fundamental re-examination" of Church teachings on marriage, sexuality and contraception.

A Belgian opinion poll reflected almost identical statistics, with U. S. surveys among practicing Catholics who use artificial contraceptives and challenge papal, directives on marriage.

As was to be expected, the Canadian and U.S. bishops are apparently taking the lead trying to soften Vatican strictures that deny divorced and re-married Catholics the right to receive the sacraments.

Representing the United States at the Synod are four elected delegates – Archbishop John Quinn of San Francisco, Archbishop Joseph Bemardin of Cincinnati, Archbishop Robert Sanchez of Santa Fe, N.M., and Auxiliary Bishop J. Francis Stafford of Baltimore. Cardinal Cooke of New York is one of approximately twenty synodal members directly appointed by the Pope.

The Synod result, if and when it materializes, will be a “thorough examination” of modern sexual mores and the breakdown of family structures that have led to the current epidemic of pre-marital and extra-marital sex, teenage pregnancies, and casual and frequent divorce among Catholics. It will, then, presumably, produce a document that will project a “realistic” approach to Christian marriage. And while the Synod’s deliberations are merely consultative and not ultimately binding, they can hardly be ignored by the Pope in this post-conciliar era of “shared responsibility” and collegiality.”

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLII

We Are Not Rebels

A Sermon Pronounced by His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
On the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of the Society of St. Pius X
1 November 1980


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

My dear friends, my dear brothers,

The Feast of All Saints, the ordination which is going to take place in a few minutes, and the anniversary of the foundation of the Society – these are so many events which gives us a unique opportunity to meditate on the question of holiness, and of the holiness of the priesthood.

Actually, if there is one reason for choosing those who should offer the Holy Mysteries, it is their holiness. I think that if we consider all those who today enjoy the glory of heaven, all the saints who are united to Our Lord Jesus Christ, to the Most Holy Virgin Mary, to all the holy angels who sing the glory of God and of Our Lord Jesus Christ, if we should ask them, each one, the means, the path of their sanctification, there is no doubt that they would reply: the path of sanctification is Our Lord Jesus Christ, and Our Lord Jesus Christ Crucified, the path of perfection, the path of holiness is the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So, if it is true that the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ is the means of our sanctification, you see immediately what the reason for the priest should be…the path of sanctification for him whose very identity is to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and to offer therefore in the very Person of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His own name, the continuation of His Sacrifice of the Cross; it is in the Sacrifice of the Cross that the priest will find the fundamental reason, the essential, the continual reason of his sanctification, it will be also for him the means of sanctifying the faithful. For the faithful the path of sanctification is the same as that of the priest, it is the way of the Cross.

St. Paul so beautifully teaches us what a priest is in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chapter five. He says: “Every high priest chosen from among men is appointed to act on behalf of men in relation to God, to offer gifts and sacrifices for sins. Because of this he is bound to offer sacrifice for his own sins as well as for those of the people." He adds, as he is himself weighed down with weaknesses, that he (the priest) should sympathize with those who are ignorance and error. He should strive to have compassion on those who are in error and with those who are in ignorance. This is the secret of the Sacrament of Penance. The priest is therefore made to offer the Holy Sacrifice, to transmit the graces of the Sacrifice, especially in the Sacrament of Penance, exerting himself for those who are in error and ignorance. Since he is himself a sinner, he must offer the Holy Sacrifice also for himself, for his own sins, and not only for the sins of the people of God. See how, in a few lines, St. Paul sums up the very essence of the priest.

Thus, my dear friends, you who are going up to the altar in a few minutes to receive an ordination which will prepare you to offer the Holy Mysteries of God, the Holy Mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ – meditate on these words of St. Paul. Know that you too are weak, know too that you are sinners, and yet the Good Lord has chosen you! St. Paul further says: the priest has not chosen himself but he has been chosen, like Aaron, like the Levites, chosen by God to offer the Holy Sacrifice, to offer the true Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Prepare yourselves, my dear friends, to receive the grace of the priesthood in order to be true priests, holy priests such as the Church wants.

What have we seen for twenty years now? Instead of returning to these fundamental notions of the Church, which are her foundation and cornerstone, a new spirit has been introduced; a new spirit which, far from bringing a return to the true meaning of the Holy Mysteries, has approached the mysteries of the Protestant Last Supper, thus destroying what there was of mystery – profound, divine, sacred – in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In comparing our Sacrifice, the sacrifice of Our Lord, with the unworthy sacrifice of the Protestants, the Sacrifice of the Mass has been emptied of meaning. Now it is plainly evident; we can see every day, the results of this change of attitude in priests, a change which has been introduced under the influence of the Modernists who have invaded the Church. The Church has not done this thing, it is the Modernists and progressivists who have invaded the Church and who have imposed on Catholics an idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass which is not the true idea of the Sacrifice of the Mass, which has emptied the Sacrifice of the Mass of meaning.

That is why we have resisted. We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural, divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, and to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the popes who have maintained Tradition. This is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the saints who are in heaven. Doing so we are persuaded we are rendering a great service to the church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Little by little, apparently, some authorities in the Church are beginning to realize – more objectively – that serious mistakes have been made, and that it is perhaps time, if not to return completely to the former ways of things, which would be ideal, then to reform their reforms. It is at least a first step. Alas! It has taken twelve years of these tragic results: defection of priests, defection of members of religious orders, the ruin of novitiates, the ruin even of religious holiness, the ruin of churches, the apostasy of so many faithful. All this had to happen before our eyes so that a start could be made slowly to realize the damage which this reform has caused – reform which was not made by the Church but which has been carried out by those who were imbued with ideas contrary to those which the Church has always taught.

