Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume One

Archbishop Lefebvre would have earned a distinguished and honored place in the history of the Church even if he had retired finally from public life in 1968, as he had intended. No one had done more for the Church in Africa in this century; no one had done more to uphold the true faith during Vatican II. But the most important task for which God has destined him had not even begun. When he retired in 1968 he could not have imagined that God had reserved for him what was possibly the most important role assigned to any prelate during this century. An exaggeration? Mgr. Lefebvre was to be given the task of preserving the Catholic priesthood in the West during what is proving to be a period of universal apostasy. But he did not seek to undertake this task. He was sought out by the young men who proved to be the first seminarians of Ecône - but when they came they were quite unknown to him and, as for Ecône, he did not know of its existence.

The young men had been sent to the Archbishop because they wished to become priests but could find no seminary offering a truly traditional Catholic formation. They had asked older priests for advice and had been told to go to Mgr. Lefebvre. He was reluctant at first but they insisted. He told them that if he undertook their direction their studies would be long and intense and they would lead a life of prayer and sacrifice, the formation necessary to prepare them for the priesthood in these times. They insisted that this was what they wanted. But where could they study? Unfortunately, nowhere suitable could be found in Rome itself; but an old friend, Mgr. Charrière, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, suggested that the students pursue their studies at the University of Fribourg. The Fraternité Sacerdotale de Saint Pie X was established in his diocese on All Saints' Day, 1970, with all the necessary canonical formalities.¹

Alas, it soon became clear that this university was infected with Modernism and Liberalism. With the approval of Mgr. Nestor Adam, Bishop of Sion, Mgr. Lefebvre obtained a large house which had belonged to the Canons of St. Bernard in this diocese. The house was at Ecône, no more than a hamlet near the small town of Riddes in the Catholic Canton of Valais. The name of Ecône is now known throughout the world, and thousands of visitors from all over the world come there each year. But until the foundation of the Seminary of St. Pius X it is doubtful whether the name would have meant anything to anyone not living in the immediate vicinity.

The Seminary was formally opened on 7 October 1970. A fascinating account of the events leading up to its acquisition by Mgr. Lefebvre was provided by Father Pierre Épiney, Parish Priest of Riddes, in an address which he gave at the opening of the Priory of St. Pius V at Shawinigan-Sud, Quebec, on 19 March 1977. Father Épiney spoke from his heart as a priest and pastor.² The circumstances in which this saintly young priest was deprived of his parish are described under the date 15 June 1975. Father Épiney's account follows:

The Seminary Expands

It soon became known that there was an orthodox seminary in Switzerland. More young men with vocations came forward and financial support began to arrive, first from Switzerland and France, then Germany, then Britain, Australia, the U.S.A. and now from all over the world. Mgr. Lefebvre has rejected as totally false the claims that Ecône relies for its support on rich European industrialists or American millionaires. There are a few large donations (which are very welcome, and why not?) but the major part of the financial support for Ecône is made up of tens of thousands of small gifts, the sacrifices mainly of Catholics of modest means or even the very poor.³ The Archbishop has made St. Joseph responsible for the financial support of the Seminary - and has had no cause for complaint. The number of vocations was so great that an ambitious building program was undertaken. Three new wings have been added and the Seminary is now able to house 140 seminarians and their professors in accommodation of high quality - in fact all the facilities of the Seminary, lecture hall, kitchen, dining hall, and living accommodation are almost certainly of a far higher standard than those of any other seminary in Europe. This was, to a certain extent, a matter of necessity as the standards demanded by the Swiss planning authorities are very high. It was even necessary to incorporate - at very great cost - an atomic bomb proof shelter, a feature which is obligatory in all new public buildings in Switzerland.

I have tried to evoke the spirit of the Seminary, and life there, in Chapter VI, which includes an account of my first visit to Ecône in 1975.

In its early years the Seminary received the enthusiastic support of at least some sections of the Vatican, that of Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, in particular. A letter which he wrote in 1971, expressing his satisfaction at the progress of the Seminary, is reproduced in Appendix V. He was still recommending young men with vocations to apply for admission to Ecône as late as 1973. I possess the written testimony of one of the seminarians to this effect.

Houses have also been opened in a number of other countries, one of them at Albano, near Rome. This house at Albano was obtained with all the authorization required by Canon Law. It is being used at present for the religious order for women founded by the Archbishop but will eventually be used for sixth year training for the newly ordained priests of the Society. This will not only free accommodation at Ecône for new entrants but, in Mgr. Lefebvre's own words, will also "enable our young priests to draw upon all the resources of the eternal Rome, its Tradition, its martyrs, its magisterium, its monuments, and also to deepen their attachment to the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. "⁴

The aim of the Seminary is to form good and true priests, devoted to Our Lord, to Our Lady, to the Church, and to the Mass; men burning with pastoral zeal.

The Archbishop is convinced that such a formation can be achieved only by means of a traditional seminary formation based, above all, on Thomism and the traditional Latin Liturgy.

This view certainly seems to be confirmed by the position in France, where half of the major seminaries have already been closed. In France, between 1963 and 1973 there was an 83 per cent drop in the number of men studying for the priesthood. In 1963 there were 917 seminary entrants. In 1973 there were only 151.⁵ So great indeed is the excess of priests who die or abandon the priesthood over the number of new ordinations to replace them that a spokesman for the French Bishops' Conference has gone so far as to suggest the ordination of married men as a possible solution.

There is, incidentally, a very high "drop-out" rate in the remaining French seminaries, 422 students having "dropped out" in 1973.⁶

Should this trend continue it is quite within the bounds of possibility that within ten years the Society of St. Pius X could be ordaining more priests than all the seminaries in France put together.

There can be no doubt that it was the escalating success of Ecône in the face of the accelerating decline in the French seminary system which initiated the campaign against Ecône.

The Canonical Status of Ecône

In view of the frequency of the allegation that Mgr. Lefebvre established his seminary without canonical authorization, the canonical status of the Seminary at Ecône is examined in some detail in Appendix V. At this point I will refer briefly to some of the evidence which makes it quite clear that the Seminary was established legally. Firstly, at no stage in the campaign against Ecône did any Vatican spokesman ever allege that the canonical basis of the Seminary was in doubt. Had there been any weakness in the canonical status of Ecône the Vatican would certainly have used this in its campaign to discredit the Archbishop. On the contrary, in 1974 two Apostolic Visitors were dispatched by the Vatican to conduct an official inspection of the Seminary (see the entry for 11-13 November 1974). The letter of condemnation sent to Mgr. Lefebvre by the Commission of Cardinals stated that the Society "no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence." Obviously, the Vatican would not conduct an official inspection of an unofficial seminary nor would it withdraw the right to exist from a seminary which had never possessed such a right. (The Cardinals' letter is included under the date 6 May 1975.)

Definite proof that the Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary enjoyed Vatican approval well after the foundation of Ecône is provided by the fact the members of three religious orders were transferred from their own orders to the society of St. Pius X by the Sacred Congregation for Religious. I have documentary proof that this was done in 1972 before me as I write. The Vatican would hardly have allowed members of religious orders to be transferred to a Society which had established a "wildcat seminary." Again, in February 1971, Cardinal Wright wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre expressing his pleasure at the progress and expansion of the Society and mentioning that it was receiving praise and approval from bishops in various parts of the world (this letter is reproduced in full in Appendix V). It has been alleged that this letter could not have involved praise for the Seminary as it had not yet been founded in February 1971.⁷ On the contrary, it was formally opened on 7 October 1970. On 6 June 1971 the Archbishop blessed the foundation stone of the new buildings, an event which some of his opponents have confused with the foundation of the Seminary.

The Importance of Cardinal Villot

The French bishops held what they believed to be a trump card - Cardinal Villot, Secretary of State and the most powerful man in the Vatican, in de facto terms probably even more powerful than Pope Paul VI himself. As well as holding the all-powerful office of Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot controlled twelve other key Vatican positions.⁸ Ecône could not be allowed to survive if the French bishops were to retain any credibility. They could count on Cardinal Villot - and with his support there was no hope for the Seminary. It had been sentenced to death. Before examining the campaign designed to implement this death sentence it will be of considerable value if readers are enabled to form an impression of Mgr. Lefebvre for themselves. Ideally they should meet him, but short of doing this the best alternative is to read what he has to say about himself. Chapter III is an account of his life given in his own words - but this should obviously be supplemented by reading his book A Bishop Speaks.⁹ Indeed, it is presumed throughout the present work that the reader already has a copy of this fundamental text.

1. The text of the Decree of Erection is contained in Appendix V.

2. Father Épiney's account was published in the French-Canadian traditionalist journal Le Doctrinaire, No. 30, April 1977.

