The Anything BUT Consistent Mind
Of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre!
Compiled by F. John Loughnan
Reconciliation of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, Campos, Brazil
EWTN and other newsagencies covered the reconciliation of Bishop Licinio Rangel, 26 priests and 28,000 lay persons:
"19-Jan-2002 --
EWTN Feature Story BRAZIL'S LEFEBVRE CATHOLICS OPT FOR FULL COMMUNION
WITH ROME Rio de Janeiro (Fides)
On Friday January 18, the only schism in the Church on the most Catholic of continents, Latin America,
is over. Brazilian Catholics who had followed the line of the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
are being welcomed back to the bosom of the Church after 20 years of separation. etc.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=22944
Back in the 1980's the SSPX produced a glossy brochure
"Sixty-two Reasons why, in conscience, we cannot attend the New Mass (also known
as Mass of Pope Paul VI, Novus Ordo, new liturgy) either in the vernacular or the Latin,
whether facing the people or facing the tabernacle. Thus, for the same reasons, we
adhere faithfully to the traditional Mass (also known as Tridentine Mass, old Latin Mass,
Roman Missal, Pian Missal, Missal of St Pius V, Massof All Time).
Based on the Sixty Reasons set forth by 25 diocesan priests of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil."
I now say: There is not one GOOD reason to justify schism!!! Deo Gratias for the return of the Campos group!
On January 15, 2002, three days prior to the event, Fr. Peter Scott, USA District Superior of
the SSPX, issued a letter on the "reconciliation". He was NOT happy.
"Many of you have heard of the reconciliation between the traditional priests of Bishop de
Castro Mayer, of the diocese of Campos, Brazil, and Rome, and some of you have asked
what we are to think of it. In effect, negotiations have been going on for several months
between Rome and Father Rifan, representative of the Priestly Union of Saint John Mary Vianney, and
its superior, Bishop Licinio Rangel, who had been consecrated by the Society's bishops in
1991, after the death of Bishop De Castro Mayer. These negotiations were carried on
without the knowledge, let alone the agreement, of the Society's superiors. As far as
Bishop Fellay was concerned, the negotiations ceased after Rome refused to even respond
to his letter of June 22. That letter, published in the August 2001 issue of The Angelus,
responded to Rome's refusal to grant the conditions, namely that it be stated that all priests
in the world have the right to celebrate the traditional Mass, and that the Society was
never schismatic and neverbroke communion. In response to Cardinal Castrillon's refusal
to accept that we have the right to reject the errors of Vatican II, he explained the state
of necessity that is the basis of our refusal of compromise. The response to those who
attack the Society for working on a hidden agreement is that there have been no discussions
since then, since there is no common ground to work from, etc." You can read the rest
of the letter on the SSPX's website at http://www.sspx.com
The content and thrust of the letter has been discussed on many forums, including CTNGREG.
Moderator, Bill Basile's analysis of Fr. Scott's position was a reductio ad absurdam:
"If Vatican II is the 'Anti-Church' (something similar to the Antichrist perhaps), then it must
be condemned and disavowed. There must also be 'unequivocal' signs of 'the conversion
of the Pope'.
"I'd suggest, (Basile wrote), only that this conversion would require from the Pope he:
- Abolish and condemn the Novus Ordo
- Impose the traditional Mass worldwide in all Roman parishes
- Condemn the errors of Vatican II and reverse all teachings that make use of those errors
- Disavow and repent for all scandalous events like Assisi
- Disavow and repent for his own personal actions over the past decades
- Forbid all ecumenical gatherings
- Condemn the idea of diversity in liturgical expression"
Just in case some of the list members thought that the above was what Bill Basile personally
thought ought to happen, he explained:
"Some listmembers have asked about these proposals.
"I guess it's not a very good joke if I have to explain it.
"No, this was a reductio ad absurdum, merely taking Fr. Scott's premises to
their logical conclusion, and we end with something completely ridiculous.
"The Pope is not going to renounce Vatican II, nor do I believe he should do so.
"I don't believe that he should impose the traditional Mass on the entire Church either, but
probably some do believe this, and some (Fr. Scott?) won't find any common ground with
Rome until something like that happens.
"I'm just trying to illustrate some of the far-fetched notions that are prevalent in SSPX
circles (remember this was an official letter from the SSPX district superior).
