Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume Two

The first volume of the Apologia took the story of Archbishop Lefebvre up to the end of 1976. I had hoped to continue the account in this volume, but the amount of material I felt it necessary to include was such that it could cover only three more years, taking the story to the end of 1979. The last major incident in this book is the Archbishop's sacerdotal Golden Jubilee. I had also hoped, as I remarked in the Introdtiction to Volume I, to be able to give details of an agreement between the Pope and the Archbishop in this volume. Alas, no final agreement has yet been reached, but negotiations are still continuing. Let us pray that Volume III will contain details of this greatly desired reconciliation.

The major part of this book is taken up with the negotiations between the Archbishop and the Holy See, principally with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Archbishop Lefebvre had long demanded that his case should he brought before this Congregation; his request was granted, and the resultant discussions are absorbing and of considerable historic interest. Unlike the treatment he received from the Vatican which was described in Volume I, I consider his treatment at the hands of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to have been scrupulously fair. The story is told here principally through the original documents which are presented without comment. The discussions were by no means one-sided. The questions put to the Archbishop were very perceptive and clearly gave him cause to think deeply about the basis for his attitudes and actions. In some cases he has clearly vindicated his position, but in others his answers were not quite as convincing. These negotiations are, of course, continuing. Further documentation will be provided in Volume III.

I have followed a strict chronological sequence, and have interspersed documentation on the negotiations with some of the Archbishop's sermons and accounts of his activities. The schedule he undertakes is quite staggering for a man in his seventies. His travels take him all over the world, to Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India, the United States of America, South America, and many European countries. Wherever he goes, the faithful have high expectations of him, and despite his personal fatigue and the weighty problems with which he has to deal he rarely disappoints them. He is always ready with a friendly smile, a kindly word, and inspirational sermon. The progress made by the Society at this time would have been almost miraculous even had it enjoyed the full support of the Vatican. The number of ordinations increased steadily, new seminaries were opened; there are now three in addition to Ecône-in Germany, the U.S.A., and Argentina. Schools were founded, church buildings purchased, and new Mass centers opened at an astonishing rate. But at the same time evidence of problems within the Society began to emerge. The Archbishop was attracting considerable criticism from the fringe of the traditionalist movement for his alleged moderation and willingness to "compromise." A good number of priests outside the Society claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, and that there had been no true pope since Pope Pius XII. Some priests in the Society became infected by these theories, particularly in France and the U.S.A. And, almost inevitably, some young Society priests began to show alarming signs of arrogance. The Archbishop had taken a calculated risk in sending young men out to do pastoral work without the benefit of guidance and supervision from mature priests. Some proved worthy of the trust he had placed in them, others did not. Needless to say, reports of these tendencies reached the Vatican and added to the Archbishop's problems in working for a reconciliation. This was why he found it necessary to clarify his position on the New Mass and the Pope on a number of occasions, as this book will show. These internal problems became more serious after 1979, and will be dealt with in Volume III. The Archbishop felt obliged to expel a number of priests in subsequent years, including nine in the United States in 1983. Others left of their own accord. Sadly, some of these priests have had no scruples about making vindictive attacks upon t lie bishop who had given them their priesthood.

In June 1983, Archbishop Lefebvre resigned as Superior of the Society, to be succeeded by Father Franz Schmidberger who had been Superior of the German District. The Archbishop will continue to carry out the ordinations and confirmations, but will at least be relieved of the administrative burdens.

This book, as was its predecessor, is not directed primarily to Catholics who support the stand Archbishop Lefebvre has taken. Its aim is to provide factual material for those interested in discovering the truth about a man and a movement of great significance in the history of the Church during the post-conciliar epoch. No individual has been as consistently mispresented in the official Catholic press as the Archbishop. When the three volumes of the Apologia are available it will at least be possible for fair-minded Catholics to judge him by what he has said and done, rather than what he is alleged to have said and done.

I do not expect every reader to agree with all the Archbishop's opinions, actions, and judgments. I do not necessarily do so myself. He has admitted that he sometimes speaks with excessive indignation (see p. 112), and that his addresses have included "exaggerated expressions" (p. 290). But, as I have endeavored to point out several times in the present volume, it is necessary to set the case of the Archbishop within the overall context of the Conciliar Church, a context of accelerating self-destruction, of doctrinal, moral, and liturgical degeneration, widespread anarchy, and apparent impotence on the part of the Holy See to take any effective measures to restore order. In the U.S.A., for example, respected Catholics unconnected with the traditionalist movement are speaking of a de facto schism. In an editorial in the January 1983 issue of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, Father Kenneth Baker, S. J., noted that in the United States: "We are witnessing the rejection of the hierarchical Church founded by Jesus Christ to be replaced by a Protestant American Church separate from Rome." This is a fact which must be kept in mind continually when passing judgment upon Archbishop Lefebvre. I would ask those readers who do not know him and are not familiar with his work to read his sermons carefully. How many bishops preach like this today? They disclose a man who has the Faith, loves the Faith, and lives the Faith.

I said earlier that the account of the negotiations with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is absorbing. There will be one exception for some readers. This is Chapter XV, a long chapter which contains the Archbishop's defense of his position concerning religious liberty. Those who are not familiar with the background to this controversy may well find Chapter XV complex and difficult to follow. I suggest that they omit it, at least on a first reading. Most readers will find it less difficult if they first study Appendix IV to Volume I of the Apologia, This provides a fairly brief and simple introduction to this question, which is probably the greatest obstacle impeding a reconciliation between the Archbishop and the Vatican. The Archbishop's insistence upon the Society being allowed to use the Tridentine Mass and pre-conciliar sacramental rites is a disciplinary matter, and could be conceded by the Pope without great difficulty; but the question of religious liberty involves a serious disagreement on a matter of doctrine.

I would like to draw the reader's attention to the list of abbreviations contained on page xvii. All the abbreviations used in the book are, I hope, included here.

I am grateful to a number of people who have given me considerable help with this volume. I must mention first Miss Norah Haines who provided the typescript, checked the proofs with meticulous care, and compiled the index. Without her help it would never have been completed. I am equally grateful to Mrs. Carlita Brown who set the type and submitted to numerous last minute amendments without complaining. I must also pay tribute to Father Carl Pulvermacher for printing and collating the book single-handed. This has been a real community effort in what I believe is supposed to be the "spirit of Vatican II." Archbishop Lefebvre was kind enough to read through the proofs and make a number of corrections. There are several others whose help I would like to acknowledge publicly, but who have asked me not to do so.

