Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre - Volume Three

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

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

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

Some Memories...

Your Excellency,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

Sadly recognizing that the consequences of the conciliar revolution seems to be intent on becoming institutionalized and supplant the true Catholic institutions with the risk of arriving at the same results as in political society, which is sinking into a state of permanent revolution, our resolution to maintain and develop the divine institutions of the Church should be more firm than ever, for if political institutions can disappear, this can never happen to the Church.

On the other hand, it is with joy, and with thanks to God that we see traditional enterprises such as the Society of St. Pius X, and other societies, expanding in a way which is, humanly speaking, inexplicable. Another consolation and source of encouragement is the strengthening of the links between all the brave initiatives within the Society.

As you know, we have never wished to be considered as the leaders of the groups involved in this renewal of the Church, and in this resistance to the revolution in the Church. However, according to the measure of the increase in the number of our seminaries, houses, schools, and retreat houses, and since the number of our priests is increasing and will increase, especially from 1983 onwards, it is normal that the great hope which these young priests represent, inspires the confidence of all the traditionalist initiatives. Active, and contemplative religious, and secular priests feel the need to join themselves to this vigorous root which is filled with faith, truth and grace and deeply rooted in the Tradition of twenty centuries of the Church.

These close links in the faith and in the faith and in the apostolate seem to me to be very important for the future of the Church. For we wish to work in absolute confidence that Providence will permit that one day, decided by, and known to itself, the Sovereign Pontiff will recognize the incomparable benefit of all of these enterprises, and will give thanks to God for them. There is no justifiable argument which obliges us to cut ourselves off from the Pope. On the contrary, innumerable irrefutable motifs oblige us to remain united to him as the Successor of Peter and this will render our protestations and our refusals the more efficacious and justified. That does not in any way diminish our attachment to Tradition. It is through esteem for the successor of Peter that we cannot conceive any contradiction with the Magisterium of Peter as being possible.

In the midst of this great torment which calls down the malediction of God on humanity, let us go on with serenity and confidence in God in our work of restoration of the Church which is expanding by the multiplication of auspicious initiatives of reconstruction, but especially by the work of holiness which is that bonus odor Christi, that “sweet odor of Christ," which rises straight up to God like the sacrifice of Abel, and which draws down upon us the blessings of God.

During our visit to Mexico, both I and those who accompanied me were able to see the. tragic situation of the people who number almost seventy-seven million souls and who are almost all Catholics. The shepherds have abandoned their people to give themselves over to politics and the Revolution, pushing the government, which is already linked with Fidel Castro, further to the Left. A certain number of the faithful have thrown progressive priests out of their parishes and are begging us to replace them. At Cordoba a young curate, dressed in a way that has nothing clerical about it, came to see me to make known his feelings to me in these term: “My Lord, you are right, and you have the grace of the Holy Ghost with you. We have nothing more than a religious mask, behind which there is nothing. I wanted to say this to you as you were passing through here. My Lord, bless me.”

Then he went away. I was stupified, but once again confirmed by the necessity to continue our actions for the salvation of souls. By the grace of God we already have fourteen Mexican seminarians, while there were only two young priests ordained last year for the whole of Mexico. May Our Lady of Guadalupe protect her beloved people!

Once again we recommend our enterprises to your prayers and to your generosity. At the moment we are building a seminary at Buenos Aires, we are enlarging the seminary at Ridgefield in the U.S.A., and soon we will be obliged to divide Ecône, which has become too small. We must start something in France. May St. Joseph come to our aid. We owe him our immense gratitude for all that he has helped us to achieve.

Wishing you a good Holy Week and a Happy Easter we implore Jesus, Mary and Joseph to fill you with blessings.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

Feast of St. Joseph 1981

Your Eminence,

Father du Chalard has passed on to me your letter of 19 February 1981, which I have read.

Here are my replies to the four demands expressed in your letter:

1. If certain of my words or deeds have displeased the Holy See, I bitterly regret this.
2. As to the Council, I reaffirm that I subscribe to what the Holy Father said, asking that it should be received “in the light of Tradition and the constant Magisterium of the Church.”
3. As to the reform of the Liturgy, I personally signed the conciliar decree, and have never said that its applications are in themselves invalid or heretical.
4. The sending of a pontifical delegate would make it easier to solve the problems and to normalize our activities.

In the hope that nobody will wish to question our attachment to the Catholic Church and the Successor of Peter, and in the wish that our replies might be judged sufficient for there to be sent a pontifical delegate who will be welcome in our houses, I ask you, Your Eminence, to accept the expression of my feelings of respect and heartfelt devotion in Christo et Maria.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

(If the Holy Father wishes to receive me, I am always at his disposal.)