"If the Pope has to 'convert' according to the ideas given in this letter by Fr. Scott, it's
safe to say that a reconciliation with the SSPX will never take place, at least during
this pontificate. I'd suggest that there are no candidates for the papacy in the future
who would do any of the things listed above."
My 2 cents on just ONE part of Fr. Scott's letter:
Fr. Scott praised "Archbishop Lefebvre's clarity of vision..."
Please consider the following:
Some Preliminaries:
- Pope Pius XII's Reform of the Holy Week Liturgy - which included the Good Friday Prayers
For The Jews
- Pope John XXIII's Motu Proprio on the Brievary and Missal
- Archbishop Lefebvre is appointed to Vatican II Preparitory Committee
- 1962: "...former editions are no longer of obligation"
- Congregation for Sacred Rites approves the particular calendar (...) New Missal coming 1963
- The Petition against the Lefebvre Group's apparent "violation of the rules of the Council"
- Lefebvre gets "the chop" from the Religious Liberty joint mixed committee
- SSPXers resort to "convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiract theories in order to explain away conclusive documentary evidence."
- Don McLean's "Catholic" periodical admits Lefebvre signed the "Liturgy Constitution"
but SSPXer maintains Lefebvre did not sign Dignatatis Humanae
- Ecône erected after the Novus Ordo was promulgated
Nov. 16, 1955
The Sacred Congregation of Rites General Decree ordered all who followed the
Roman Rite to follow the Restored Order of Holy Week, as prescribed by Pope Pius
XII. (A.A.S.47, pp. 837-847 and Canon Law Digest, Bouscaren and
O'Connor, Vol. 4, p.52)
|
|
June 22, 1962
The Congregation of Sacred Rites approved the particular calendar for all
Archdioceses and dioceses of the United States. The new version of the Missal
is expected this coming April (1963).
|
1958
The rubrics for Good Friday now required that all should kneel and pray silently
for a short time after the Flectamus genua invitation - for "At least for the space
of a Pater Noster. " (Australian Catholic Record, 1958 pp. 58). For the
first time in about a thousand years, the Flectamus genua, Oremus and Levate were again
applied to the Prayer for the Jews.
|
|
Oct. 8, 1964
After "the discovery of the 'plot'...by
a number of prelates noted for their opposition to the very idea of
religious liberty (Cardinal Browne, Archbishop Lefebvre, Father
Fernandez, O.P.) News circulated (at the 2nd Vatican Council) that
the decision to minimise the text on the Jews had been communicated
to the five Oriental patriarchs in a meeting in the office of Cardinal
Cicognani, on Thursday or Friday, Oct. 8 or 9, at which they were
informed that, because of 'political and diplomatic' complications, it
had been decided to divide the Jewish Declaration into three parts,
incorporating the different sections in the schema De Ecclesia,
Schema 13 and de Oecumensismo."
(Il Messaggero, October 15, 1964 - Xavier Rynne, THE THIRD
SESSION, pp. 63/4)
|
1960
Archbishop Lefebvre is appointed to Vatican II Central
Preparatory Commission by Pope John XXIII.
|
|
Oct. 11, 1964
The "Petition...'magno cum dolore' by majority leaders (of Vatican Council II) they
addressed to Pope Paul is interesting for its firmness of tone and the fact that it
does not hesitate to deplore the 'appearance of a violation of the rules of the
Council.' (by Lefebvre's faction) - Article 58, Paragraph 2." (Xavier Rynne,
The Third Session, pp. 65/6)
|
July 25, 1960
Pope John XXIII's Motu Proprio Corpus Rubricarum for the Breviary and
Missal decreed:
- The new code of rubrics for the Roman Breviary, Missal and Calendar and
Missal to be obligatory in the Roman Rite from January 1, 1961.
- The former general Rubrics of the Breviary and Missal ceased to be in force..The
general Decree of the S.C.R. of March 23, 1956 likewise ceased. Also abrogated
were those decrees and responses of the S.C.R. which didn't agree with the new
form of rubrics.
- "Similarly, statutes, privileges, indults and customs of any kind, even century-old
and immemorable; further-more even those worthy of most special and individual
mention all are hereby revoked, if they are contrary to these new rubrics."