I would like to stress the fact that although both volumes of' the Apologia have been published by the English-language publishers to the Society of St. Pius X, The Angelus Press, I have written them with complete independence. No attempt has ever been made to influence what I wished to say.

Finally, I would like to answer a question concerning which I receive a considerable amount of correspondence. Has Archbishop Lefebvre been excommunicated? No, he certainly has not. Statements claiming the opposite have been made in several countries. In order to settle the matter once and for all I wrote to the Vatican in April 1983, and received a letter signed by Cardinal Oddi, dated 7 May 1983, stating that Archbishop Lefebvre has not been excommunicated. However, those who would like him to be excommunicated will no doubt continue to insist that he has been, no matter what evidence to the contrary can be brought forward, which is just one one indication of why I consider it to have been so necessary to write Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre.

Michael Davies,
7 August 1983,
St. Cajetan, Confessor.

ON SUNDAY, 27 February 1977, the Church of Saint Nicholas du Chardonnet in Paris was "occupied" by Catholic traditionalists, or "liberated" as they prefer to express it. The church was still firmly under their control in 1983, and is certainly the most popular and thriving parish in Paris. Melodramatic stories of the event have been circulated by progressives; there have even been accounts giving the impression that it fell to a squad of fascist militia using rosaries as knuckledusters! When the Pope visited France in 1981 an appeal was made to him to celebrate Mass with ousted parishioners in the schoolroom which they have to use since they have no church. The Pope declined the invitation. As the article which follows makes clear, Saint Nicholas was operating as joint-parish with the parish of Saint Sévrin, literally a stone’s throw away. There is ample room in this huge church for a hundred times the number of the parishioners of Saint Nicholas, or alleged parishioners of Saint Nicholas, who do not wish to worship there now that the Tridentine Mass is offered once more. Although, strictly speaking, the occupation of Saint Nicholas does not form part of the story of the breach between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, which is the subject of this book, it must be set within the historical context of this breach-particularly where the French situation is concerned. It was certainly the most dramatic event in the centuries-old conflict between Tradition and Liberalism to have occurred in France since the triumphant Mass at Lille just over six months before (see Vol. I, pp. 253-271).

I had the good fortune to visit Saint Nicholas on 12 April 1977. The account which follows is one which I wrote for The Remnant of 30 April 1977.



A Report in The Times

By an interesting coincidence a reporter from The Times visited Saint Nicholas on the same day. I was shown a copy of his report some days after mine had been dispatched to The Remnant. This report refers to the attempt at mediation by Monsieur Jean Guitton of the French Academy. It appeared in the 13 April 1977 issue




Facts and the Truth

The reporting of events at St. Nicholas which appeared in The Times was generally fair and factual, it was evident that its reporter, Charles Hargrove, was making every effort to be objective. But the report which follows indicates the extent to which a factual report does not necessarily convey the truth of a situation. Why this is so will be explained after reproducing the report which appeared in the 23 April 1977 issue.



The Truth behind the Facts

The reason that the traditionalists declined the "generous offer" of Cardinal Marty was that it was not a generous offer at all, and he must have realized that they would find it totally unacceptable before making it. The church, as the report notes, had been out of use for five years since the construction of the Paris ring motorway. It could only be reached by crossing a very busy motorway (freeway) on foot. The area around the church also happens to be one of the least salubrious in Paris, one where mugging is prevalent. It was also in a most inconvenient location, right on the north side of Paris rather than being central as St. Nicholas is. A good number of elderly Catholics now worship at St. Nicholas, and to have asked them to switch to St. Marie-Médiatrice was a totally impractical proposition, so unrealistic that it could not possibly have been made with any expectation that it would be accepted. This is the truth that the facts quoted in the report did not reveal.



Restored Tradition and the New Mass
By Louis Salleron²

The French newspaper Le Monde of 22 April 1977 published this among other letters which it said it had received concerning the “occupation” of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet Church in Paris. Le Monde said that these letters "are particularly revelatory of the viewpoint of certain Catholics who have so far had little opportunity to express themselves in public.” Professor Salleron’s letter follow:




St. Nicholas du Chardonnet - Two Months Later

Despite the fact that Monsignor Ducaud-Bourget was sagacious enough to evade the trap set for him by Cardinal Marty’s “generous offer," he soon found that remaining at St. Nicholas brought its problems, namely that despite the fact that is a very large, it was soon unable to accommodate the thousands who wished to worship there each Sunday. The result was that Mass had to be celebrated once more in the Salle Wagram. This is referred to in an extract from an article by Professor Thomas Molnar which follows. Professor Molnar also mentions the sympathy shown by the police for the traditionalist clergy and parishioners of St. Nicholas. It appears that on one occasion a delegation of progressive clerics (in civil costume, naturally) went to the principal police station of the area to demand that the officer in charge should explain why no action had been taken to evict the traditionalists from the church. They were informed by the sergeant on duty: "You can't see him now, he's assisting at Mass at St. Nicholas."

Professor Molnar's account of his visit to St. Nicholas appeared originally in the New Oxford Review and was reprinted in The Remnant of 17 January 1978.

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

My dear Sisters and my dear brethren:

In a few moments, in accordance with the custom of the Church and in accordance with Tradition, we are going to bless these religious habits, those crosses, these medals, these rings, these veils and these crucifixes.

And why all of this? Why these blessings? Why these religious habits? Would it not be preferable to abandon these customs which seem no longer to have any significance in our day? We, therefore, ask the Church in her Tradition: “Why these blessing? Why these religious habits? Why these religious objects?” The Church tells us that it is because these persons who are going to be clothed wish to become religious.

We again ask the Church: "What is a person who becomes a religious?" For the answer we open the law of the Church which is called Canon Law. We find in Canon Law that a religious is a person who pronounces the three vows of religion: the vows of obedience, of chastity, and of poverty. All of this seems so formal, so strict. What then is a person who pronounces these three vows, and what do these three vows signify?

