Bp. Fellay said ABL wanted the May 5 Protocal
Apr 18, 2018 2:48:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 2:48:10 GMT
Bishop Fellay's Administration has been trying hard to say Archbishop Lefebvre would want the dialogue today with modern rome and acquiring of the present affirmations and regularized gestures of the pope. The neo-sspx Medias are always primed with this type of discourse trying to narrate this end.
Many rounds from different sspx superiors (Fr. La Roux, Fr. Laisney, Fr. Themann, ...) have made their appeal to join their benefactors minds to look towards conciliar rome. More recently Fr. Robinson, sspx, had tried to deduce the REGULARIZATION of the present SSPX is normal in relations as ABL had handled modern rome. As too Fr. Michel Simoulin, sspx, writes the most is support for a roman reconciliation here, here, and here. He hadn't always toted a betrayal. In 1988 he wrote an article siding with the Archbishop and signed the famous declaration to excommunicate him also with 23 other sspx superiors. But that didn't last long; unfortunately. Recently too, Fr. Simoulin put out another article in April 2018 Who is afraid of ostriches? trying to harmonize a consistency of mind with ABL. As to say there are no changes with the present administration and they are keeping the traditions with Archbishop Lefebvre.
But are they?
Here are some quotes of the Archbishop lest we forget what his mind and intentions really were starting on that May 5, 1988 Protocal Menzingen holds as a foundation of ABL's intent to go forward.
COMMON OBJECTION: “But Abp. Lefebvre never rejected the Protocol of May 5, 1988! In fact, he was pleased with most of its contents except for the fact that Rome didn’t give him a bishop for consecrating. The April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was similar to it.”
So why does the present sspx administration under Bishop Fellay ignore the words of their founder enshrined in their DNA?
Let the Archbishop speak for himself. Here is a 1988 conference to his priests at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Paris
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions, and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
And they had added that we acknowledge him as "the head of the college of bishops." I said, "I don't like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what "college" meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college." So I said, "You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept collegiality." So they said, "Let's put the body of bishops."' The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.
Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.
Then they added a number three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this number three, we were "saved from the waters." In this number three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the canon law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as religious liberty, they used to say, "You can't say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition."
Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized "the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal." It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition... I wanted to add, "taking into account what was stated in no. 3..." but they did not accept it.
Number five was on canon law. We promised, "to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II." They wanted to say "all ecclesiastical law." I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new canon law. [i.e., including canon 844 on Eucharistic sharing with non-Catholics.] So they took away the word "all." As you see, it was a constant fight.
At the conclusion of number three they put "we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics," as we had done on religious liberty (with the Dubia)."Without polemics," I said, "we never made any polemics!" "Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope." They were referring to the little drawings which the Pope looked at attentively...and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile ....So I said, "This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things, which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting." They said nothing; they did not answer. Then we spoke of the juridical questions.
The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would belong to the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. They said, "No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too." Thus the President would be Card. Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, "Well! That's very few."
Please note that; you shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear: they want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X, its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations, which surround the Society, would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put "the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes ...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order." One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.
Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.
Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, "You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations... even Card. Gagnon and Card. Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!" I said, "This is impossible. This is a condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?" With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, "you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition; you must respect our new rights. No difference."
So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, "for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful."
What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.
I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date...
Thus I have said, "We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it's coming soon." So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, "They are going to get us." Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. "Well! There is only one Church ...as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass.... For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition." I said, "Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!"
They call all this a "reconciliation." This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70's. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4)unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault .
This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, "No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop." When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, "That must be a beautiful baby then!" I said, "Well, give us a date. Let's be precise. The 15th of August?" "No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th." "What about November 1st?" "I can't tell you." "What about Christmas?" "I don't know."
I said to myself, "Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop." They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don't need a bishop.
So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: "It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that. [Here, the Archbishop reads the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. (See below)]
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of the 30th of June was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30th: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30pm. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, "Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?" He did not even wait. Here, the Archbishop reads the Cardinal's letter of May 6th. (See below.)
I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.
I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.
In this hope, please Excellency..
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. [Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône, reports that after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was taken, without accepting the Protocol, great peace and better health were noticeable again in the Archbishop - Ed.] I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.
Again, for them, this reconciliation means, "We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then your community Masses will be the New Mass - as for Dom Augustin - you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II"
One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, "If there is a bishop we cannot stop it." They want none of this.