- All concerned shall at once conformation their Calendars and Propria, either
diocesan or religious, to the rule and spirit of the new redaction of Rubrics and
to the Calendar approved by the S.C.R. (Australian Catholic Record,
1961, pp. 10-13)
|
|
Oct. 16, 1964
"The Pope...directed (Cardinals Bea and Ottaviani) each to appoint two members from their
respective commissions to form a joint mixed commission to consider ways in which the text on
Religious Liberty could be improved. The Pope then chose five from among these twenty
members, adding five names of his own, to form a consultative commission to review the text on
Religious Liberty. The name of Archbishop Lefebvre, Superior General of the Holy Ghost
Fathers, did NOT appear on the list; it did contain the names of Cardinal Browne, Bishop
Pelletier ... Archbishop Parente, Bishop Colombo, etc." (Xavier Rynne, The Third Session,
pp. 66)
|
July 26, 1960
The revision was eventually completed by Pope John XXIII with Decree Novum Rubricarum.
Some changes were made to the Ordinary (omitting the Psalm Judica me, and the Last
Gospel on certain occasions. The Confetior and Absolution before the people's
Communion were dropped) and in December 1962 the name of St Joseph was added to the Canon.
The Missal of St Pius V was substantially unchanged and caused no anxiety at the time.
There was not the least suggestion that the popes concerned exceeded their authority, nor was
there the least doubt that Pope John XXIII's Missal was still the Missal of St Pius X. ( Michael Davies:
Pope Paul's New Mass, Vol III, pp. 12-15.)
|
|
April 03, 1969
Pope Paul & Council Fathers agreed to minor updating of the Mass to the extent that the Proper or
Readings & perhaps the introductory prayers could be in the vernacular. Archbishop Lefebvre signed
the Liturgy Constitution. ("Catholic", Apr 83, p3.) However, a series of exchanges appeared from
the September 1990 to November 1991 in "Catholic", between Fr Brian W. Harrison, O.S. and
Mr Des. J. McDonnell (who maintained that Archbishop Lefebvre had not signed Dignitatis Humanae. ).
Don McLean, Editor of "Catholic" definitely sided with McDonnell's false
opinion.
|
Feb. 02, 1962
The S.C. of Rites Declared that "the rites, rubrics and Gregorian music to be found in
former editions are no longer of obligation." (Australian Catholic Record,
1962, p.189 -190).
|
|
Oct. 07, 1970
"Archbishop Lefebvre was, at the time the Council finished, the Superior of the Holy Ghost Fathers.
He soon resigned this position and retired to a small apartment in Rome. Ecône was established
7/10/70." ("Catholic", Jan 87, p6.)
|
Nov. 01, 1970
The Society of St Pius X was canonically erected in the Diocese of Lausanna, Geneva. Ecône
was established after the Novus Ordo was promulgated 03/04/69. ("Catholic", Apr 83, p3.)
The decree of foundation was signed by Mgr. Charriere on 11 November 1970. |
|
Spring 1997
Fr. Harrison referred to "members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X (having) resorted
to the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories in order to
explain away the conclusive documentary evidence" that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, sign
Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes on December 7, 1965 - having "in a moment
of submissiveness, subjected his own judgment to that of Peter and, added his signature to the
documents, thereby sharing in their promulgation (but that) after the Council he quickly reverted
to his total opposition to these documents, especially Dignitatis Humanae." The Latin
Mass , Spring 1997
|
After 1971
FOR and AGAINST
On the one hand:-
- March 1973
"I shall never say that the new Ordo Missae is heretical, I shall never say that it
cannot be a Sacrifice. I believe that many priests, above all those priests who
have known the old Ordo, -certainly have very good intentions in saying their
Mass. Far be it from me to say that everything is wrong with the new Ordo."
(p. 159). (Paris Lecture, March 1973 at the invitation of the Union
des Intellectuels Indenendants and the Club de la Culture française
per "A Bishop Speaks Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, Writings and Addresses
1963- 1975", published by Scottish Una Voce.
- Feb. 21, 1974
"... Mgr. Lefebvre told me his point of view: it is better to have the new mass than
not to have mass at all; it is safer, to avoid losing the faith, to go to the new
mass than not to go at all." Letter from Fr. Coache to Fr. Barbara, 21 Feb 1974.
But, then, on the other hand:-
- Nov. 21, 1974
"On one day, Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican
Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not
possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it
is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been
believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical
instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified
in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council.
Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic
to adopt or submit to it in any way at all." (Declaration of Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre "Catholic", Jan 87, p6., and ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes
in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.
On the one hand:-
- Nov. 16, 1976
Firstly: Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that
- "Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning
Pontiff according to the accepted norms.";
- He accepted "that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the
Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff."; and then he
disagreed with the next allegation:
- That "you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?"
"Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue."
From from an Interview with Michael Davies.
"Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre", Vol. 1, pp. 347/8.
On June 30, 1988, He DID consecrated three bishops under "Operation
Survival" "Catholic" Aug/Sep. 88, p.1.
This is not to say that in 1976 the Archbishop did have any intentions
to consecrate, however, some believed the contrary at that time.
- June 29, 1976
In spite of all objections, he proceeded with the ordinations. Paul VI replied on 1st
July by striking the priests ordained with a suspensus a divinis. On 29th
July the same sanction struck Lefebvre - who replied the same day with an unequivocal
declaration: "This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the
Catholic Church of the centuries." He continually insisted upon the heresy and schism
of Vatican II and its church. However, at the same time he was talking of "interpreting
the council in the sense of Tradition" and was already demanding "that they allow us
to experiment with Tradition." (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
- July 29, 1976
On this day, under the shock of the suspension a divinis, Mgr. Lefebvre
declared: "This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the
Catholic Church of the centuries ..." "This conciliar church is schismatic because it has
taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church."
"The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This
conciliar church is thus not Catholic."
- Aug. 4, 1976
"But, then, less than a week later, speaking of the council, he said: 'I do not reject it
altogether. I accept the council in so far as it conforms to Tradition.' France-Soir,
Aug. 4, 1976. What is more, in a statement to the newspaper 'Le Figaro', he excelled
himself. After repeating his harsh words of 29th July and questioning the legitimacy of
Paul VI, he concluded: 'We are thus quite decided to continue our work of the restoration
of the Catholic priesthood whatever happens, convinced that we can render no better
service to the Church, to the pope, to the bishops and to the faithful. Let them allow us
to experiment with tradition.' Le Figaro, Aug. 3, 1976"
But, then, on the other hand:-
- Aug. 3 1976
Interview given to the Swiss Journal
Nouvelliste at Sion:
"I claim now, since the Council...those who hold the power, at
least the Roman Congregations, are in the process of leading the
Church into schism." ("Catholic", Jan 87, p.6).
- Aug 4, 1976
On one day Mgr. Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly
its "pope" as schismatic: "All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval,
accept and adhere to this new conciliar church ... enter into schism." Le Figaro,
Aug. 4, 1976. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
- Sept. 25, 1976
The "Ottavianni Intervention" was "written by a group of Roman theologians
headed by Archbishop Lefebvre." [sic]. Note: Also claimed to be one of the priests
responsible for drafting it was Guerard des Lauriers, O.P., - per Fr. Jean Violette,
Newsletter June-July, 1996. des Lauriers later taught at Ecône and, finally,
became a sede vacantist schismatic Thuc line Bishop. per Dr Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.
On the one hand:-
- Nov. 16, 1976
Another day Mgr. Lefebvre does not blush to consider the cohabitation of the two
rites. He distinguishes between "good" new masses and bad ones. Nor does he rule out
assistance at the new mass to satisfy the Sunday obligation: "I think they should not
abandon every public religious act and in consequence if the mass is celebrated in a
respectful manner and not sacrilegious, I think that it is right to assist at this Sunday
Mass in order to fulfil the obligation." Letter to Mlle. T., 15 March 1974. (ECÔNE
FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
But, then, on the other hand:-
- "Ecône: Didn't You Always? A question:
'Isn't this Liturgy of John XXIII the
one in which you priests were trained and ordained at Ecône?' The answer is no. We
received no appreciable liturgical training whatever at Ecône, and until the September
of 1976 the Mass was that of the early years of Paul VI. (Indeed, concelebration
was permitted in our first statutes.) The celebrant sat on the side and listened to
readings, or himself performed them at lecterns facing the people. The only reason
the readings were done in Latin and not in French, we were told, is that the seminary
is an international one! (Interestingly enough, the Ordinances of the Society, signed
by Archbishop Lefebvre and currently in force, allow for the reading of the Epistle
and the Gospel in the vernacular - without reading them first in Latin.)