Recently I have been re-reading the encyclical Humani Generis of Pope Pius XII, which he promulgated in 1950. This encyclical is neither more nor less than a condemnation of all that has happened since the Council. It is impossible to admit that what has happened since the Council and to admit at the same time that Pope Pius XII was right in his encyclical Humani Generis.

We have made our choice. We obey the popes, the popes of Tradition and we are persuaded we are rendering great service to the Church and that we find here the way of Truth.

This, I think, is what we should see in today's Feast, in this ordination which is an ordination performed like those of Tradition; in the Feast of All Saints; where all the saints teach us to remain in Tradition, to do what they did to sanctify themselves, to do what they did to get to heaven.

This is quite simply what we are doing. We carry out the same rites, the same rubrics, the same prayers, we adore the same God, we adore Our Lord Jesus Christ, we believe in our immemorial catechism as they did and believed. This is what got them to heaven. We too wish to save our souls, we wish to follow our ancestors in the faith and to be martyrs with them if necessary, like those who became martyrs in order to profess their faith.

Finally, we wish, because the Society has been the means of maintaining Tradition, we wish to maintain the ends of the Society and thus to keep the Church going, to keep the Church going in order to save souls, in order to give holy priests to the souls of the faithful who wait impatiently until they can again find true and holy priests.

There you have it, my dear friends, that is what the ceremonies and the Feast we celebrate today have to teach us. I would like you to find in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the whole reason of your holiness, so that under the vigilance and protection of the of the Most Holy Virgin Mary, who so well understood the Mystery of the Cross, who lived the Mystery of the Cross with Our Lord Jesus Christ in an entirely unique way, with an infinite wisdom. Yes, we ask the Most Holy Virgin Mary to help us understand the profound Mystery of the Cross. There we find all the answers, my dear friends, all the answers.

Whenever in our lives problems arise, problems of all sorts, every possible and imaginable human problem, do not search anywhere but in the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There you will find the answer to the problems of each and every individual. Souls will come to confide in you, they will confide all kinds of problems to you. You will say to them always: look at the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ, because in this Cross – which the Apostles taught, especially St. Paul – in this Cross is the answer to all problems, because the Cross is Charity, it is Love, love to the point of Sacrifice. All problems resolve themselves in Charity, Charity carried to the point of death if necessary.

Recently, during the Synod, I was in Rome and had the opportunity to meet with several cardinals who were discussing the problems of marriage, problems which seem today much more difficult than formerly – it would seem that problems were not found among married until today – I had the opportunity of saying to them: without sacrifice it is impossible to resolve the problems of marriage, and all other problems besides, not just these. But to exclude sacrifice from marriage is to exclude Christianity from marriage. It is useless to talk for weeks on end about the Christian family and exclude the idea of sacrifice. That is leaving out the real answer, leaving out the real remedy, and thus to remain without an answer.

When it comes to economic, social, political problems, problems of those in hospital beds, there is only one answer: the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is justice, such as Our Lord Jesus Christ realized on the Cross; to render to God that which is God's and to render to our neighbor what is our neighbor's. This is what Our Lord did on the Cross. There is no more beautiful act of love of God, no more beautiful act of love of neighbor, than that which Our Lord accomplished on the Cross. All problems resolve themselves in this Figure of the Cross, of Sacrifice.

There you have it, dear friends, what your program should be, the program of your seminary, the program of your priesthood. Thus you will truly be disciples of Our Lord Jesus Christ, you will be truly what is said of a priest – what should be said of a priest: that a priest is another Christ.

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

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLIII

The 1980 Bishops’ Synod

Its Conclusion
The Remnant – 17 November 1980

The following report is one which must bring satisfaction to all traditional Catholics and reflects great credit upon Pope John Paul II for the manner in which he upheld the traditional teaching on marriage in the face of considerable pressure from national hierarches to modify it for so-called pastoral reasons, i.e., to bring the Church into line with the permissive society. This is one more of the many instances of the manner in which the Vatican has upheld fundamental teachings on faith and morals while failing to implements its teaching at diocesan and parochial levels.


Synod Ends
Marriage is Indissoluble, Pope says

Last week Pope John Paul II brought the Bishop’s Synod to a formal close by reminding the assembly that the Church’s traditional teaching on marriage remains unchanged.

Speaking in Latin to the synod participants in the Sistine Chapel, the Pope said that the only divorced and remarried Catholics who may receive the Eucharist are those who refrain from sexual relations with their second spouse.

He had strong words of praise for the Synod’s affirmation of “the validity and clear truth of the prophetic message contained in the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ (of Human Life).”

Church teachings on contraception and re-marriage after divorce have been major topics of discussion during the Synod which opened Sept. 26, on "The Role Christian Family in the World Today."

Archbishop Jozef Tomki, secretary general of the Synod, read the Synod’s “Message to Christian Families in opposition to the use of artificial means of contraception, and divorce, but expressed compassion for couples who “although they sincerely want to observe the moral norms taught by the Church, find themselves unequal to the task.”

