POSTUMOUS LETTERS FROM Mgr. MARCEL LEFEBVRE

 

his letter is a summary of the conference that Archbishop Lefebvre gave before the episcopal consecrations when all hope of an agreement with modernist Rome had already been lost.

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre never closed to an agreement with modernist Rome, an arrangement where, above all and above all, the true Catholic faith and the doctrine of Our Lord Jesus Christ of which he was a staunch defender until the end of his life will be safeguarded.

He never gave in to the covert and malicious pretensions of the enemies of the Church, he never accepted deceptive and informal commitments, and he never feared their threats or extortion. With all this, he was not irreverent in the face of their despotic attitudes against his person and he patiently tolerated all the humiliating contempt that he received not only from some bishops, cardinals but also from Popes. Despite this, he was always patient, tolerant and humble with a smile always on his lips. His perseverance in the good fight was heroic even when the modernist storm raged against him in order to undermine his resistance and end his fight quickly and without much "fuss", in the opinion of the modernists enemies of the true Church.It was a providential lightning bolt against the infernal storms that rose up against the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He was an understanding and pious Father for those of us who knew him and enjoyed his paternal and spiritual protection ... In short, he was a man of God, of the Church and a faithful devotee of Our good Mother in heaven, we learned a lot from him and we greatly regret his death When he is, by divine designs, I take him from us that, although we are no more than simple priests, we want to follow in his footsteps so as not to get lost in the midst of the great confusion that reigns in our fateful times, God have mercy on our souls .He was an understanding and pious Father for those of us who knew him and enjoyed his paternal and spiritual protection ... In short, he was a man of God, of the Church and a faithful devotee of Our good Mother in heaven, we learned a lot from him and we greatly regret his death When he is, by divine designs, I take him from us that, although we are no more than simple priests, we want to follow in his footsteps so as not to get lost in the midst of the great confusion that reigns in our fateful times, God have mercy on our souls .He was an understanding and pious Father for those of us who knew him and enjoyed his paternal and spiritual protection ... In short, he was a man of God, of the Church and a faithful devotee of Our good Mother in heaven, we learned a lot from him and we greatly regret his death When he is, by divine designs, I take him from us that, although we are no more than simple priests, we want to follow in his footsteps so as not to get lost in the midst of the great confusion that reigns in our fateful times, God have mercy on our souls .we want to follow in his footsteps so as not to get lost in the midst of the great confusion that reigns in our dark times, God have mercy on our souls.we want to follow in his footsteps so as not to get lost in the midst of the great confusion that reigns in our dark times, God have mercy on our souls.

This conference letter is the end of a struggle that he started at the Second Vatican Council back in 1960, as he says in it. Where he began his great battle without yielding anything to the enemy of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Church founded by him and the Blessed Virgin Mary and ended with his death in 1991 unjustly excommunicated by those he always fought. Regarding this "excommunication", he said before dying: ¿who excommunicates the modernist church or the Church of always? If it is the first (the modernist and current or also called official) this excommunication is welcome because I never commune with it.

This posthumous letter-conference will be followed by other articles where he narrates everything he did with respect to modern Rome, these articles will bear the name of MONS. MARCEL LEFEBVRE AND THE ARRANGEMENTS WITH ROME, I hope these articles will continue with the same interest for the good of your souls, for the honor of Our Lord Jesus Christ and for the good of the Church of always with whom we have, as baptized, a very commitment. great, God bless you.

RP Arturo Vargas Meza (1986-2021)

WARNING. The original text is in French, the Spanish translation is unfortunately not very accurate, but we have done our best to adapt it to Spanish or Spanish.

PRESS CONFERENCE OF MONS. MARCEL LEFEBVRE OF JUNE 15, 1988.

We have allowed ourselves to invite you as we did thirteen years ago in 1975, when the difficult events between Rome and Econe hit us. We are once again, one might say, for a hot summer. Before arriving just after the events of the last days and days to come, first of all, I would like to give a little review so that you can better understand the situation, and in the reports that you write in the newspapers, you can be the most objective. that they can.

We must put the events that happen today, what will happen tomorrow - especially the episcopal consecration of bishops on June 30 - in the context of the difficulties with Rome, not only since 1970 but since the Second Vatican Council.

At the Council, I and a number of bishops fought against modernism and against the errors that we consider unacceptable to the Catholic faith.

The basic problem is the following; it is a formal opposition, deep and radical, against the modernist ideas that have passed through the Council. You can say: ¿but what do you mean by that? Well I am going to give some themes of this modernism. An example of this is human rights in 1989.

This is a law within the civil society of all religions, that is, the principle of secular government.

This is ecumenism or the meeting of all religions. It is about Assisi, Kyoto, there are visits to the Synagogue, the Protestant Church and the Temple of collegiality, that is, with the synods, episcopal conferences, the change in the liturgy, the catechesis change, the increase of the participation of the laity and women in the religious sphere. You mentioned it in your papers, you know these things, because everything seemed at the time of the synods of Rome. It is the denial of the past of the Church. It is a struggle that came to the Church to eradicate the past, the tradition of the Church. This continues persecution against those who want to remain Catholic, just like the popes before Vatican II. That is our position. We follow what the Popes have taught before Vatican II.We oppose what was done now by Pope John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II because they have made a break with their predecessors. We prefer the tradition of the Church to the work of the Popes who oppose their predecessors.