These three vows signify that the person who consecrates herself as a religious abandons henceforth the pleasures of the flesh, abandons all that money is able to procure for us here on earth, and abandons as well her own will. Obedience is the vow by which the religious abandons her will into the hands of her superior. The vow of chastity is that by which the religious sacrifices the joys of maternity, and the vow of poverty signifies that the religious despises henceforth the things, the goods of this world. She does not wish to profit from all that money legitimately or, alas!, illegitimately can procure for us here on earth. All of this seems to have a rather negative aspect, a penitential aspect, an aspect of austerity, of renouncement, abnegation. Is it this alone that truly makes the religious? Is there nothing else, no other more elevated motive other than the simple desire to do penance and to appear in the eyes of the world as a person who despises the world? Is there not a more profound motive to pronounce these vows? Yes, indeed! There is a more profound motive. All the rest would mean nothing, absolutely nothing, if there were not. It is He, He Who draws the religious to Himself. You know, there is only one name in heaven and on earth which is able to attract souls to the point that they consecrate themselves to Him. It is Our Lord Jesus Christ! There is the key to the mystery .It is He Who has touched the heart of the religious, of priests, all Christians. There is only one name here below which has been given in order to save us, in order to have eternal life; one Person alone Who has shed His blood in order to save us from our sins: Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Who, then, is this Person Who has the privilege of this power to draw souls, to attract hearts in such a manner that those who wish to become religious abandon all that gives joy-apparent joy-on earth? Who is, therefore, Our Lord Jesus Christ? What has He done for us?

If one glances at history since Our Lord Jesus Christ ascended into heaven, one sees the number of martyrs of all ages, of all conditions, who have given their blood in order to follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, because they adored Him, because they loved Him, because they obeyed Him. For His name alone they were ready to shed their blood. So many martyrs! So many nations who, because of their faith, have been massacred: because they believed in Our Lord Jesus Christ! So many vocations! So many monasteries! So many convents which were erected to enclose those who wished to pass their whole life praying, adoring, and serving Our Lord Christ! What great generosity! What great charity this name alone has raised in the entire world.

In Christian homes the venerated name of Jesus gives the virtues necessary for the family, makes a more Christian home - a home where one respects and honors the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ. So many souls have dedicated their entire life to serving the sick-to serving the Mystical Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ - to serving the suffering in hospitals, in infirmaries, in leper colonies - wherever there are suffering members of the Mystical Body of Our Lord there have been generous souls to minister to these sufferings. Why? Uniquely for those who are suffering? No! In the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ!

So many souls have devoted their lives to teaching the Faith, the catechism, to the religious education of children, of families. These souls have spent their lives for Catholic education - for Christian education. Why? In order to make Our Lord Jesus Christ known. And today, do not the Epistle and Gospel say the same thing - that is our faith: we believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We believe, therefore, that He is God Himself. Per quem omnia facta sunt -by Whom all things were made - we have been made by Our Lord Jesus Christ. We are creatures of Our Lord Jesus Christ and He shed His blood for us. He came upon earth to sacrifice Himself for us: we then also wish to sacrifice ourselves for Him. Thus, this is religion; this is why one becomes a religious.

My dear Sisters, if you are not attached to Our Lord Jesus Christ during your entire life, you have no reason to become religious - none! This is why you are going to receive your habit, in order to manifest Our Lord Jesus Christ by your religious habit. This is why you are going to receive your veil, your medal and your crucifix. This is why you are going to be blessed in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

The fathers and mothers of families might say, "It certainly is pleasant to be a religious. Without a doubt, one separates oneself from a great number of joys, but also from a great number of difficulties. Certainly convents and monasteries must be paradise on earth since it is the Church itself which says, "Ubi Jesus, ibi paradisum-there where one finds Jesus, one finds paradise." Thus, if Jesus is in religious communities, paradise is there as well.

Without a doubt, this perhaps should be the case. But the good Lord does not permit paradise to exist upon earth. On the contrary .He has promised us the cross! He has promised us sacrifices in religious communities-even monasteries. It would be a serious mistake to believe that we could find on earth a place where we could be as in paradise. Paradise is reserved until after our death.

During the course of our life we must carry our cross. Whatever one may be: Christian spouses, religious, priests- we all must carry our cross. We cannot find Our Lord Jesus Christ here on earth unless we find Him with His cross. If we find Him, He will impose His cross upon us -"Carry thy cross and follow Me." This is what He tells us: "If thou wish to gain eternal life, carry thy cross and follow Me." He did not say, "I will give thee happiness upon earth," but rather He told us, "Thou shalt have eternal life in heaven but first carry thy cross."

This is why, my dear Sisters, do not deceive yourselves, you are beginning the way of the cross, but a way of the cross, as Our Lord said, "My yoke is sweet and my burden light." Borne with Our Lord Jesus Christ in following Him, the cross becomes light. Remember that this cross assimilates us to Our Lord Jesus Christ; it makes us resemble Our Lord Jesus Christ. Remember that by His cross we participate in the redemption of the world. When our blood must flow in carrying this cross, our blood will be mixed with that of Our Lord Jesus Christ and souls will be saved.

All sufferings, the least of the smallest sufferings, are occasions to mix our blood with that of Our Lord for the redemption of the world, for the redemption of our souls. Thus, how good it is to be with Our Lord! This is why the saints and martyrs wished to suffer; they desired the cross.

Remember the words of St. Andrew when seeing the cross to which he was going to be attached-O bona crux! -O good cross! St. Andrew knew that attached to his cross he would resemble even more Our Lord Jesus Christ and that he would ascend to heaven. He knew also that partaking in the sufferings of Our Lord, he would save souls. Thus, perceiving it from afar, he cried, "0 bona crux!" May you also be able to say every day of your life, when your crosses weigh heavily upon your shoulders, "0 bona crux!" They will further unite you to Our Lord Jesus Christ because they will make you understand all of His sufferings.

Moreover, you have as a particular patron, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Compassion, Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, who had not a single sin, who was immaculate from her conception, who did not commit any sins here on earth. If she merited to suffer with her divine Son in such a way that her heart was pierced with a sword, she who did not deserve these sufferings-shall we, who deserve to suffer because of our sins, dare not to imitate and resemble the Blessed Virgin Mary?

Ask your holy patron, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Lady of compassion, Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, to teach you to suffer with Our Lord Jesus Christ in order that you also will one day share in His glory.

In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Ghost. Amen.