Pope John Paul gave his own reflection in the message and on the 43 propositions which had been presented to him but not made public. He said divorced and remarried Catholics should “not be considered separate from the Church” but cannot be admitted to the Eucharist unless they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from acts in which only married couples can engage.”

The Synod stressed the urgent need of greater preparedness prior to marriage by Catholic couples.

Here is a summary of what the Synod concluded on some of the key issues discussed:

• On artificial birth prevention: the Synod “firmly holds to what was set forth in the Second Vatican Council and subsequently in the encyclical Humanæ Vitæ, and specifically that conjugal love must be fully human, exclusive and open to new life."
  
• Any pressure exercised by government or public authorities "for sterilization or contraception and the procurement of abortion must be completely condemned and rejected."
  
• In order to make the Church's teaching on artificial birth control more understood and accepted, the Synod "invites theologians to work, joining their forces with the hierarchical Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority), so that the biblical foundations and personalist grounds of this doctrine might be brought to light more fully.”
  
• The prohibition on artificial birth control is normative, not just an ideal.
  
• On divorce and re-marriage: those Catholics who are divorced and remarried cannot be admitted to the Eucharist, but they “can and must participate in the life of the church. They should hear the word of God, frequent the Sacrifice of the Mass, devote themselves to prayer, engage in promoting charity and justice in the community, educating their children in the Christian Faith.”
  

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLIV

“Liberalism has Penetrated the Church”
Excerpts from a Conference Given by Mgr. Lefebvre at Angers, France
23 November 1980

The spirit of Liberalism has penetrated the Church. How can such a thing have happened? Do I really believe that Pope Paul VI had a Liberal mentality? It is not I who say it, but his great friend, Cardinal Daniélou. It can be found in his book, The Memoirs of Cardinal Daniélou, told by His Sister, where it is explicitly stated: “The Cardinal says of Pope Paul VI that he was one of his best friends, that he knew him well and that he had a Liberal outlook." That is sufficient ! That explains everything that has happened during his pontificate, because the Liberal mentality is one which is tempted by the world, by all those liberties, as if by some sort of enchantment.

The Liberals were enchanted by the French Revolution. When, fifty years later, France found itself confronted with revolution it was also faced with a choice: must the consequences of the revolution be perpetuated or should they be opposed? There were evidently those who were quite opposed to the principles of the revolution, and others who simply said that one should simply oppose the excesses, the abuses the violence of the revolution. Yes, but it was enough to Christianize the principles of the revolution a little, and one could come to terms with them quite well. Well, that was France’s loss. Pope Leo XIII did not realize that it was really the Masonic leaders that were controlling France at this time, and believed that terms could be agreed. The result was the Combe Ministry and all the monks and nuns expelled from France. The churches plundered, all the wealth of the Church seized. That is what Liberalism is.

Well, the position with the Council is much the same. There are those who say that the principles could be accepted, but not the excesses. But the Liberal worm is in the fruit. It is a mistake to try to limit the excesses. If the disease is in the fruit it always comes back again. In fact, the worm which is in the fruit must be removed, as must the errors which are at the interior of Liberal thought. One day there will have to be a return to Tradition. We will be forced by events or by disasters which God will perhaps send as a punishment for not accepting the social reign of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. But they will be forced because there will no longer be anything, all will be destroyed, all will be demolished. There will no longer be seminaries, there will no longer be real priests, there will no longer be the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything will have vanished.

So what is to be done? We are surely obliged to return to Tradition if the Church is to have a true renewal. That is why even without wanting to win, even without wanting to say that it is we who have won, deriving a kind of satisfaction at seeing that we are right – that is not what matters. What matters is the salvation of souls, the continuation of the Church, the duty which we have towards Our Savior Jesus Christ Who should reign. It is that which we uphold, as it is that which makes us steadfast. In any case, we are inevitably the winners from the outset. Were we have to die, were an atomic bomb to kill us all, what we have done, what we have taught, what we have said conforms with the truth, since it conforms with what has been taught, as St. Paul says, in the early Church. This truth cannot perish. It is not possible. So, quite simply, we must continue, as did our parents and our grandparents, to preserve our religion as it always was.

We shed tears of blood to see the Church deteriorating to this extent, to see the wretched state of our churches, of our priests, of our seminaries, or of those religious orders which sell all their goods. Take, for example, the Sisters of the Order of the Visitation, founded by St. Francis de Sales. The Sisters of the seventy-five convents which remain in France met last year and decided to sell half of them, and use the others for homes for the old sisters. That is what is happening to the convents in France – nearly forty Visitation convents for sale!

Obviously, people write to me from everywhere. They write to me from Quimper: "Monseigneur, the minor seminary at Quimper is for sale. Don't you wish to buy it?"

“Monseigneur, the seminary at Legé is for sale. Couldn’t you buy it?”

This very morning someone said to me: "Monseigneur, the major seminary at Nantes is for sale. Won't you buy it?"

Incredible! And it is like that everywhere. Every week I am offered sale of a major seminary, or a convent, or an abbey for sale…

We must know how to draw distinctions. As you can well imagine, it was a profound sorrow for me to see some of my priests leave the Society because they do not agree with a line of conduct which I have followed since the foundation of the Society. I have always recognized the Pope. I went to see Pope Paul VI, and I have been to see Pope John Paul II. I am ready to see Pope John Paul II tomorrow, if he asks me, but I am ready to speak the truth.

