Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume Two

Introduction to the Conference

This Introduction was read on 11 January at 10 o’clock, at the inauguration of the conference which was to run on into 12 January. At the interview those present were His Erninence Cardinal Seper, His Excellency Mgr. Harner, Secretary for the S.C. for the Doctrine of the Faith, R. Fr. Duroux, two other experts and a secretary.



Introduction by His Eminence the Cardinal Prefect

I thank Your Excellency for being willing to come to this meeting, the object and spirit of which I must now specify.

Our talks result from the mission entrusted to our Congregation by Pope Paul VI on 19 October 1976, which was confirmed by his two successors, Pope John Paul I and His Holiness John Paul II, that is to say, the examination of your case, not only under its doctrinal aspect but also under such disciplinary and pastoral aspects as it may have.

We have fulfilled this task according to the prescriptions of our Agendi ratio in doctrinarum examine of 15 January 1971. It is within that framework that I sent you, on 26 January and 22 March 1978, two letters of "contestation" to which you gave written replies on 28 February and 13 April of the same year. It is within that framework that this conference is taking place.

Our business is, in fact, the conference provided for in articles 13-15 of that Ratio agendi. It will help if I read the articles now.



1. We are acting at the level of the external forum, without entering that of your subjective intentions and your conscience.

2. We are not here to proceed to a judgment, nor even to make decisions, but to provide full information for those who have to judge and decide, that is to say, the Cardinals who are members of this Congregation and, in the last resort, the Sovereign Pontiff.

3. Our questions will be therefore limited, taking account of the two written answers you have already given; they are formulated for the purpose of clarification and are not intended to be controversial.

4. Your answers to these different questions will be written down, and the completed version will be submitted to you for approval and for any requests for rectification. When signed by yourself and by me they will constitute the only document receivable as evidence of this interview. It will be submitted to examination by the Cardinals of this Congregation and will be passed on to the Holy Father.

Let me add that silence and total discretion will surround all that happens in this reunion. All those participating in the name of the Congregation are, besides, bound to rigorous observance of pontifical secret (cf. Instruction of 4 February 1974, art. I, para. 3).

I should like to conclude by remarking that we should not confine ourselves to what is necessarily technical in this conference. It is meant as a stage in a process of reconciliation which is ardently desired; but I think it is an indispensable stage, for the reconciliation must be without ambiguity and it can only take place if there is absolute clarity.

It is on the basis of those reflections that I now wish to open the conference properly so called.




The answers to this "questionnaire" were first of all drawn up by the secretary after the interview. I was allowed to modify them as I liked.

The whole set of questions and answers had then to be signed by H.E. Cardinal Seper and by myself.

The answers published here are the corrected answers.¹



In a preliminary note (12 July 1976) to a letter addressed to the Holy Father, you wrote:
That idea is made explicit in the homily given on the preceding 29 June during the ordination Mass at Ecône:


QUESTION:

Are we to conclude from those statements that according to you, the Pope, promulgating and imposing the new Ordo Missae, and all the bishops who have received it, have founded and assembled visibly around them a new "Conciliar" Church radically incompatible with the Catholic Church?


I remark, first of all, that the expression "Conciliar Church" comes not from me but from H.E. Mgr. Benelli who, in an official letter, asked that our priests and seminarians should submit themselves to the "Conciliar Church."²



QUESTION:


ANSWER:

That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.



QUESTION:


ANSWER:

I admit that in the Proemium of the edition of 1970 the doctrine of the Council of Trent is expressed materially. But the fact that it had been necessary to make an addition shows clearly the incomplete character of the edition of 1969. Besides, the whole rite of Mass has remained just as it was in the edition of 1969.


QUESTION:

You have administered the sacrament of Confirmation in various dioceses against the will of the bishop of the place, sometimes even to children who had already received it. You justify these acts saying that the sacramental formula of the new Ordo Confirmationis is often badly translated or shortened, or even omitted, and that in certain dioceses Confirmation is no longer given.

a) In administering Confirmation which sacramental formula have you used yourself? (If Mgr. Lefebvre says he used the old one, ask him if he recognizes the new one as valid, and, if he says Yes, ask him why he did not use it.)


ANSWER:

To a) I used the old sacramental formula. But I recognize the validity of the new Latin formula. I use the old formula to meet the wishes of the faithful.

To b) "Salus animarum suprema lex" – the salvation of souls is the supreme law. I cannot refuse the sacrament to the faithful who ask me for it. It is at the request of the faithful, attached to Tradition, that I use the old sacramental formula, and also for safety's sake, keeping to formulas which have communicated grace for centuries with certainty.


QUESTION:

According to Catholic doctrine, it is forbidden to repeat the conferring of a sacrament which imprints a character if the minister is not certain of the invalidity of the sacramental rite conferred before or at least unless he has a prudens dubium of validity.


ANSWER:

I asked each of the parents and the children to find out if they had been confirmed and how it had been done. Most of the children had not been confirmed before. For those who had been I could have a prudent doubt of the validity of the sacrament they had received. I add that I give Confirmation only with reluctance, delaying as long as possible in the hope that the bishops will do it.


QUESTION:

The reiteration of a sacrament without there being at least a prudens dubium of validity is objectively speaking a serious lack of respect for sacramental worship.


ANSWER:



QUESTION:

In your answer of 13 April 1978 to the Sacred Congregation and, more explicitly, in your minor work Le coup de maitre de Satan, pp. 46-47, you maintain that the priests ordained by you now find themselves, in view of the present circumstances (the liturgical reform everywhere, bringing doubt of the validity of the sacraments), in that necessity in which Canon Law itself grants the jurisdictional powers required for the validity of the sacraments. Thus, referring to canons 882, 1098, and 2261, par. 2, you consider that they have the right to administer Baptism, Penance, Anointing of the sick and to receive the consent of spouses. That ministry is exercised in the priories you have founded on your own initiative in various dioceses.

a) Who are the auctores probati (approved authors) who share your interpretation of the above-mentioned canons?


ANSWER:

To a) In my interpretation I join together canon 882 and 2261 par. 2. For both of them I refer to the explanations given in Jones's treatise. It is a very broad interpretation but it is justified by an exceptional situation. One can see in these canons the maternal spirit of the Church which does not wish to leave souls in danger of eternal death.

To b) It may be thought that in a general way, in some countries, the hierarchy is not playing its part. There is no question of my founding a dissident community, but of ensuring that the Catholic Church continues on a basis of Canon Law and the great principles of theology.


QUESTION:

You have founded, or taken the responsibility for, religious communities which are independent of any regular authority; you have opened a Carmel (Quiévrain) and you are preparing to found a monastery of Cistercian monks; you admit auxiliary brothers and cooperators; you do not hesitate to receive religious professions.


ANSWER:

As for the Fraternity of St. Pius X, its statutes provide for the reception of auxiliary brothers and women religious.

As for the Carmel at Quiévrain, it is not I who founded it; it is an enterprise of my sister's who left her Carmel in Australia with the authorization of her Prioress to found another monastery.

I have not made a Cistercian foundation, nor do I foresee one.




QUESTION:

The "Pieuse Union" which bears the name "Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X" was erected 1 November 1970 by H.E. Mgr. François Charriére, Bishop of Fribourg.

a) Does the juridical statute of the Fraternity allow you to proceed to ordinations?


ANSWER:

To a) Initially, I think not. In any case, before 1976 the members of the Fraternity were incardinated in different dioceses. However, I began to have doubts, at first when H. E. Mgr. Adam told me that the Fraternity allowed me to incardinate (which I did not do at that time), and especially when Cardinal Antoniutti gave two priest religious an indult permitting them to enter the Fraternity straight from their religious order. That meant that the Sacred Congregation for Religious considered the Fraternity capable of incardinating. In any case, before 1976 I never proceeded to ordain without having dimissorial letters.

To b) No answer required.


QUESTION:

a) Before proceeding to the different diaconal and sacerdotal ordinations that you have done, but especially be- fore those of 29 June 1976, did you receive for all candidates the dimissorial letters required by law?