"It would be difficult to say what liturgy was followed at Ecône, because the rubrics
were a mishmash of different elements, one priest saying Mass somewhat differently
from the next. No one set of rubrics was systematically observed or taught. As a
matter of fact, no rubrics were taught at all.
"The best I can say is that over the years a certain eclectic blend of rubrics
developed based on the double principle of
- what the Archbishop liked, and
- what one did in France.
"These rubrics range rather freely from the Liturgy of St. Pius X to that of Paul VI in
1968. It is simply the 'Rite of Ecône,' a law unto itself...
"As for our seminary training, we were never taught how to celebrate Mass. Preparation
for this rather important part of the priestly life was to be seen to in our spare time
and on our own. The majority of the seminarians there seem never to have applied
themselves to a rigid or systematic study of the rubrics, as may be seen from the way
in which they celebrate Mass today ...
"At one time we were taught to reject the Vatican Council II entirely..."
The Roman Catholic, by Fr Daniel L. Dolan, June 1983.
A contemporary of Bishop Richard Williamson, Fr Daniel L. Dolan was one of nine U.S.A.
Society priests expelled from the Society in 1980 by Archbishop Lefebvre ".... because
"they refused to pray for the Pope at Mass, they refused to conform to the liturgy of
the Church as it was immediately prior to the Second Vatican Council, and they refused
to recognise the changes made to the calendar by Pope Pius XII and Pope John
XXIII" "Catholic", Nov 83, p.3
On the one hand:-
- Dec. 24, 1978
On another day, he lowers himself to beg from these (who he calls) "schismatics"
a recognition for which he is still waiting: "Most Holy Father, for the honour of Jesus
Christ, for the good of the Church, for the salvation of souls, we beseech you to say a
single word, a single word: 'Let them continue'." Letter to John Paul II, 24 December 1978.
- Nov. 8, 1979
Lefebvre stated that his own views had not changed over the years; that no one
should be mistaken regarding his and the official position of the SSPX on the
Novus Ordo Missae - which was: that no one in the SSPX could "tolerate among
its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus
Ordo Missae is per se invalid..." "Catholic", July & Nov 83, p.3.
But, then, on the other hand:-
- Mar. 19, 1978
Today he says: "The Catholic-protestant mass, a spring henceforth poisoned which
produces incalculable ravages. The ecumenical mass leads logically to apostasy." Lettre
aux amis et bienfaiteurs No. 14. Mar. 19, 1978.
- Nov. 8, 1979
Up to the 8 November 1979 Declaration, Lefebvre had called the Roman Catholic
Church (the so-called "Conciliar Church") "the official church which is not
the Church." (Conference at Vienne, 9 September 1975), and "a schismatic
church." (Allocution at the rally of international Catholic associations, 20 April 1976.)
On the one hand:-
- Jan. 11&12, 1979
In his answer to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, above Lefebvre
"excuses" his statements in this way: "If in my discourses I made use of somewhat
extreme expressions, allowances must be made for literary style." "Schismatic church",
"heretical church" - the literary style of the prelate of Econe is corrosive enough, but his
withdrawal is quite pitiful. (ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara)
- 1980
"The Holy Week ceremonies at Ecône conform to Maxima Redemptionis." (wrote
Michael Davies, POPE PAUL'S NEW MASS, Vol III, Footnote to p. 12.) [That is
including Pope Pius XII's reform of the Holy Week ceremonies - which include the full "Prayers for the Jews".] ?
- Mar. 8, 1980
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II
"Most Holy Father,
To Put an end to some rumours which are now spreading both in Rome
and certain traditionalist circles in Europe, and even in America,
concerning my attitude and my way of thinking with respect to the
Pope, the Council, and the NOVUS ORDO Mass, and fearing lest these
rumours should reach Your Holiness, I make so bold as to reaffirm
my consistent position.
- "I have no reservations whatsoever regarding the legitimacy and
validity of your election, and consequently I cannot tolerate
there not being addressed to God the prayers prescribed by Holy
Church for Your Holiness. I have already had to act with
severity, and continue to do so, with regard to some seminarians
and priests who have allowed themselves to be influenced by
certain clerics who do not belong to the Society.
- I am fully in agreement with the judgement that Your Holiness
gave on the Second Vatican Council, on November 6, 1978, at a
meeting of the Sacred College: 'that the Council must be under-
stood in light of the whole of Holy Tradition, and on the basis
of the unvarying Magisterium of Holy Mother Church.