3. Hanu, p. 194 (165-166).

4. See Ecône Newsletter No. 5.

5. Report issued by the French National Center for Vocations and cited in the Irish Catholic, 20 March 1975.

6. The Tablet, 27 January 1973 and 1 June 1974. The same reports reveal that in 1971, for example, the excess of deaths over ordinations was 465 and that in the same year almost 200 priests left the priesthood. In 1967 there were 40,994 priests in France. The French Bishops' Conference estimated that by the end of 1975 there would be only 21,820. The number of actual ordinations has declined as follows; 1966-566, 1970-284, 1973-219, 1976-136.

7. See Father Milan Mikulich's Orthodoxy of Catholic Doctrine, April 1977, p. 4.

8. Hanu, p. 238.

9. Available from The Angelus Press in the U.S.A. and in Britain from The Augustine Publishing Company.

The campaign against Ecône is documented here in chronological order. The source of most of the information in this chapter is La Documentation Catholique No.1679 but Mgr. Lefebvre's account of his "trial" is taken from Itinéraires of July 1975.

On 26 March 1974 a meeting was convened in Rome to discuss the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (which will be referred to hereafter simply as the Society of St. Pius X) and its principal foundation, the Seminary at Ecône.

Present at this meeting were Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; Mgr. Mayer, Secretary of the Congregation for Religious; Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg - the diocese in which the Society first obtained canonical authorization; Mgr. Adam, Bishop of Sion – the diocese in which Ecône is located. It was decided that a report on the Society and Seminary should be compiled.

With surprising speed the requested report was dispatched within four days, on 30 March 1974. It had been compiled by Mgr. Perroud, Vicar-General of the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg. This report, accompanied by a letter from Bishop Mamie, was sent to Cardinal Garrone.

On 30 April 1974 Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Mamie met at Fribourg.

At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, that when a Commission of Cardinals was convoked to examine the case of Fr. Louis Coache, a traditionalist priest who had been deprived of his parish for his defense of the traditional Mass and catechism, great care was taken to leave no legal loopholes. The text of this document will be cited under the date of 10 June 1975. It will also be made clear that not one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church.

On 23 June 1974 the Commission of Cardinals met and decided upon a canonical visitation of the Seminary.

The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.¹

On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. "This," he said, "was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.”

In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity.

In this Declaration, he stated:

It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration "seemed unacceptable to them on all points."

It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X.

However, the Declaration was leaked without Mgr. Lefebvre's permission, and because the text, or extracts from it, were being used in a manner which he could not condone, he authorized Itinéraires to publish the full and authentic French text in January 1975. An English translation of this Declaration was published in Approaches 42-3 and The Remnant of 6 February 1975.

It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals.

The full text of the Declaration follows.





Public Defamation

A statement condemning those who adhere to the Old Mass made by the French episcopate on 14 November 1974 was certainly aimed against Ecône, for at the same time the bishops let it be known that they would not accept any priests from Ecône in their dioceses.³

A campaign against the Seminary was then launched laying great stress on the Archbishop's refusal to use the New Mass. He, on the other hand, is adamant that no legal obligation to do so exists.

Examples of this preparatory stage of the offensive can be found in La Croix of 17, 18, 21,and 22 January and 1 February 1975. A change of tactics can be discerned from 8 February onwards, clearly resulting from a realization that proving the Archbishop wrong with regard to the legal position of the Mass would not be easy. From 8 February 1975, the charge against Ecône was one of a "Refusal of the Council and the Pope." Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration of 21 November 1974 was cited in order to try to justify this charge.

The Commission of Cardinals met on 21 January 1975 to discuss the Report of the Apostolic Visitors.

However, the Report of the Visitors (who seem to have been honest men though far from impeccably orthodox) was not only favorable to the Seminary but even flattering. It was therefore quite unusable as a basis for the condemnation of Ecône.

In the words of Mgr. Lefebvre:

The Commission of Cardinals therefore seized upon the only supposed evidence to hand - the Declaration of 21 November 1974.

In this connection, it is important to repeat that, in the opinion of most well-informed commentators, the action taken against Ecône by the Swiss bishops, in conjunction with Rome, had been instigated by the French hierarchy, with the Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Villot, acting as its instrument.⁴

As Mgr. Lefebvre points out, the Apostolic Visitation was the first step towards the suppression of the Seminary. And this action was taken only after a prolonged press campaign in which the Seminary had been subjected to the most odious calumnies, which had been taken up first by the French bishops and then by the Swiss episcopate. One French Archbishop had indeed been reported as stating that he would have "the scalp of the Seminary" before 1975 was out.⁵

But the most convincing evidence that the Commission of Cardinals was determined at all costs to close the Seminary was the fact that nothing more was heard of the Apostolic Visitation after its report was found to be favorable.

In a letter dated 21 May 1975, accompanying his appeal which was lodged at the Apostolic Signature on 5 June, Mgr. Lefebvre demanded that, if there was anything in his Declaration which should be condemned, the Commission of Cardinals should condemn him personally rather than suppress the Society of St. Pius X, the Seminary, and the other houses which had been founded by the Society.

The Archbishop has yet to be given one word from the Commission specifying anything in the Declaration which is alleged to deviate from orthodoxy. He insists that should such an allegation be made he must be tried by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the only tribunal competent to decide in such a matter.

Certainly to close down the most flourishing and the most orthodox seminary in the West on the basis of alleged but unspecified unorthodoxy found in a single document is an unprecedented enormity. It is all the more outrageous, given the total inactivity (if not the connivance) of the Vatican concerning the travesty of the Catholic Faith and priestly formation that has for long been perpetrated in so many other seminaries, above all in French seminaries.

Indeed, one would have to go to Soviet Russia to discover a comparable caricature of justice. But concerning even the worst travesties of justice behind the Iron Curtain, it can at least be said that they are not perpetrated in the name of Christ's Church, let alone during a Holy Year of Reconciliation!

On 24 January 1975, Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg, wrote to Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious. In this letter he stated that, following the meeting of 21 January and having made a careful study of Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration, he considered it a sad but urgent necessity to withdraw the approval given by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X. More and more people, he said, were refusing the Mass of Paul VI throughout French and German Switzerland and it had even been alleged that Mgr. Adam (Bishop of Sion) was mistaken in claiming that Pope Paul had abrogated the Missal of Pius V. In such a situation the Seminary could do no good.

At the same time he felt bound to admit the existence of certain unlawful aberrations instigated by those who used the Council as an excuse for withdrawing themselves from the Hierarchy, the Magisterium, and the Truth. This problem was preoccupying the Swiss bishops as gravely as the question of Ecône. They were working daily to rectify what needed rectifying. They also encouraged those who needed encouraging.

There are several points in this letter to which attention should be drawn.

Firstly, its date, 24 January 1975, and Mgr. Mamie's admission that he had been present at the meeting on 21 January when the Cardinals decided to invite Mgr. Lefebvre to Rome. It is quite clear that Mgr. Mamie's letter of 24 January had been decided upon during the 21 January meeting. In other words, the suppression of Ecône was agreed upon on 21 January 1975, more than three weeks before the discussion with Mgr. Lefebvre took place.

Secondly, however sincere Mgr. Adam and Mgr. Mamie might be in their belief that the Pope had abrogated the Old Mass with all the necessary legal formalities, they both refrain from stating when and in what terms this abrogation was made public.

Thirdly, while Mgr. Mamie concedes that, in Switzerland as elsewhere, many of those responsible for grave aberrations use the Council to justify their defiance of the Magisterium, documented evidence of sanctions being taken against such people by the Swiss (or any other) Hierarchy is very hard to come by. The frequent references to the existence of such abuses and the insistence that steps are being taken to correct them, included (even by Pope Paul VI himself) in public attacks upon Mgr. Lefebvre, indicate the unease felt by the Archbishop's critics in the face of their evident observance of double standards. There are in the Church today two weights, two measures - one for Mgr. Lefebvre and other traditionalists who wish to uphold the Faith and one for the Liberals who wish to destroy it.

On 25 January 1975, Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, sent the following letter to Mgr. Lefebvre - on behalf of the Commission of Cardinals. All three signed the letter. A close study of this letter reveals how carefully the Cardinals have concealed the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre is being convoked before a tribunal which, it would be claimed later, had been constituted by express mandate of the Holy Father. Nor does the letter give the least indication that it is the Declaration of 21 November 1974 which is in question. It is simply a request for a discussion with the Archbishop - "Nous voudrions maintenant nous entretenir avec vous..." The text of the letter follows:



On 13 February, Mgr. Lefebvre met the Commission of Cardinals as arranged. There was a further session on 3 March.

The following is Mgr. Lefebvre's own account of the methods adopted by the Commission of Cardinals in their search for an excuse to suppress the Society of St. Pius X and its various establishments including the Ecône Seminary. This statement was published in Itinéraires No. 195, July-August 1975.


The Statement of Mgr. Lefebvre


On 15 April 1975, through the medium of Itinéraires, Mgr. Lefebvre published the text of his reply to the Abbé de Nantes concerning two articles in the February and March issues of the Abbé de Nantes' newsletter, La Contre-Réforme Catholique, which appeared to implicate him.9 All traditionalists would do well to emulate Mgr. Lefebvre's exemplary restraint and his respectful attitude to the Holy Father, as well as his uncompromising fidelity to the Eternal Rome, as expressed not only in the following letter but also in his Declaration of 21 November 1974.