I try to explain that we must return to Tradition, that there has been an error, that they are mistaken, that it is necessary to return to a solid foundation, to the things of faith, to the catechism of old, to the sacraments of old, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of old. There must be a return, even if they do not abandon all that they have done since the Council immediately. A tree is judged by its fruits. Let them at least leave us freedom (i.e., which rite of Mass to use). I do not agree with those who say there is no pope. very grave thing to say that there is no pope. Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope.

I do not think that Pope John Paul II is as infected with Liberalism as was Pope Paul VI; but, unfortunately, in view of the fact that he himself professes to be the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he follows the line of Pope Paul VI, that he is there to defend and continue the work of Paul VI, that he feels it his duty to continue all that John and Paul did, whose names he took, we are troubled and we wonder where it will all end? Must we wait yet again for a new pontificate [to initiate a return to Tradition]? Yet, despite all that, the Pope is nonetheless keen to return to Tradition insofar as seminaries, clergy, Church discipline, and religious discipline are concerned. When the Pope speaks of these things, he speaks well. We are pleased to hear him. If only the Pope wished to return in this way in all respects!…

I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church. The Pope himself would be more satisfied and happy than anyone if it did. We can only live in Our Lord, and by Our Lord with the reign of Our Lord. Everywhere! Everywhere! In the Liturgy, in social, political, family life, we can do nothing without Our Savior Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? We must keep a firm line and we must not deviate during these difficult times in which we live. One could be tempted, justifiably, to extreme solutions and say: “No, no. The Pope is not only Liberal, the Pope is heretical! The Pope may well be more than heretical, so there is no pope!”

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions. This is very important if we are to stay on the right path, to stay in the Church. Besides, where would this thinking lead us? If there is no longer a pope, there are no longer any cardinals because, if the Pope isn't pope, when he nominates cardinals these cardinals can no longer elect a pope, because they are not really cardinals. Well then, would an angel from heaven provide us with a pope? The idea is absurd, and not only absurd, but dangerous because then we would be guided perhaps to solutions which are truly schismatic. One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and he everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mornlons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere. Souls are lost, and I do not wish to have such a responsibility.

There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold.

If today I say there is a Pope, this Pope, we are not obliged to follow him in everything. It is possible to have shepherds who are not always good shepherds in the full sense of the word, and we are not obliged to follow them in everything. But to go from this, to say that we do not have a pope, no!

And so they introduce divisions among traditionalists. They introduce division into the Church, and I want nothing to do with this. I can have nothing to do with this, while regretting it profoundly…

(One day there will be a Pope) a pope truly like a St. Pius X, and there will be no more problems. Holy Church will find herself once more in the Truth, and we shall be in communion one hundred percent with the pope who will have found Tradition again. Oh, certainly, I shall probably not be alive when that happens, but we hope that an arrangement can be made with Pope John Paul II. I do not in any way despair of an arrangement being made with him. We ask simply perhaps not to get into too much discussion over theoretical problems, to lay aside the questions which separate us, such as that of religious liberty. We are not obliged to settle all these problems now. Time will clarify them and bring a solution.

On a practical level, I ask as I have done so many times, that we be allowed to experiment with Tradition (qu’on nous laisse faire l'expérience de la Tradition!). I might be told: “You can do it!"

Yes, but imagine that the Pope himself said: Leave them in peace." If he would just say one little word to the bishops: "Let them do it! They are not doing anything bad. They are doing what we did ourselves for half or two-thirds of our lives. Let them do it, and we shall see what happens." That is the only thing that we ask of him.

At that moment I am certain that Truth would regain its rights, that Tradition would regain its rights, and that the Church would find a new youth.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLV

Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Cardinal Seper
15 December 1980

Your Eminence,

In your letter of 20 October you asked me to pray and reflect before replying, and this is what I have done in the hope that these lines will help to make the situation clearer.

I firmly hope that relations will soon be brought back to normal, relying upon the prayer for unity expressed by Our Lord and the benevolent attitude of the Holy Father towards us, to which you refer once again.

To tell the truth, I have replied on numerous occasions to all the observations that you make in your letter. It is enough to refer above all to my replies to the questionnaire of 28 January 19781 and to the oral questions of 11/12 January 1979, as well as to my numerous letters addressed to the Holy Father in the course of the two years of his pontificate.

The reply to the reprimands in the first part of your letter is to be found in the situation of the Church, especially in France, since Vatican II, a situation such that it justifies the use of the extraordinary remedies foreseen by Canon Law, and even Natural Law, under such circumstances.

On the matter of the Confirmations, in accordance with your wishes I refrained from conferring this sacrament for six months; but seeing no solution to hand, I deemed it necessary to respond to the anguish of the faithful, in conformity to the replies that I gave on 26 February 1978 to the questions of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 28 January 1978 and my answers to Nos. 4, 5 and 7 of the questionnaire of 11/12 January 1979. On the matter of the Ordinations, I twice delayed carrying them out upon your request, to facilitate a solution. Seeing that there was no result, I undertook these ceremonies in conformity to the explanations that I gave in answers 9, 10, and 11 to the questionnaire of 11/12 January 1979 as well in my letter to the Holy Father of 24 December 1978.