But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while; they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, "Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations." This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, "For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop." But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, "Eminence, couldn't we..."
I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, "Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop."
I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the visit, they could have said a little word such as, "We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue." But, no, not even the least compliment.
One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, "Be open-minded. Don't be against the New Mass..." They will give conferences to the sisters.... Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...
We shall see what Providence manifests.... We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall "get us," and we bet that we will "get them!" They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won't be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes. I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.
Question by Fr. Boivin [District Bursar of the District of France.]: "Will there be one or several bishops?"
If there is no authorization from Rome, there will be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa - no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...
Question by Fr. Boivin: "What about the churches?"
The existing places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese. But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions. It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish - Card. Decourtray at Lyons has promised a beautiful church - they would require that one New Mass be said in that parish. Card. Decourtray did that with Fr. Cottin; he said to him, "I allow you to say the old Mass, but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant priest." Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who accept the New Mass. They would like to realign us along these lines. This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have fought for.
Source: sspxrome.blogspot.com/2012/07/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Other Letters:
Many rounds from different sspx superiors (Fr. La Roux, Fr. Laisney, Fr. Themann, ...) have made their appeal to join their benefactors minds to look towards conciliar rome. More recently Fr. Robinson, sspx, had tried to deduce the REGULARIZATION of the present SSPX is normal in relations as ABL had handled modern rome. As too Fr. Michel Simoulin, sspx, writes the most is support for a roman reconciliation here, here, and here. He hadn't always toted a betrayal. In 1988 he wrote an article siding with the Archbishop and signed the famous declaration to excommunicate him also with 23 other sspx superiors. But that didn't last long; unfortunately. Recently too, Fr. Simoulin put out another article in April 2018 Who is afraid of ostriches? trying to harmonize a consistency of mind with ABL. As to say there are no changes with the present administration and they are keeping the traditions with Archbishop Lefebvre.
But are they?
Here are some quotes of the Archbishop lest we forget what his mind and intentions really were starting on that May 5, 1988 Protocal Menzingen holds as a foundation of ABL's intent to go forward.
COMMON OBJECTION: “But Abp. Lefebvre never rejected the Protocol of May 5, 1988! In fact, he was pleased with most of its contents except for the fact that Rome didn’t give him a bishop for consecrating. The April 15, 2012 Doctrinal Declaration was similar to it.”
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (pg. 549, Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais)
-“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: “That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.” (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)
-"Had we continued with the [May 5 ] Protocol that would have been the end of the Fraternity." (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference)
• When asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope, he said, “At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED!...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!”(Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).
• Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol…”If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).
• Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone! (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).
• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548).
• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
“And so the question arose to know what I should do. I went to Richenbach to see the Superior General [Fr. Franz Schmidberger] and his assistants to ask them: What do you think? Should we accept the hand being offered to us? Or do we refuse it? “for myself, personally”, I said, “I have no confidence in them.” […] However, I do not wish people within the Society and Traditional circles to be able to say afterwards, you could easily have tried, it would have cost you nothing to enter into discussion and dialogue.” That was the opinion of the Superior General and his assistants. They said, “You must take into consideration the offer which is being made and not neglect it. It’s still worthwhile to talk with them.” Lefebvre concluded: “We cannot follow those people. They’re in apostasy, they do not believe in the divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ who must reign. What is the use in waiting? Let’s do the consecration! I suggest the date of the feast of Christ the King October 25, 1987.” (pg. 549, Marcel Lefebvre by Bp. Tissier de Mallerais)
-“When I asked why he [Lefebvre] had signed the agreement in the first place, he said: “That’s what they [the chief SSPX priests] all wanted. But then when I was by myself, alone, I realized that we couldn’t trust it.” (Dom Gerard Calvert, Abbot of Le Barraoux, close friend of Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with “30 Days”, Winter 1995)
-"Had we continued with the [May 5 ] Protocol that would have been the end of the Fraternity." (Archbishop Lefebvre, conference)
• When asked what he thought about Dom Gerard accepting the proposals of the Pope, he said, “At our last meeting, he asked me if I could accept the Protocol [of May 5, 1988] THAT I MYSELF REFUSED!...We must no longer discuss with the Roman authorities. They only want to bring us back to the Council, we must not have a relationship with them!”(Controverses, No. 0, September 1988, Le Rocher No. 84).