In a letter to Mgr. Mamie dated 25 April 1975 , Cardinal Tabera stated that the Commission of Cardinals not only agreed with the request made by Mgr. Mamie in his letter of 24 January (to withdraw canonical approval from the Society of St. Pius X), but also urged him to do so without further delay. Mgr. Mamie was assured by Cardinal Tabera that his invaluable collaboration in the service of the Lord and His Church was greatly appreciated.

On 6 May 1975 Mgr. Mamie wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre stating that after long months of prayer and reflection he had reached the sad but necessary decision that he must withdraw all the acts and concessions granted by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X. He also stated that Mgr. Lefebvre would soon receive a letter from the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals confirming that this action had been taken in full agreement with the Holy See. It was the Declaration of 21 November 1974, he said, which had finally confirmed him in this course of action. Mgr. Mamie considered the Archbishop to be manifestly opposed not only to Vatican II but also to the person and the acts of the successor of St. Peter , His Holiness Pope Paul VI, and he therefore could not allow him to continue to claim that the Society had the support of the Bishop of Fribourg. He therefore could no longer allow the authority of the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg to continue to provide the canonical basis of Mgr. Lefebvre's institutions.

This decision (he said) took effect immediately and he had informed the relevant Roman Congregations of his action by the same post, as well as the Apostolic Delegate and Mgr. Adam, President of the Swiss Episcopal conference.

The two concluding paragraphs of his letter read as follows:


The penultimate paragraph of this letter merits particularly careful study.

Why this exclusive preoccupation only with all of the orientations and decisions of Vatican II and the teachings of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI?

Does Mgr. Mamie have no interest in previous Councils? After all, they were of far greater status than Vatican II. For whereas they were dogmatic, Vatican II was merely pastoral - whatever pastoral may mean.¹⁰

And what about Pope Pius XII? Is he already forgotten in Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg?

It is not difficult to understand why Mgr. Mamie prefers not to remember Pope Pius XII, who would certainly not have permitted a Roman Congregation to issue directives permitting laywomen to give Communion in the hand to standing communicants. In fairness to Pope John, it must be stressed that neither would he have tolerated such practices. Did he not dismiss Mgr. Bugnini, who, more than anyone else, has been responsible for stage-managing the liturgical revolution which the Congregation for Divine Worship proceeded to impose on the Church?

It is also not difficult to see why Mgr. Mamie is so determined to condemn Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration, which insists that the only attitude which a faithful Catholic can possibly have to this kind of Reformation is to refuse categorically to accept it.

It is true that not even the most ardent Liberal would dare to suggest that any previous Pope would have tolerated the kind of directives now being issued by some of the secretariats instituted in the wake of Vatican II. It is interesting to note that in the very year when the New Order of the Mass was foisted on the Church in the name of the Pope by the Congregation for Divine Worship, even Cardinal Gut, the then Prefect of that Congregation, admitted that the Holy Father had frequently yielded against his own better judgment in sanctioning various kinds of unlawful liturgical initiatives undertaken by priests determined to impose their will on the Church.¹¹

It is also relevant to note that Mgr. Bugnini is reported to have told one of his friends that "he had all the difficulty in the world" in getting Pope Paul to authorize the New Mass.¹² It must also be noted that a mere two months after Cardinal Villot had successfully contrived to have Ecône suppressed, Pope Paul VI at long last dismissed Archbishop Bugnini, the moving spirit behind the New Mass, by suppressing the Congregation for Divine Worship, merging it with the Congregation for the Sacraments, and excluding Mgr. Bugnini from any position in the new Congregation.¹³

As for Mgr. Mamie's much vaunted loyalty to Pope John and Pope Paul, this is, to say the least, of a very selective nature.

Mgr. Mamie has no right whatsoever to claim that he implements all the teachings of John XXIII and Paul VI. For example, in his encyclical Veterum Sapientia (1962) on the importance and value of Latin in the life of the Church, Pope John stated, inter alia, that the major sacred sciences must be taught through the medium of Latin in Catholic universities and seminaries.

Pope John insisted that bishops and superiors-general of religious orders "shall studiously observe the Apostolic See's decision in this matter and obey these our prescriptions most carefully", and added:


Needless to say, Mgr. Mamie's zeal to crush the Seminary at Ecône, where Latin textbooks are still used, is not matched by an equivalent zeal to insure that this particular teaching of Pope John is observed in the seminaries of which he approves.

As for Mgr. Mamie's obedience to Pope Paul, although it was made clear in Memoriale Domini that the Holy Father wished the traditional method of receiving Communion to be maintained, Communion in the hand is now widespread throughout Switzerland, not excluding the Diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg.

The liturgy provides yet another example of Mgr. Mamie's selective obedience. In 1974, the Holy Father sent a copy of Jubilate Deo, a book containing all the more common Latin chants, as a personal gift to every bishop in the world. He did so in the hope that this would impress upon them his concern that the specific teaching of Vatican II concerning the liturgical use of Latin should be implemented. At the same time he made it clear that he wanted all the faithful to be familiar with these Latin chants. Yet despite Mgr. Mamie's professed loyalty to the teaching of Paul VI, it would be difficult to find many parishes in his diocese where the Holy Father's wishes have been respected.

Clearly, it is to Mgr. Mamie rather than to Mgr. Lefebvre that the Commission of Cardinals should have addressed the words: "It is inadmissible that each individual should be invited to submit papal directions to his private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them."

As for the specific teachings of the promulgated documents of Vatican II - which must not be confused with the innumerable orientations imposed on the Church in the name of Vatican II, as has already been pointed out - these are more faithfully observed at Ecône than any other seminary in the Western world.

1. Hanu, pp. 206-207

2. i.e. the Roman Congregations (Departments) presided over by cardinals which govern the life of the Church, e.g. the Congregation for the Clergy.

3. Courrier de Rome, No. 140, February 1975, p. 4.

4. Vide Mgr. Lefebvre's letter of 15 July 1975 to the editor of Approaches. It is reproduced below under this date.

5. Courrier de Rome, no. 146, p. 1.

6. The time of the meeting was later changed to 9:00 a.m.

7. This was also the description used in the headline above a most misleading and slanted report in the English Catholic weekly The Universe of 6 June 1975. This report would have disgraced any newspaper, let alone a "Catholic" paper which boasts on its masthead of Pope Paul's prayerful concern for its efficacy as an instrument of truth. Moreover, even when the false nature of the entire report was drawn to the editor's attention, The Universe refused to print any correction.

8. Mgr. Lefebvre has never, at any time, compared himself with St. Athanasius. The fact that a sound basis for such a comparison exists is made clear in Appendix I.

9. "Abbé" is a common title given to the clergy in France. Father Georges de Nantes is one of the best known figures in the French traditionalist movement. He has been much criticized by other traditionalists in recent years due to his public criticism of Mgr. Lefebvre. He is mentioned in Pope John's Council, (pp. 187-188). He is referred to incorrectly in Vatican Encounter as "the abbot of Nantes."

10. The authority of the documents of Vatican II is explained in Chapter 14 of Pope John's Council.

11. La Documentation Catholique, No.1551, (16 November 1969), p. 1048.

12. Rev. L. M. Barielle, La Messe Catholique, Est-Elle Encore Permise? (Editions Saint-Gabriel).

13. The background to Archbishop Bugnini's dismissal is explained in Pope John's Council, Chapter XII. A more detailed treatment will appear in Pope Paul's New Mass.

On 25 May 1975, Mgr. Lefebvre, the Seminary professors, and the students of Ecône went to Rome to lead the Credo Holy Year Pilgrimage. The account of this Pilgrimage which follows was originally printed in The Remnant of 23 June 1975. It was entitled "Lauda Sion."







A Visit to Ecône

After the Credo Holy Year Pilgrimage I returned to Ecône with the seminarians, travelling on the all-night train from Rome and arriving on the morning of Tuesday, 27 May. The account which follows is my personal impression of Ecône. It will, I hope, convey however inadequately something of the spirit of the Seminary. The train in which we were travelling continued on to France with large numbers of French pilgrims on board.

Tuesday, 27 May.

The train stops at about 10:00 a. m. The whole platform is soon full of seminarians in their long black soutanes. Their fellow pilgrims lean from every window in the train laughing, talking, shouting, gesticulating - some are weeping and smiling at the same time. Everyone seems in the best of good humor - and what a lot of young girls there are! One might imagine that there was a pop-group on the platform! The train begins to move. The passengers lean even further out. "Adieu! Au revoir!" They wave. They smile. They weep. "Merci pour tout - Thank you for everything!" cries one of the girls. "Merci pour tout!" Her farewell is echoed from other windows. Some of the seminarians watch the train as it vanishes from sight; others begin stacking the luggage. I have the feeling I am back in the army again and have just piled out of a troop train; the atmosphere is almost identical. There is a great deal of laughter, and a tremendous atmosphere of comradeship; but, unlike the army, there is no one giving orders. In fact, no one ever appears to give any orders. The seminarians and their professors seem to form a corporate entity - an impression that will be strengthened throughout my stay at the Seminary. Everyone knows what he should be doing, how he should be doing it, and when.