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

My dear brothers, my dear friends, it is with a great delight and a profound joy that we arrive each year at this point, on this date, to confer ordination to the Holy Priesthood upon the young deacons who have prepared themselves for long years to receive the holy anointing of the priesthood. We rejoice to confer ordination not only on members of the Society, but also on those who have prepared so carefully in the monasteries, those of Dom Gérard and Dom Augustine. If the number this year seems smaller, it is because, the day before yesterday, I performed the same ceremony in our seminary at Zaitzkofen, in Germany. We ordained five members of the society who had completed their studies, either at Weissbad or at Zaitzkofen. I must say, the ceremony was very moving – remarkable in the devotion of all the faithful who were present, in the number of the faithful present, some three thousand, I think. We had a day truly blessed by God. And I am sure that today also – the sun proves it with the sun God has given us – God is blessing us equally at Ecône, as usual.

My dear friends, we often use this occasion, to which you come from everywhere, to highlight in a sense, the situation of the Society and the situation also of the Church. We must say that the Passion of the Church continues, a passion which manifests itself even, I would say, in the health of the Head of the Church. The Pope suffers in his own body, so to say, the Passion of the Church, in these sad and difficult times, by this accident – incredible, inconceivable, in our time.¹ We have had to live through an age when the Pope could be mortally injured. Yes, we are truly living the Passion of the Church. But this Passion manifests itself in an even more urgent, more difficult and more shocking way when one thinks of all that is happening today in the world, and that this is promoted, we might say, by the clergy, by members of the Church. Just as Our Lord was betrayed by one of His own, Our Lord was abandoned by the Apostles, when the soldiers came to lay hands on Our Lord, even so today, members of the clergy and others betray anew Our Lord Jesus Christ.

We have observed, alas, in our dear country of France, how, on the occasion of the last elections, the bishops, the priests, religious men and women, aided the coming to power of Socialism which wars against Our Lord Jesus Christ, which fights on the side of atheism! Not for nothing did the new president go to receive – as the newspapers put it – lay-anointing at the Pantheon. It is this which disturbed us. The economic consequences are less important alongside this drama which we are living, this struggle against Our Lord Jesus Christ. It seems that the devil, unleashed, has finally arrived at his goal. By Socialism which is spreading in all countries, by Communism which has spread through the world, the devil aspires to destroy the Catholic religion and Our Lord Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, we must say, once again, in South America, in the episcopacy of North America, in almost all episcopacies, one may say, of Europe, these movements of rebellion against Our Lord are promoted most willingly by the episcopacy. This is the particular drama of the Church in our day. St. Pius X said it clearly : the enemies of the Church are no longer merely outside the Church, they are now also inside. He pointed the finger himself at the seminaries. And in pinpointing the seminaries, he also pin-pointed the professors of the seminaries – those charged with the formation of the clergy. It is thus that the clergy was formed by Modernist ideas, Liberal ideas, and so we arrive at the point where we are today.

We must also say – we cannot deny it – that this Passion of the Church is everywhere. The Church suffers everywhere. It suffers first, we must add, in the Roman Curia, which continues to propagate Modernist ideas. Now we see, in spite of everything, these reforms, which were set in motion by Vatican II, which are in the process of destroying the Church – the "self-destruction" of the Church, as Pope Paul VI himself called it. This self-destruction of the Church – how did it come about, if not by the clergy themselves, if not by those placed in the citadel of the Roman Church, to protect the Faith of the Church, which they are no longer protecting. Are they condemned? These so-called philosophers, these so-called theologians who corrupt the Faith, who are virtually heretics, are they really being punished? Are the bishops punished, who fashion an ecumenism which is nothing more or less than the spread of heresy, who invite Protestants to concelebrate with them? Are they condemned, the bishops? The superiors of seminaries who introduce pornography into the seminaries – Rome knows this – one could go on indefinitely with examples of this kind. Are the bishops of Mexico condemned, who in their diocesan assemblies, in their newspapers, publish articles favorable to the Revolution, and against El Salvador, asking for money for Fidel Castro, expressing a willingness to fight, physically if possible, against the government of El Salvador, to spread the Revolution, to spread Communism?