As to the conditions expressed in the second part of your letter, they should not cause any serious problems: indeed the first, which demands submission to the Magisterium of the Church, the pope and the bishops, is dearer to me than anyone; witness the lectures on the Magisterium that I have given in all my seminaries, and that I give myself at the seminary of Ecône.

Besides, is it not for the sake of this fidelity to the Magisterium that I am persecuted, and, what is more, for the very argument put forward by the Holy Father, i.e., "that the Council must be understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church." The criterion by which any magisterium is judged is precisely the degree to which it conforms to Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church. Whence the grave reservations that we must have about certain of the documents of Vatican II, such as Dignitatis Humanæ and Gaudium et Spes, reservations which people better qualified than myself have expressed to the same degree.

So I quite agree to your first condition.

As to the second condition, I have never disputed the validity of the liturgical reform in principle, since I signed the document on the Liturgy; but, like many of my brethren in the episcopate, we were a long way from thinking that this document could be used in the ways that it has been used. Besides, there has been no lack of protests. At the Synod of 1969, on the occasion of the presentation of the Missa Normativa in the Sistine Chapel, a vote was taken and the majority voted against it.2 Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci informed the Holy Father by letter of their grave disquiet.3 What is more, I can bear personal witness to Pope Paul VI’s comments on the occasion of a public audience, when he expressed his disappointment at the disappearance of the exorcisms in the new rite of Baptism and his regret at the changes in the Offertory in the Novus Ordo.

If it is added that these ways of applying the liturgical reforms have opened the door to all sorts of innovations, it seems not only legitimate but also praiseworthy to abide by the traditional rites which defend the sacred nature of our holy mysteries and are a rampart against Modernist and Protestant influences.

During my visits you have often told me of a document which ought to put an end to the ostracism of which the pre-1969 liturgy is a victim. We await it in hope. It would be a great source of consolation within the Church and would be the occasion of a great renewal of fervor and of faith.

This document would provide an opportunity to normalize relations between the Society and the Holy See and would make a supplementary apostolate unnecessary.

Relations could be improved by the designation of a delegate agreed upon by all parties, appointed for a limited time and for a precisely determined end.

So this situation, which must be considered appalling, would be resolved: that of the Vatican, supreme administrative body of the Church, which is all Tradition, persecuting bishops, priests and the faithful for the crime of remaining true to Tradition.

To facilitate such a solution, I renew the proposals that I sent to the Holy Father on 16 October 1980 via Cardinal Thiandoum, and attached a copy for your reference.

In the hope that this answer, with God's help and the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, will hasten a happy decision by the Holy Father, let me assure you, Your Eminence, of my most respectful and fraternal devotion in Christo et Maria.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

* * * *

(The appendix to the letter of 16 October was enclosed.)


1. See Apologia II, Chapter XIV to XVIII.

2. There have been conflicting interpretations of the voting at this Synod. Seventy-one bishops voted placet (“yes”); forty-three voted non placet (“no”); sixty-two voted placet juxta modum (“yes, with reservations”); and four abstained. Traditionalists tend to add the placet juxta modum to the non placet votes and speak of the rejection of the Missa Normativa (as the Novus Ordo was then known). A number of the reservations expressed by the bishops who voted placet justa modum were in favor of an even more radical adaptation of the Mass, which means that adding these votes to the non placet votes and speaking of a straightforward rejectioncannot be justified. What is beyond dispute is that only a minority of the bishops at the synod found the Missa Normativa acceptable as it stood. Detailed documentation on this matter is available in Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp. 48-51.

3. The full text of this letter is available in Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp.493-4.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLVI

Golden Jubilee of Mother Marie Christiane
30 November 1980

On 30 November 1980, the community of Carmelite nuns of Quievrain in Belgium celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the profession of their Prioress, Mother Marie Christiane Lefebvre. The entire Society of St. Pius X was present in spirit at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered by His Grace Archbishop Lefebvre on this occasion, to thank Almighty God for the fifty years of devoted service Mother Christiane has given to the Church.

Professed just over a year after the ordination of her elder brother Marcel, Mother Christiane received her spiritual formation in France, and was afterwards sent to organize a Carmel in the mission territory of Australia. Thirty years later, in the face of the terrible crisis which has gripped the Church, she was forced to admit that what had been Christian Europe was now itself in need of missionaries. With the help of Archbishop Lefebvre she returned to establish the present Carmel of Quievrain according to the traditional rite of the Order. Providence has blessed Mother Christiane’s courage with a comparatively large number of vocations for what is an austere and demanding way of life. In the words of the most famous Carmelite of modern times, St. Thérèse of the Child Jesus, the sacrifice and the prayers of this life are offered for priests and for the conversion of souls. The Society of St. Pius X is deeply indebted to Mother Christiane and to this devoted Carmel for all the graces they have drawn down from heaven on the Church in these troubled times. May Our Lord grant many more years of such service to Mother Christiane and may the Holy Ghost inspire many more generous souls to take up this glorious calling.

In November, 1980, Mother Marie Christiane, at the request of the author, provided some personal memories of Archbishop Lefebvre's childhood for a special issue of The Angelus to mark the seventy-fifth birthday of Archbishop Lefebvre and the tenth anniversary of the founding of the Society of St. Pius X.

Some Memories...