ANSWER:

To a) I have just answered affirmatively for the ordinations prior to 1976. I shall have to make sure about those on 29 June 1976. At present I consider the seminarians I ordain to be incardinated in the Fraternity.

To b) I reckon that all the measures that have been taken against me are illegal, and that consequently neither I nor the seminarians I ordain incur canonical penalties.


QUESTION:

Before proceeding to the ordinations on 29 June 1976, you were twice informed of the Holy Father's express wish that you should refrain from doing them.

a) That being so, on what provisions of the law do you base yourself to legitimize the ordinations you did on that day?


ANSWER:

I should first of all recall the reasons which make me think the measures taken against me to be illegal:

The decree of suppression of the Saint Pius X Fraternity should not have been issued by H.E. Mgr. Mamie but by Holy See.

I was not informed of any result or any act relating to the Apostolic Visitation of the Ecône Seminary.

The Commission of Cardinals before which I was summoned had neither a mandate nor a precise purpose; in spite of the promises made, I was refused the written account of the proceedings and the registration of the interviews.

I entered an appeal before the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura. Five days later, a letter from the Cardinal Secretary of State forbade that Tribunal to act on my appeal. That was pressure by the executive power on the judicial power.

For those reasons I could not consider valid the decisions taken in my regard.

To a) I therefore answer that I do not recognize as legal the measures taken against me. Moreover, I could not obey the will of the Holy See, for I could not verify what exactly was the will of the Holy Father.



QUESTION:

On the following 22 July you received official notification of the suspension a divinis declared against you by the Holy Father. That disciplinary measure forbade you to say Mass, administer the Sacraments, or preach. You did not submit to the new order you had received.

a) Abstracting from your subjective responsibility, and therefore from the censures which may or may not weigh on your conscience, do you admit that, in the external forum, you are under the penalty of suspension and therefore obliged to behave publicly as suspended?

b) If No, why not?


ANSWER:

To a) No, I do not admit that I am under the penalty of suspension, not even in the external forum.

To b) The reason is that all the measures taken against me (since November 1974) are illegal and invalid. The first measure is plainly so, and the others are only the consequences of the first.

To c) The scandal which exists is the destruction of the Church, and not what I do. I think on the contrary that my action has served the Church, prompting reactions to that destruction.


QUESTION:

The First Vatican Council defined that the Roman Pontiff has “a plenary and sovereign power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, not only in what pertains to faith and morals but also in what pertains to the discipline and government of the Church,” and this power is ordinary and immediate "over each and all of the pastors and the faithful" (DS, 3064).

a) Do you accept these assertions as a dogma of faith?


ANSWER:

To a) Yes.

To b) No, I do not think so if it is a question of errors in government and discipline. It is clear that one may not follow him in his errors, especially if they have consequences for the faith.

On the other hand, one must know if it is the Pope who commands. My uncertainty about the real will of the Pope is based on the fact that for a long time I was prevented from seeing Pope Paul VI, and that, when I met him, I found that he had been told calumnies against me.


QUESTION:

Do you not make a selection in the texts of Vatican II, rejecting not only disciplinary measures which trouble you but also doctrinal assertions which you consider contrary to the faith?

According to what principle do you decide what can be retained and what must be rejected?

Who decides in the last resort in the Church what is and what is not in conformity with Tradition?


ANSWER:

To 1) I am ready to sign a declaration accepting Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition. I consider that in certain texts there are things contrary to Tradition and to the Magisterium of the Church as it has previously expressed itself, notably in the Declaration on Religious Liberty.

To 2) According to Tradition.

• that the Second Vatican Council must be understood as a pastoral magisterium;

• that after this Council there have not been, on the part of the Pope or on the part of the Commission for the interpretation of the decrees of Vatican Council II, acts establishing an authentic elucidation of the conciliar texts, in particular those concerning religious liberty.
  

To 4) I do not think so. However, if my criticisms have seemed stronger after the Council, it is because of its application in reforms which have confirmed the fears of interpretation of the texts of the Council in a Liberal and progressive sense.

I may have used somewhat exaggerated expressions in my addresses, but their literary genre must be kept in mind. But nobody should be forbidden to criticize a text, even if, in so doing, he indirectly attacks the authorities. It is the authorities who ought to give a fuller explanation of the texts of the Council in the sense of Tradition. Finally, I do not divide Catholics. I think it is the Council which has been the occasion for the divisions already existing in the Church to show themselves in a crucial way.


QUESTION:

Canon 1325, par .2, which treats of schism, runs as follows: “After being baptized, if anyone (…) refuses to be the subject to the Supreme Pontiff or to be in communion with the members of the Church subject to him, he is schismatic."


ANSWER:

I do not refuse to be subject to the Sovereign Pontiff. The best proof of that is my recent visit to the Holy Father and my presence here. I think I am allowed, as many others have done in the course of history, to show that I have reservations about some decisions of the Pope and the Roman Curia. But I do that out of love for the Church and the Successor of Peter, hoping that things will come right quickly; and I do not consider myself as a leader. If papal infallibility is not involved, a bishop’s public presentation of his difficulties does not constitute an act of rebellion if he is relying on Tradition. The difficulties that I raise about the whole of the liturgical reform take account of the fact that Pope Paul VI considered it to be a disciplinary reform.


QUESTION:

In your letter of 13 April 1978 to the Sacred Congregation you enclosed "General considerations on the state of the Church since Vatican Council II which alone permit of an adequate reply to the questions asked about the Ordo Missae, our continuation of the activity of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X in spite of the interdictions received from the bishops and from Rome."

On the basis of those considerations, it seems to us that your position can be stated in the following thesis:

A bishop, judging in conscience that the Pope and the Episcopate are in general no longer using their authority to ensure the faithful an exact transmission of the faith, may legitimately, so as to maintain the Catholic faith, ordain priests without being a diocesan bishop, without having received dimissorial letters and against the formal and express prohibition of the Pope, and may assign to those priests the exercise of the ecclesiastical ministry in different dioceses.

a) Does that thesis state your position correctly?


ANSWER:³

To a) No. I have not acted, starting from a principle like that one. It is the facts, the circumstances in which I found myself, which compelled me to take certain positions, and in particular the fact that I had in the Fraternity of St. Pius X a work already legally constituted which I had to continue.

To b) I think that history can furnish examples of similar acts done, in certain circumstances, not against but aside from the will of the Pope. But this question is too serious and too important to be answered at once. I prefer, therefore, to postpone my answer.




QUESTION:

How do you envisage the return to a normal state of affairs of yourself and of the priests, seminarians and faithful who count on you?

What you reckon you can ask and hope for:
a) from the Holy See: in what concerns your seminaries, your priories, and the celebration of the Mass of Saint Pius V?
b) from the bishops and from the episcopal conferences dependent on them?
What are you ready to do, yourself, to that end? What undertakings are you prepared to subscribe?
a) in what concerns the works established by you, notably the seminaries and the priories?

ANSWER:

To 1) a) The Fraternity of St. Pius X includes both seminaries and priories; its purpose is to found seminaries (in the spirit of the Council, that is to say, international seminaries with a view to better distribution of the clergy, and with a whole year of spirituality),⁴ to train priests, to give spiritual help to priests and to open houses for spiritual exercises. I should hope to obtain that this Fraternity be recognized as a society of common life without vows, directly under the Pope, and dependent on the Sacred Congregation for Religious. That implies that I ask for the continuance of both seminaries and priories: the priories, purposely established in the countryside, are meant to be at the disposition of the bishops chiefly for the apostolate of spiritual exercises and the spiritual support of priests. I shall send you a copy of the statutes of the Fraternity. Finally, with regard to the liturgy, I ask that the members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X:

• may use for the celebration of Mass the Ordo of St. Pius V, it being understood that they will celebrate only according to that;
  

• may use the old liturgical rites;
  

• and in particular may be ordained according to the old rite of ordination, which includes the tonsure and minor orders.
  

To 1) b) I am prepared to go and see the bishops of those where the Fraternity has a foundation. I expect from them a recognition of the priories according to Canon Law, the acceptance of the ministry performed by the members of the Fraternity living there.