My dear friends, we are betrayed. You – you are betrayed. All honest people are betrayed. All who believe in the Catholic Faith are betrayed. All who believe in Our Lord Jesus Christ, all who wish to defend the Faith of Our Lord, who wish to defend the fundamental truth of their Faith, in the catechism itself, who wish to defend morality, the Ten Commandments, who wish to defend Sacred Scripture itself – all these are betrayed. Betrayed by Modernist ideas. Modernism replaces the Faith by research (“We are all searching for the truth. It does not exist. We will never find it. We don't know if it exists.”) We do know our Faith and wish to maintain it! The Ten Commandments have been replaced by the Rights of Man. What we have now is the religion of the Rights of Man, in place of the Ten Commandments. Now we know perfectly well that the Rights of Man and justice in this world, exist only in virtue of the Ten Commandments. When we have done our duty to God and our neighbor, justice will prevail – but not in the fight against the authority of God, against all authority. The Rights of Man is simply the struggle against the authority of God and against all authority. Law has been replaced by conscience. Everyone does as he pleases. Everyone looks to his conscience, and no longer to the law. These are the Modernist ideas which are spreading in this world.

And so they wanted to fashion for us a liturgy in this spirit – in this spirit of liberty , of pluralism, in short, this spirit of desacralization. They don't want to adore God any longer; they don't want to recognize His sovereign authority; they don't want to believe any longer in Our Creator, Our Savior, Our Redeemer, Our Judge. And all this is promoted by the Roman Curia. Perhaps not everyone in the Curia, but certainly by those in charge of worship, of the bishops, and of religious. And also by the Secretary of State, because, wherever the freedom of all religions has been proclaimed, as in Spain, in Ireland, and here in the Canton of Valais, and in all countries where the Catholic religion has been kept as the one true religion, they wanted to establish this law of ecumenism, this false ecumenism, as the great desire of the age, this heresy which destroy what is still Catholic in those countries which recognize Our Lord Jesus Christ as their head and their Sovereign. And all this is promoted by the [papal] Secretary of State.

How can this be, my dear friends? You know as well as I. I cite facts. I do not seek for explanations; I stand by facts. The fact is that our resolution is made to stand forever: qui perserveritusque in finem,hic salvus erit-"He who perseveres unto the end, he will be saved." (Mt. 10:22). And persevere in what, I ask you. Persevere in the Catholic Faith! Persevere in what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught us -that there is only one true religion, that other religions were invented by the devil, to turn souls away from Our Lord Jesus Christ.This is clearly the truth. This is what Pope St. Leo in the lesson for today, the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, teaches, that, before the coming of Peter and Paul, Rome was the place which recognized all gods, and that the devil invented that idea to keep men in error. Now Rome has become the Mistress of Truth. That is what St. Leo says. So we must maintain our Catholic Faith. Persevere unto the end.

And to maintain our Catholic Faith, my dear brothers (I now address the men who will be ordained priests in a few minutes), what is the means? Maintain your Holy Mass! There are other masses in other rites, but this rite contains all the truth of our Catholic Faith, and proclaims them! Thus today these new rites, infested with ecumenism, a false ecumenism , do not proclaim our Faith any longer, as the immemorial Mass does. And in this way we know that the faithful are in the process of losing their Faith, some more rapidly than others, to the extent that priests are guarding tradition. But the results are forthcoming: they are clear and unmistakeable. So what must we do? We must maintain our holy immemorial Mass. It is the cornerstone of the Church. This is the treasure that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given us : Hic est Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et a'terni testamen- “the new and everlasting covenant." This is the covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ: His blood poured out for us, for the forgiveness o sins.

It is in this that you will believe, my dear friends. You will believe in the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ, renewed by yourselves, for us sinners, all poor sinners , as the Good Lord has given us the power-this power actually given to bring the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ upon our altars, for the forgiveness of our sins. You will maintain this profound understanding of your Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which is simply the great charity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. In pronouncing the words of consecration, you will think of the last breath of Our Lord Jesus Christ and you will think of His pierced heart.Can one show a greater love than to lay down his life for those that he loves? Our Lord Jesus Christ gave His life, first of all, for His Father, for the glory of His Father, to establish the glory of His Father. The Father never received such glory as when Our Lord Jesus Christ breathed His last, when His heart was pierced-it was for Him that He did that. You too will offer your entire lives to God, first to God.