Marcel has always had an incorruptible sense of justice. While still a child he could not tolerate any deceit whatsoever. When the weather was fine the five older children would go to a large square of sand at the end of the garden under the old chestnut tree and play croquet. The game would be played in an amicable spirit until the end, but the eldest could not bear to lose. If it happened that he was not in the lead he would resort to some little strategem which would unobtrusively insure that he got his way. Marcel, for his part, was not troubled by losing but could not stand the rules being broken. So you would see them, each going back to the house by a different path accompanied by one of their sisters. Fortunately, the path was long enough for them to overcome their vexation. Once back in the house, aided by the good qualities they both possessed, they would soon settle down to other games.

He was capable of sound insights into the characters of others. In 1920, just after World War I, we spent some time in the country at Bagnoles de Bigorre in Normandy. There, at Falaise, we met Father's business associate for the first time. Marcel said at once that he did not trust him whereas Father allowed himself to be taken in be a pretended piety, for all that his mother-ion-law warned him to be on his guard, saying the man only went to Mass when Father was there while, at other times, he did not even go to church on Sundays and was a Freemason. Alas, our Father went bankrupt a few years later. Mother said that she could put more faith in Marcel’s judgment than that of Father who had a tendency to see nothing but good in others until he suffered a disaster.

He was very self-controlled. For him, events of the greatest importance took place without any fuss. At home he seemed indispensable. We relied on him so much for all the little repair jobs, conversions, or errands to the town which he could reach quickly on his bicycle (bought with money earned by selling the eggs of some chickens which he looked after). He used his bicycle rather than the car so as not to deprive Father of it. He did all this so well that mother used to say that it seemed that the household could not exist without him. We could not adapt to the idea of his departure for the seminary. To avoid too much emotion he said his goodbyes the evening before leaving. Because he left in the night we asked ourselves whether it could really happened. My parents, who had gone to the train with him, said afterwards that he left calmly, without a tear while our hearts were all so full of emotion that we could scarcely mention it.

While he was a student at the French Seminary in Rome, he was surprised at an unexpected visit from his mother and one of his sisters after he had made arrangements to spend his Easter vacation in the nearby mountains. Despite the exhaustion of a term of studies, he was able at once to arrange their stay to include an audience with the Pope, Mass each day said by a priest friend in the catacombs, and the most holy places, and, on top of all of this, a brief visit to Assisi to make the visit as interesting as possible for his guest without the least thought to himself.

Those who accuse him of being proud only prove how little they know him. He has never been in the least ambitious. During his teens his one concern was to help the servants in any way he could. Our maid Louise, who stayed with us for twenty years, could never stop telling us that he was s saint, such was his eagerness to help. Family gatherings did not appeal to him greatly, he preferred to visit poor families. When we went on a pilgrimage each May we would pass by a farm, small but very well looked after. He used to say that it was there he would like to spend his entire life. Thus you can see the extent of his ambition! But the truth will be known one day when the Good Lord wishes it. His nephews have the decorations he received, and when he was awarded citations from various countries he would give the medals away immediately.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLVII

Mgr. Lefebvre in Mexico
“Suspended Traditionalist Stirs Bishops in Mexico"
by Manuel Castella Ramirez
16 January 1981 – The Catholic Review

Mexico’s bishops protested against the surprise visit of suspended Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to the country, where he has illicitly celebrated Tridentine Rite Masses and confirmed children.

The former Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers was suspended in 1976 for Pope Paul VI for his rejection of Vatican Council II position on the liturgy and religious freedom.1 He has continued to preach his views and celebrate Mass according to the Tridentine Rite rather than the New Mass based on conciliar reforms.

He was refused entry to Mexico during a tour of Latin America in 1977. Immigration spokesmen said that he was allowed to enter this time with a tourist visa.

Church authorities denied his request to celebrate Mass at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. But he has confirmed 2,000 Indian children and adults at Ojitlan, Oaxaca, and celebrated a Tridentine Rite Mass in Latin in a church near Mexico City. His Mexican followers said they had scheduled similar Masses for the Archbishop in other cities in ten states.

Bishop Genaro Alamilla, secretary of the Mexican Bishops’ Conference, said the nation's bishops "regret and lament the activities of the dissident Archbishop" and warned Catholics not to attend his Masses. Archbishop Bartolome Carrasco of Oaxaca said of the prelate's visit to Ojitlan that "it is divisive for Catholics in the area, already burdened by social and economic problems."

Spokesmen for two political parties disagreed.

"He (Lefebvre) will not reach many people, he knows most Catholics rally around Pope John Paul II," said Jesus Zamora Flores of the Mexican Democratic Party. Congressman Hiram Ascudro of the Accion Nacional Pary, which has many Catholic members, said that “the media is giving too much importance to the presence among us of Lefebvre, whose influence is weak.”

Practically every major daily, or magazine has headlined the Archbishop's surprise visit, with some saying his views are healthy for the survival of Catholicism. Others have been critical of the visit. Archbishop Lefebvre contends that Church reforms weaken the faith of the people.

Archbishop Carrasco warned that the suspended Archbishop has no faculties to administer the sacraments or celebrate Mass.



Archbishop Lefebvre in Mexico2
January 1981

Some priests in Mexico had several times asked me to come and give Confirmation. The situation is that in Mexico Catholics in some parishes have turned their priests out, because they broke up the statues in the churches, celebrated bizarre liturgies, took no interest in catechizing, and refused to baptize babies. The example admittedly came from higher up, since the bishops themselves seem to be "forgetting" to administer Confirmation.