To 2) a) I am prepared to subscribe the undertakings imposed by Law, without asking for special privileges. I can accept transitory phase, including the nomination of an Apostolic Delegate.

To 2) b) As I said above (under ~IV, 1) I am ready to sign a declaration accepting Vatican Council II interpreted according to Tradition. As to my teaching on the Mass, it can only be what is in conformity with the traditional Magisterium of the Church. As to my behavior, on the hypothesis of normalization, I shall conform myself to the prescriptions of the Law. Moreover, I can accept to suspend ordinations and confirmations for several months if I can be certain of a favorable response to the foregoing request. That proposition is one that I have already made in the past.







1. On the signing and delivery of these answers, see the Explanatory Note on p. 301.

2. See Apologia, Vol. I, p. 199.

3. Mgr. Lefebvre’s first oral reply was: You are setting a trap for me!

4. See Apologia, Vol. I, P. 445 for the testimony of Cardinal Wright to the effect that the society of St. Pius X conformed to the end proposed by Vatican Council II for the distribution of the clergy in the world

See these future priests, these seminarians, see all of these religious who are here, present from diverse congregations, of diverse nationalities. I should make allusion to our dear Carmelites who are most certainly united with us in heart but who are not able to come for they have the cloister and they desire to keep the cloister. They are with us and they pray for us; and all those religious who are absent and were not able to come today, but who are united in heart and prayer with us. All that is the Church. And you, dearest faithful, who are present, you represent also the Christian families – Catholic families – who defend their faith and do not want to allow themselves to be invaded by error, by heresy, by immorality, by the removal of faith in God and of Catholic morals. All this is a great testimony.

Ecône – it is the faith of the Church. Ecône – it is the moral of the Church. Ecône forces itself to be the holiness of the Church and I will add, without fear, this term which in certain ears will create a certain emotion, that Ecône has the politics of the Church; for the Church has politics. The Church knows what Christian society is. The Church forged it; she formed it during the course of the centuries. During nearly twenty centuries the Church has inspired Christian Europe – Catholic Europe. She has directed it. She has directed all of society which was otherwise oriented. Its justice was other than that in which we live today because the Church has her principle – eternal principles –principles of her faith and her faith is nothing other than Our Lord Jesus Christ: the living Son of God, as St Peter expressed it, he who was worthy to be the founding Rock of the church, “Thou art Christ, the son of the living God.”

Christ, the Son of the living God, has shown us that which it was necessary to do and in particular by His Cross, by His Priesthood, by His immolation on the Cross, by all of His Blood poured forth; He has shown us that to be the Son of God, to be Catholic, is to have the heart filled with charity, filled with love, and to be ready to give one’s life for others.

Our Lord Jesus Christ has shown us this example and He shows it continually upon the altar. The altar is nothing other than the place of sacrifice; the altar of sacrifice where love immolates itself; the charity and that which manifests it, and which gives the grace to practice this charity from whence the utility of the priesthood. The Church is not able to put aside the priest because if there were no priest there would no longer be the Sacrifice of the Mass, there would no longer be the Sacrifice of the Cross. There would no longer be this source, this source of love, of charity which so remarkably expresses itself in the sacrifice of Our Lord. We see Him with His heart pierced, His head bowed, His hands and feet also pierced – all this by love for us. This is the sacrifice of the altar. Thus this magnificent example is a source of charity, a source of the Holy Ghost who “invades” us when we receive Holy Communion – the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

There is then the lesson which the Church gives us, there is that which the Church thinks and there is what she has done through the course of the centuries.

Thus Ecône continues. Ecône continues the Church with the same principles, with the same faith, with the same charity, with the same convictions and we are persuaded of this – filled with the same spirit of Our Lord Jesus Christ who has manifested Himself in all of the holiness of the Church through the course of the centuries.

Why then this situation of Ecône? A situation which, let us hope, will soon be resolved for the greater good of the Church? It is that the citadel of Satan has established itself in opposition to the church, and today has high hopes of gaining a victory which appears imminent. All is organized. All is prepared to crush the Church, to make it disappear, to make the name of Our Lord disappear, to make the priesthood disappear, to make the Faith disappear. All is ready because for centuries Satan has prepared for it.

He has prepared it in his secret meetings which have given as foundation of their legislation – opposed to the legislation of the Church, opposed to the legislation of love – the celebration of the Rights of Man in 1789 and 1948.

They are identical, both, and they may be translated simply: the right to despise the rights of others, the right of charity, the right to no longer fulfill one’s duties, the right of force. There is this declaration and we see its deplorable results – physical force. The force of an army which invades a country as all the communist countries have been invaded; force of money which commands the world; force of political power which placed as the basis of governments – no longer the rules of charity; no longer the Decalogue; no longer the “Sermon on the Mount” which asks man to sacrifice himself for his neighbor, to give himself for his neighbor. No!

Their principles are principles which destroy society, which destroy man and which are a continual scandal.

We see today the atrocious effects of this, it must be said, humanity is seen as never before. That a mother may assassinate her child without being punished – and by the hundreds of thousands. By the million! That cries for vengeance! The blood of these innocents is a disgrace for our civilization and that because they have replaced the decalogue and Christian principles, the principles of the Church, by the “rights” of man. The rights of man – which as I have been saying to you, is the right to kill one’s neighbor, it is the right to despise one’s neighbor, it is the right to steal, it is the right to crush.

Simply think of the dear Vietnamese who today perish in the sea, who perish of hunger. Why? In order to flee the hell of communism; in order to flee their dear country of Vietnam where they have been at home. They indeed had rights in their homeland. What are their rights now? Who defends their rights today? They no longer have the right to approach the land – the land which had been given to all men. They have simply the right to die at sea! And how many? How many have escaped upon fragile crafts and have perished in the sea? Think of the Cambodians massacred today in our age when one says that science has made marvelous things. This science, for what does it serve if not only to crush others more rapidly and more efficaciously.

Let us be on our guard. Let us take heed of the messages of Fatima. It seems that they may be fulfilled, and we are likely to see them fulfilled if God gives us life to do so. The Blessed Mother clearly said that the end of the twentieth century, if man did not convert and return to the law of God, to the application of the law of God, would see terrible chastisements. She said this in 1917 at a time when no one would yet have been able to think of atomic bombs, but she said that water would be transformed into vapors and fire would descend from heaven and that those who will be living will wish to die before the atrocities that they will see!

This is what awaits us with these principles of the rights of man. This is what awaits us with this contempt of neighbor, this contempt of God and when one considers that this is done by Catholics – by those who have been baptized and call themselves Catholics and who are chiefs of state – it is a scandal! We must pray, my dear brethren, that the Holy Ghost will enlighten them.

This citadel of Satan which has been raised against the citadel of God has caused, unfortunately, many Catholics to lose their faith. Many of them have believed it necessary to ally themselves to the force, with powers to those who have money and thus they have made compromises. It is these that one calls liberal Catholics, condemned by Pope Pius IX, condemned by Pope Leo XIII, condemned by Saint Pius X. all these Catholics who have come to terms with the enemy and those who play the game of the enemy – it is these who have penetrated in Rome and it is these who have inspired the Second Vatican Council and all of its consequences. Thus we are in complete confusion.

Instead of teaching the good and true catechism they teach anything. They place in doubt all the truths of the Church. Instead of teaching the morals of the Church they place all in doubt and permit all “experiences.” Rather than teaching the faith of the Church they “research” and they place all the principles of the church in doubt. Thus our Church is infiltrated. It is in the process of “auto-destruction,” as Pope Paul VI said.

We must then resist. We must hold fast. We must continue the Church. It is not possible that the good Lord will not aid us and He does so. How is it possible that in the space of ten to fifteen years so many priests, so many religious, have understood that it was necessary to resist, that it is necessary to maintain our faith at all costs in spite of the persecutions, in spite of the difficulties, in spite of the trials.

The Lord one day will permit, we have no doubt, that we will be recognized; not only recognized, but thanked, for having defended the Tradition of the church, thanked for having made priests who are true priests and who have profound convictions, and who have as a program for their life the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and who want to put this into practice. There is the salvation of our civilization! There is the salvation of souls! There is the Church!