Then, in a spirit of prayer, in a spirit of adoration, in a spirit of humility, in a spirit of holiness, you will go to bring the word of the Gospel, to bring your faith-so well expressed in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Which is at the foundation of what you teach-to bring the light of faith, to draw people to the light of charity , to kindle your hearts and your souls, and you will go forth to bring the grace of the Lord in the Sacrament of Baptism and in the Sacrament of Penance especially. No one goes to Confession any more! In entire countries like Ireland, no one goes to Confession for two, three, four years and they go to Communion whenever they have a chance. This can be said for the whole world, for the whole Catholic world. And you will allow souls to pour into your hearts the secrets of their consciences, and you will wash these souls in the Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with your words of absolution. If you spend the whole of your day in the confessional, that is the most beautiful service that you could render, to souls and to the Church. And you will give, above all, by the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Holy Communion, the very Body of Our Lord Jesus Christ, with all the respect that we owe Him, Our God, Our Savior, Our Redeemer.

And you will teach souls the meaning of sacrifice. No one speaks anymore of the Sacrifice of the Mass, but rather of a Eucharist, a Communion , a Sharing. It is not that ! It is a question of the Holy Sacrifice, the Sacrifice of Our Lord. The spirit of Sacrifice is a Catholic spirit. Without sacrifice there is no Catholicism.You know this very well, my dear brothers, and you are an example of it, a magnificent example.

Everywhere I go, where I have occasion to go, I find this circumstance, of people who have the Faith, who want to keep the Faith. We find beautiful families, with numerous children, whence come religious and priestly vocations. How beautiful ! There you are – this is what the Church does. This is what the grace of Our Lord produces by Holy Mass and by Holy Communion. And we must add, my dear brothers, that the Sacrament of Matrimony has its symbol, its image, its meaning on Calvary. Our Lord gives birth to His bride, unites Himself to His Bride, on Calvary. One finds it in His Blood, in His pierced Heart, the water and blood which flowed from His Heart. Here is the symbol of marriage, the mystical marriage of Our Lord Jesus Christ with His Bride. As a result, the grace of the Sacrament of Matrimony renews itself in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. So Christians cannot nourish the grace of marriage without frequently attending Holy Mass.

This is what you do, and we congratulate you. This is what is done, so traditionalist, that is, simply, good Catholics, have numerous children. See the joy and peace which is at the root of the many vocations which we have in our seminaries. They are here, they are in monasteries, they are in the religious congregations which we know, these religious who are here present – numerous vocations. You will be the support, my dear brothers, of these Christian homes, and at the same time the models.

Now I end with these words. You have studied; you have bent over the holy books, over those books which are at the foundation of the Faith of the Church. These books of philosophy, of theology; you have questioned your professors; you have enlightened your minds; you have increased your faith; and you feel yourselves profoundly attached to the Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, to all the bishops (insofar as they remain Catholic) to all the Church, to Rome - Rome which cannot separate itself from the Church. You feel yourselves attached to all these fundamental values ,which has made the entire history of the Church , for twenty centuries, and which you wish to stand on. It is for this reason that you are traditionalists, as St Pius X so well said : the Catholic is a traditionalist, because the Church is a Tradition.


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


1. The Archbishop is referring to the attempt on the Pope’s life of 13 May 1981.

Dear Friends and Benefactors,

The ordinations of June 29 last brought the number of priests in the Society of St. Pius X up to 100. The first seminarian of the Society to be ordained priest, Father Paul Aulagnier, was ordained on October 17, 1971, ten years ago, in Econe's local parish church at Riddes.

Naturally a mere one hundred is not very many to come to the help of all the Catholics who realize they have been led astray by their shepherds from the true Catholic Faith, especially if one reflects that such Catholics are to be found all over the world, in Poland as elsewhere, thanks to the propaganda of the Pax Movement, supported by both government and clergy. Alas ! How many Catholics have already lost the Faith, how many have joined the sects now spawning all over parts of the world where they were unknown twenty years ago!

Nonethess souls everywhere are regaining their balance, deepening their Catholic Faith, regrouping around the priests who are, in ever greater numbers, coming back to Catholic Tradition. Devotion to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, all night vigils of adoration, spiritual exercises, the recitation of the Rosary all are springing up again in chapels, well arranged and cared for, and in which the Faith finds expression in the beautiful altars and church furnishings, more often than not rescued from ransacked churches, in the crucifixes and statues, the Stations of the Cross given pride of place once more all of which favor genuine piety and raise souls up to God in this world of ours emptied of the sacred and given over to the profane.
From these groups are coming priestly and religious vocations, which are filling our seminaries and the monasteries and religious houses keeping the Catholic Faith. The whole Church is coming back to life in this way, especially in France, Switzerland, the U.S.A., and Germany; and now this re birth is spreading to the most far flung lands, to South America, South Africa, Kerala in Southern India, Australia, Japan.

