Archbishop Lefebvre on the then-Cardinal Ratzinger
Feb 20, 2020 18:20:04 GMT
Post by Admin on Feb 20, 2020 18:20:04 GMT
The Sermon of His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre On the Occasion of the Episcopal Consecrations: June 30, 1988
This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying the call of these Popes and as a consequence the call of God, since they represent Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Church.
"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?" Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
"And why, Archbishop, have you stopped these discussions which seemed to have had a certain degree of success?" Well, precisely because, at the same time that I gave my signature to the Protocol, the envoy of Cardinal Ratzinger gave me a note in which I was asked to beg pardon for my errors. But if I am in error, if I teach error, it is clear that I must be brought back to the truth in the minds of those who sent me this note to sign. "That I might recognize my errors" means that, if you recognize your errors we will help you to return to the truth. (What is this truth for them if not the truth of Vatican II, the truth of the Conciliar Church?) Consequently, it is clear that the only truth that exists today for the Vatican is the conciliar truth, the spirit of the Council, the spirit of Assisi. That is the truth of today. But we will have nothing to do with this for anything in the world!
That is why, taking into account the strong will of the present Roman authorities to reduce Tradition to naught, to gather the world to the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi, we have preferred to withdraw ourselves and to say that we could not continue. It was not possible. We would have evidently been under the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger, President of the Roman Commission, which would have directed us; we were putting ourselves into his hands, and consequently putting ourselves into the hands of those who wish to draw us into the spirit of the Council and the spirit of Assisi. This was simply not possible.
* * *
"Let anyone just read the letter of the former seminarian of Econe, Carlo, who went over to Rome to set up a conservative organisation there, called "Mater Ecclesix", who tried to corrupt our seminarians by getting them to leave us, but whose eyes have since been opened wide by the trickery of Rome. In that letter he admits that Rome treats them like outcasts, that they are forced to take off the cassock, that nobody receives them. He has found out what this Rome is like. Rome wants to turn the Society into another "Mater Ecclesiae". And when the first "Mater Ecclesiae" collapsed, Cardinal Ratzinger rejoiced.
"So why should they keep their word to us? We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5 to come to naught."
"So why should they keep their word to us? We were protected by God when He allowed the agreement of May 5 to come to naught."
* * *
For his part, Cardinal Ratzinger, presenting a discussion paper on the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians, affirms he says “for the first time clearly” that “the decisions of the Magisterium cannot be the last word on the matter as such” but are “a kind of provisional disposition ... the core remains stable but the particular aspects that influence the circumstances of that time may need correction later on. In this regard one can point to the declarations of the popes of the last century. The anti-modernist decisions rendered a great service but they are now outdated.” And voila, the position on modernism is turned around! These reflections are absolutely insane.
* * *
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988
Albano, May 24, 1988
To His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Your Eminence,
[...] It seems to me necessary to clarify what I wrote to you on May 6 of this year.
Upon reflection, it appears plain to us that the purpose of these dialogues is to reabsorb us into the Conciliar Church, the only Church that you mentioned to us in your catechetical instructions. [...]
Albano, May 24, 1988
To His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Your Eminence,
[...] It seems to me necessary to clarify what I wrote to you on May 6 of this year.
Upon reflection, it appears plain to us that the purpose of these dialogues is to reabsorb us into the Conciliar Church, the only Church that you mentioned to us in your catechetical instructions. [...]
* * *
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of negotiations”, June 19, 1988
[...] The talks that followed in April and May were a distinct disappointment to us. They sent us a doctrinal document, they added the new Canon Law to it, Rome reserved for itself five out of seven members on the Roman Commission, among them a President (who will be Cardinal Ratzinger) and the Vice-President.
The question of a bishop was resolved after much hemming and hawing; they insisted on proving to us that we did not need one.
The cardinal [Ratzinger] informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated [weekly] at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II.
Despite these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5. But already the date of the episcopal consecration caused a problem. Then a draft letter asking the pope for forgiveness was put into my hands.
I considered myself obliged to write a letter threatening to perform the episcopal consecrations in order to manage to get the date of August 15 for the episcopal consecration.
The atmosphere is no longer one of fraternal collaboration and pure and simple recognition of the Society—not at all. For Rome the goal of the talks is reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says in an interview granted to the Italian newspaper L’Avvenire, meaning the return of the lost sheep to the flock. That is what I say in my letter to the pope dated June 2: “The purpose of the talks has not been the same for you as for us.”
And when we think of the history of relations of Rome with the traditionalists from 1965 to this day, we are compelled to observe that there has been an unceasing and cruel persecution to force us to submit to the Council. The most recent example is that of the Mater Ecclesiae Seminary for drop-outs from Econe, who in less than two years have been made to serve the conciliar revolution, contrary to all promises! [...]