On 15 June 1977, Mgr. Stimpfle, Bishop of Augsburg, sent his secretary, Father Döllinger, to Ecône, to deliver a letter to Archbishop Lefebvre. In this letter Mgr. Stimpfle urged the Archbishop to postpone the ordinations arranged for 29 June as a sign of respect for the Holy Father. Father Döllinger was accompanied by Dr. Eric de Saventhem, President of the International Federation Una Voce and by Madame Elizabeth de Saventhem. Father Döllinger returned to Germany the same day, and that evening an aide Mémoire of his two hour discussion with the Archbishop was compiled by Dr. de Saventhem and transmitted to him in Munich by telex the next morning. It read as follows.




In the ardent desire to be in full accord with and in complete submission to the Vicar of Christ and the Successor of St. Peter, and despite the blow of the recent discussions in Rome, Mgr. Lefebvre is still prepared to adjourn the date of the ordinations set for 29 June next in the hope that at the end of this period of delay it will be possible to conduct these ordinations in a climate of serenity and in a fully licit fashion under Canon Law. So as to justify such a hope, Mgr. Lefebvre would need to receive certain assurances before 22 June. These assurances would need to deal with the following three points:


Copies of letters addressed by Mgr. Stimpfle to Archbishop Lefebvre on 14 and 17 June, together with this aide mémoire, were despatched to Cardinals Benelli, Ratzinger, and Villot. The correspondence was delivered to Cardinal Benelli by courier at 4:00 p.m. on June 18 June.

1. FOOTNOTE BY MICHAEL DAVIES. Note well that the Archbishop has such confidence in the validity of his criticisms of the texts in question that he is willing to bind himself in advance to accepting the decision of the Pontifical Commission, which, he is confident, is bound to uphold Tradition.

2. "From the day on which the definitive translations must be adopted in the celebrations in the vernacular languages, those who continue to use the Latin language must uniformly make use of the renewed texts, whether for the Mass or for the Liturgy of the Hours.” The text of the 14 June 1971 Notificatio, and a commentary on its legal status, is available in Pope Paul’s New Mass, pp. 560-563.

The following report appeared in the 30 June issue of the Swiss daily, Nouvelliste:


The Archbishop’s Sermon

When I am asked if I propose to ordain these young men who are going in for the priesthood, and those who, with them, wish to become subdeacons in preparation for the priesthood, I can answer in all conscience, fully responsible, before God, before the Church of all time, before the Church triumphant, before the Church suffering, before the Church militant, which you are, my dear Brethren (you are the Church Militant) - before that whole Church I answer: YES.

I am going to ordain these young candidates for the priesthood who have been preparing themselves for long years so as to understand what the priesthood is. They have studied, prayed and reflected; and today they ask me that they be ordained priests, priests for eternity; for that, God willing, is indeed what they will be in a few minutes.

Priests for eternity! Priests as the Church has always made them, priests such as the Church loves, priests such as you, the faithful, love. For these priests know what they are: they are witnesses, witnesses of the Faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They will respond to the appeal of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Apostles when he said: Euntes docete omnesgentes baptizantes eos et docentes eos quaecumque mandavi vobis-"Go, teach all nations, baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Teach them-these nations, all the world-teach them what I have commanded you.”

And what was Our Lord's command to these priests? He said to them; Hoc tacite in meam commemorationem. He said to His Apostles: "Re-do what I have done, that is, remake My Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of the Mass; remake this Sacrament of the Eucharist by which I give My Body, My blood, My Soul and My Divinity in communion to those who received Me." Our Lord said also to them; Accipite Spiritum Sanctum. “Receive the Holy Ghost...whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” That is what the bishop will shortly say, at the end of the Mass, with another laying on of hands.

It is such priests that I desire to ordain, those who know what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is, the Mass which is the heart of the Faith, the summary and synthesis of all we believe. For in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is the affirmation, the profession of faith in Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His divinity: the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass there is an affirmation of the whole Decalogue, and a realization of the Decalogue-a realization by the love of God which is manifested by Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself in His offering of Himself to His Father, giving all His blood for those whom He wills to save, giving Himself as food to His neighbor, His brethren.

Can there be a greater act of love than to give one's life for those whom one loves? That is what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass teaches us: Our Lord gives His life for those whom He loves, for His Father, His Father whom He has so much loved from all eternity; and then for His brethren for whom He gives Himself-He gives His blood. That is what the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass teaches us-love of God, love of our neighbor. So in our Sacrifice of the Mass our whole religion is realized.

But, it will be said, how can you proceed with these ordinations? How can you admit them and perform them when you have received a prohibition from the Holy Father, whose messengers have been sent to you imploring you not to perform these ordinations?

Yes, that is true. It is true that I have received a letter, a letter which says that I am using my power for a personal end and not for the good of the Church. Well, in all sincerity, I do not think so: I do not think I am acting for a personal end: I am here, I think, - to act well for the good of the Church. The letter says also that what I am doing will mean breaking with the communion and the charity of the Church. But I think not. I am in full communion with the Holy Catholic and Roman Church. I wish to remain in full communion with the Holy Catholic and Roman Church.

But what is the Pope? What is the Vatican? What is the Holy See? What are they?

Why did Our Lord Jesus Christ institute Saint Peter as the head of the Church? What did He require of Saint Peter? - "Keep the faith, and keep it for the others." And the Vatican which is nothing else but the residence of the successor of the apostles is not destined for any other purpose. The Holy Roman Church is the mother and mistress of all truth: Mater et Magistra omnium ecclesiarum magistra veritatis. And if is just that for which we ask. At our baptism we asked for it from the Church. Our godparents asked for it in our name when we were carried to the baptismal font. What was the first word the priest said to us when we were infants and could not speak for ourselves, and to which our godparents replied? “What do you ask of the Church of God?" That was the question the priest put to our godparents: What do you ask of the Church of God? We ask for faith. That was what our godparents answered. And now we too ask from the Church, or from those who say they are of the Church, those occupying important posts in the Church, those responsible for that faith - we ask them: "Preserve the Faith for us, give us the Faith. That Catholic Faith is what we want. We want no other.”

“Why do you ask for Faith?" the priest said to our godparents. "We want Faith because Faith brings us to Eternal Life.”

Why are we here below unless to gain Eternal Life? We have no other purpose here below except to gain Eternal Life; life on earth is a fleeting life, an ephemeral life-a few days, few years, a few decades. We have to choose if we want Eternal Life-Yes or No. We want Eternal Life, and for that we want the Catholic Faith. But we are compelled to state that for fifteen or twenty years those with the highest authority in the Church, the Holy See and the Vatican, have been turning away, turning us away from the Catholic Faith and have become the friends of our enemies.