The Catholic Church will not be occupied forever by the Modernists and progressives who are taking advantage of their authority to push through all these innovations destroying the Faith.

The innovations, as you well know, continue apace! Let me pick one out at random: the Second Vatican Council has henceforth authorized the cremation of corpses. Let us consult the Code of Canon Law containing the laws of the Church.

In Canon 1203 we read: "There is an obligation to bury the corpses of the dead. The cremation of corpses is condemned. If anyone has in any way whatsoever given orders for his corpse to be cremated his wish may not be carried out. If this wish be signified in a will or similar document, no heed is to be taken of it." And, in Canon 1240: "Ecclesiastical burial must be refused to those who have asked for their corpse to be cremated." All the commentaries give the same reason for this law; here, for example, is what Jone says: "The reason for which the Catholic Church condemns the cremation of corpses lies first and foremost in the fact that the violent destruction of the human body is opposed to the respect due to the body which was the temple of the Holy Ghost and which will rise again on the Last Day in glory."

Is this reason any less valid today? And we could go through all these innovations in the same way, showing that they are causing the Catholic Faith to disappear.

Yet the only ones who are called "dissident," "disobedient," or "rebels," are the ones who are keeping the Faith; while those who are destroying it are called "faithful," "submissive," and "obedient." How much longer is this lie this massive imposture to last? Only God knows.

I travel at regular intervals down to Rome in the hope of putting an end to this lie, deadly for so many souls, but I rely upon God rather than upon men. Tomorrow fifty seminarians leave for Albano. Even without seeking to do so, they will give witness in Rome itself to the efficacy and holiness of Catholic Tradition.

Let us keep true to the Faith, and let us pray to Our lady to come to our aid. We rely upon your prayers and generosity for our priestly work, so essential for the Church and the salvation of souls.
May Jesus, Mary and Joseph bless you.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

On the Feast of St. Matthew
21 September 1981

Critics of Mgr. Lefebvre often claim that he would serve the Church more effectively by working within the official structures. The following article proves that such a suggestion could only come from those who refuse to accept the reality of conciliar Catholicism. Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., Editor of The Homiletic and Pastoral Review, has stated that the article which follows provoked a greater reaction than anything else he has ever published. It is the cri de coeur of a parish priest who is loyal to the Pope, and who shows that in certain (probably most) American dioceses today he will be subjected to persecution and eventually forced to resign to live out his life without exercising his priestly ministry. The reaction to the article showed that this situation prevails throughout the United States. It is also typical of most countries throughout the West. The author of the article stresses that hs is not a "Lefebvrist," but the very fact of being orthodox shows that, where contemporary bishops are concerned, he might just as well be. It is unfortunate that he considers resignation and living out his life without exercising his ministry the only option open to him. The "papist priest" might have remembered that the salvation of souls is the supreme law, even if this means working for this end outside the official diocesan structures, as St. Athanasius did. Could any true Catholic who reads this article truly fault Mgr. Lefebvre for going into the dioceses of the Modernist bishops which it describes in order to sustain the faith of the persecuted remnant of orthodox believers?



"Papist," a Catholic regarded a partisan of the Pope-used disparagingly.

The tag was minted in post-Reformation England. The division it betokens was spawned by Henry VIII's lustful demand for an annulment. Two powers were joined in conflict: King v. Pope; State v. Church; temporal v. spiritual. We all know, at least schematically, the historical drama resulting in the abject capitulation of the English bishops to the royal power which was, in contrast to Rome, uncomfortably proximate and potent. In 1534 the formal Act of Supremacy was issued:
In 1535 this was understood as a formal renunciation of the Pope. Henry then demanded of the clergy that they fully submit to the Act of Supremacy.

Years passed, as did the sovereigns, with a brief Catholic restoration sandwiched between. Bishops, priests, religious and laity, sooner or later, with some modicum of remorse, abandoned the papal communion. There were, however, some splendid exceptions, lone stars in the night sky all the more brilliant against darkness: Fisher, More, Franciscan and Carthusian martyrs, some abbots, and many simple faithful, peasants and gentlemen alike, in the wake of the Pilgrimage of Grace, Margaret Pole. These obstinate few, then, along with their disgraceful successors, constituted the disgraced cohort df the "papists."

However cursory our review of the Anglicana Ecclesia, the phenomenon provokes serious meditation, if not the sense of deja vu, in these days when the disarming code word "The American Church" is evolving in some quarters into a semantics of schism.