"Come along, we've been invited for a beer." We all troop out of the station to a local restaurant. The seminarians are tremendously popular wherever they go. We can't all fit inside. There are more than a hundred seminarians, about twenty priests, myself, and a young American who will be entering the Seminary in September. Some of us sit at the tables on the pavement. Everything is "on the house."

It is soon time to take another train along the branch line to Riddes; then follows a walk of several kilometers to the Seminary at Ecône. Fortunately a Volkswagen bus is available to take the luggage. We approach the Seminary through extensive vineyards which belong to it and are tended by the students. Manual work forms an important item in their training. Ecône is situated among scenes of breath-taking natural beauty. Great snow-capped mountains rise up on every side. A gigantic waterfall tumbles down the mountainside behind the Seminary. The buildings themselves consist, firstly, of a large and very Swiss-looking house - formerly belonging to the Canons of St. Bernard and about three hundred years old. Archbishop Lefebvre had begun his work of priestly formation with a few students in Fribourg. The numbers expanded immediately and this building with the surrounding land was put at his disposal. The influx of new seminarians was soon so great that it was inadequate almost at once. New wings stretch off in all directions and their effect upon the visitor, the British visitor at least, is staggering. I would not have believed that any Catholic institution could be so ultra-modern. Truly, where the buildings are concerned, it is the space-age seminary. But there is no time to look around; lunch is being served immediately. I am taken to the bursar together with my American friend and we are shown to guest rooms in the old house. The rooms are furnished comfortably but simply; nothing useful is missing and everything works perfectly - and what a view from the window! We are asked to come down for lunch at once. The refectory is a huge room, clean, cheerful, and full of light; for there are large windows looking out onto the mountains on one side, and the other wall, alongside which there is a corridor, is made entirely of great glass bricks. I am astonished to find a case for my table-napkin with my name typed on a card inserted into a plastic socket - and I can scarcely have been in the building for five minutes! When I return to my room after lunch there is an identical card on the door. I had heard of Swiss efficiency - but really!

Every meal begins with a short grace (in Latin, naturally). There is reading from the Bible (which is always in French) and this is heard throughout the refectory by means of a superb amplification system which functions faultlessly. The same is true of a loudspeaker system which reaches every part of the building and the grounds. This is all operated by nuns in the most traditional habits who sit in a room surrounded by the most sophisticated electronic equipment, from which they summon "Monsieur the Abbé This" to answer a telephone call from Germany or "Monsieur the Abbé That" to come to Parlor Number Two where a visitor awaits him. The same system is used to rouse the community each morning in a very gentle manner with a series of soothing chimes. Similar chimes indicate the beginning or end of a lecture, a service in the chapel, or a mealtime.

The meals are simple but nourishing. The food is cooked by brothers of the order in a kitchen that looks like something out of the twenty-first century. It is served by the seminarians, who take it in turns to wait at table. Almost all the work in the Seminary is carried out by the seminarians, including such tasks as cleaning the corridors and stairs; but as these are all covered in thick hard - wearing carpet it is easily done.

When lunch is over it is announced that the community Mass will be at 17:00. In view of the exacting pilgrimage they have just completed, the afternoon will be free. During this time I am shown around the Seminary. My stock of superlatives is inadequate to express the impression it makes on me. The light and airy lecture rooms, the large and comfortable study-bedrooms for the students (the professors have a study, a separate bedroom, and a private bathroom). The library in the newest wing is already well stocked but with row after row of new and empty shelves to allow for expansion. There is a music room with the latest stereo equipment and an extensive collection of religious and classical music: I am pleased to see that someone has been playing Byrd's Mass for Five Voices. There is no television and the students are not allowed radios; nor is smoking permitted in the Seminary.

There are a good number of chapels and oratories but the main chapel is a recently converted barn - a massive structure with walls at least three feet thick. It is divided into two sections, one for the community and one for visitors. The number of visitors wishing to attend the Seminary Masses had grown so much that this new chapel was necessary - the previous one could hardly accommodate the seminarians. At least one hundred and fifty visitors had been attending the community Mass each Sunday. On 9 May, the Swiss bishops had withdrawn their canonical authorization from the Seminary. Canonically it had ceased to exist - in the language of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-four it could now be described as an "unseminary." The announcement had appeared in the Swiss press on Saturday, 10 May. The bishops had said that, as a result of their decision, no faithful Catholic could continue to support the Seminary ("aucun fidèle n 'a plus le droit de lui accorder son appui"). There was some speculation in the Seminary as to how many, if any, visitors would come for the Mass on Sunday, 11 May. Over three hundred crammed themselves into the chapel - double the normal number and this figure increased the next week.

Just before 17:00 the seminarians file in for their community Mass. I have already referred to my impression of their forming a corporate entity: it is during the liturgy that this impression becomes most manifest. All stand as the celebrant and servers enter. As the Mass begins a sharp tap is heard. All kneel as if one person. Introibo ad altare Dei - Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam - it is as if one person is responding, half speaking, half chanting. I soon discover that Ecône has a liturgical style of its own. Judica me Deus, et discerne causam meam de gente non sancta...It is impossible not to apply these words to those who are persecuting the Seminary; to those who will allow practically any abomination to take place during the celebration of Mass, but who are adamant that to begin it with Psalm 42 is a crime crying out to heaven for vengeance! (As the celebrant is now encouraged to add some words of his own at the beginning of Mass, why should he not choose Psalm 42? and if the congregation wishes to say some of the verses, is this not a dialogue? and surely nothing is more praiseworthy than a dialogue in the renewed Church?)

It is not simply the seminarians who seem to be an entity - everything in the chapel blends into an organic whole: the dignified and beautiful altar; the priest with his quiet words, his slow and deliberate gestures; the acolytes whose movements must surely be synchronized, the words of the Mass, the seminarians who have been absorbed into the liturgy, who are simply part of what is happening. And what is happening? The Sacrifice of Calvary is being rendered present in our midst. There is indeed but one entity here - and that entity is Christ. Hoc est enim Corpus Meum. Christ is present upon the altar, present physically, present in person. The priest raises Christ's true Body for our adoration - the same Body Which was born of the Virgin, Which hung on the Cross as an offering for the salvation of the world, and Which is seated at the right hand of the Father. The priest who elevates the Host is also Christ, and how easy it is to believe this at Mass at Ecône. And the Congregation is Christ too, His Body on earth to build up His kingdom and, when they receive Holy Communion, they are united with Him and with each other as fully and perfectly as it is possible to be. This then is the secret of Ecône, this is the aim and the effect of the formation given there, the complete incorporation into Christ of these young men whose vocation it is to bring Christ to others.

In the pew in front of me there is a young couple with three children. The older girls use their missals with complete facility and make the responses with scarcely a glance at the page. The youngest child, about six years old, has a little book with a simple text and pictures of the action of the Mass. From time to time her sister checks to see that the picture corresponds with what the priest is doing at the altar.

Ite Missa Est says the priest. Deo Gratias comes the response; and what grace and blessings those who have been present at the Mass have to thank God for. Yet this is the Seminary which the French bishops, the Swiss bishops, and now the Vatican are trying to suppress. In principio erat Verbum....Once again the reason why is clear. We are in the midst of a "renewal" - which forbids the reading of the Last Gospel of St. John. Et tux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae eam non comprehenderunt. Ecône is a light, a light shining in the darkness that is now enveloping the Church, a light which reveals the hollowness of a renewal about which much is spoken but of which nothing is seen, a light which must be extinguished if the shallowness of this renewal is to remain hidden.

Wednesday, 28 May.

Today I am to follow the seminarians throughout their normal program. They rise at 6:00. At 6:30 there is Prime followed by meditation. The Community Mass takes place at 7:15 and breakfast is at 8:00. Lectures begin at 9:00. The next is at 10:00 and the third at 11:00. Each lasts about forty-five minutes. They begin and end with prayer, they are very intensive and demand a high degree of attention. A large proportion of the students are graduates of secular universities and are able to cope with the demanding curriculum without great difficulty. Some of the younger seminarians find it requires an enormous effort - particularly those whose French is not too good when they arrive, as the teaching is conducted through this medium. There are several dozen students whose mother tongue is not French - Germans, Italians, Spaniards, English, Scottish, Australian, and above all American. There are also students from Africa and Asia. The title "International Seminary of St. Pius X" is well merited. I notice that an English student sitting next to me, now in his second year, makes his notes in French. In the Canon Law lecture the subject is that of the Oath. There is a great deal to condense into one lecture and the professor expounds the subject at great speed. The students open their Latin Codes of Canon Law at Canon 316. The difference between an oath and a vow is explained. We soon learn the difference between a iuramentum assertorium and a iuramentum promissorium. Canon follows canon as information is given on witnesses worthy of confidence, when oaths are binding on heirs, licitness, validity, obligation, annulment, dispensation, commutation, complications arising from possible conflicts with civil law. From time to time my eyes wander to the window through which I can see the great waterfall gleaming and shimmering in the bright sun. Soon the sun becomes too bright and the curtains are drawn. The loud-speaker summons an Abbé with a German name to the telephone. The professor is explaining how two apparently contradictory canons are not contradictory at all. Then chimes are heard over the loudspeaker announcing the end of the lecture. After the lecture the students crowd round the professor in friendly and animated conversation. During the lecture the atmosphere was formal and businesslike - afterwards it is all friendliness and informality.