- 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.
I would be grateful...hasten free use of the traditional liturgy,
and the recognition of the Society...etc. ("Catholic", Jan 84, p.2).
(Now see his response to Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Mgr. Lefebvre
Dec. 23, 1982, where, in regard to recognition of Roman Missal he
says:
"Thus my reply to the paragraph concerning the Novus Ordo Missal
is in the negative." Letter dated 5/4/1983.
- May 9, 1980
The New Mass can fulfil the Sunday obligation. Lefebvre to Michael Davies.
"Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre" Vol 2, p. 367
But, then, on the other hand:-
- June 30, 1980
"...in regard to the new mass, Mgr. Lefebvre knows how to join deeds with
words and give an example. On 30 June 1980, on the occasion of the obsequies
of a member of his family, accompanied by Fr. Simoulin, he assisted "actively"
at "Luther's mass" completely in the modern fashion. (ECÔNE FULL STOP,
Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara. Please refer to 28/7/96 Item in opposite column.
On the one hand:-
- Apr. 5, 1983
"...we do not see any other solutions to the problem than:
1. Freedom to celebrate the Old Rite according to the edition of Liturgical Books
authorised by Pope John XXIII." Lefebvre Letter to Sovereign Pontiff,
But, then, on the other hand:-
- Oct. 3, 1984
On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to
the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr (later Bishop) Richard Williamson stated:
"While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can
never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae
is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound." "THE VATICAN DECREE"
"Catholic", Dec 84, p.4.
- 1986
"All these Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an
adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new
mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if
they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the
seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware
that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ
and to give Jesus Christ to souls." (Archbishop Lefebvre, "An Open Letter to
Confused Catholics" Chapter: "The Marriage of the Church and the
Revolution" , p. 116
- 1986
In a rather imprecise manner, Archbishop Lefebvre expressed his opinions regarding a "valid"
though "sacrilegious" Mass (limiting himself to a "valid though sacrilegious" Novus Ordo Mass),
and as to whether it can satisfy the Sunday obligation. "... may I assist at a sacrilegious mass
which is nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation?
The answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation..." ("An Open
Letter To Confused Catholics", by Arch bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books
Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 36, 1986.
- Sept. 4, 1987
"Rome has apostacised, the Roman churchmen are quitting the Church, their program
of de-christianising society is an abomination." Lefebvre "in a conference to Society
priests at Ecône. "Catholic", Dec 87, p1.
On the one hand:-
- May 5, 1988
Lefebvre signed a PROTOCOL OF ACCORD for himself and Society Members:
"3) Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or concerning later reforms of
the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us easily reconcilable with Tradition,
we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with
the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics." (Archbishop Lefebvre and the
Vatican, Father François Laisney, p.77).
But, then, on the other hand:-
- June 30, 1988
Lefebvre consecrated 3 bishops: "Operation Survival". "Catholic", Aug/Sep 88, p1.
On the one hand:-
- May 5, 1988
The Protocol, however, was accepted by both parties! "The Cardinal informed us that we would now have
to allow one New Mass to be celebrated at St Nicholas du Chardonnet. He insisted on
the one and only Church, that of Vatican II. In spite of these disappointments, I signed
the Protocol on May 5th..." (A Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre, signed
June 19, 1988 - as recorded in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.207, by Fr.
François Laisney, who was then Editor of The Angelus Press. It is to be noted
here that Archbishop Lefebvre signed the protocol "to allow one New Mass to be
celebrated..."- a Mass that Fathers Violette and Peek would later describe as
"intrinsically evil". Was Vatican Council II Voided by Pope Pius II's "Execrabilis"?
- A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell's Article in Oct. 1998 "Catholic"), by F
John Loughnan
But, then, on the other hand:-
- May 6, 1988
That he would allow himself to be almost immediately dissuaded, (from honouring his
word and signature relative to the Protocol) and the 1965 event (relative to repudiating
his signing of Dignitatis Humanae) be shown not to be an isolated event, is
history - Fr. Harrison wrote (The Latin Mass of Spring 1997): “Those who
remember the events of May-June 1988 will not find this sudden about-face on the
part of Lefebvre to be out of character; after all, he retracted almost immediately
the agreement he had signed on May 5 with Cardinal Ratzinger which would have
given legitimacy to the SSPX. Also, it seems that former members of the SSPX have
testified that in private, the Archbishop vacillated between a sedevacantist outlook
and acceptance of John Paul II as being a true pope.” Was Vatican Council II Voided
by Pope Pius II's “Execrabilis”? (A Commentary on Mr D.J. McDonnell's Article in
Oct. 1998 "Catholic") by F John Loughnan. See Spring 1997 at top.