What is left of the Catholic Church today? Seminaries closed, up for sale...The one at Sion, for example, here, quite close to us, in a flourishing diocese like Sion, with the strong faith of the Valais Catholics: the seminary is up for sale. At Martigny the seminary of the Canons of the Great Saint Bernard is closed. The seminary of the Capuchins at Sion: closed. When I came here to Ecône to ask Mgr. Adam to authorize the opening of this seminary, he said to me: "A year of training in the spiritual life, that is surely possible; but there is rather more difficulty for a seminary, as we already have three in Valais: two at Sion, one at Martigny." The very next year he told me: "You may open your seminary." A year later, the other three seminaries were closed. What does that mean? It is not I who closed them. It is not I who want them closed! I should much prefer to be telling you that the Sion seminaries are full of seminarians, that the one in Martigny is full. I wish I could state that as a fact: that is what I should like for the sake of the Church. Do I want the Church to die? Far be it from me to think such a thing!

That is happening throughout the Church, and that, for the Church, is the crucial point: seminaries and the formation of seminarians, the formation of future priests. For even in the seminaries which still exist what sort of formation is given to our priests, to those who will be our priests? Do they still truly believe in the Eucharist, do they believe in the Real Presence of Our Lord? Do they believe in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? That is the question we have serious ground for asking. They no longer know what it is to be a priest.

The Archbishop of Cincinnati said that, in Rome itself during the Synod: "It is clear that the priest has lost his identity." What does that mean? The priest no longer knows what he is. So then, we want to form priests who know what they are, who know that they are made for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to carry the Gospel and proclaim the Gospel, that is to say, to proclaim the catechism which we all learned, which our parents learned, and our grandparents and our ancestors; that is, Faith in the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ and in His reign.

One of the most painful facts we have to affirm today is precisely the official denial of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer wanted to rule over societies; and that can be seen in the transformation of the liturgy: in the hymn of Christ the King for the Feast of Christ the King the two strophes which speak of the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over society and the family have been suppressed. Why is that? Today, are we, Christians, Catholics, going to deny the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over our families, our societies? We should be renegades, apostates! We want the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. We say so every day in the Our Father-"Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." Are we going to deny Our Father?

We want Our Lord Jesus Christ to reign because it is He who will bring happiness - true happiness, true justice, true peace, true charity, the veritable union of all men. It is Our Lord alone who is the leaven of that charity. To the extent that people move away from Him there is dissension, hatred, division, war. We need that reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

But what do we see? What do we see? No need to talk of what is said: I speak of what is done, publicly, officially, spread through the world by the press and all the means of social communication. The most recent happening is the reception of Kadar at the Vatican, Kadar who has shed the blood of Catholics, of Hungarians. Those who keep the Catholic Faith are excommunicated, but the enemies of the Church are received into communion. That communion is possible because the excommunication has been lifted, the excommunication which existed and which has been lifted from communists, freemasons, the Orthodox. Why kiss the feet of schismatics and heretics? Why embrace heretics, schismatics, communists, freemasons?

I no longer understand it. I no longer understand it! This is not our Church! This is no longer our Catholic Church! It is no longer our Catholic Faith. I want to be and to stay Catholic. So why am I required to suppress our seminary? Why am I required to suppress our Sacerdotal Fraternity of Saint Pius X? Why am I required not to perform these ordinations? There is only one reason: to bring me into line with this policy. They want me to lend a hand in this destruction of the Church, to join in this communion which, for the Church is adultery. I will not be an adulterer. I will keep my Catholic Faith!

That is why I refuse. I refuse to collaborate in the destruction of the Church. I refuse to collaborate in loss of faith, in the general apostasy. I know perfectly well that if I do not perform these ordinations, if I stop, I shall be given nothing. I know that perfectly well. I can tell you here that a fortnight ago I made an offer: let us have our Mass of Saint Pius V public and official; let there be permission to say it in any church freely and without difficulty; in all the dioceses of the world let us be free to say the Mass of Saint Pius V, that is, the Mass of all time - it is not "Saint Pius V's Mass," it is the Mass of all time. So allow us to say the Mass of all time freely and officially in all churches; and also allow a commission in Rome where I can be permitted to discuss texts of the Council, texts which are either openly contrary to Catholic doctrine or at least equivocal; let me discuss them publicly and officially with the Commission for the Interpretation of the Council.

Had that been granted, I was ready to postpone the ordinations for two months. The letter answering me said: "These propositions are unacceptable." It is clear, therefore, that they do not wish to discuss the texts of the Council: those must be accepted as they stand, that is, with their errors and their ambiguities; and we must also accept all the reforms, for the liturgical reform involves all the other reforms. That rejection of what has been done for twenty centuries in the Latin Church implies the refusal to preserve for us our age-old Catholic Faith.

That is why I do not hesitate. I do not hesitate to continue. I cannot escape the thought that those who are undertaking the destruction of the Church, the destruction of our Faith, are contributing to that general apostasy. I can give you an example; yesterday - no later than yesterday - I received the translation of a document emanating from 185 theologians of the diocese of Rothenburg in Germany, 185 theologians who came together and produced a document which says: "For us, from now on, there is no difference between a pastor and a priest: we accept the evangelical supper; we agree about the function of the pastor; we want there to be no difference any more between ourselves and the pastors.” That letter was written to "the National Evangelical Church” of Germany, 185 priests! Is not that a sign of general apostasy? I cannot collaborate with that destruction. I think – I cannot help but think-of what Our Lord Jesus Christ said in His Gospel: "In the sheep-fold, against the flock of the Church, there will be hirelings, robbers and wolves.”

Those are the three groups mentioned by Our Lord Jesus Christ as destroyers of the flock of the Church: hirelings, wolves and robbers. I cannot help thinking that inside the Church there are hirelings, wolves and robbers. Are we to lend a hand to these hirelings, these wolves, these robbers? We cannot do it. But, we may be asked, what is to become of us? Well, I will tell you quite simply what is to become us: our future is our past. To know what our future will be, we look at our past; and, confident of being in communion with the whole past of the Church, we are sure of our future.