At 12:10 there is Sext and the Angelus followed by lunch. Lunch is followed by recreation and the manual work - which can be synonymous if necessary. All students are asked to report to the vigneron, who has some urgent tasks to be done in the vineyard. There must have been some who when they answered a call to become laborers in the vineyard of the Lord had not expected to do so in quite such a literal manner. But the work is done with a great deal of gusto and a great deal of laughter, and the vigneron seems well pleased as he reappears with wine for those who want it.

Manual work is followed by two hours private study by the students in their rooms or the library - and study they do and study they must. If there is any feeling of anxiety among the seminarians during my visit it concerns their forthcoming examinations rather than the campaign to have the Seminary closed.

At 16:00 Goûter is available for those who want it - a cup of tea or coffee and a piece of bread and jam. Every weekday there is a plainchant practice at 18:00 - which explains the exceptionally high standard of chant in the Seminary. This is followed at 18:30 by a spiritual conference and at 19:00 by one of a variety of spiritual exercises, the Rosary, Benediction, Way of the Cross. Dinner is at 19:30, after which a period of recreation follows until Compline at 20:45. At 22:00 hours lights must be put out and strict silence observed.

It is impossible in any written account even to begin to convey any adequate impression of the atmosphere of Ecône. Serenity is perhaps the best word to describe it. This serenity derives in part from order and from discipline, but it is a discipline which comes from within, a discipline that is freely and consciously accepted, but which is practiced unconsciously and naturally. Above all, the atmosphere comes from the spirit of prayer which pervades the community. If asked to describe Ecône in one phrase there could be no other answer but "a community of prayer." This prayer springs from and is fostered by the deep spirituality evoked by the sublime liturgical worship which permeates the life of the Seminary. Whenever there are no lectures, there are students praying in the chapel or one of the many oratories. Look from any window in the Seminary and you will see soutane-clad figures walking in the vineyards and along the mountain paths saying the rosary. In the long corridors of the Seminary there are some very fine examples of baroque statuary - Our Lady, St. Joseph, the Sacred Heart. Strangely enough they appear in complete harmony with their very modern setting. Votive lights burn before them continually and in the evening there is almost invariably one young man kneeling in prayer before each statue. There is a particularly strong devotion to St. Pius X - the patron of the Seminary - before whose picture, beneath which there is a relic in the wall, a stream of prayers is offered for his intercession. However, although the atmosphere of Ecône is one of sanctity it is certainly not sanctimonious; there is no affectation, no conscious attempt to appear pious. The spirituality is natural and spontaneous and certainly accounts for the cheerfulness, the feeling of joy, which is equally evident and a real indication of true holiness.

Thursday, 29 May.

Thursday, 29 May, is the Feast of Corpus Christi which is prepared for by solemn Vespers on the Wednesday evening. I will not even attempt to describe the beauty, the dignity, the perfection of this service. There is all-night exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and, during the night, I have the good fortune to make a visit to the chapel just before Matins are sung. I am not normally at my most receptive at 3:00 a. m., but I can state in all honesty that the only question I ask myself is not, "When will it end?" but, "Why must it end?" At about 4:00 a. m. I go outside for a few minutes to see the dawn appearing. The mountains are clearly visible, their snow-capped peaks turning red with the first rays of the sun. A chorus of innumerable birds has burst into its own version of Matins, almost drowning the rush of the great waterfall and blending with the sound of the eternal chant which filters through the windows of the chapel. At that moment, the brave new Church of Vatican II seems quite remote, quite unreal, and quite irrelevant with its dialogues and discussions, its committees and commissions, its political priests and emancipated nuns, its smiles and goodwill to all who are not of the Household of the Faith, its harshness and vindictiveness towards any Catholic who is less than enthusiastic about being updated. The great renewal with all its works and pomps seems no more than a memory now of a distant and unpleasant dream. Here is the eternal and unchanging Church. I turn to the ancient house of the Canons of St. Bernard. I would not be surprised to see one or more of them come down the steps at any moment; and should any do so and enter the chapel, then, no matter whether they had returned from fifty, a hundred, two hundred or three hundred years before, they could take their places beside the seminarians and begin singing Matins just as they had done when they lived at the foot of these same mountains.

At about 8:30 on the Feast of Corpus Christi we all leave for the parish church at Riddes. The parish priest has invited all the seminarians to take part in his Corpus Christi procession - a courageous gesture as the Swiss bishops have said there can no longer be any support for the Society of St. Pius X. Fr. Épiney, the Curé, is a very dynamic young priest. He has just built a very large and very modern church constructed of grey concrete. I must confess that I do not much like it, either the exterior or the interior. The church is packed to the doors for Mass with one empty section of seats reserved for the seminarians and their professors. Outside there is an atmosphere of great excitement and anticipation. Two bands are waiting - the Socialist band in blue uniforms and the Fanfare independante in crimson: this, I am told, is the "Radical" band and has Masonic ties. Both are anti-clerical and the Fanfaristes manifest this by remaining outside the church. But virtually everyone in Riddes is devoted to the Curé - and the bandsmen will manifest this devotion by playing in his procession. My friends at the Seminary told me I was in for a surprise. They were correct. The young Curé celebrates a Solemn High Tridentine Mass. The deacon and sub-deacon are seminarians who will be ordained on June 29th. The seminarians sing the Proper - many of the congregation join in. I notice that a good number of the young people present have very new missals - the Daily Missal which is on sale at the Seminary. The Curé gives a passionate sermon on devotion to the Blessed Sacrament which is listened to with rapt attention. He deplores the fact that there are even those who call themselves Catholics but do not kneel to receive their Lord and some who have the temerity to hold out their hands for the Host. The Blessed Sacrament is God; there is no honor, no devotion, no praise too great to offer to Him. We must be prepared to endure any humiliation, persecution even, rather than diminish our reverence for the Blessed Sacrament by one iota. In this sermon and in another when the procession halts for Benediction in the Town Square, he expresses his complete solidarity with the Seminary. He and the people of Riddes know what value to put on the calumnies used against it, no matter from what level they come. Our religion is a religion of love, and in the service of love malice and calumny have no part. There are reporters present. Cameras flash. I learn later that informed opinion is certain that the revenge of the bishops will be swift and severe. The Curé may not even last a week - he will certainly be out within a month. It is a humbling experience to see a young man prepared to make any sacrifice for a matter of principle, a young man who considers that truth takes priority over expediency. My mind immediately turns to another young man who took such a stand nearly 2,000 years ago; and it is this very Man, God the Son made Man, whom the Curé elevates in the Monstrance for our adoration at the start of the procession. Truly, here is Christ carried in the arms of an alter Christus.

The procession is a never to be forgotten event. There were clouds in the sky before Mass; these have vanished now and the sun is blazing down. The Pange Lingua surges upwards. The procession seems to go on for ever. There are the two bands. There are this year's first communicants - the little boys in their long white robes looking as charming as the girls. There is another group of children with baskets of rose petals which they scatter on the road along which God the Son will pass. The children of the village are present in their different age groups. A Marian group carries a statue of Our Lady of Fatima. The seminarians file past together with their professors; their number seems almost endless. An elderly and very poor lady is overcome with emotion. She begins to ask me something. I explain that I am only a visitor. She is delighted to learn that Ecône is known in Britain and that there are five British seminarians there now; and even more delighted to know that this number will be increased in the autumn. "Monsieur," she says, "Monsieur, the seminarians. How they sang at Mass. It was heaven come down to earth." "Heaven come down to earth" - this is it precisely. That is what Ecône is.

Behind the Blessed Sacrament walk the civic dignitaries - they are all there including the Socialist mayor whose devotion to the Curé equals that of any of the Catholic parishioners. Then come the ordinary Faithful - first the men and then the women; thousand upon thousand of them. Many must have come from outside this little town. All ages and all social classes walk together reciting the Rosary as they pass along the streets between houses decorated in honor of the Feast while the bands play and the sun shines. There are practically no spectators - almost everyone is walking in the procession. My American friend and I decide that it is about time we do so too and we join the men. He is a young convert who, after graduating at an American University, has been working for a doctorate in Spain. He must return that night to defend his thesis. He will be entering the Seminary in September. He has only one regret and that is that he cannot enter now.