- June 21, 1990
"Archbishop Lefebvre was tried in a French Civil Court on 21st June.
The charge of 'Racism' referred to remarks he had made last
November about the flow of Mohammedans into France. The Archbishop
was acquitted of the charge of 'Racism', but was fined 5000
francs (about A$1,000) because he had 'defamed' the Moslem
community." "Catholic", Sep 90, p4.
- April 1991
Fr Harrison, O.S., pointed out that "Mr McDonald (along with the French traditionalists
who were the source of his 'information') is just plain wrong. It is an indisputable
historical fact that those two prelates (Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer. F.J.L.) signed the
final, officially promulgated Declaration on Religious Liberty..."
"Catholic" April 1991.
- July 28, 1996
Fr Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon on the Novus Ordo
stated that Archbishop Lefebvre
- Had NEVER described it as being invalid, nor heretical, nor not fulfilling the Sunday obligation.
- At the same time, he had NEVER described it as being in the contrary sense, i.e.,
NOT BEING invalid, nor NOT BEING heretical, nor AS fulfilling the Sunday
obligation, and had never said it himself. (Of course, he did not disclose that Lefebvre
had actively participated in the Novus Ordo!!! Please refer to 30/6/1980 Item in opposite column.
"He (Lefebvre) often says, in defence of his work, that the saints did not act differently.
"Whatever the prelate may say, the wild seminaries, the ordinations without dimissorial letters,
confirmations and confessions without jurisdiction are practices contrary to what has always
been done in the Church.
"With the exception of the heretical-schismatics who do not recognize the Catholic Church
as the sole ark of salvation and do not belong to her, no bishop or saint whatever has ever
opened a seminary, a university, a place of worship, even a private one, or administered the
sacraments without the previous permission of the Ordinary, still less in defying his prohibition,
without having first denounced him as a heretic and acting publicly in consequence, as did
St. Athanasius in his day.”
ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara
The following is a composite extract from:
Schism, Obedience and the Society of St. Pius X, and
The Story of the Vanishing Schism:
The Strange Case of Cardinal Lara
by John Beaumont and John Walsh
"...During the last twenty years a not inconsiderable number of Catholics have followed the
lead given by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X founded by
him, thinking that this was the way to defend what they believed to be the traditional Catholic
faith in a time of crisis in the Church...
...The Consequences of These Errors
...How can the Society of St. Pius X still be in communion with the pope and the Church?
Consider the following facts:
- The Society establishes seminaries, churches, chapels, and priories throughout the world
without any reference to the local ordinaries in whose dioceses it carries out these acts. This
is contrary to the Code of Canon Law (Canons 234, 237, 1215, 1223-1228).
- It ordains priests without the dismissorial letters required by Canon Law (Canons 1015,
1018-1023).
- It hears confessions and celebrates marriages without jurisdiction (Canons 966-976,
1108-1123).
- It gives Holy Communion to persons who are well known sede vacantists (Canon 844).
This is in spite of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre himself regarded such movements as
having a "schismatic spirit" (Open Letter to Confused Catholics (1986), p. 155).
- It refused Pope Paul VI's command to close the seminary at Econe and wind up the Society
(see the letter of the Commission of Cardinals to Archbishop Lefebvre and that of Pope Paul VI
to the Archbishop, dated 6th May, 1975 and 29th June, 1975 respectively. both of which
are reprinted, together with the Society's responses, in Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre,
Volume One, pp. 57- 59; 112- 119).
- It carries out confirmations in other bishops' dioceses. This is contrary to the Council of
Trent which decrees that:
"No bishop is permitted under any pretext or privilege whatsoever to exercise episcopal
functions in the diocese of another bishop, without the permission of the Ordinary of the place
and with regard to persons subordinate to the same Ordinary. If any bishop does otherwise,
he will be lawfully suspended from his episcopal functions . . ." (Sess. VII, cp. 5, emphasis
supplied).