The question of a bishop was resolved after much hemming and hawing; they insisted on proving to us that we did not need one.
The cardinal [Ratzinger] informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be celebrated [weekly] at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and only Church, that of Vatican II.
Despite these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5. But already the date of the episcopal consecration caused a problem. Then a draft letter asking the pope for forgiveness was put into my hands.
I considered myself obliged to write a letter threatening to perform the episcopal consecrations in order to manage to get the date of August 15 for the episcopal consecration.
The atmosphere is no longer one of fraternal collaboration and pure and simple recognition of the Society—not at all. For Rome the goal of the talks is reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says in an interview granted to the Italian newspaper L’Avvenire, meaning the return of the lost sheep to the flock. That is what I say in my letter to the pope dated June 2: “The purpose of the talks has not been the same for you as for us.”
And when we think of the history of relations of Rome with the traditionalists from 1965 to this day, we are compelled to observe that there has been an unceasing and cruel persecution to force us to submit to the Council. The most recent example is that of the Mater Ecclesiae Seminary for drop-outs from Econe, who in less than two years have been made to serve the conciliar revolution, contrary to all promises! [...]
* * *
Archbishop Lefebvre's address to his priests given in Econe, Switzerland on September 6, 1990
Now you know very well that Cardinal Ratzinger has said that as far as he is concerned Vatican II is "an anti-Syllabus". Therewith the Cardinal placed himself clearly amongst those who are against the Syllabus. If then he is against the Syllabus, he is adopting the principles of the Revolution. Besides, he goes on to say quite clearly, "Indeed we have now absorbed into Church teaching, and the Church has opened herself up to, principles which are not hers but which come from modern society," i.e., as everyone understands, the principles of 1789, the Rights of Man. [...]
"What is going to happen? How is it all going to end?" That is God's secret. Mystery. But that we must fight the ideas presently fashionable in Rome, coming from the Pope's own mouth, Cardinal Ratzinger's mouth, Cardinal Casaroli's mouth, of Cardinal Willebrands and those like them, is clear, clear, for all they do is repeat the opposite of what the Popes said and solemnly stated for 150 years. We must choose, as I said to Pope Paul VI: "We have to choose between you and the Council on one side, and your predecessors on the other; either with your predecessors who stated the Church's teaching, or with the novelties of Vatican II." Reply - "Ah, this is not the moment to get into theology, we are not getting into theology now." It is clear. Hence we must not waver for one moment. [...]
On to our well-known Cardinal Ratzinger who made the remark that the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes was a Counter-Syllabus. He finds it nevertheless awkward to have made such a remark, because people are now constantly quoting it back to him, as a criticism: "You said that Vatican II is a Counter-Syllabus! Hey, wait a moment, that is serious!" So he has found an explanation. He gave it just a little while ago, on June 27, 1990.
You know that Rome recently issued a major document to explain the relationship between the Magisterium and theologians. With all the problems theologians are causing them on all sides, Rome no longer knows what to do, so they have to try to keep the theologians in line without coming down too hard on them, so they go on and on, page after page after page in this document. Now in the presentation of the document Cardinal Ratzinger gives us his thinking on the possibility of saying the opposite of what Popes have previously decided one hundred years ago or whatever.
The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, says the cardinal,
The Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, says the cardinal,
"states for the first time with such clarity..." - and indeed I think it is true! -
...that there are decisions of the Magisterium which cannot be and are not intended to be the last word on the matter as such, but are a substantial anchorage in the problem...
The Cardinal continues -
- Listen! - definitive decisions of the Holy See being turned into provisional dispositions!!
"...and they are first and foremost an expression of pastoral prudence, a sort of provisional disposition..."
The Cardinal goes on -
Those are the decisions the cardinal could not digest! Hence three definitive statements of the Magisterium may be put aside because they were only "provisional"! Listen to the cardinal, who goes on to say that these anti-modernist decisions of the Church rendered a great service in their day by
So we turn over the page and say no more about them!
...Their core remains valid, but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification. In this regard one can refer to the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time...
"warning against hasty and superficial adaptations", and "by keeping the Church from sinking into the liberal-bourgeois world...But the details of the determinations of their contents were later suspended once they had carried out their pastoral duty at a particular moment" (Osservatore Romano, English edition, July 2, 1990, p. 5).
So you see how the Cardinal has got out of the accusation of going a bit far when he calls Vatican II an Anti-Syllabus, when he opposes the Pontifical decisions and the Magisterium of the past? - He's found the way out! - "...the core remains valid..." - what core? No idea! - "...but the individual details influenced by the circumstances at the time may need further rectification..." - and there he has it, he is out of his difficulty!