Eventually the procession returns to the church. There is Benediction yet again. The service ends with the Te Deum during which the seminarians file out. The great hymn of praise continues with almost undiminished vigor. I have to follow it from my missal (to my shame). I notice that most of the congregation know it by heart and sing it from their hearts. Salvum fac populum tuum Domine, et benedic baereditati tuae....We all go out to where the bands are playing and an unlimited supply of wine is available to all. The Curé moves among his people, a true father in God, laughing, smiling, joking, listening. The seminarians are surrounded by admirers and well-wishers. This has been a revelation of what Catholicism can be - how Belloc would have approved! And not least of the laughter and the wine.

I must leave the Seminary after Compline that night to take the train for London. The thought of leaving is painful. My own spiritual life has not simply been deepened and strengthened; it seems to have only just begun. I am just beginning to learn the true meaning of prayer and worship. Compline draws to an end. The lights are extinguished for the Salve Regina. The chant rises effortlessly up to the Blessed Lady who will certainly act as the gracious advocate for the hundred and more young men who are placing their hope in her - exsules filii Evae. Exiles indeed, exiles because their hopes and their beliefs are anathema to the forces holding effective power in the Church today. If they belonged to any of a thousand and one heretical sects they would be smiled upon; if they professed Judaism, the Islamic or the Hindu faith they would be welcomed with open arms; if they were Marxist politicians, then red carpets would be laid before their feet. But they are young men who believe in the traditional and unchanging Catholic Faith; they are young men filled with a burning love for Our Lord and Our Lady; they are young men who have no other desire in life than to bring Christ upon the altar in the sublime setting of the Mass codified by St. Pius V and which has nourished the Faith of so many saints and countless millions of faithful Catholics throughout the centuries. But this rite of Mass is inimical to Protestants. It enshrines and proclaims so clearly the doctrines of the Real Presence and the Real Sacrifice which they do not believe in and will not accept. The Tridentine Mass is an obstacle to Ecumenism. Ecumenism is the new god of the new Church and Ecumenism is a jealous god. The young men who kneel in the shadows before me, pouring out their prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, evoke the memory of St. Ignatius and his tiny band of followers, who eventually grew into a great army of soldiers of Christ who not only halted the progress of the Protestant heresy but won back millions of souls to God. The forces of Modernism realize too clearly that unless something can be done to prevent these young men from being ordained and going out into the world then the victory of Modernism, which had seemed so secure for a time, will be in serious doubt. The Faithful will rally to these young men, the young in particular, and there will indeed be a renewal; but a Catholic renewal built on the sound basis of the traditional liturgy, traditional teaching, and traditional spirituality of the Church.

Calumny is the weapon which will be used in an attempt to destroy it. More often than not the Society of St. Pius X will be unable to refute these calumnies, but truth is great and must prevail. For those who might be tempted to believe the calumnies I know that every member of this Society, from Archbishop Lefebvre to the youngest seminarians, would have only one answer: "Come and see." Ecône has no secrets, as any visitor will soon find out. If there is anything to be discovered there it is the secret of holiness. I would be surprised to learn of any man of good will who could visit the Seminary and think otherwise.

Under the heading "Official Information of the Conference of Swiss Bishops concerning Mgr. Lefebvre's Foundations," the 12 December 1975 issue of the Nouvelliste (of Sion, Switzerland) reproduced a Dossier concerning Ecône which had just been released for publication by the Swiss Bishops' Conference.

This Dossier comprised the following documents:

1. A letter from Cardinal Villot dated 27 October 1975 addressed to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences.

2. The text of a typewritten letter signed by His Holiness Pope Paul VI dated 29 June 1975 addressed to Mgr. Lefebvre.

3. The text of an entirely handwritten letter dated 8 September 1975, from His Holiness Pope Paul VI to Mgr. Lefebvre.

4. The text of the handwritten reply from Mgr. Lefebvre to His Holiness Pope Paul VI dated 24 September 1975.

5. In addition to these documents the Nouvelliste also published a commentary on them by Mgr. Pierre Mamie, the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg.

These documents are included here in their chronological order, with the exception of the papal letter of 29 June, which has already been included under that date.

8 September 1975 - Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Lefebvre



24 September 1975 - Letter of Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI




27 October 1975 - Letter from Cardinal Villot to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences


It is not simply alleged "here and there" that there were formal defects in the legal proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, it is Mgr. Lefebvre himself who makes the claim, and his advocate was prepared to prove it if granted a proper legal hearing. The fact that the Archbishop was denied the right to appeal certainly gives credence to his allegation.

This is a straightforward calumny. The letter from Cardinal Wright cited under the date 18 February 1971 proves that Archbishop Lefebvre was keeping the appropriate Vatican departments acquainted with the progress of the Fraternity - and that this progress was regarded with warm approbation by Cardinal Wright. The only attempt by "legitimate authority" to exercise "control" was the Apostolic Visitation of November 1974. In his letter of 25 January 1975 (cited in under that date), Cardinal Garrone thanked Mgr. Lefebvre for the total cooperation which he had given to the Apostolic Visitor. "We are grateful to you for having given him every facility to accomplish the mission on behalf of the See."
This is another calumny. As no such warnings from "the legitimate authorities" were received by Mgr. Lefebvre (and not even one is cited by Cardinal Villot), the Archbishop can hardly be accused of remaining deaf to them!
This is a very vague and sweeping allegation. It should be noted that opposition to the Council itself and to the reforms claiming to implement it are bracketed together. Throughout the entire campaign against the Archbishop he is invariably ordered to accept the Council and the Reforms - it is never conceded that a distinction can be made between them. In this respect I must ask readers to refer to my book Pope John's Council, where I provide ample documentation to prove that a good number of the reforms claiming to implement the Council cannot possibly be justified by specific reference to a Council document. I also demonstrate that there are, as Mgr. Lefebvre claims, some badly worded passages in the actual documents which have been utilized by the Liberals in their efforts to undermine the Church. Now either these ambiguous passages exist or they do not. If they do exist, then Mgr. Lefebvre clearly has a duty to draw attention to them; if his criticisms are unfounded, then this should be pointed out. At the moment his opponents are not prepared to discuss, let alone attempt to refute, his criticisms. Their invariable attitude is that anyone who criticizes the documents of Vatican II is ipso facto in the wrong.
Not one word is adduced to prove that the seminarians were trained in this spirit. Quite clearly, the testimony of the Apostolic Visitors gave no such impression or it would have been used against the Archbishop.


Once again it must be stated that not one shred of document evidence of the Pope's approval in foma specifica can be produced dated earlier than his letter of 29 June 1975. It is reasonable to presume that Cardinal Villot forbade Cardinal Staffa to examine the Archbishop's second appeal in order to prevent this serious irregularity from being brought to light.
This paragraph makes clear the true purpose of Cardinal Villot's letter. In order to be ordained, a priest must be accepted (incardinated) into either a diocese or a religious order. By instructing the world's bishops to refuse to incardinate the students from Ecône, Cardinal Villot imagined that he had signed the death-warrant of Ecône, since students would not go there to study for the priesthood when there was no possibility of their being ordained. Up to this point the priests ordained at Ecône had all been regularly incardinated into dioceses in accordance with the requirements of Canon Law.
There had indeed been a press campaign based on "insinuations, lying manipulation of the facts, and personal accusations" - but it was in operation against Mgr. Lefebvre rather than on his behalf. As the entry for 8 May 1975 makes clear, a lead was given in this campaign by an article in L'Osservatore Romano, probably written by Cardinal Villot himself.




3 September 1975 - Letter to Friends and Benefactors² (no.9)




A Commentary by Mgr. Mamie, published in the Nouvelliste of Sion of 12 December 1975





21 February 1976 - Letter from Pope Paul VI to Cardinal Villot

(The following is a translation of the text of an entirely hand-written letter, dated 21 February 1976, from Pope Paul to Cardinal Villot. It was reproduced photographically in La France Catholique-Ecclesia of 5 May 1976.)

It is particularly significant that although the Holy Father does not say what other "errors" are contained in the interview, concerning the only one he does refer to specifically he confines himself to denying that Cardinal Villot acts as a screen between him and Mgr. Lefebvre. He does not deny that, having been begged to see Mgr. Lefebvre by an African Bishop-friend of Mgr. Lefebvre, he urged the Bishop to see Cardinal Villot, who promptly told him that this was out of the question since it might induce the Holy Father to change his mind.