I then wholeheartedly congratulate you, my dear brethren, for having come to encourage our young Levites who indeed will have difficulties to conquer in the exercise of their ministry; difficulties of all sorts due precisely to the general confusion in which we live, due to this satanic organization which seeks to destroy the Church. But you will help them by your prayers and you will help them by all of your means. You will return to your homes everywhere, determined to maintain your Catholic faith, and especially that of your children. Protect that of your children in order that afterwards generations will rise, Catholic generations, who will remake a Christian society, and who will restore justice, love and peace in the states, in civilization and in all nations.

That is what we ask the good Lord today. Let us pray to the Holy Ghost, today, who is certainly among us in a very special way. Let us pray to the Holy Ghost to give the Pope force and courage to conquer all of the opposition which surrounds him, in order that he accomplish a veritable renovation of the Church upon the eternal principles, upon the eternal sacrifice, upon the eternal sacraments. Let us ask the Holy Ghost today for our Holy Father the Pope who needs this succor in order to take the necessary courageous measures to "re-give" the Church her faith, her morals, and her Christian civilization so that souls may be saved.

We ask this particularly of the Blessed Virgin Mary, she who is certainly very close to us today, who rejoices in this assembly, who rejoices in these young deacons who are going to become priests, sons of Mary. For if there is anyone who here on earth understood the program of the Cross it is indeed the Blessed Virgin Mary who assisted at the agony of Our Lord and who understood the admirable mystery of the love of Jesus for us. Let us also ask the Blessed Virgin Mary to come in aid and support the Pope in an action of renovation in the Church.

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

The fiftieth anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre's ordination to the priesthood provided the occasion for probably the most striking manifestation of the strength of traditionalist feeling to have occurred since the Second Vatican Council; it also indicated the high degree of respect and personal affection felt for the Archbishop by Catholics who are faithful to tradition. A Pontifical High Mass was celebrated in a huge exhibition hall, which proved to be a prudent decision as between twenty and twenty-five thousand people were present. It is not exaggerating to claim that had all the French Bishops hired a hall of the same size, and appealed to their supporters to be present to show solidarity with the hierarchy in its vendetta against the Archbishop, they would have been lucky to find it a quarter full. The size of this congregation, far larger than that at Lille in August 1976, showed the extent to which support for Mgr. Lefebvre was growing, despite the campaign waged against him in all the Catholic media, and the threats of excommunication which had been circulated from time to time. Le Figaro, a leading French daily paper, has never been sympathetic to the Archbishop, but its report on the Jubi1ee gave an accurate impression of the ceremony. The report appeared in the 24 September 1979 issue, and was introduced with the following headline:




Homage to the Archbishop

The following words were addressed by Father Paul Aulagnier, Superior of the District of France, Society of St. Pius X, to His grace on the occasion of his sacerdotal jubilee in Paris, during the banquet which followed the Mass:




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

My dear brethren,

Allow me, before beginning the few words I would like to address to you on the occasion of this beautiful ceremony, to thank all of those who have contributed to its magnificent success.

Personally, I had thought of celebrating my sacerdotal jubilee in a private, discreet manner at the altar which is the heart of Ecône, but the beloved clergy of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet, and the beloved priests who surround me, invited me with such insistence to permit all those who desired to unite themselves in thanksgiving and my prayer on the occasion of this sacerdotal jubilee, that I could not refuse and that is why we are gathered here today – so great in number, so diverse in origin – having come from America, from all the European countries, which are yet free, and here we are united for the occasion of this sacerdotal jubilee.

How then could I define this gathering, this manifestation, this ceremony? A homage, a homage to your faith in the Catholic priesthood and in the Holy Catholic Mass.

I truly believe that it is for this reason that you have come, in order to manifest your attachment to the Catholic Church and to the most beautiful treasure, to the most sublime gift which God has given to man: the priesthood – and the priesthood for sacrifice, for the Sacrifice of Our Lord, continued upon our altars.

This is why you have come, this is why we are surrounded today by these beloved priests who have come from everywhere and many more would have come were it not a Sunday, for they are held by their obligations to celebrate Holy Mass in their parishes – and they have told us so.

I would like to trace, if you will permit me, some scenes of which I have been a witness during the course of this half century, in order to show more clearly the importance which the Mass of the Catholic Church holds in our life, in the life of priest, in the life of a bishop, and in the life of the Church.

As a young seminarian at Santa Chiara, at the French Seminary in Rome, they used to teach us attachment to liturgical ceremonies. I had, during that time, the privilege of being a ceremoniare, that which we call "a master of ceremonies," having been preceded in this office by no less than His Grace Msgr. Lebrun, the former Bishop of Autun, and by His Grace Monseigneur Ancel, who is still the Auxiliary Bishop of Lyon. I was, therefore, a master of ceremonies under the direction of the beloved Father Haegy, known for his profound knowledge of the liturgy. We loved to prepare the altar, we loved to prepare the ceremonies, and we were already imbued with the spirit of the feast the eve of the day when a great ceremony was to take place upon our altars. We understood therefore, as young seminarians, how to love the altar.

"Domine dilexi decorem domus tuae et gloriam habitationis tuae." This is the verse which we recite during the Lavabo at the altar – “Lord, I have loved the splendor of Thy house and the glory of Thy dwelling.”

This is what they taught us at the French Seminary in Rome under the direction of the dear and Reverend Father Le Floch, a well-loved father, who taught us to see clearly in the events of the time through his commentaries on the encyclicals of the Popes.

I was ordained a priest in the Chapel of the Sacred Heart de la rue Royale in Lille, the 21st day of September 1929 by the then Archbishop Lienart. I left shortly afterwards – two years afterwards – for the missions to join my brother who was already there in Gabon and there I began to learn what the Mass truly is.

Certainly I knew, by the studies which we had done, what this great mystery of our Faith was, but I had not yet understood its entire value, efficacy and depth. Thus I lived day by day, year by year, in Africa and particularly at Gabon, where I spent thirteen years of my missionary life, first at the seminary and then in the bush among the Africans, with the natives.

There I saw – yes, I saw – what the grace of the Holy Mass could do. I saw it in the holy souls of some of our catechists. I saw it in those pagan souls transformed by assistance at Holy Mass, and by the Holy Eucharist. These souls understood the mystery of the Sacrifice of the Cross and united themselves to Our Lord Jesus Christ in the sufferings of His Cross, offering their sacrifices and their sufferings with Our Lord Jesus Christ and living as Christians.

I can cite names: Paul Qssima de Ndjole, Eugene Ndonc de Lambrene, Marcel Mable de Donquila, and I will continue with a name from Senegal, Monsieur Forster, Treasurer-Paymaster in Senegal – chosen for this delicate and important function by his peers and even by the Moslems, due to his honesty and integrity. These are some of the men produced by the grace of the Mass. They assisted at the Mass daily, communicating with great fervor and they have become models and light to those about them. This is just to list a few without counting the many Christians transformed by this grace.

I was able to see these pagan villages become Christian – being transformed not only, I would say, spiritually and supernaturally, but also being transformed physically, socially, economically and politically; because these people, pagans which they were, became cognizant of the necessity of fulfilling their duties, in spite of the trials, in spite of the sacrifice; of maintaining their commitments, and particularly their commitment in marriage. Then the village began to be transformed, little by little, under the influence of grace, under the influence of the grace of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and soon all the villages were wanting to have one of the Fathers visit them. Oh, the visit of a missionary! They wait patiently to assist at the Holy Mass, in order to be able to confess their sins and then to receive Holy Communion.

Some of these souls also consecrated themselves to God: nuns, priests, brothers giving themselves to God, consecrating themselves to God. There you have the fruit of the Holy Mass.

Why did all this happen?

It is necessary that we study somewhat the profound motives of this transformation: SACRIFICE!

The notion of sacrifice is a profoundly Christian and a profoundly Catholic notion. Our life cannot be spent without sacrifice since Our Lord Jesus Christ, God Himself, willed to take a body like our own and say to us: "Follow Me, take up thy cross, and follow Me, if thou wilt be saved." And He has given us the example of His death upon the cross; He has shed His blood. Would we then dare, we, His miserable creatures, sinners that we are, not to follow Our Lord in pursuit of His Sacrifice, in pursuit of His Cross?