Camps are Demarcated

The extent to which this has been developed is neatly limned out in Raymond Brown's 1981 NCEA convention address. In essence, he suggests that it is now lawful for divided Catholics to recite the same words of the Creed with different meanings. He sees two basic camps: one, rigid and literalist, is the "rightist"; the other, liberated and laid-back, is the "centrist." Now a Catholic instinct should suggest that the "centrist" position must somehow be that of the Pope, foundation rock of the Church. Not so! The Pope, who clearly shows he takes the Creed as the literal, divinely revealed truth, not subject to on-going reinterpretation, undivided by a false pluralism, has slipped to the right of true "center," which is, of course, the hallowed turf of exegete Brown and his co-religionists. What Brown's revealing speech calls "rightist" and "centrist," this article will call "papist" and "Modernist." Harsher terms. But any careful reading of Pascendi and Lamentabili, alongside the positions of Brown centrists, will establish our identification of centrist with Modernist.

This article is written with six U.S. dioceses in mind. What is described here, in a very abridged way, is typical in one or the other. These dioceses are the only ones of speak. How many others are in similar straits? Cursory reading and occasional conversations with priests and laity suggest that there may be many more. At the outset, it must be stressed that what is said here is not uttered in bitterness, but in sadness; not in despair, but in ultimate urgency. Here are facts, from personal experience in most cases; given these facts, we need more guidance from the Holy See, the only source on earth to whom we papist priests can turn. To whom else can we go?

For all practical purposes these "control dioceses," as we henceforth refer to them, are dominated by theological Modernism. I would judge at least two of the Ordinaries are themselves willingly Modernist. The true leanings of the other four are harder to discern. Suffice it to say that they have appointed Modernists to all or most of the key positions; they have voiced public praise and support for these officials; they have never-at least publicly-attempted to correct their errors. Are they, then, "neutral" victims? Or are they perhaps unwillingly paralyzed by a clerical coup de siege?

In these "control dioceses" at least three-eighths of the clergy stand in a posture of radical alienation from the papacy. Whatever other issues there may be, papal authority is the cutting edge. About one half of the clergy comprise the swing area: a vast, mushy no-man's-land where the priests will flip-flop wherever and whenever convenience dictates. At present this means conforming to the radical Modernist leadership. For some of these men, a nostalgia for Rome surfaces now and then but is quickly submerged. Theirs is the tired refrain: "But this is what the bishop wants, and we took a vow of obedience to our bishop." Here one might well flash back to the nascent Anglicana Ecclesia.

Only about one-eighth of the priests teach and act in full accord with the Pope. These openly promote and defend papal teaching among their people and in their schools. They are proud of their despised allegiance to the Holy Father in a time of contestation. They do not look for fights, but they do not dodge issues when raised. They are not Lefebvrists. They are, like the Pope, in harmony with Vatican II and all it entails when authentically interpreted.

They are as Liberal as the Pope; they are as conservative as the Pope. These, then, are the "papist priests."

In his diocesan context the papist priest is a pariah, the butt of obloquy, of condescending pity, barred from any positions of influence, quarantined to small enclaves, usually isolated rural places where he can do least "damage." For all that, it must be emphasized that what we call here the "papist priest" is, in any healthy Catholic diocese, just another priest in good standing.

To get some grasp of the jeopardy in which he exists, let us, sketchily, survey some conditions in the control dioceses in which Modernism has all but smothered Roman Catholicism. In all six, the Priests' Senate is affiliated with the NFPC. It is true that in recent years a few have worked out compromises which allow "conscientious objectors" to withhold that portion of the dues which are allocated to NFPC. But in these dioceses the animus of the Priests' Senate has been dominantly that of NFPC. Now the history of this dissident organization is open for all to see: it is simply anti-papal, and whenever any bishops attempt an exercise of authority in union with the Pope, the rebellion is extended to them. Each Senate has its panoply of committees and sub-committees. The Senators are almost entirely NFPC enthusiasts, with a few token "semipapists," usually retired priests, allowed in to refute claims of exclusivism. Among the manifold commissions are: "ministry to priests," "continuing education,' "justice and peace," etc. These front groups are Senate-appointed and stacked with NFPC types. Hence, invited outside speakers, the itinerant gurus for priestly indoctrination, are consistently dissidents, more or less openly anti-papal. Priests are urged, at times ordered, to attend these harangues, at which the bishop sits listening to sundry heresies only to rise at the end to thank and praise the heretic. There are also permanent, on-going structures for intensive "reeducation" of the clergy, e.g., Vincent Dwyer's Genesis II.