If this is not "screening" the Holy Father it is only in the sense that to use the word "screen " in that context constitutes understatement.
It has hitherto always been generally understood, and taught, that, far from being synonymous, the two terms were clearly distinguished. It would have been different had it been a case of insisting that what was essentially doctrinal was therefore also a matter of discipline. But to state the contrary; particularly with reference to post-conciliar reforms, is ominous indeed since it has hitherto been insisted with wearying monotony that these were of exclusively pastoral significance and did not imply any doctrinal change.
In Itinéraires of April 1976, Jean Madiran adds this footnote:



Pope Paul's letter continues:


7 March 1976 - Letter to Friends and Benefactors (no. 10)



21 April 1976 - Letter from Archbishop Benelli to Archbishop Lefebvre

This letter is important because it states precisely, in writing, for the first time the real conditions of the submission demanded of Mgr. Lefebvre. The author of the letter, Mgr. Benelli, who has the title of "Substitute"⁸ in the Vatican Secretariat of State, was its most notable personage after Cardinal Villot until he was created a Cardinal and appointed Archbishop of Florence in May 1977.

The meeting took place in Rome, on 19 March 1976, on Mgr. Benelli's initiative (he was reviving a request for an audience by Mgr. Lefebvre which, the year before, had been left unanswered).
"Envisaged"? Not at all; imposed in the name of the Pope by Mgr. Benelli, but he had sent Mgr. Lefebvre nothing in writing.

Enter the new Missal! Until this date, nothing had been said to Mgr. Lefebvre of this obligatory adoption. It constitutes the real condition. This new Mass of which not a word had been whispered in the whole business during a year - the silence on the subject was trickery. Now the veil is removed from it, and it is indeed the essential. More than that, it is not at all a matter of a simple "step that has been envisaged." It might have been that, in the form of a hypothesis, in an explanatory conversation and a fraternal dialogue; but, as indicated on p. 169, the matter is the notifications of conditions imposed by the Pope: that will be confirmed in Mgr. Benelli's letter of 12 June 1976.


Footnotes

1. If thy brother does thee wrong, go at once and tax him with it, as a private matter between thee and him; and so, if he will listen to thee, thou has won thy brother. If he will not listen to thee, take with thee one or two more, that the whole matter may be certified by the voice of two or three witnesses. If he will not listen to them, then speak of it to the Church; and if he will not even listen to the Church, then count him all one with the heathen and the publican." The scriptural text is not given in Cardinal Villot's letter, which includes merely the scriptural reference.

2. The Ecône Newsletter No.9 has been included at this point (not in chronological order) because it was referred to by Mgr. Mamie in a commentary published in the Nouvelliste of 12 December 1975. Readers would not have been able to form a balanced judgment of Mgr. Mamie's commentary without reading the Newsletter first. The commentary follows immediately after Newsletter No. 9.

3. Popes John XXIII and Paul IV.

4. See Appendix IV for a discussion of the Declaration on Religious Freedom.

5. Intégrisme is a very much misused word. However by intégrisme properly so called is meant the spirit of those who refuse to accept any changes whatsoever. It is not to be confused with Tradition which is the handing on of essential values, not accretions which have long since ceased to be relevant. Mgr. Mamie implicitly suggests that the traditional Mass exemplifies intégrisme - in other words, that it was so overburdened with historical accretions as to be no longer a vehicle of Tradition.

6. See Appendix III.

7. The full text of the Documents of the Alta Vendita, and much other useful information on the Carbonari, is published in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked by Mgr. G. Dillon. (Augustine Publishing Company)

8. Assistant to the Secretary of State.

The official presentation of the Latin text and its French translation: it is not that Mgr. Lefebvre is suspected of not understanding Latin. It is the effect of the tendency to "officialize" as "French translation " a version which is manifestly translated not from the Latin text but from the Italian, which is the original version. This new Vatican practice, which is a source of defects, confusion, and anarchy, has been progressively extended and imposed since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
This reference to Canon Law indicates suspension for a year from the administration of the sacrament of Holy Order, suspension reserved to the Holy See, and incurred ipso facto by one who ordains a priest without authorization from the former's Ordinary: in precise terms, without the "dimissorial letters" by which a bishop "refers" one of his subjects to another bishop to receive from him the sacrament of Holy Order.
There had been approaches by Pope Paul VI, all mentioned in the preceding pages: not one was fraternal; not one was paternal. It is not enough to say it has been done for it to become true. Paul VI had refused to take into consideration the letter that Mgr. Lefebvre sent him on 31 May 1975; he has acted as though he did not know of this recourse to him put into his hands.

So there is indeed question of conditions which had been made known by Mgr. Benelli in the name of His Holiness. If one refers to Mgr. Benelli's letter of 21 April, it can be seen that there was no explicit question of conditions made known in the name of the Pope, but of "a step envisaged," which suggests the idea of a friendly conversation rather than that of an ultimatum. It is in euphemisms of this sort that the whole "fraternal" character of Vatican approaches to Mgr. Lefebvre consists.
Mgr. Benelli no doubt means the promises that he himself had several times made to Pope Paul VI. Mgr. Lefebvre, for his part, has never, at any moment, promised to adopt the Mass of Article 7 nor to profess that Vatican II has "as much authority as Nicea, and more importance.

The public scandal continues to be such that the Sovereign Pontiff could wait no longer before asking the Sacred College to take notice of the continuance of this non-ecclesial attitude. Today, also, he can wait no longer. He therefore adjures Mgr. Lefebvre not to harden himself in a position which would lead him further and further into a blind alley, when he can still, "in humility and edification," make the gesture which His Holiness awaits "with paternal hope."




This letter was made public by Mgr. Lefebvre on 12 July 1976. He added a "preliminary note" which will be found below, in its chronological place.

Monseigneur,

The Holy Father has received your letter of 22 June. He desires me to inform you of his mind on this subject. Certainly as I myself said to you last April in a fraternal letter, what is asked of you calls for courageous obedience on your part, the more so as you have voluntarily pursued your course in what was manifestly a blind alley. But you cannot describe as cruelty the attitude of the Holy See, which is only registering your conduct and taking the measures it calls for.

On 19 March, I told you quite frankly what, in your negative judgments on the Council, in your frequent statements on the offices of the Holy See and their directives applying the Council, in your way of acting counter to the responsibility of other bishops in their respective dioceses, was inadmissible for His Holiness, contrary to ecclesial communion, and damaging for the unity and peace of the Church. All that was required of you was a clear admission that you were wrong on those points necessary for every Catholic spirit, and after that one could have considered the best way of facing the remaining problems arising from your acts.

The "wrong" which is Mgr. Lefebvre's, and which he is "asked only to admit," thus becomes almost imperceptible. It is limited to speaking freely - supposedly too freely - too "negatively." Is that how he has left the "communion" of Paul VI? Here, once more, one sees the inability of the Holy See to state precisely with what Mgr. Lefebvre is reproached. This imprecision in the complaints contrasts with the precision of the conditions imposed for his submission in the preceding letter of Mgr. Benelli (dated 21 April). It is like-wise remarkable that, in enumerating "what is inadmissible for His Holiness," Mgr. Benelli does not mention the celebration of the traditional Mass. If that Mass is validly forbidden, why this off-hand silence about a grave fault, the most grave?
A flagrant untruth! In the other sense the "same firmness" of Paul VI demands no public submission, names no one, notably no bishop, and declares no one to be "outside the Church."

But after this summons, severe but paternal and hopeful, you remain obstinate and propose to ordain priests in the same spirit, on your own responsibility, independently of the Ordinaries, within the framework of a Society which the competent ecclesiastical authority has juridically suspended.

The Holy Father charges me this very day to confirm the measure of which you have been informed in his name, de mandata speciali: you are to abstain, now, from conferring any order. Do not use as a pretext the confused state of the seminarians who were to be ordained: this is just the opportunity to explain to them and to their families that you cannot ordain them to the service of the Church against the will of the supreme Pastor of the Church. There is nothing desperate in their case: if they have good will and are seriously prepared for a presbyteral ministry in genuine fidelity to the Conciliar Church.

Here we have it, then. Everything is clear at last. The only priests acceptable to the Vatican are priests prepared to make an act of "genuine fidelity to the Conciliar Church." It is, therefore, not traditionalists who are making a distinction between the Catholic Church, the eternal Church, and the Church of Vatican II. This distinction is made by an official spokesman for the Conciliar Church. Since the seminarians at Econe have already promised their fidelity to the Catholic Church they cannot transfer it to the Conciliar Church.
To the Church? Yes, but Mgr. Benelli has already given the game away. It is to the Conciliar Church that they must make this act of obedience. Here before our eyes is the drama of the occupation of the Church Militant by an alien power. In the name of the Catholic Church, Catholics are required to subject themselves to the Conciliar Church.

They were informed in good time. In case of transgression, they should know that they expose themselves to the canonical penalty provided in canon 2374;2 and if, temerariously, they disregard it, they expose themselves to irregularity3 (cf. canon 985, 7), while the one who ordains them would incur suspension for a year ab ordinum collatione, according to can. 2373, paras 1 and 3, independently of the order recently communicated to him by the mediation of the Apostolic Nuncio.

Rev. Father Dhanis, Consultor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and professor at the Pontifical Gregorian University, will bring you this letter. So that everything shall be perfectly clear, it goes without saying that he is ready to give whatever explanations you may want.