There you have what I think we must affirm. We must say it because it is what the Apocalypse says: Jesus Christus, heri, hodie, et in saecula-"Jesus Christ, yesterday, today and forever.” So if we separate ourselves from Our Lord Jesus Christ of yesterday, we shall not be with Our Lord Jesus Christ of today or Our Lord Jesus Christ of tomorrow. That is my conclusion. I ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to help me in my ministry which I am performing, and to ensure that these young priests are really her children, that they have her faith and her love of Our Lord Jesus Christ and her love of their neighbor. May Our Lady guard them in their ministry to their last breath. In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.



Vatican Radio Communiqué

The 30 June edition of the Tribune de Genève reported an official reaction on Vatican Radio stating that the Archbishop had acted "in defiance of his suspension a divinis and repeated exhortations by Pope Paul VI himself, begging him to refrain from this very grave act of disobedience to ecclesial authority, and of making the break final." The statement summarized the terms of earlier declarations and official communiqués.



1. FOOTNOTE BY MICHAEL DAVIES. Eyewitnesses have assured me that there were at least 7,000 people present

The 29 July 1977 edition of the National Catholic Reporter carried the news of the reconsecration of Queen of Angels Church in Dickinson, Texas. The local bishop had sold the building in the belief that it would be demolished to make way for a parking lot. He was extremely indignant when he learned that it was to be used as a church again. Built in the Spanish Colonial style, it had been restored fully to its former beauty, and was reconsecrated by the Archbishop on 10 July 1977. It now forms the center of one of the most successful traditionalist "parishes" in the world, and is also the location of The Angelus Press-the official English-language Publishers and Editor for Archbishop Lefebvre and the International Society of St. Pius X. Hundreds of thousands of books and pamphlets explaining the traditionalist Catholic caused have been printed in Dickinson and distributed throughout the world.

The Reporter article mentioned that:

It then referred to the fact that the Archbishop had been refused entry to Mexico. This incident is not without some ironic humor. According to the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty the State should not prevent any individual expressing his religious views in public. Indeed, State interference is condemned by this document (see Volume I, Appendix IV). But, according to the Reporter: " A spokesman for Mexico's Interior Ministry said the government consulted on Lefebvre's visit 'with several sectors, especially the Mexican bishops,' according to wire service reports." This report seems to confirm a long article in the 20 July 1977 issue of the French daily L 'Aurore, claiming that the Vatican had launched a massive diplomatic effort to minimize the effect of the Archbishop's visit to South America. It stated that furnished with messages from Cardinal Villot, the Apostolic Nuncios in South America visited governments and national hierarchies demanding that the Archbishop should not be allowed to pass ("Mot d'ordre: Mgr. Lefebvre ne doit pas passer"). The same article also reported a second Vatican campaign, emissaries of the Pope pretending to be sympathetic to the traditionalist cause, had visited Econe, obtained details of seminarians and their families, and then pressured the families into persuading the seminarians to leave.¹ It claimed that a dozen had done so.

Mexico was the only country which actually prevented the Archbishop from entering, but difficulties were placed in his way in other countries by the State authorities, and he was subjected to a veritable tirade of abuse from spokesmen for national hierarchies. Some idea of this invective can be gained from a report in The Citizen (Ottawa), 16 August 1977:
After visiting Colombia and Brazil, the Archbishop arrived in Chile. The following report appeared in The Times (London) on 19 July 1977:


The Archbishop next went to Argentina.

Unfortunately, among those supporting him during his visit to Argentina were members of fascist and anti-semitic organizations. It was explained in Volume I that the Archbishop has never been associated with any right-wing political movement, and that if members of such movements give him public support or distribute literature outside buildings in which he is present there is nothing he can do about it. Not surprisingly, the Archbishop's enemies used the support of these fascists as an excuse to brand him with their opinions. The report in The Citizen (Ottawa), which was very hostile to the Archbishop, admitted that he and his permanent entourage were appalled by some of the views expressed by the fascist groups. The committee which had sponsored his visit issued a statement saying that the Archbishop "is not an ex-Nazi, is not anti-Semitic nor anti anything else. He is only preaching the traditional doctrine of the Church."

The following report on his visit to Argentina appeared in the 7 August 1977 issue of The National Catholic Register:


1. The relevant section of the article reads, in French; "La seconde offensive, plus secèrte encore, se déroule à Ecône même. Des émissaires du pape, envoyés en observateurs, et qui se montrent au début plutôt bienveillants à I'égard de I'exérience 'traditionaliste,' passent en revue les séminaristes, contactent leurs familles, et, progressivement, s'efforcent de les ramener dans le 'droit chemin' de I'Eglise."

My dear brothers, my dear friends:

It is kind of Providence that this day of return to the seminary should coincide with the anniversary of my episcopal consecration which took place on September 18, 1947, in my native city. At the request of friends we are celebrating this anniversary in a special way.

In the breviary this morning we read the lesson of Tobias. It was said that the young Tobias, finding himself surrounded by the men of his race, the Jews, adoring a golden calf which had been set up by the King of Israel himself, went faithfully to the temple to offer the sacrifices God had demanded. He was thus faithful to the law of God.

Well, we hope that we too have been faithful to God, faithful to Our Lord Jesus Christ. Later on, Tobias was among the prisoners sent to Ninive and there, the Scripture says, while all his compatriots did homage to the pagan cult, he continued to hold to the truth, retinuit omnem veritatem. He held to the whole truth. I believe this is the lesson Holy Scripture has for us and I hope that we, too, remain faithful as Tobias did, both in his youth and in his captivity Is it not true that we today are in a certain sense in captivity, restraint surrounding us on all sides, imposed on us by those who bow to error both in the world and inside the Church itself? By those who juggle with the truth and who keep truth hidden instead of proclaiming it; we are in a world enslaved by the devil, enslaved by error.

But it is our wish to hold to truth. We want to continue to proclaim it. What then, is this truth? Do we have a monopoly on it? Are we so presumptuous as to say we have the truth, others do not? No, truth does not belong to us. It does not come from us, it was not invented by us. This truth was transmitted to us, it was given to us. It is written. It is living in the Church and in the whole history of the Church. This truth is known. It is in the books, in the catechisms, in all the acts of the councils, in all the acts of the sovereign pontiffs. It is in our Creed, in our Ten Commandments, in the gifts that God has made to us, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments. It is not we who invented this truth. We have only to persevere in it.