There is the entire mystery of Christian civilization. There is that which is the root of Christian civilization: the comprehension of sacrifice in one's life, in daily life, the understanding of Christian suffering – no longer considering suffering as an evil, as an unbearable sorrow, but sharing one's suffering and one's sickness with the sufferings of Our Lord Jesus Christ, in looking upon His Cross, in assisting at the Holy Mass, which is the continuation of the Passion of Our Lord upon Calvary.

Once understood, suffering becomes a joy, and a treasure because these sufferings, if united to those of Our Lord, if united to those of all the martyrs, if united to those of all the saints, of all Catholics, of all the faithful who suffer in this world, if united to the Cross of Our Lord, they then become an inexpressible treasure, a treasure unutterable, and achieve an extraordinary capacity for the conversion of other souls and the salvation of our own. Many holy souls, Christians, have even desired to suffer in order to unite themselves more closely to the Cross of Our Lord Jesus Christ. There you have Christian civilization.

Blessed are those who suffer for righteousness' sake.

Blessed are the poor.

Blessed are the meek.

Blessed are the merciful.

Blessed are the peace-makers.

These are the teachings of the Cross: it is this that Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches us by His Cross.

This Christian civilization, penetrating to the depths of nations only recently pagan, has transformed them, and impelled them to desire and thus to choose Catholic heads of state. I, myself, have known and aided the leaders of these Catholic countries. Their Catholic peoples desired to have Catholic leaders so that even their governments and all the laws of their land might be submissive to the laws of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to the Ten Commandments.

If, in the past, France – said to be Catholic – had truly fulfilled the role of a Catholic power, she would have supported these colonized lands in their new-found Faith. Had she done so, their lands would not now be menaced by Communism, and Africa would not be what it is today. The fault does not so much lie with the Africans themselves as with the colonial powers, which did not understand how to avail themselves of this Christian Faith which had rooted itself among the African peoples. With a proper understanding they would have been able to exercise a brotherly influence among these nations by helping them to keep the Faith and exclude communism.

If we look back through history, we see immediately that what I have been speaking of took place in our own countries in the first centuries after Constantine. For we, too, are in our origins, converts. Our ancestors were converted, our kings were converted, and down through the centuries they offered their nations to Our Lord Jesus Christ and they submitted their countries to the Cross of Jesus. They willed, too, that Mary should be the Queen of their lands.

One can read the admirable writings of St. Edward, King of England, St. Louis, King of France, of the Holy Roman Emperor St. Henry, of St. Elizabeth of Hungary, and of all the saints who were at the head of our Catholic nations and who thus helped to make Christianity.

What faith they had in the Holy Mass! King St. Louis of France served two Masses every day. If he was travelling and happened to hear church bells ringing to announce the Consecration, he would dismount to adore on bended knee the miracle being performed at that moment. There, indeed, was Catholic civilization! How far from such faith we are now, how far indeed!

There is another event which we are bound to mention after these pictures of Christian civilization in Africa and in our history, that of France particularly. A recent event – an event in the life of the Church, and an important event: the Second Vatican Council. We are obliged to declare that the enemies of the Church know very well, perhaps better than we, what the value of just one Mass is. There was a poem written on this subject in which one finds words attributed to Satan, showing how he trembles each time a Mass, a true Catholic Mass, is celebrated because he is thus reminded of the memory of the Cross, and he knows well that it was by the Cross that he was vanquished. The enemies of the Church who perform sacrilegious masses in the well-known sects, and the communists, too, know what value is to be had from one Mass, one true Catholic Mass!

I was recently told that in Poland the Communist Party, through their "Inspectors of Religion," keep under surveillance those priests in Poland who say the Old Mass but leave alone those who say the New. They persecute those who say the Old Mass, the Mass of All Time. A foreign priest visiting Poland may say what Mass he pleases, in order to give the impression of freedom, but the Polish priests who decide to hold firm to Tradition are persecuted.

I read recently a document about the PAX movement which was communicated to us in June of 1963, in the name of Cardinal Wyszynski. This document told us: "You think we have freedom, you are made to think that we have it, and it is the priests affiliated with PAX, who are friends of the communist government, who spread these ideas abroad because they are propagandists for the government, as is even the progressive French press. But it is not true, we are not free.”

Cardinal Wyszynski gave precise details. He said that in the youth camps organized by the communists the children were kept behind barbed wire on Sundays to keep them from going to Mass. He told, too, how vacation hide-aways organized by the Catholic priests were surveyed from helicopters to see if the youth were going to Mass.

Why? Why this need to spy upon children on their way to Mass? Because they know that the Mass is absolutely anti-communist and, how indeed, could it be otherwise? For what is communism, if not “all for the Party and all for the Revolution"? The Mass, on the other hand, is “all for God.” Not at all the same thing is it? All for God!

This is the Catholic Mass, opposed as it is to the program of parties, which is a Satanic program. These are the profound reasons behind the Mass, the Sacrifice.

You know well that we are all tested, that we are all beset with difficulties in our lives, in our earthly existence. We all have the need to know why we suffer, why these trials and sorrows, why these Catholics, these people, are lying sick in their bed. The hospitals are full of sick people. Why?

The Christian responds: to unite my sufferings to those of Our Lord on the altar, to unite them on the altar and through that act to participate in the work of redemption, to merit for myself and for other souls the joy of heaven.

Now it was during the Council that the enemies of the Church infiltrated her, and their first objective was to demolish and destroy the Mass insofar as they could. You can read the books of Michael Davies, an English Catholic, who has written magnificent works, which demonstrate how the liturgical reform of Vatican II closely resembles that produced under Cranmer at the birth of English Protestantism. If one reads the history of that liturgical transformation, made also by Luther, one sees that now it is exactly the same procedure which is being slowly followed, and under appearances still apparently good and Catholic. But it is just that character of the Mass which is sacrificial and redemptive of sin through the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which they have removed. They have made of the Mass a simple assembly, one among others, merely presided over by the priest and that is not the Mass!

So it is not surprising that the Cross no longer triumphs, because the sacrifice no longer triumphs. It is not surprising that men think no longer of anything but raising their standard of living, that they seek only money, riches, pleasures, comfort, and the easy ways of this world. They have lost the sense of sacrifice.

What does it remain for us to do, my dear brethren, if in this manner we deepen our understanding of the great mystery which is the Mass? Well! I think I can say that we should have a crusade! A crusade supported by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, by the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by that invincible rock, that inexhaustible source of grace which is the Mass.

This we see every day. You are there because you love the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. And these young seminarians who are in the seminary – in Ecône, the United States and Germany – why do they come into our seminaries? For the Holy Mass, for the Holy Mass of All Time, which is the source of grace, the source of the Holy Ghost, the source of Christian civilization, that is the reason for the priest.

It is necessary that we undertake a crusade, a crusade which is based precisely upon these notions of immutability, of sacrifice, in order to recreate Christianity, to re-establish a Christendom such as the Church desired, such as she has always done, with the same principles, the same Sacrifice of the Mass, the same sacraments, the same catechism, the same Holy Scripture. We must recreate this Christendom! It is to you, my dear brethren, you who are the salt of the earth and the light of the world, that Our Lord Jesus Christ addressed Himself in saying: "Do not lose the fruit of My blood, do not abandon My Calvary, do not abandon My Sacrifice." And the Virgin Mary who stands beneath the Cross, tells you the same thing as well; She, whose heart is pierced, full of sufferings and sorrow, yet at the same time filled with the joy of uniting herself to the Sacrifice of her Divine Son, she says it to you as well: "let us be Christians, let us be Catholics!"

Let us not be borne away by all these worldly ideas, by all these currents of thought which are in the world, and which draw us to sin and to hell. If we want to go to heaven we must follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, we must carry our cross and follow Our Lord Jesus Christ, imitating Him in His Cross, in His suffering, in His Sacrifice.