The most sensitive diocesan offices are in the hands of Modernists. They are, as was boasted publicly a decade ago, "in lock-tight control" of the religious education establishment. All the staff must be in harmony with the director's philosophy. Any papist catechetical books, aids, lectures, etc., are rigidly excluded, in some cases by a list of "disallowed" materials. Only Modernist texts are endorsed. Thus has the Index been revived-to destroy the Faith! Diocesan education conventions are brainwashing spectaculars whose rosters of speakers and topics are completely predictable.


The diocesan press is firmly in the progressive camp: columnists (McBrien, Greeley, Boster, Curran, et al) features such as "Know Your Faith"; and even the diurnal flow of news is filtered through NC whose slant is showing. That Rome knows the problem has been brought home by the remarkable message of Archbishop Pio Laghi to the American episcopal publishers. The parishes are under enormous pressure to take "full coverage."³ A papist priest has the choice to disobey his bishop or feed poison to his flock.

The Family Life Office also bears the mark of Cain. From these busy, busy people there is nary a word about abortion, no support of pro-life activities, not the meekest hint of a prophetic critique of Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, their official marriage preparation courses are infected with the immoral theology of Kosnick & Co. Again the papist priest cannot in good conscience send his young couples to these required courses.

The use of diocesan structures: pastoral council, deanery councils, parish councils, boards of education at all levels, parish committees (liturgy; especially), as well as the ominous enforcement arm, the personnel board-all these are polypodal tenacles ever sucking, sapping, squeezing and throttling the non-conformists, who must, in turn, extract huge sums from the parishioners to feed the monster.

To add to the dismay, we realize that the seminaries utilized by our dioceses, some belonging to the diocese itself, are now hot beds, seminaria, of Modernism. We send bright-eyed idealist, Catholic youth, into these dens of revolution only to have them come back on vacations and, rarely, for ordination, as programmed anti-papal unCatholic activists. The few ordained thus build up the youthful base of dissidence far beyond the wildest dreams of the 60's. The only salvation for seminary candidates, unless they can master the art of dissembling, is for the pastor to dissuade them from going. (In the control diocese there is no chance for a candidate to be sent to the few well known orthodox seminaries.) Most of us then urge the young men to postpone entrance, hoping for eventual reconstruction of the system. Here is a peak of priestly suffering: dissuading a candidate from the seminary in order to save his soul!

Pastoral life is a new ball game. There is a general collapse of discipline and doctrine in the six dioceses. Each parish is a brave new world, teeming with its own flora and fauna. Tot capita, guot sententix. Cujus Regio, ejus religio. Even we papists are honestly confounded by the claims and counter-claims of what Rome has or has not allowed. Ukases emanating from diocesan or national sources give all the pretense of bearing Vatican authority. An egregious example: just what is Rome's will concerning the use of the Cup at weekend Masses?⁴


We papist priests find ourselves, by the grace of God, entrenched here and there in these arenas of apocalyptic anarchy. Usually we are in the "boon-docks," small rural communities. It has become nearly impossible to serve larger parishes except where two papists have contrived to be assigned together and have been in place for some time. Also these priests must have found good religious, who still staff the schools and allow them to satisfy their "scruples." Once a parish has been converted to the "new Church" it becomes interdict to papists. I have seen a brilliant, devout, vigorous priest attempt to assume control of a Modernist parish. Within six months he had been ground to powder by the parish council and the nuns. He left for the hinterlands, broken and disillusioned. In our foxholes we must compromise as far as we can, for, we are well aware, there are few places left to take us in. These "priest holes," to allude again to the past, are far from hermetically sealed. Our people are very mobile. They often visit Modernist parishes as they travel or attend weddings and funerals. Their children bring their stories to school on Monday mornings. "Father, guess what they do in that other church!" Do we tell innocent children that the other priests are disobedient? The confusion mounts as the months go by. Less stable parishioners apply pressures for outdoor polka masses, for scandalously secularized weddings, for intercommunion, for general absolution, etc.

In Modernist dioceses the papist priest has no chance of being called to effective positions. This is the least of his personal problems, though it dooms the whole dioceses to a regime totally alienated from the Holy See. What is pathetic, however, is that, given the current practice of prior consultation, there is never a chance that a papist will be voted on for episcopal candidacy by Modernist priests and religious. Recent appointments, e.g., Archbishop Szako of Detroit, offer some hope that this barrier can be bypassed. It is exasperating to think that loyalty to the Pope has become a diriment impediment to the episcopacy in some dioceses. If Rome seeks methods to restore the Church, surely the clearest way seems to be the appointment of (dare we call them "papist"?) bishops who are truly Roman Catholic. No disorder discussed here can be corrected unless the bishop is sound and courageous. Even the seminaries, the crucial next priority, cannot be reconstituted without heroic good shepherds. Heroic, because they will have to purge the present faculties and begin all over again. Words of exhortation from Rome will not effect changes so long as the present bishops are in place in the control dioceses. There is simply no way to reform seminaries, religious education offices, marriage tribunals, the diocesan press, liturgical and other abuses, until tough, papally-oriented bishops are in position. Such a bishop would immediately rally the pusillus grex of papists and soon the gelatinous gray area would slither over to him. The losses will be heavy and the battles bloody. But what is the alternative? To betray the Church? To abandon souls? To play the hireling?