• Regarding the May 5, 1988 Protocol…”If only you knew what a night I passed after signing that infamous agreement! Oh! How I wanted morning to come so that I could give Fr. du Chalard my letter of retraction which I had written during the night.” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais p. 555).
• Our true believers—those who understand the problem—feared the steps I took with Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my time. Yes, of course, I hoped until the last minute that Rome has to show a little bit of loyalty. One cannot blame me for not doing the maximum. So now, to those who say to me, you must agree with Rome, I can safely say that I went even farther than I should have gone! (Abp. Lefebrve, 1990, Fideliter, No. 79, p. 11).
• “I said to him [Cardinal Ratzinger, who became Pope Benedict XVI] ‘Even if you grant us a bishop, even if you grant us some autonomy from the bishops, even if you grant us the 1962 Liturgy, even if you allow us to continue running our seminaries in the manner we are doing it right now—we cannot work together! It is impossible! Impossible! Because we are working in diametrically opposing directions. You are working to de-Christianize society, the human person and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them. We cannot get along together!’” (Marcel Lefebvre, Bp. Tissier de Mallerais, p. 548).
• “Someone once advised me, ‘Sign, sign [the May 5, 1988 Protocol] that you accept everything; and then you can continue as before!’ No! ONE DOES NOT PLAY WITH THE FAITH!”…To ask this of us is to ask us to collaborate in the disappearance of the Faith. Impossible!” (They Have Uncrowned Him, Abp. Lefebvre, ch. 31, p. 230).
So why does the present sspx administration under Bishop Fellay ignore the words of their founder enshrined in their DNA?
Let the Archbishop speak for himself. Here is a 1988 conference to his priests at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Paris
THE ARCHBISHOP SPEAKS
5 May 1988
at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Paris
Conference to his priests
5 May 1988
at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Paris
Conference to his priests
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions, and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
And they had added that we acknowledge him as "the head of the college of bishops." I said, "I don't like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what "college" meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college." So I said, "You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept collegiality." So they said, "Let's put the body of bishops."' The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.
Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.
Then they added a number three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this number three, we were "saved from the waters." In this number three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the canon law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as religious liberty, they used to say, "You can't say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition."
Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized "the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal." It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition... I wanted to add, "taking into account what was stated in no. 3..." but they did not accept it.
Number five was on canon law. We promised, "to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II." They wanted to say "all ecclesiastical law." I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new canon law. [i.e., including canon 844 on Eucharistic sharing with non-Catholics.] So they took away the word "all." As you see, it was a constant fight.
At the conclusion of number three they put "we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics," as we had done on religious liberty (with the Dubia)."Without polemics," I said, "we never made any polemics!" "Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope." They were referring to the little drawings which the Pope looked at attentively...and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile ....So I said, "This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things, which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting." They said nothing; they did not answer. Then we spoke of the juridical questions.
The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would belong to the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. They said, "No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too." Thus the President would be Card. Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, "Well! That's very few."
Please note that; you shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear: they want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X, its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations, which surround the Society, would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put "the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes ...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order." One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.
Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.
Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, "You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations... even Card. Gagnon and Card. Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!" I said, "This is impossible. This is a condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?" With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, "you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition; you must respect our new rights. No difference."
So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, "for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful."
What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.
I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date...
Thus I have said, "We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it's coming soon." So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, "They are going to get us." Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. "Well! There is only one Church ...as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass.... For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition." I said, "Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!"
They call all this a "reconciliation." This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70's. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4)unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault .
This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, "No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop." When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, "That must be a beautiful baby then!" I said, "Well, give us a date. Let's be precise. The 15th of August?" "No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th." "What about November 1st?" "I can't tell you." "What about Christmas?" "I don't know."
I said to myself, "Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop." They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don't need a bishop.
So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: "It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that. [Here, the Archbishop reads the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. (See below)]
---------------------------------------------
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Card. Ratzinger (May 6, 1988)
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of the 30th of June was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30th: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30pm. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, "Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?" He did not even wait. Here, the Archbishop reads the Cardinal's letter of May 6th. (See below.)
------------------------------------------------
Letter of Card. Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre (May 6, 1988)
I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.
I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.
In this hope, please Excellency..
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
---------------------------------------------------
Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. [Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône, reports that after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was taken, without accepting the Protocol, great peace and better health were noticeable again in the Archbishop - Ed.] I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.
Again, for them, this reconciliation means, "We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then your community Masses will be the New Mass - as for Dom Augustin - you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II"
One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, "If there is a bishop we cannot stop it." They want none of this.