Thus, I ask the youth, the young people who are here in this hall, to ask the priests to explain to them these things that are so beautiful and so great, so as to choose their vocations, whatever be the calling that they may elect – be they priests or religious men and women, or married: married by the Sacrament of Marriage, and, therefore, in the Cross of Jesus Christ, and in the Blood of Jesus Christ, married in the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Let them comprehend the greatness of Matrimony, and let them prepare themselves worthily for it by purity and chastity, by prayer and reflection. Let them not be carried away by all the passions which engulf the world. Thus, let this be the crusade of the young who must aspire to the true ideal.

Let it be, as well, a crusade for Christian families. You Christian families who are here, consecrate yourselves to the Heart of Jesus, to the Eucharistic Heart of Jesus, and to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Oh, pray together in the family! I know that many of those among you already do so, but may there always be more and more of you who do so with fervor! Let Our Lord truly reign in your homes!

Cast away, I beg you, anything which impedes children from entering your family! There is no greater gift that the Good God can bestow upon your hearths than to have many children. Have big families, it is the glory of the Catholic Church, the large family! It has been so in Canada, it has been so in Holland, it has been so in Switzerland, it has been so in France – everywhere the large family was the joy and prosperity of the Church. There are that many more chosen souls for heaven! Therefore, do not limit, I beg you, the gifts of God; do not listen to these abominable slogans which destroy the family, which ruin health, which ruin the household and which provoke divorce.

And I wish that, in these troubled times, in this degenerate urban atmosphere in which we are living, that you return to the land whenever possible. The land is healthy, the land teaches one to know God, the land draws one to God, it calms temperaments, characters, and encourages the children to work.

And if it is necessary, yes, you yourselves will make the school for your children! If the schools should corrupt your children, what are you going to do? Deliver them to the corrupters? To those who teach these abominable sexual practices in schools? To the so-called "Catholic" schools run by religious men and women, where they simply teach sin? In reality, that is what they are teaching to the children, they corrupt them from their tenderest youth! Are you to put up with that? It is inconceivable! Rather that your children be poor, rather that they be removed from this apparent science that the world possesses, but that they be good children, Christian children, Catholic children, children who love to pray and who love to work, children who love the earth which the good God has made.

Finally, a crusade as well for the heads of the family. You who are head of your household, you have a grave responsibility in your countries. You do not have the right to let your country be invaded by socialism and communism! You do not have the right, or else you are no longer Catholic! You must fight at the time of elections in order that you may have Catholic mayors, Catholic deputies, so that France finally may become Catholic again. That is not mere politics, that is to wage a good campaign, a campaign such as waged the saints, such as waged the Popes who opposed Attila, such as waged St. Remi who converted Clovis, such as waged Joan of Arc who saved France from Protestantism: If Joan of Arc had not been raised up in France, we would all be Protestants! It was in order to keep France Catholic that Our Lord raised up Joan of Arc, that child of 17, maybe 18 years old, who drove the English out of France. That, too, is waging a political campaign.

Surely, then, this is the sort of politics which we desire, the politics of the Royalty of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Just a few moments ago you were heard to chant, “Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.” Are these but words, mere lyrics, mere chants? No! It is necessary that they be a reality. You heads of families, you are the ones responsible for such realization, both for your children and for the generations which are to come. Thus, you should organize yourselves now – conduct meetings and make yourselves heard, with the object that France become once again Christian, once again Catholic. It is not impossible – otherwise one would have to say that the grace of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer grace, that God is no longer God, that Our Lord Jesus Christ is no longer Our Lord Jesus Christ! One must have confidence in the grace of Our Lord. Our Lord Who is all-powerful. I have seen this grace at work in Africa – there is no reason why it will not work as well here in these countries. This is the message that I wanted to tell you today.

And you, dear priests, who hear me now, you too must make a profound sacerdotal union to spread this crusade, to animate this crusade in order that Jesus reign, that Our Lord reign. And to do that you must be holy, you must seek after sanctity and manifest it to others: this holiness, this grace which acts in your souls and in your hearts, this grace which you receive by the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and by the Holy Mass which you offer, which you alone are capable of offering.

I shall finish, my dearly beloved brethren, by what I shall call, somewhat, my testament. Testament – that is a very profound word, because I would want it to be the echo of the of Our Lord: “Novi et aeterni testamenti, novi et aeterni testamenti” – it is the priest who recites these words at the Consecration of the Precious Blood: “Hic est enim calix Sanguninis mei: novi et aeterni testamenti.” This inheritance which Jesus Christ gave to us, it is His Sacrifice, it is His Blood, it is His Cross. And that is the ferment of all Christian civilization and of all that which is necessary for salvation.

And I say to you as well: for the glory of the Most Blessed Trinity, for the love of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, for the love of the Church, for the love of the Pope, for the love of bishops, of priests, of all the faithful, for the salvation of the world, for the salvation of souls, keep this Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ! Keep the Mass of All time!

And you will see Christian civilization reflourish, a civilization which is not for this world, but a civilization which leads to the Catholic City which is Heaven. The Catholic City of this world is made for nothing else than for the Catholic City of Heaven.

Thus, by keeping the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by keeping His Sacrifice, by keeping this Mass, this Mass which has been bequeathed to us by our predecessors, this Mass which has been transmitted from the time of the apostles unto this day – and in a few moments I am going to pronounce these words above the chalice of my ordination, and how could you expect me to pronounce above the chalice of my ordination any other words but those which I pronounced fifty years ago over this same chalice – it is impossible! I cannot change the words! We shall therefore continue to pronounce the words of the Consecration as our predecessors have taught us, as the Pope, bishops and priests who have been our instructors have taught us, so that Our Lord Jesus Christ reign, and so that souls be saved through the intercession of our Good Mother in Heaven.

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



The Testimony of a Great Catholic Author



Well before the difficulties which Mgr. Lefebvre later had to face, gossip was already spreading among the French clergy, including the hierarchy concerning the "spirit of independence” and even "rebellion" of the bishop who, at that time had full authorization from Rome, not to mention the encouragement he was receiving from Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy. Later there was talk concerning the work at Ecône – "this wildcat seminary." Since then the calumnies have not ceased. I think I have the right to discuss this matter in view of the large amount of correspondence I receive.

One evening, at the end of a conference I had given on the crisis within the Church, a priest, a professor of theology at one of our Catholic universities, stood up and before several hundred people yelled (I can find no other word), "Mgr. Lefebvre in nothing but a liar!” This offensive priest was dressed in lay clothes without even a cross on his lapel, and wearing a stylish multi-colored tie. His face expressed pure hatred.

Now Mgr. Lefebvre has just celebrated his Jubilee of 50 years in the priesthood. This celebration was held as a result of the insistent pleas of his friends: it was the anniversary of 50 years as a priest that we wanted to celebrate with him. One would have thought that during such a solemn occasion the anti-Lefebvre fury would have slackened: that consideration would have been given to the 50-year ministry of a man who have unceasingly given priests to the Church, not forgetting the four bishops of whom one is a cardinal.

But no! Cardinal Marty felt obliged to write a letter to the Secretary of State at the Vatican denouncing his confrére, Archbishop Lefebvre – his brother bishop. And our Permanent Council of Bishops, far from being moved by his 50 years in the priesthood, declared that the celebration took on the appearance of an act of provocation, an act of defiance. While recognizing that the Archbishop of Paris had the "right and even the duty to clarify the position to the faithful," Cardinal Casaroli in his letter from Rome, no less recommended that "this should be done in a charitable and serene manner." For our part, we are too familiar with the courtesies and practices in Rome not to realize the importance of this recommendation. For how many years has the French Episcopate been lacking this charity and this serenity in its relations with Mgr. Lefebvre!

Rome knows this and is showing its awareness. As for my own modest yet heavy personal correspondence, this alone would suffice to show me the extent of the animosity which still exists in certain religious circles. Have I not been reproached for attending this Jubilee "as an honored guest" thus, ostensibly congratulating a bishop who "struts throughout the dioceses, seeking and stealing seminarians"?