It has been unnecessary to rehearse the now copious documentation on the state of the Church. The horror stories hardly generate a chill anymore. One thing is certain in the six control dioceses considered here: the priests with full allegiance to the Pope are a despised minority and the faith of most of their fellow priests, and yes, God help us, the faith of their bishops, is simply and plainly not their faith.

The basic question is what do we papist priests do when we experience a direct conflict between the authority of the Holy Father and the authority of our local bishop? What are we to do when the bishop, directly or indirectly through his officials, orders us to disregard (and in fact disobey) repeated and insistent papal directives? Do we obey the bishop or the Pope? To state the question seems to answer it, but to know the answer in theory is not to solve it in practice. We need guidance from the highest authority since problems such as time of First Confession, general absolution, inter-communion, to name only a few common conflicts, are well known to Rome but the bishops have been permitted to remain in authority, to all appearances in full communion. We appreciate that remedial action takes time, but meanwhile we need moral direction for our consciences and pragmatically clear pastoral guidance. The questions become specific: Must we attend lectures given by heretics when the bishop so insists? Should we feel justified in concelebrating with priests who openly deny essentials of the Faith, including the doctrine of the Real Presence, or when glaring abuses take place and we seem to endorse them by our participation? Very specifically, if we have been directed by the diocese to pour the left over Precious Blood down the sacrarium, should we do so in peaceful conscience? When priests, notoriously radical in doctrine and in liturgical discipline, come to our parishes, let us say for weddings or funerals, what should be our response? Are we to continue to suspend judgment, stifle our fears, and routinely cooperate with our tribunals in areas of suspect annulments? Is it tolerable that the now public disagreement between Rome and the U.S. canonists simply drifts for years without a resolution? What should be our stance in regard to the people committed to our pastoral care? Must we remain silent forever about the errors and abuses which inundate them? Dare we risk causing scandal by warning our faithful people about this spiritual poison when they know that specific priests and perhaps the bishop himself are prescribing it? We have been prudential for years; is this a virtue or a vice?

These, and a long litany more, are momentous, historical questions. They are of utmost urgency. If they are not answered soon, or if remedy is not otherwise given by corrective action, the papist priest will have no recourse but to meekly and silently retire and live his life (be it years or decades) without public exercise of his public ministry. And why? Simply because in these sorry times he must, in conscience, remain loyal to the Vicar of Christ. He demands the right to believe what the Pope teaches and freely to obey his directives. In Washington, D.C., October 7, 1979, in his address at Catholic University, Pope John Paul reminded the bishops of the "greatest right" of the faithful: to receive the Catholic doctrine purely and entirely. In April of 1980 he issued Inaestimabile donum, in which he added to this "bill of rights of the faithful" the "right to a true liturgy, which means the liturgy desired and laid down by the Church..." Surely faithful priests, a fortiori, since they are pastors of the flock, must have these same rights: the right to openly profess and teach and defend the Faith as it is taught by the Pope; the right to adhere to the liturgical laws authorized by Rome; the right to defend the Holy Eucharist from profanation; the right to keep inviolate the Profession of Faith and the Oath Against Modernism, which we solemnly swore on the eve of our ordination. Were we not imbued with a sense of deference and reverence towards ecclesiastical office, we would be tempted to call for a "priests' liberation movement" to demand these rights, without which we cannot survive.

1. National Federation of Priests' Councils.

2. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

3. The parish priest is compelled to purchase one copy of the diocesan newspaper for every family in his parish, even if the parishioners do not purchase them or he feels in conscience unable to put them on sale, and destroys them (which is by no means unusual)

4. In 1978 the American bishops voted to defy Rome and permit Communion under both kinds at Sunday Masses. In 1984 the Vatican surrendered to this act of defiance and authorized the practice in America. Full documentation concerning this rebellion is available in The Angelus Press pamphlet, "Communion Under Both Kinds."