But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while; they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, "Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations." This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, "For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop." But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, "Eminence, couldn't we..."
I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, "Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop."
I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the visit, they could have said a little word such as, "We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue." But, no, not even the least compliment.
One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, "Be open-minded. Don't be against the New Mass..." They will give conferences to the sisters.... Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...
We shall see what Providence manifests.... We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall "get us," and we bet that we will "get them!" They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won't be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes. I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.
Question by Fr. Boivin [District Bursar of the District of France.]: "Will there be one or several bishops?"
If there is no authorization from Rome, there will be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa - no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...
Question by Fr. Boivin: "What about the churches?"
The existing places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese. But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions. It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish - Card. Decourtray at Lyons has promised a beautiful church - they would require that one New Mass be said in that parish. Card. Decourtray did that with Fr. Cottin; he said to him, "I allow you to say the old Mass, but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant priest." Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who accept the New Mass. They would like to realign us along these lines. This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have fought for.
Source: sspxrome.blogspot.com/2012/07/v-behaviorurldefaultvmlo.html
Other Letters:
Correspondence between Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 6, 1988
Your Eminence,
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations.
Practically speaking, a postponement of the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that I had postponed the date of the ceremony. June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible date.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to establish the mandate.
Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very easily simplify the procedure so that the mandate can be communicated to us around mid-June.
If the answer was no, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying on the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop who is a member of the Society.
The hesitations expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, give me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony on June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of huge tents to shelter the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and lay faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be performed with the agreement of the Holy See; but having been disappointed already by previous delays they would not understand it if I accepted a new delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having true Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them and communicating to them in a sure way the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 6, 1988
Your Excellency,
I have carefully read the letter which you just sent me, in which you tell me of your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30 of this year.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what you agreed to during our conversation on May 4 and signed your name to in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communique has to be deferred.
I earnestly hope that you would reconsider your position in keeping with the results of the dialogue, so that the communique might be released.
In this hope, I ask you, Your Excellency, ...
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
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.
We hoped that you would give us the means to continue and develop the works of Tradition, especially by giving us some coadjutors, at least three, and by giving a majority to Tradition on the Roman Commission.
Now, on these two points which we deem necessary to maintain our works outside of all progressivist and conciliar influence, we are not satisfied.
Therefore, with much regret, we consider ourselves obliged to ask you, before June 1, to indicate clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two points: consecration of three bishops requested for June 30, and a majority of members from Tradition on the Roman Commission.
If I receive no answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30 with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.
My health and the apostolic needs for the growth of our works do not allow any further delay.
In the hope that these requests will be taken into consideration, please accept, Your Eminence, my respectful and fraternally devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 30, 1988
May 30, 1988
Your Excellency,
After being received in audience by the Holy Father on Friday, May 27, as I had indicated to you during our conversation on the 24th, I am in a position to respond to the letter you had given to me the same day, concerning the problems of a majority of the members of the Society on the Roman Commission, and the consecration of bishops.
Concerning the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles decided on in Part III, section 2 of the Protocol which you accepted. This Commission is an organization of the Holy See in the service of the Society and of the various authorities with which it will have to deal in order to establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the fears which you have expressed with respect to the other members are groundless, since the choice of members will be made by the Holy Father himself.
Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you in his behalf, namely that he is willing to appoint a member of the Society as a bishop (as described in Part II, section 5, paragraph 2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the concluding day of this Marian Year, on August 15.
From the practical point of view this requires that you present without delay to His Holiness a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates, so as to allow him to choose freely a candidate who corresponds to the profile envisaged in the agreements and at the same time the general criteria of aptitude which the Church maintains for the appointment of bishops.
Finally, you know that the Holy Father awaits from you a letter containing essentially the points which we have spoken about, particularly in our conversation of May 24. However, since you recently announced again your intention to ordain three bishops on June 30 with or without Rome’s approval, it is necessary that in this letter (cf. Part II, section 4 of the Protocol), you state clearly that you renounce the idea, and that you place yourself in full obedience to the decision of the Holy Father.
With this final step, accomplished as soon as possible, the process of reconciliation would reach its conclusion, and a public announcement of this fact could be given.