Because truth has an eternal character. The truth we profess is God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is God and God does not change. God remains immutable. It was St. Paul who said "vicissitudinis obumbratio." There is not a shadow of vicissitude in Him, not the shadow of changeability. God is unalterable, semper idem, always the same. Certainly He is the source of everything that changes but He, Himself, is unalterable, unchangeable. And by the fact that we profess God as truth we will enter in some way into eternity through truth. We have no right to change that truth. Indeed it cannot be changed. It will never change.

Men have been put on earth to receive a little of that light of eternity as it descends on them. They become in some way eternal themselves, immortal; but according to the extent to which they attach themselves to the things that change, to moving things, they move away from God. And here it is that we feel a need. All men feel this need. They have in them an immortal soul which is already now in eternity, a soul which will be happy or unhappy, but it is a soul that exists. It will not die.

Every man who is born, who has a soul has entered into eternity. That is why we have need of eternal things, of the true eternity, which is God. We cannot do without it. It is part of our lives. It is what is most essential to us. That is why men seek the truth, seek the eternal, because they have an essential need of eternity.

And what are the means by which Our Lord has given us eternity, communicated it to us, made eternity enter into our lives even here below? Often when I was going through the African countries on my diocesan visits I chose a theme that was dear to me and very simple, too. You have heard it many times but for the simple people I spoke to it summed up the truth. Asking what are the gifts the Good God has given us which make us participants in the divine life, eternal life, I would answer: there are three great gifts which God has made us and they are the Pope, the Blessed Virgin and the Eucharistic Sacrifice.



The Pope

In reality it is an extraordinary gift that God has made us in giving us the Pope, in giving us the Successors of Peter, giving us precisely this perpetuity in truth, communicated to us through the Successors of Peter, that must be communicated to us through them. And it seems inconceivable that a Successor of Peter could fail in any way to transmit the truth that he is obliged to transmit. Indeed, without virtually disappearing from the line of succession he cannot fail to communicate that which the popes have always communicated, the Deposit of Faith which does not belong to him alone.

The Deposit of Faith does not belong to the Pope. It is the treasure of truth which has been taught during twenty centuries. He must transmit it faithfully and exactly to all those under him who are charged in turn to communicate the truth of the Gospel. He is not free.

But should it happen because of mysterious circumstances which we cannot understand, which baffle our imagination, which go beyond our conception, if it should happen that a pope, he who is seated on the throne of Peter, comes to obscure in some way the truth which it is his duty to transmit or if he does not transmit it faithfully or allows error to darken truth or hide it in any way, then we must pray to God with all our hearts, with all our soul, that light continues to be thrown on that which he is charged to transmit.

And we cannot follow error, change truth, just because the one who is charged with transmitting it is weak and allows error to spread around him. We don't want the darkness to encroach on us. We want to live in the light of truth. We remain faithful to that which has been taught for two thousand years. That what has been taught for two thousand years and which is part of eternity could change is inconceivable.

Because it is eternity which has been taught to us. It is the eternal God, Jesus Christ eternal God, and everything which is centered on God is centered on eternity. Never can the Trinity be changed. Never can the redemptive work of Christ through the Cross and the Sacrifice of the Mass be changed. These things are eternal; they belong to God. How can someone here below change those things? Who is the priest who feels he has the right to change those things, to modify them? Impossible!

When we possess the past we possess the present and we possess the future. Because it is impossible, I say, metaphysically impossible, to separate the past from the present and the future. Impossible! Then God would no longer be God! God would no longer be eternal! God would no longer be immutable! And there would be nothing more to believe in. We would be completely in error.

This is why, without worrying about all that is happening around us in these times, we ought to close our eyes to the horror of this drama we are living through, close our eyes and affirm our Creed, our Ten Commandments, meditate on the Sermon on the Mount, which is also our law. We must attach ourselves to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, to the Sacraments awaiting the light that will shine around us again. That is all. We must do this without becoming bitter or violent in a spirit that is unfaithful to Our Lord. Let us stay charitable. Let us pray, suffer, accept all the trials, everything that happens, everything that God sends us. Let us do as Tobias did. Abandoned by everyone as they went to adore the golden calf of the gods of the pagans, he remained faithful. Still, he too could have thought that, since only he remained faithful it might be that he was mistaken. But, no, he knew that whatever God had taught to his forebears could not change. The truth of God existed and could not change. And so it is with us. We too have to rely upon the truth that is God yesterday, today and tomorrow. Jesus Christus heri, hodie, et in saecula.

And that is why I say we must retain our confidence in the papacy. We must retain confidence in the Successor of Peter insofar as he is the successor of Peter. But if it should happen that he were not perfectly faithful in his duties, then we must remain faithful to those who were the successors of Peter and not to him who is not the successor of Peter. That is all. His duty is to transmit the Deposit of Faith.



The Blessed Virgin

The second gift is that of the Blessed Virgin Mary .She has never changed. Is it possible to imagine that the Blessed Virgin Mary could change in her attitude to the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, her divine Son, toward the Sacrifice of the Cross, toward the work of our redemption? Is it possible to imagine that the Blessed Virgin Mary could change one iota of her faith, that she could have had doubts at some period of her life, that she could have thought herself mistaken? That she could have doubted the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ, doubted the Blessed Trinity, she who was filled with the Holy Ghost? Impossible! Inconceivable!

Here below she was already in eternity. The Blessed Virgin Mary, through her faith, an unchangeable, profound faith, could not be disturbed in any way. That is evident. Do not let us be disturbed by the noises around us but keep faithful, faithful like the Blessed Virgin Mary. And I want to add to this subject of the Blessed Virgin Mary something which seems to me to be important for us at this time in which we live. Continuously we are told the Virgin says this or says that. The Virgin has appeared here, the Virgin has communicated this message to that person. Of course, we do not rule out the possibility that a word of the Blessed Virgin could be addressed to persons of her choice. That is evident. But considering the kind of period we are living through, we must be suspicious. We must mistrust.

The place of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the theology of the Church is, in my estimation, infinitely sufficient to make us love her above everyone after Our Lord Jesus Christ, and that we should have toward her a devotion which is profound and continuous day after day. It is not necessary that we have constant recourse to messages about which we cannot be absolutely certain whether they come from the Blessed Virgin or not: I am not speaking of the apparitions which have been recognized by the Church. But we must be very careful when it comes to rumors that circulate everywhere today. All the time I am receiving people or communications which are said to be addressed to me from the Blessed Virgin or from Our Lord - a message received here, another there. Whereas in fact we should hope the Blessed Virgin is with us every day.