Yes! I was there among the crowd estimated by those in charge to be 20,000 or 25,000 people. I was there, not as President of the Credo Society, but as a personal friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, a friendship which has remained unclouded twenty-five years. And our crowd was as solid as bronze, united in intense religious emotion, and moved by gratitude and joy. I cannot see – no, really, I cannot see – how anyone could blame us for paying honor to friendship that day by celebrating the glory and majesty of God.

And it must be noted that in this hall which houses a crowd large enough to fill four large French cathedrals, there was no reference to "My buddy God," nor to “Jesus the revolutionary.” The International was not sung, nor was there any class hatred. All classes of society were represented there in this huge metal building which for a single day received the golden chalice and the Host of the poor. We were kneeling before the Infinite God, gathered in His Name, praying in His Name for the Church in France, singing the liturgical hymns in immortal Latin, assisting at the traditional Mass of St. Pius V which is unjustly forbidden in France, the Mass which the priests of the Credo Society celebrated last year in Poland with the blessing of the Cardinals, one of whom is now the reigning Pontiff.

If the French bishops are weary of looking at their empty churches, their deserted seminaries, let them at last look in the direction to which John Paul II is pointing. Yes, Your Excellencies, instead of writing like pawns to the Secretary of State to voice your complaints, reflect for a moment, we beg of you. The Gospel announces once and for all that a good tree produces good fruit. The fruit of Ecône was there before our eyes: more than 150 seminarians, more than 100 priests and religious representing at least thirty priories, unparalleled fervor, and the House of God overflowing with what are still called “the faithful.” If you, Your Excellencies, finally decide to give us back the true liturgy, which is the soul of the Church, the true catechism, and monastic discipline in the seminaries, you, too, will soon win the battle for Christ.

Meanwhile, you must realize that in spite of the frightful blows he has received, the reward for Mgr. Lefebvre's fifty years in the priesthood was, on this day – and I witnessed it – the sight of 25,000 enraptured souls.

The following article by Professor Louis Salleron appeared in the October 1979 issue of the French daily L’Aurore. It seems more pertinent today than when it first appeared. Professor Salleron warns us of a sociological phenomenon which is extremely relevant to traditional Catholics. They are consistently rejected, denigrated, and even ridiculed by those in authority in the Church, and sometimes by the parish clergy and their Catholic acquaintances. When a minority group is treated in such a fashion it is far from unusual for its members to develop the characteristics which they had been falsely accused of possessing. Traditional Catholics are frequently accused of being schismatic and after years of consistent rejection by the official Church it is hardly surprising if, for practical purposes, some no longer continue their fight for tradition within the Church but as a clearly defined group outside her. Professor Salleron's warning was confirmed dramatically in October 1981 when a group of such Catholics, who had declared that the Holy See was vacant, took the ultimate step of having their own "sedevacantist" bishops consecrated by an elderly Vietnamese Archbishop, Mgr. Pierre Martin Ngo-Dinh-Thuc. These "bishops" have since consecrated others, and now in Europe, Mexico, and the United States there exists a de facto schism, what can be termed accurately a sedevacantist sect. The fact that those adhering to this sect may have been provoked and scandalized beyond what they could humanly endure does not alter the gravity of their action. Archbishop Lefebvre has rejected sedevacantism firmly and consistently, and has taken what must have been for him the very sad step of expelling priests from the Society of St. Pius X for accepting the thesis that the Holy See is vacant. A statement which he made on this subject is included as Chapter XL.

Professor Salleron 's article follows:

In the following statement dated 8 November 1979, Archbishop Lefebvre clarified his position and that of the Society of St. Pius X on the subject of the New Mass and the Pope. This clarification had been made necessary by the growing number of traditional Catholics who claimed that the New Mass was intrinsically invalid, even in its papally approved Latin version, and that the Holy See was vacant. In the latter case, some claimed that Pope Paul VI had been a heretic before assuming office, and had never been truly Pope, and others alleged that he had lost his office through heresy. These two opinions certainly have an emotional rather than a theological basis. The New Mass is so frequently celebrated with such banality and even profanity that many Catholics cannot convince themselves that it is truly a Mass. Pope Paul VI was so inactive in stemming the tide of heresy which was engulfing the Church that many Catholics could not convince themselves that he was truly the Pope. Some, who were not prepared to claim that he had lost his office through heresy, concocted the most bizarre theories purporting to prove that Pope Paul VI had been kidnapped and replaced by an impostor, adducing photographs of his ears and recordings of “voice patterns” to prove their case! Quite frequently the “impostor pope” thesis formed part of an alleged private revelation. The explanation for the “vacant see” and “kidnapped pope” theses probably lies in the fact that for well over a century we have had a series of fine popes whose teaching and example have fulfilled the highest expectations of the faithful. But such popes have by no means always been the norm in the Church, as is made clear in Appendix I, to Volume I of the Apologia. In the statement which follows, the Archbishop reminds us that a pope can fall far short of the standards we would like to find in a successor of St. Peter, but still be a true pope in the legal sense, i.e., in that he is the legitimately elected successor of St. Peter who has not forfeited his office through formal heresy.

In the case of the New Mass, it is evident that while still upholding its intrinsic validity, the Archbishop has adopted a more negative stance towards assisting at it than he did in earlier years. This is not surprising, because, as the years have passed, the manner in which the New Mass is celebrated has become consistently more unacceptable in many parishes. Matters had reached the stage in 1980 that Pope John Paul II needed to offer an apology to the faithful for the scandal and disturbance caused to them by the way the New Mass was so frequently celebrated.¹ In the same year he felt it necessary to order the publication of an Instruction, Inaestimabile Donum, intended to curtail some of the more flagrant abuses.² This Instruction has been largely ignored.

Unfortunately, the Archbishop's statement was not as clearly worded as it might have been on the matter. One passage in particular gave some readers the impression that the Archbishop had stated that a Catholic could never fulfil his Sunday obligation by assisting at the New Mass. Among those who had received this impression from the statement was Cardinal Seper, who mentioned the anxiety it had caused him during an interview he granted me at Easter 1980. I had the opportunity of a long interview with the Archbishop a few weeks later when we discussed the matter. He was kind enough to summarize his considered opinion for me in writing (dated 9 May 1980). It read as follows:
Thus where the Archbishop states that “these New Masses are incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation,” he is referring to New Masses which involve “sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” The declaration which he made at my request makes it quite clear that this was indeed his meaning.

It has also been suggested that the Archbishop exaggerated in claiming that most celebrations of the New Mass today “are sacrilegious acts which pervert the faith by diminishing it.” It is quite possible that he has overstated the extent to which the liturgy has declined to this level. Not unnaturally, in his travels around the world he tends to meet Catholics who have felt unable to assist at their parish churches any longer because of such abuses. But there are many priests, perhaps more than he imagines, who have felt it their duty to remain in their parishes and celebrate the New Mass in the most reverent way possible for the good of their people. In such cases far fewer of their people would be likely to assist at the Masses of society priests, and hence meet or write to the Archbishop. But as the years pass, these conservative priests die, retire, or are replaced, and so it is inevitable that the state of the liturgy will degenerate with each succeeding year, unless drastic action is taken by the Pope to remedy the situation; the issuing of an Instruction such as Inaestimabile Donum, which is defied with impunity, does not constitute such action.³ The text of the Archbishop's statement follows:




How often during these last ten years have I not had occasion to respond to questions concerning the weighty problems of the New Mass and the Pope. In answering them I have ever been careful to breathe with the spirit of the Church, conforming myself to her Faith as expressed in her theological principles, and to her pastoral prudence as expressed in moral theology and in the long experiences of her history.

I think I can say that my own views have not changed over the years and that they are, happily, those of the great majority of priests and faithful attached to the indefectible Tradition of the Church.

It should be clear that the few lines which follow are not an exhaustive study of these problems, The purpose, rather is to clarify our conclusions to such an extent that no one may be mistaken regarding the official position of the Society of St, Pius X.

It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New Mass is valid, we are then free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist at the Masses of heretics and schismatics, even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith.