Your Excellency, as I conclude this letter, I can only repeat to you as I did last Tuesday, and with yet more gravity, if that is possible: when one considers the positive content of the agreement which the benevolence of Pope John Paul II has allowed us to reach, there is no proportion between the last few difficulties that you expressed and the damage that would be caused now by a break, a rupture with the Apostolic See on your part, merely for these reasons. You must have confidence in the Holy Father: he has shown his goodness and understanding toward you and toward the Society, and it is the best guarantee of the future. Finally, you must—as we all must—have confidence in the Lord, who has allowed the path of reconciliation to be opened as it is today, and enabled the goal to appear so close now.
Kindly accept, Your Excellency, the expression of my fraternal and respectfully devoted sentiments in the Lord.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, June 2, 1988
Econe, June 2, 1988
Most Holy Father,
The conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived.
For indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his baptism, how much more true is that for priests, religious, and nuns?
It is to keep the Faith of our baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.
The false ecumenism, which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations, in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and Catholics to apostasy.
Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.
That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.
Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15.
We shall continue to pray that modern Rome, infested with Modernism, may once again become Catholic Rome and rediscover its 2,000 year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.
Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle,
Founder of the Society of St. Pius X
Letter of Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 9, 1988
To His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
It is with intense and profound affliction that I read your letter dated June 2.
Guided solely by concern for the unity of the Church in fidelity to revealed Truth—an imperative duty imposed on the Successor of the Apostle Peter—I had arranged last year an Apostolic Visitation of the Society of St. Pius X and its work, which was carried out by Edward Cardinal Gagnon. Conversations followed, first with the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then between yourself and Cardinal Ratzinger. In the course of these meetings solutions had been drawn up, accepted, and signed by you on May 5, 1988. They permitted the Society of St. Pius X to exist and to work in the Church in full communion with the Supreme Pontiff, the guardian of unity in the Truth. For its part, the Apostolic See pursued only one end in these conversations with you: to promote and safeguard this unity in obedience to Divine Revelation, as translated and interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium, notably in the 21 Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II.
In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide for yourself the means to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding shortly without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5 and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30.
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity required by the present circumstances, I exhort you, Reverend Brother, not to embark on a course which, if persisted in, can only appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience to Christ’s Vicar.
Not only do I invite you to do so, but I ask it of you through the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His Passion, prayed for His disciples “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:20).
To this request and to this invitation I unite my daily prayer to Mary, Mother of Christ.
Dear Brother, do not permit that the year dedicated in a very special way to the Mother of God should bring another wound to her Mother’s Heart!
Joannes Paulus PP.II
From the Vatican,
June 9, 1988
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of negotiations”, June 19, 1988
Indeed it is difficult to understand why the talks ceased unless we put them into their historical context.
Although we never wanted to have a break in relations with Conciliar Rome, even after the first visitation from Rome on November 11, 1974, was followed by measures that were sectarian and null—the suppression of our work on May 6, 1975, and the “suspension” in July 1976—these relations could only take place in a climate of mistrust.
Louis Veuillot says that there is no one more sectarian than a Liberal; indeed, having made a compromise between error and Revelation, he feels condemned by those who remain in the Truth, and thus if he is in power, he persecutes them fiercely. This is the case with us and with all those who are opposed to the liberal documents and liberal reforms of the Council.
They absolutely want us to have a “guilt complex” with regard to them, but they are the ones who are guilty of duplicity.
Thus it was always in a tense albeit polite atmosphere that relations took place with Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Ratzinger between 1976 and 1987, but also with some hope that as the self-destruction of the Church accelerated, they would finally regard us with benevolence.
Until that time, the goal of the contacts for Rome was to make us accept the Council and its reforms, and to make us acknowledge our error. The logic of events necessarily led me to ask for a successor, if not two or three, to assure our ordinations and confirmations. Given the persistent refusal of Rome, on June 29, 1987, I announced my decision to consecrate bishops.
On July 28, Cardinal Ratzinger opened up some new horizons which legitimately gave us reason to think that finally Rome was looking more favorably on us. No longer was there any question of a doctrinal document to be signed, or of asking for forgiveness; instead an Apostolic Visitor was finally announced, the Society could be recognized, the Liturgy would be as before the Council, the seminarians would remain in the same frame of mind!
Thus we agreed to enter into this new dialogue, but on the condition that our identity would be well protected against liberal influences by means of bishops taken from within Tradition, and by a majority of members in the Roman Commission for Tradition. Now, after the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, of which we still know nothing, the disappointments have accumulated.