Accept, Monseigneur, the assurance of my prayer for your intentions in these grave circumstances, and of my devotion in Our Lord.

+ Benelli
subst.

Footnotes
1. Since Paul VI had constantly refused to give him a personal hearing, Mgr, Lefebvre proposes that the dialogue shall take place with Cardinals chosen from among those who have known him for a long time (and not any more in the scandalous conditions of 1975, with the three Cardinals of unworthy behavior).

2. i.e. the penalty of suspension.

3. "Irregularity" is the perpetual canonical impediment to the reception and exercise of Holy Orders. The impediment can be removed only by dispensation, as distinct from impediments called simple, which cease with the cessation of their cause.

1 July 1976
Declaration at a Press Conference

Father Romeo Panciroli, spokesman of the Press Bureau of the Holy See, made the following declaration on 1 July 1976, which was published on 8 July in the diocesan bulletin of Mgr. Mamie and reproduced in La Documentation Catholique of 1 August:



4 July 1976
The Mass in Geneva

On 4 July 1976, Mgr. Lefebvre preached at a Solemn High Mass celebrated in Geneva by Father Denis Roch, a convert from Calvinism who had been ordained on 29 June. This Mass is of particular interest for two reasons. Firstly, it provided an opportunity of assessing the reaction of the ordinary faithful to the Archbishop's decision to ordain his seminarians in defiance of the Vatican. The importance of this reaction was heightened by the fact that Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg went to exceptional lengths to make use of this Mass as a trial of strength between himself and Mgr. Lefebvre. Father Roch was denied access to all the Catholic churches in Geneva, he was forbidden to celebrate Mass in Geneva, and Mgr. Lefebvre was forbidden to preach. Furthermore, Mgr. Mamie commanded, in a statement published in the Nouvelliste on 2 July, that:
The Tribune de Geneve (a secular Swiss paper) gave considerable coverage to the Mass in its 5 July 1976 issue. The paper noted that the Mass was celebrated in the Palais des Expositions:
Subsequent Masses celebrated by the Archbishop in France and elsewhere proved that, despite the Vatican sanctions, a Mass celebrated by him will attract a congregation of several thousand almost anywhere in Catholic Europe. In most dioceses he can certainly attract a larger congregation than the diocesan bishop-particularly in France. It is not intended to suggest that the rightness or wrongness of Mgr. Lefebvre's, or any other, case can be assessed by the extent of support for it. If rightness depended on numbers, the persecuted Catholics of Elizabethan England would have had a very poor case. But as the Archbishop's enemies are trying continually to minimize the extent of support for him it is worth taking note of the attendance at these Masses. The support for Mgr. Lefebvre is an excellent example of the true sensus fidelium.

The second reason for the significance of this Mass is the very fine sermon preached by the Archbishop. He does go over some points made in other sermons but, as it has not been published in English, it is included here as a useful exposition of Mgr. Lefebvre's attitude immediately following the ordinations of 29 June, a period during which he certainly underwent great emotional and physical strain.


4 July 1976
Sermon by Mgr. Lefebvre at Geneva



6 July 1976
Letter of Cardinal Baggio to Mgr. Lefebvre

Cardinal Sebastiano Baggio wrote this official letter (numbered 514/7 6) in his capacity as Prefect of the Roman Congregation responsible for bishops and by order of Pope Paul.
Cardinal Baggio writes subdeacons within quotation marks because the subdiaconate has been suppressed in the "conciliar Church."
Chronicle of Father Bruckberger

The Father Henri Bruckberger is one of the leading men of letters among the French clergy today. He was a chaplain to the Resistance during the war and was forced to escape to the U.S.A. in order to evade the Gestapo. He writes a weekly column in the French daily L 'Aurore which is awaited with bated breath by both traditionalists and Liberals-the latter waiting with trepidation to discover what new aspect of the Conciliar Church " he will expose as tyranny, heresy or hypocrisy. He has come to be looked upon as the voice of the ordinary French Catholic, and because he refused to silence that voice he has been subjected to severe pressure from his superior in the Dominican Order. No comment needs to be made regarding the parallel between the persecution he suffered for his resistance to the Nazi tyranny and that which he now suffers for his resistance to the tyranny of the "Conciliar Church."

In his column in L 'Aurore dated 8 July 1976 he gave vent an impassioned cri du coeur in protest at the coldness and hostility shown by the French Bishops to the newly ordained priests from Econe. Had they been Muslims, Communists, Protestant ministers, or Buddhist monks they would have been received with open arms; churches would have been placed at their disposal. But they were traditionalist Catholic priests -so the doors of the "Conciliar Church " were slammed in their faces. Father Bruckberger's article follows.




THE CATHOLIC MASS

In the Supplement-Voltigeur to ltine'raires (No.40 of July 1976), Jean Madiran made it quite clear why these young priests had been treated in the manner described by Father Bruckberger.



12 July 1976
Preliminary Note by Mgr. Lefebvre

On 12 July 1976, Mgr. Lefebvre makes public, by communicating it to the Agence France-Presse, his third letter to Paul VI, that of 22 June 1976. He precedes this communication with a preliminary note:

17 July 1976
Letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI

This is the fourth letter of Mgr. Lefebvre to Pope Paul VI. It is the first in which Mgr. Lefebvre "approaches the basic problem," the three preceding letters doing no more, essentially, than asking to be heard.

This letter is extremely compact in substance: it says, in summary, all that Mgr. Lefebvre would have said to Pope Paul VI if this pope had not, for years, systematically refused to see him and to hear him.




22 July 1976
Notification of Suspension a Divinis

Letter from the Secretariat of the Congregation for Bishops, with the reference 514/76.



Interview Given to the Nouvelliste of Sion, Valais, Switzerland,
at Econe on 3 August 1976 and Printed on 4 August 1976



8 August 1976
The Petition of the Eight

Eight of the most distinguished Catholics in France sent the following communication to the Press:



15 August 1976
Letter of Pope Paul VI to Mgr. Lefebvre
The words "fraternal" and "paternal" do not make us forget the reality. Pope Paul VI refused to hear Mgr. Lefebvre before condemning him. And, in his discourse to the consistory on 24 May 1976, he publicly denounced Mgr. Lefebvre and those who follow him as being without feeling, without sincerity, and without good faith.
There was an additional irregularity, the cause of all the subsequent irregularities: the irregularity of the procedure by which Mgr. Lefebvre was clandestinely judged and unjustly condemned.
So Paul VI rejects the accusations as serious and not as false. In accord with the constant attitude of the Holy See in this affair, he does not deny the Liberal and Modernist tendencies of his pontificate, he denies that there is a right to challenge them; he does not claim that the Council was faultless, he affirms that the ecclesiastical norms were observed. It is the argument from authority, hypertrophied to the point of becoming the sole criterion of the just and the true. Once again, it is unconditional obedience to the Pope and the Council -what is demanded is servile submission.
Mgr. Lefebvre's position would not, in fact, be "in accordance with the Gospel and in accordance with the faith " if he were opposed to the principle of pontifical and conciliar authority. But that is not so. He is opposed to the manner, accidental (and faulty), with which that authority has been exercised for some fifteen years. Faced with that, Paul VI does again what he had already done in his consistorial discourse of 24 May: he confuses the challenging (in principle) of an authority with the challenging (in fact) of its exercise; in other words, he answers as though Mgr. Lefebvre were demanding a Church without Pope and without Council, which would, in fact, be out of conformity with Gospel and faith. The question raised by Mgr. Lefebvre, in this regard, is whether the authority itself is exercised "in conformity with Gospel and faith " in the way it conducts conciliar evolution. By reason of the circumstances, this question is neither gratuitous, nor trivial, nor temerarious. It cannot be put aside indefinitely without examination.
It is not stated what bond and what illogicality are meant.



27 August 1976
An Appeal by Twenty-eight French Priests to Pope Paul VI

During a spiritual conference on 27 August 1976, a group of twenty-eight French priests, mostly parish clergy, in no way involved in the traditionalist movement, addressed a plea to His Holiness Pope Paul VI to take the appropriate measures to calm the emotion created in France by the affair of the Seminary at Econe. Protesting their total loyalty to the Holy See, these priests point out at length to the Holy Father the disorders which the exercise of their ministry has brought to their notice in France, particularly in catechetics, in the liturgy, and in the workings of the episcopal commissions for collegiality. ⁶




1. Some words are missing on the tape recording

2. I.e. ten days from Sunday.11 July 1976.

3. The canon mentioned does not specify the penalties: congruis poenis, censuris non exclusis, pro gravitate culpae puniantur

4. Pius XII, even more than John XXIII, loved and esteemed Mgr. Lefebvre.

5. Colonel Remy is possibly the most distinguished living hero of the French Resistance.

6. The text of this appeal was published in the Courrier de Rome, No.161, September 1976.

7. The letter was signed by twenty-eight diocesan priests, parish priests and chaplains.