Now, it is easy to show that the New Mass, as it was formulated by the officially authorized Conciliar Liturgical Commission considered together with the accompanying explanation of Mgr. Bugnini, manifests an inexplicable rapprochement with the theology and liturgy of the Protestants. The following fundamental dogmas of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass are not clearly represented and are even contradicted:

- that the priest is the essential minister of the Rite;

- that in the Mass there is a true sacrifice, a sacrificial action;

- that the Victim or Host is Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, present under the species of bread and wine, with His Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity;

- that this Sacrifice is a propitiatory one;


It is sufficient to enumerate a few of the novelties in the New Mass to be convinced of the rapprochement with the Protestants;

- the altar replaced by a table without an altar stone;

- Mass celebrated facing the people, concelebrated, in a loud voice, and in the vernacular;

- the Mass divided into two distinct parts: Liturgy of the Word, and Liturgy of the Eucharist;

- the cheapening of the sacred vessels, the use of leavened bread, distribution of Holy Communion in the hand, and by the laity, and even by women;

- the Blessed Sacrament hidden in corners;

- the Epistle read by women;


All these innovations are authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these Masses are sacrilegious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it. The de-sacralization is such that these Masses risk the loss of their supernatural character, their mysterium fidei; they would then be no more than acts of natural religion. These New Masses are not only incapable of fulfilling our Sunday obligation, but are such that we must apply to them the canonical rules which the Church customarily applies to communicatio in sacris with Orthodox Churches and Protestant sects.

Must one conclude further that all these Masses are invalid? As long as the essential conditions for validity are present (matter, form, intention, and a validly ordained priest), I do not see how one can affirm this.

The prayers at the Offertory, the Canon, and the Priest’s Communion which surround the words of Consecration are necessary, not to the validity of the Sacrifice and the Sacrament, but rather to their integrity. When the imprisoned Cardinal Mindszenty, desiring to nourish himself with the Body and Blood of Our Lord, and to escape the gaze of his captors, pronounced solely the words of Consecration over a little bread and wine, he most certainly accomplished the Sacrifice and the Sacrament.

It is clear, however, that fewer and fewer Masses are valid these days, as the faith of priests is destroyed and they possess no longer the intention to do what the Church does – an intention which the Church cannot change. The current formation of those who are called seminarians today does not prepare them to celebrate Mass validly. The propitiatory Sacrifice of the Mass is no longer considered the essential work of the priest. Nothing is sadder or more disappointing than to read the sermons or teachings of the Conciliar bishops on the subject of vocations, or on the occasion of a priestly ordination. They no longer know what a priest is.

Nevertheless, in order to judge the subjective fault of those who celebrate the New Mass as of those who attend it, we must apply the roles of the discernment of spirits given us in moral and pastoral theology. We (the priests of the Society) must always act as doctors of the soul and not as judge and hangmen. Those who are tempted by this latter course are animated by a bitter spirit and not true zeal for souls. I hope that our young priests will be inspired by the words of St. Pius X in his first encyclical, and by the numerous texts on this subject to be found in such works as The Soul of the Apostolate by Dom Chautard, Christian Perfection and Contemplation by Garrigou-Lagrange, and Christ the Ideal of the Monk by Dom Marmion.

Let us now pass to a second but no less important subject: does the Church have a true Pope or an impostor on the Throne of St. Peter? Happy are those who have lived and died without having to pose such a question! One must indeed recognize that the pontificate of Paul VI posed, and continues to pose, a serious problem of conscience for the faithful. Without reference to his culpability for the terrible demolition of the Church which took place under his pontificate, one cannot but realize that he hastened the causes of that decline in every domain. One can fairly ask oneself how it was possible that a successor of Peter can, in so little time, have caused more damage to the Church than the French Revolution.

Some precise facts, such as the signatures which he gave to Article VII in the Instruction concerning the New Mass, and to the Declaration on Religious Liberty, are indeed scandalous and have led certain traditionalists to affirm that Paul VI was heretical and thus no longer Pope. They argue further that, chosen by a heretical Pope, the great majority of the cardinals are not cardinals at all and thus lacked the authority to elect another Pope. Pope John Paul I and Pope John Paul II were thus, they say, illegitimately elected. They continue that it is inadmissible to pray for a pope who is not Pope or to have any "conversations" (like mine of November 1978) with one who has no right to the Chair of Peter.

As with the question of the invalidity of the Novus Ordo, those who affirm that there is no Pope over-simplify the problem. The reality is more complex. If one begins to study the question of whether or not a Pope can be heretical, one quickly discovers that the problem is not as simple as one might have thought. The very objective study of Xaverio de Silverira on this subject demonstrates that a good number of theologians teach that the Pope can be heretical as a private doctor or theologian but not as a teacher of the Universal Church. One must then examine in what measure Pope Paul VI willed to engage in infallibility in the diverse cases where he signed texts close to heresy if not formally heretical.

But we can say that in the two cases cited above, as in many another, Paul VI acted much more the Liberal than as a man attached to heresy. For when one informed him of the danger that he ran in approving certain conciliar texts, he would proceed to render the text contradictory by adding a formula contrary in meaning to affirmations already in the text, or by drafting an equivocal formula. Now, equivocation is the very mark of the Liberal, who is inconsistent by nature.

The Liberalism of Paul VI, recognized by his friend, Cardinal Daniélou, is thus sufficient to explain the disasters of his pontificate. Pope Pius IX, in particular, spoke often of the Liberal Catholic, whom he considered a destroyer of the Church. The Liberal Catholic is a two-sided being, living in a world of continual self-contradiction. While he would like to remain Catholic, he is possessed by a thirst to appease the world. He affirms his faith weakly, fearing to appear too dogmatic, and as a result, his actions are similar to those of the enemies of the Catholic Faith.

Can a Pope be Liberal and remain Pope? The Church has always severely reprimanded Liberal Catholics, but she has not always excommunicated them. Here, too, we must continue in the spirit of the Church. We must refuse Liberalism from whatever source it comes because the Church has always condemned it. She has done so because it is contrary, in the social realm especially, to the Kingship of Our Lord.

Does not the exclusion of the cardinals of over eighty years of ages, and the secret meetings which preceded and prepared the last two Conclaves, render them invalid? Invalid: no, that is saying too much. Doubtful at the time: perhaps. But in any case, the subsequent unanimous acceptance of the election by the Cardinals and the Roman clergy suffices to validate it. That is the teaching of the theologians.

The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a Pope puts the Church in an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future Pope is to be? How, as there are no Cardinals, is he to be chosen? This spirit is a schismatical one for at least the majority of those who attach themselves to certainly schismatical sects like Palmar de Troya, the Eglise Latine de Toulouse, and others.

Our Fraternity absolutely refuses to enter into such reasonings.

We wish to remain attached to Rome and to the Successor of Peter, while refusing his Liberalism through fidelity to his predecessors. We are not afraid to speak to him, respectfully but firmly, as did St. Paul with St. Peter.

And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.

Thus, I have never refused to go to Rome at his request or that of his representatives. The Truth must be affirmed at Rome above all other places. It is of God, and He will assure its ultimate triumph.

Consequently, the Society of St. Pius X, its priests, brothers, sisters, and oblates, cannot tolerate among its members those who refuse to pray for the Pope or affirm that the Novus Ordo Missae is per se invalid. Certainly, we suffer from this continual incoherence which consists in praising all the Liberal orientations of Vatican II and at the same time straining to mitigate its effects. But all of this must incite us to prayer and to the firm maintenance of Tradition rather than to the affirmation that the Pope is not the Pope.

In conclusion, we must have that missionary spirit which is the true spirit of the Church. We must do everything to bring about the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ according to the words of our Holy Patron, St. Pius X: Instaurare omnia in Christo. We must restore all things in Christ, and we must submit to all, as did Our Lord in His Passion for the salvation of souls and the triumph of Truth. "In hoc natus sum," said Our Lord to Pilate, "ut testimonium perhibeam veritati."

“I was born to give witness to the Truth."



1. See Pope Paul’s New Mass, p. 240.

2. Ibid., pp. 65-66.

3. Inaestimabile Donum forbids girls to serve on the altar, but this instruction is widely defied in the U.S.A. The Apostolic Delegate has been made aware of this but no action has been taken to curtail the abuse (see The Angelus, December 1982).