So I gave in to these requests and agreed to go to Mexico in January and spent almost three weeks there. We landed at Veracruz, where a man called Pedro, with the help of a small group of Catholics, had turned the priests out of his parish. Some people had protested against this, so the government had put Pedro in jail. The Catholics demonstrated on his behalf, staged a sit-down strike in front of the jail and got him released. He was scarcely out of jail when fresh hostility flared up from the progressivist clergy. Again Pedro went to jail and again the Catholics went on strike and got him released. Then suddenly the situation reversed itself, and Pedro was put in charge of the parish – by the authorities themselves. He keeps the keys, he rings the bells, and organizes the Masses and other functions. I spent three wonderful days in this parish and gave 1,200 confirmations.

Then we went to a "village" of 46,000 inhabitants. There too the faithful have turned their priests out. When we arrived, they told us, “What we want are priests like you, priests like before, who don't destroy our statues, who teach true doctrine and say the Old Mass.” These people gave us an overwhelming reception. The air was full of banners, paper lanterns and torches, a deluge of confetti, military salutes, bands playing and fireworks!

This “village” included six parishes. In five of them, the Catholics have their priests out, while the sixth is still in the hands of the Modernists. When the local bishop learned I was there, he came to this parish (which he had not visited for a long time) and in a sudden burst of apostolic zeal invited the faithful to come, promising them a beautiful ceremony and confirmations. Not a single parishioner accepted the Bishop's invitation. Meanwhile I had 850 confirmations in the church next door.

Mexicans are naturally easy-going, but they are getting more and more disillusioned with the nonsense of the Modernists. Some time ago, Bishop Arceo, who is Archbishop of Cuernavaca, visited a parish in his diocese. He went into the church, the main feature of which is a huge Spanish-style crucifix in vivid colors, and surmounted by an arc of rays. The bishop expressed a wish to replace this with a wooden crucifix, which was admittedly in good taste. But he did not get his way. The people lost no time in telling him in all possible bluntness, “Not so fast, my Lord Bishop! You touch that crucifix and we hang you!”

I gave altogether 2,500 confirmations in Mexico. Everywhere people begged, "Monseigneur, you cannot abandon us!" So we must see what we can do.

Next we went to Cordoba, then to Mexico. We visited Guadalajara, site of a free, anti-communist university, attended by 30,000 students (10,000 natives and 20,000 foreigners). One wonders how the government can tolerate the existence of such a university. One is justified in asking such questions when one realizes that it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation. Now it is well known that the financial generosity of that organization goes along with a policy whose aim is to destroy moral and Christian values in the world. The influential role played by the Rockfeller Trust in the spread of contraceptives and abortion has been pointed out. In the present instance, perhaps the money has persuaded the recipients of it not to go too far towards a counter-revolution. This would explain why at the University of Guadalajara you never hear Christ the King mentioned and the demands of the Natural Law and of the Christian Faith in the area of sexuality are conveniently overlooked.

During the entire visit, we were shown the greatest courtesy and alertness by the forces of law. Everywhere we went, we were closely followed by a police car.

The religious situation in that country is deplorable. Last year there were altogether two ordinations for a country of 77 million!

In this area I met unexpectedly a young priest (35 to 40 years old). It would not have been easy to guess he was a priest, as he was quite portly and wore a khaki jacket. He was introduced and then told me things which I never frankly expected to hear. What he said, in effect, was, “Monseigneur, I wanted very much to see you. You understand that we live in a progressive environment here. Now I’m telling you this because I know it is true: the Church here in only a veneer. It's a façade with nothing behind it. All spiritual life is gone. You are on the right track, you have the truth, you are on the side of the Holy Ghost." I was certainly astonished and yet happy to hear him speak in this way. But what could I say to him in reply?

In Mexico City they have built a new church at the Shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe. Imagine an immense structure, entirely of concrete. And entirely round. Inside, they have erected a very high podium. All round this, there is a semi-circle of red velvet armchairs, sharply reclining. They are almost couches, so that the priests seem to be lying down. Yet in this position they celebrate Mass, except for the two or three who remain standing.

The miraculous image of the Blessed Virgin has been placed in this church, but so high that, in order to see it, one must go behind the podium. To do that, the best they could do was to install a moving belt. This contraption whisks you along, and when you get to the image, however much you wish to stop and pray, you cannot, because you are carried swiftly away by this belt. And if you are trying to keep your balance and can hardly look up, nothing. If they had wished to ridicule the faithful they could not have been more successful.

But what is very edifying is to see the devotion of the faithful. Sometimes they come from far away and are very tired from the journey. Yet they do not hesitate to get on their knees on the pavement outside and make their way slowly indoors, praying and singing. One wonders how the priests in charge, who claim to know so much pastoral psychology, can ignore the mentality of these simple people and force them to undergo all sorts of annoyances, such as the removal of the kneelers.

In the press I was at first the object of outright hostility. The pack attacking me most vigorously included some of the progressivist bishops. One day an orthodox bishop, who was properly outraged at what was happening, had an article published which said, in effect: “Catholic bishops are always talking about charity. The one time they have the chance to put it into practice regarding a confrère, they shower him with abuse." His article had a great impact, and the bishops afterwards showed a little more restraint. Little by little the attitude has become more objective – I would even say sympathetic – to the point where the situation seems favorable for priests of the Society to be sent out to establish priories.