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 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 present conciliar and Modernist Rome can never tolerate the existence of a vigorous branch of the Catholic Church which condemns it by its very vitality.
No doubt we shall have to wait yet another few years, therefore, for Rome to recover her bi-millennial Tradition. As for us, we continue to show, with the grace of God, that this Tradition is the only source of sanctification and salvation for souls, and the only possibility of renewal for the Church.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
June 19, 1988
Econe
Source: fsspx.org/en/other-letters
Your Eminence,
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations.
Practically speaking, a postponement of the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that I had postponed the date of the ceremony. June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible date.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to establish the mandate.
Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very easily simplify the procedure so that the mandate can be communicated to us around mid-June.
If the answer was no, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying on the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop who is a member of the Society.
The hesitations expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, give me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony on June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of huge tents to shelter the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and lay faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be performed with the agreement of the Holy See; but having been disappointed already by previous delays they would not understand it if I accepted a new delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having true Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them and communicating to them in a sure way the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
-------------------------------------------
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 6, 1988
Your Excellency,
I have carefully read the letter which you just sent me, in which you tell me of your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30 of this year.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what you agreed to during our conversation on May 4 and signed your name to in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communique has to be deferred.
I earnestly hope that you would reconsider your position in keeping with the results of the dialogue, so that the communique might be released.
In this hope, I ask you, Your Excellency, ...
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
----------------------------------------------------
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.
We hoped that you would give us the means to continue and develop the works of Tradition, especially by giving us some coadjutors, at least three, and by giving a majority to Tradition on the Roman Commission.
Now, on these two points which we deem necessary to maintain our works outside of all progressivist and conciliar influence, we are not satisfied.
Therefore, with much regret, we consider ourselves obliged to ask you, before June 1, to indicate clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two points: consecration of three bishops requested for June 30, and a majority of members from Tradition on the Roman Commission.
If I receive no answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30 with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.
My health and the apostolic needs for the growth of our works do not allow any further delay.
In the hope that these requests will be taken into consideration, please accept, Your Eminence, my respectful and fraternally devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
-------------------------------------------------
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 30, 1988
May 30, 1988
Your Excellency,
After being received in audience by the Holy Father on Friday, May 27, as I had indicated to you during our conversation on the 24th, I am in a position to respond to the letter you had given to me the same day, concerning the problems of a majority of the members of the Society on the Roman Commission, and the consecration of bishops.
Concerning the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles decided on in Part III, section 2 of the Protocol which you accepted. This Commission is an organization of the Holy See in the service of the Society and of the various authorities with which it will have to deal in order to establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the fears which you have expressed with respect to the other members are groundless, since the choice of members will be made by the Holy Father himself.
Regarding the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated to you in his behalf, namely that he is willing to appoint a member of the Society as a bishop (as described in Part II, section 5, paragraph 2 of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could take place on the concluding day of this Marian Year, on August 15.
From the practical point of view this requires that you present without delay to His Holiness a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates, so as to allow him to choose freely a candidate who corresponds to the profile envisaged in the agreements and at the same time the general criteria of aptitude which the Church maintains for the appointment of bishops.
Finally, you know that the Holy Father awaits from you a letter containing essentially the points which we have spoken about, particularly in our conversation of May 24. However, since you recently announced again your intention to ordain three bishops on June 30 with or without Rome’s approval, it is necessary that in this letter (cf. Part II, section 4 of the Protocol), you state clearly that you renounce the idea, and that you place yourself in full obedience to the decision of the Holy Father.
With this final step, accomplished as soon as possible, the process of reconciliation would reach its conclusion, and a public announcement of this fact could be given.
Your Excellency, as I conclude this letter, I can only repeat to you as I did last Tuesday, and with yet more gravity, if that is possible: when one considers the positive content of the agreement which the benevolence of Pope John Paul II has allowed us to reach, there is no proportion between the last few difficulties that you expressed and the damage that would be caused now by a break, a rupture with the Apostolic See on your part, merely for these reasons. You must have confidence in the Holy Father: he has shown his goodness and understanding toward you and toward the Society, and it is the best guarantee of the future. Finally, you must—as we all must—have confidence in the Lord, who has allowed the path of reconciliation to be opened as it is today, and enabled the goal to appear so close now.
Kindly accept, Your Excellency, the expression of my fraternal and respectfully devoted sentiments in the Lord.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
-------------------------------------------------
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, June 2, 1988
Econe, June 2, 1988
Most Holy Father,
The conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived.
For indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his baptism, how much more true is that for priests, religious, and nuns?
It is to keep the Faith of our baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.
The false ecumenism, which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations, in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and Catholics to apostasy.
Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.
That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.
Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.
That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15.
We shall continue to pray that modern Rome, infested with Modernism, may once again become Catholic Rome and rediscover its 2,000 year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.
Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle,
Founder of the Society of St. Pius X
-------------------------------------------------
Letter of Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 9, 1988
To His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
It is with intense and profound affliction that I read your letter dated June 2.
Guided solely by concern for the unity of the Church in fidelity to revealed Truth—an imperative duty imposed on the Successor of the Apostle Peter—I had arranged last year an Apostolic Visitation of the Society of St. Pius X and its work, which was carried out by Edward Cardinal Gagnon. Conversations followed, first with the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then between yourself and Cardinal Ratzinger. In the course of these meetings solutions had been drawn up, accepted, and signed by you on May 5, 1988. They permitted the Society of St. Pius X to exist and to work in the Church in full communion with the Supreme Pontiff, the guardian of unity in the Truth. For its part, the Apostolic See pursued only one end in these conversations with you: to promote and safeguard this unity in obedience to Divine Revelation, as translated and interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium, notably in the 21 Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II.
In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide for yourself the means to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding shortly without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5 and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30.
With a paternal heart, but with all the gravity required by the present circumstances, I exhort you, Reverend Brother, not to embark on a course which, if persisted in, can only appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I earnestly invite you to return, in humility, to full obedience to Christ’s Vicar.
Not only do I invite you to do so, but I ask it of you through the wounds of Christ our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His Passion, prayed for His disciples “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:20).
To this request and to this invitation I unite my daily prayer to Mary, Mother of Christ.
Dear Brother, do not permit that the year dedicated in a very special way to the Mother of God should bring another wound to her Mother’s Heart!
Joannes Paulus PP.II
From the Vatican,
June 9, 1988
-------------------------------------------------
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of negotiations”, June 19, 1988
Indeed it is difficult to understand why the talks ceased unless we put them into their historical context.
Although we never wanted to have a break in relations with Conciliar Rome, even after the first visitation from Rome on November 11, 1974, was followed by measures that were sectarian and null—the suppression of our work on May 6, 1975, and the “suspension” in July 1976—these relations could only take place in a climate of mistrust.
Louis Veuillot says that there is no one more sectarian than a Liberal; indeed, having made a compromise between error and Revelation, he feels condemned by those who remain in the Truth, and thus if he is in power, he persecutes them fiercely. This is the case with us and with all those who are opposed to the liberal documents and liberal reforms of the Council.
They absolutely want us to have a “guilt complex” with regard to them, but they are the ones who are guilty of duplicity.
Thus it was always in a tense albeit polite atmosphere that relations took place with Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Ratzinger between 1976 and 1987, but also with some hope that as the self-destruction of the Church accelerated, they would finally regard us with benevolence.
Until that time, the goal of the contacts for Rome was to make us accept the Council and its reforms, and to make us acknowledge our error. The logic of events necessarily led me to ask for a successor, if not two or three, to assure our ordinations and confirmations. Given the persistent refusal of Rome, on June 29, 1987, I announced my decision to consecrate bishops.
On July 28, Cardinal Ratzinger opened up some new horizons which legitimately gave us reason to think that finally Rome was looking more favorably on us. No longer was there any question of a doctrinal document to be signed, or of asking for forgiveness; instead an Apostolic Visitor was finally announced, the Society could be recognized, the Liturgy would be as before the Council, the seminarians would remain in the same frame of mind!
Thus we agreed to enter into this new dialogue, but on the condition that our identity would be well protected against liberal influences by means of bishops taken from within Tradition, and by a majority of members in the Roman Commission for Tradition. Now, after the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, of which we still know nothing, the disappointments have accumulated.
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 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 present conciliar and Modernist Rome can never tolerate the existence of a vigorous branch of the Catholic Church which condemns it by its very vitality.
No doubt we shall have to wait yet another few years, therefore, for Rome to recover her bi-millennial Tradition. As for us, we continue to show, with the grace of God, that this Tradition is the only source of sanctification and salvation for souls, and the only possibility of renewal for the Church.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
June 19, 1988
Econe
Source: fsspx.org/en/other-letters