- It purports to accept John Paul II as pope and yet rejects parts of the 1983 Code of
Canon Law promulgated by him in his capacity as supreme legislator (see, e.g., Archbishop
Lefebvre and the Vatican, ed. Fr. François Laisney (1988), pp. 176-178).
- Finally, in 1988 the Society consecrated four bishops, knowing that this was against the
express will of the pope, and then in 1991 proceeded to consecrate a further bishop in a
diocese (Campos in Brazil) where, as the Society itself recognizes, there is already a valid
bishop. This is contrary to Canon 1013. Furthermore, the Society of St. Pius X cites not a
single declaration of a pope or a council (to say nothing of theologians and Church fathers)
stating that there may be a legitimate episcopal consecration against the will of the pope.
But according to Pope Pius XII, who was so revered by Archbishop Lefebvre. an episcopal
consecration done against the will of the pope is an offense against divine law.
"No one may legitimately confer episcopal consecration unless in advance the particular
papal authorization is in [the consecrating bishop's] possession. Through this criminal act
there is carried out a most serious attack on the unity of the Church Itself. Therefore, for
such a consecration performed against divine and human law, there is established the penalty
of excommunication . . ." (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
To sum up, then, here is an organization which pays no regard whatsoever to the commands
and laws of legitimate authority in the Church and which refuses to do the express will of
the supreme pontiff in matters of great importance for use visible unity of the Church. Put
all of these things together and what we have is an autonomous organization, a petite
eglise, an independent Church. If this does not constitute schism, what does?...
...So there we have it. And the response of the SSPX? Well, having written twice to the
editor of The Angelus over the Lara ease without any response, we decided to give that one
a miss this time and save the postage. Bishop Williamson's somewhat brief response to the
Lara issue was evidently meant for that of Geringer as well, since he had been sent both
sets of correspondences. There was nothing from Dominguez, nor this time from Michael
Davies (except a thank you). However, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais came up with a new
tactic. We quote the relevant section from his letter:
For Professor Geringer, in 1988, with the episcopal consecrations of Msgr. Lefebvre, 'there is
no church of Lefebvre.' And for this very reason, he said, the faithful adhering to him are
still Catholics." He adds: 'If, one day, Lefebvre should found a Church independent of Rome
and if those want to adhere to him, then it would be another thing.'" (letter to John Beaumont,
dated December 30th, 1993)
Bishop Tissier de Mallerais puts his faith in the 1988 version of Geringer...
...To end on a positive note, the one thing that should be emphasized in this whole sorry
affair is the extent of the real evidence for the Lefebvrist schism. All in all we have the
following items of evidence:
- The decision of the Pope that there is a schism.
- The decision of the Catholic Church to the same effect.
- The teaching of Cardinal Castillo Lara former President of the Pontifical Council for the
Interpretation of Legislative Texts, again, that there is a schism.
- The teaching of Pope Pius XII that an episcopal consecration against the will of the Pope
is an offense against divine law as well as against human law (Apostolorum Principis [1958]).
As a matter of canon law the act of 30th June 1988 fits the definition of schism contained in
the Code of Canon Law. It is not any of us who decide this. The Church in Ecclesia Dei
Adflicta does so. Canon law can only be interpreted by the law-maker (Canon 16).
- Vatican I in Pastor Aeternus requires Catholics to obey decisions of the Holy See
in matters of this kind.
- The Society of St. Pius X is unable to cite from 2000 years of Tradition any pope doctor
or council to justify episcopal consecration against the express will of the Pope.
- The Society of St. Pius X and its apologists have to misquote a canonist in order to
defend their case. In addition as we have shown in "Schism, Obedience and the Society of
St. Pius X," the SSPX even has to rewrite the Catholic definitions of schism and obedience
to justify its position.
What more evidence do these people want? Our own experience has shown us that even
an ex cathedra definition by the Pope, or a direct revelation from Our Lord Himself, would
not move some of them. Some would no doubt say, "But, Cardinal Lara says. . . " Has it
now come to such a stage that, for traditionalists, a schism is decided by the authoritative
voice of a Davies, a Scott, or a Williamson? Heaven preserve us from such a break with
Tradition. Whatever qualities and merits these people have, it is obvious that not one of them
knows what the primacy of Peter is all about."
|
|