I figure in cartoons in several newspapers. In one example I was pictured as an atomic bomb ready to explode, under which the Mexican bishops were cowering and quivering, paralyzed with fear and getting smaller and smaller.

1. The Archbishop was suspended for ordaining priests contrary to the prohibition of Pope Paul VI, and for no other reason.

2. His Grace spoke informally to the faculty of the Ecole Saint-Michel de Surins-Niherne about his visit to Mexico. From Fideliter, July/August 1981.

[Stone]

Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre
Volume 3, Chapter XLVIII

Letter of Cardinal Seper to Mgr. Lefebvre
19 February 1981

Your Excellency,

I duly received your letter dated 15 December 1980 on 27 December 1980. I did not fail to study its contents with interest. As was my duty, I immediately drew it to the attention of the Holy Father, who in any case was aware from the letter that you addressed to him directly on 16 October 1980 what your position was as to a solution. It is with his full agreement that I am replying.

I was delighted to note your expression of hope for a normalization of relations in the near future, and I thank you for the new explanatory details that you have given me in your letter.

However, I must take note also of the the fact that you do not reply to two particular points of my letter of 20 October 1980, that is, to my request for "a clear expression of regret” and my demand that you accept Canon Law in all that concerns your pastoral ministry and your work.

I would like to add another comment which seems important to me. Even if, as you say, interpreting the Second Vatican Council according to the criteria of Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church causes you to have serious reservations about certain of its documents, this cannot constitute grounds for you to attack and discredit this Council, whether orally or in writing; rather it should cause you to seek to understand and integrate the teachings of these documents into the age-old Tradition of the Church.

Finally, I must tell you that the proposed “Declaration” that you say you are ready to sign is not precise enough with regard to the situation which has arisen; it falls too far short of what the Holy Father asks of you, and of what I asked of you in my letter of 20 October 1980. Furthermore, the terms for the " Agreement Proposed by Cardinals and Experts" linked to the Declaration cannot be accepted as they stand. Most of these terms give rise to serious difficulties in their present form; thus, the right to use only the liturgical books published by Pope John XXIII is tantamount to a rejection of the whole of the liturgical reform, which was, however, decided by a legitimate ecumenical Council. The establishment of separate parishes for those who use these books would be something without precedent in ecclesiastical and canonical terms; to declare invalid the "suspensio a divinis" imposed upon you would be equivalent to saying that the objective reasons at the root of this measure were not of importance; finally, the immediate recognition of pontifical right for the Society of St. Pius X would constitute a favor not usually granted to a pia unio before it has passed through the stage of becoming of religious institute by diocesan right. In a more general sense, such a plan for agreement obviously anticipates too much of what would be the very object of a pontifical delegate's mission (as I shall show later) and the result of his discussions with you.

To clarify the situation, let me explain to you here in detail the points that the Holy Father thinks it indispensable that you should declare; for most of them I can do no more than sum up the essential points of my previous letter:

1. A clear expression of regret for the part that you played in creating a division (notably through the ordinations) and for your attacks, intemperate in content and terminology, against the Council, numerous bishops and the Apostolic See.
   
2. Adherence to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council "understood in the light of the whole of holy Tradition, and on the basis of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church” (cf. the Allocution of His Holiness Pope John Paul II, 5 November 1979, A.A.S. LXXI [1979-II], p. 1452), and bearing in mind the theological qualification that this Council wished to give to its teaching (cf. Notice given during the course of the 123rd General Congregation, 16 November 1964, Acta Synodalia S. Concilii Oecumenici Vaticani II, vol III, para. VIII, p. 10); recognition of the religiosum voluntatis et intellectus obsequium owed to the Roman Pontiff even when he is not speaking ex cathedra, and the teaching on Faith and Morals given in Christ's name by the bishops in communion with the Roman Pontiff (cf. Lumen Gentium No.25); a halt to all polemics tending to discredit certain of the teachings of Vatican II.
   
3. Acceptance without restrictions not only of the validity of the Novus Ordo Mass in its original Latin edition, but also of the legitimacy of the liturgical reform demanded by Vatican II – both in principle and when applied in conformity with the Missal and the other liturgical books promulgated by the Apostolic See – and renunciation of all polemics tending to cast suspicion upon the orthodoxy of the Ordo Missæ promulgated by Pope Paul VI.
   
4. Acceptance of the norms of Canon Law for all that concerns your pastoral ministry and activities, as well as for the Society of St. Pius X.
   

The pontifical delegate, appointed in accordance with your wishes for a limited period and with a precisely determined task, will have as his mission to discuss with you all specific problems arising from a normalization of relations between you and the Society of St. Pius X on the one hand and the Apostolic See on the other. In particular, he will have to settle with you all questions as to the official removal of censures, the liturgical rites of the Society, and the future position of your Society under Canon Law. The Holy Father intends to designate as his delegate a member of the Sacred College whom you know, and whose good intentions towards you are beyond doubt. Such a designation will be possible as soon as you reply to this letter in a positive way.

While awaiting such a reply, and in the hope that it will open the road to a definitive solution, I assure you of my fraternal prayers, and ask you, Your Excellency, to permit me to express my feelings of respect and devotion in Our Lord.

Franc. Card. Seper