And she is. We know that. She is with us. She is present at every Sacrifice of the Mass. She cannot separate herself from the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our devotion to the Blessed Virgin ought to be profound, perfect. But it should not have to depend on private messages.



The Eucharistic Sacrifice

God, Jesus Christ, has given us Himself in the Eucharist. What more beautiful thing could He do? I often say to the seminarians: if the Priestly Society of St. Pius X has a particular spirituality - and I do not really want it to have one, although I do not criticize the founders of Orders like St. Ignatius, Sts. Dominic and Vincent de Paul, who I know wanted to give particular characters to their societies, characters without doubt willed by Providence at the moment they were founded – I think that if there is a particular mark to our Society, it is devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

How our spirits, our hearts, our bodies are as if captivated by the great mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass! And it is in proportion to how we deepen our understanding of the great mystery of the Sacrifice of the Mass that we understand the priesthood, the grandeur of the priesthood. Because it is intimately, I say metaphysically, bound up with the Sacrifice of the Mass. And this is of the greatest importance in these times.

We have need of this, my dear friends. You have need of being captured by this spirituality of the Mass. Not only the priests, but also our religious, our brothers, our nuns, and all of the laity, all of you faithful here present. We must have for the Sacrifice of the Mass a devotion greater than ever before because it is the very foundation stone of our faith.

I hardly dare cite for you an example, something that happened in Chile during the three days I spent there. Still, because the idea occurs to me, I will indeed tell you, if only to show the point of degradation the concept of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has reached in the minds of some of the highest members of the hierarchy. During my stay in Chile a concelebration was televised. It was presided over by the Auxiliary Bishop of Santiago. I myself did not see the screening but it was described to me by many people who saw it. There were some fifteen to twenty priests concelebrating with him. During the ceremony the Auxiliary Bishop explained to the faithful, that is, everyone who was looking at the television, that it was a meal and he saw no reason why one should not smoke during a meal. And he himself smoked during that concelebration!

That is how far things have reached. This is the sad state of degradation, of sacrilege a bishop can attain. It is unheard of, inconceivable! Penance must be done for years in reparation for such offenses, for such unimaginable scandal! It serves to show how far one can go when one no longer believes.

We must be attached to the Sacrifice of the Mass as to the apple of our eye; as we are attached to that which is dearest to us, that which is the most respected, the most holy, the most sacred, the most divine. That is the meaning of this seminary.

They may criticize the seminary in any way they like; and they do! The seminary is this way, that way. They have decided this about it, that about it. But, in fact, they decide nothing, change nothing. The seminary stays as it is. It continues to be what it is because that was why it was founded. The seminary remains a Catholic seminary. And if God gives me life, the seminary will not change. I would rather die than change any part of the Catholic doctrine which must be taught in the seminary. With the grace of God, come what may, we will not change. So let them say what they will. Let them say that the seminary has a new direction, the seminary is this way or that. It is the devil who says such things in order to destroy the seminary. Obviously he cannot tolerate Catholic priests who have the Faith.

And then, one cannot avoid speaking about it, all around us here and there in every country, but particularly in France, there are divisions among those who are trying to hold to the faith, a mixture of calumny, slander, exaggerated words, foolish expressions, unjustified suppositions. Let us ignore it all. Let us instead work well, doing the will of God, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church, continuing like our predecessors and our ancestors, doing what the Council of Trent asked of us, bishops, who must continue the formation which has always been given to priests. If we do this we will be certain that we are remaining faithful.



Let us Remain Faithful

That is enough. Let us remain calm. Let us remain faithful. And if it should ever come to be that the faith is not taught here, then leave me. If, my dear seminarians, I do not teach you Catholic truth, then leave! Do not stay here. That is your duty. But, if I teach the Catholic Faith-and you have the whole library at your disposal to find out whether or not what was handed to us is being handed down to you-then, be confident. And we will do everything so that the Catholic Faith continues to be taught here, taught in its entirety so that you too can carry on that truth that is so full of grace and life. Truth is the source of life. We have need of that life. The faithful are hungry for it. Why is it we have request for priests from all sides? Because the faithful are thirsty for truth, thirsty for the grace of God, for the supernatural life, thirsty for that eternity toward which we are heading.

Therefore, have confidence in what the Church has always done – not confidence in Mgr. Lefebvre. I am a poor man like the others. I have no pretension to be better than others. On the contrary, I do not know why .God has permitted me to have thirty years in the episcopate. I think that if I were to judge things on a human plane, I would have preferred to remain a missionary in the jungles of Gabon; in isolation. I would not have had all the problems I have had in my thirty years in the episcopate. But God has wanted it this way. He continues to try us. Very well, if that is His will it must be and we must continue to carry the Cross. It is not because He imposes crosses that we may abandon Him. On the contrary, we may not abandon Our Lord. We must follow Him.

And so, my dear friends, be faithful - faithful to the Pope, successor of Peter, when he shows himself to be truly the successor of Peter. Because that is what a pope is and it is in this sense we have need of him. We are not the people who want to break with the authority of the church, with the successor of Peter. But neither are we people who want to break with twenty centuries of tradition in the Church, with twenty centuries of successors of Peter!

We have made our choice. We have chosen to be obedient in the real sense, obedient to what all the Popes have taught for twenty centuries and we cannot imagine that he who sits on Peter's throne does not want to teach these things. Well, if that is the case, then God will judge him. But we cannot go into error because there is a kind of rupture in the chain of the successors of Peter. We want to remain faithful to the successors of Peter who transmitted to us the Deposit of the Faith. It is in this sense that we are faithful to the Catholic Church, that we remain within it and can never go into schism. Since we are attached to twenty centuries of Faith we cannot make a schism. That is what guarantees for us the past, the present and the future. It is impossible to separate the past from the present and the future. Sustaining ourselves with the past, we are sure of the present and the future.

So have confidence ! Ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to help us under all circumstances. She is as strong as an army arrayed for battle. She who suffered as Queen of Martyrs at the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And will we not follow Our Blessed Mother and with her be ready to suffer martyrdom so that the work of redemption can continue?