However, we have wanted to maintain contact with Rome during these years, since 1976, when I received "the suspension a divinis", because we continue with the priestly ordinations. We wanted to be in contact with Rome, hoping that one day I would find the tradition their rights, but to no avail.

Given the refusal of Rome to consider our proposal and our requests for a return to tradition, and given my age - because I am now 82 years old, and I am going to turn 83, it is obvious that I feel at the end of my path - I need a successor. I cannot leave five seminaries in the whole world without a bishop to ordain seminarians. because you cannot ordain priests without a bishop. And until there is agreement with Rome, there will be no bishops who agree with the ordinations. So I find myself at an absolute dead end and I must make a decision: either to die and leave my seminarians as abandoned and orphans or to leave my seminarians with the bishops, I have no other choice.

So I asked Rome several times: "Let me consecrate bishops, who are my successors." Therefore, on June 29 (1987), I made a clear allusion in my preaching here in Ecône on the occasion of the ordination of the seminarians. I said, I am going to make episcopal consecrations because Rome does not want to listen or hear, and will abandon us. I feel obliged to leave successors. Therefore, on October 25 I will dedicate my assets to the bishops. Big buzz in Rome!

It is from this statement that I received a letter on July 28, after meeting Cardinal Ratzinger on July 14, to which I said: "Either Rome, grant me bishops, or I make them myself." In his July 28 letter, Cardinal Ratzinger said: "As for the bishops, you must wait until the Fraternity is recognized. For now, perhaps concessions can be made in the liturgy, the existence of its seminaries and in case of hurry we will send you a visitor "I had actually requested an apostolic visit, as far as we know since you do not know us, come see us. So there was an opening on the part of Rome at that time. I admit it was very hesitant. Is it that I should accept this opening, or is it already denied? I had good reason to refuse, because I have no confidence in the Roman authorities, I must say, because their ideas are totally opposite to ours. We are not in the same position at all but diametrically opposite, so I was not confident.

They had always persecuted us, it was still the persecution of Port-Marly, that of Father Lecareux of his parishes, also approved by Rome, what awaits the bishops to be approved by Rome? All this does not inspire confidence to put ourselves in the hands of Rome.

However, despite the mistrust, we wanted to make an effort, we will try, to know the provisions of Rome towards us. It is in this spirit that I went to Rome and then received a visit from Cardinal Gagnon. ¿Has this visit been favorable? I confess that I do not know, I have not had a single word about the outcome of this visit, which took place seven months ago. I said to Cardinal Ratzinger: that is unacceptable. We accept a visit from Rome to see if we do it well, or if we do it poorly, if there is any criticism about what we do, if they do not agree with us, and they do not tell us anything. I was not aware of the 1974 visit of two Belgian prelates who visited the seminary here fourteen years ago. I have never received a single line telling me what the result of this visit was.

Then Cardinal Gagnon came, and then they offered us preparatory seminars to sign a protocol and thus reach an agreement to establish the institutions that have governed the tradition. So we had these meetings with them. I confess that I would have liked to go and participate in the first meetings, but they preferred that I was not there and a theologian and canonist informed me. That is what I did. I appoint Father Tissier de Mallerais and Abbe Laroche to go to Rome to meet with the representatives of Cardinal Ratzinger. There were three representatives from Rome: a theologian, a canonist and Father Duroux, who presided over the meeting.

A first project was developed after forty-eight hours, to resolve doctrinal issues and disciplinary issues. We were surprised by their insistence because they wanted us to sign a doctrinal text. Since the opening, Cardinal Ratzinger had stated in his letter of July 28 last year, it was not about doctrinal questions. When we objected to signing an agreement on doctrinal issues specifically. But as in article 3 of the doctrinal part of the protocol, we realized that there were points in the Council, in the liturgy and canon law that did notthey were perfectly reconcilable with tradition. Somehow this observation was acknowledged to us. This allowed us to discuss matters about the Council, the liturgy, and canon law. This is what allowed us to sign the doctrinal memorandum otherwise we would not have signed. And then came disciplinary matters. It dealt with the bishop who was to consecrate who would be exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishops of the place.

During a second meeting, this time with Cardinal Ratzinger and myself and with the various theologians, canonists, who had already discussed them, we have reached a conclusion regarding the acceptable document. The protocol was then signed.

The press reported: "Agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican." It seems that things are working, that everything will be fine. Personally, as I said, I was suspicious. I always felt a sense of mistrust and I must admit that I have always thought that all it did was pave the way for us to accept the Council and subsequent conciliar reforms. It cannot be admitted, and in fact the cardinal recently said in an interview with a German newspaper: "We cannot accept that there are groups, after the Council, that do not admit the Council and the reforms that were made after the Council. No we can allow it here. "The cardinal has repeatedly said:" My lord, there is only one Church, nothere may be a parallel Church. "I said to him:" Lord Cardinal, we are not the ones who make a parallel Church as we continue in the Church of always, it is you who are in parallel with the Church of always by inventing the Church of the Council, and  he Cardinal Benelli called it the Conciliar Church, so it was you who invented a new church, not us, it was you who made new catechisms, new sacraments, a new church, a new liturgy and not us, we followed what was done before.

Very well. Still, I have signed (the protocol not the agreement), I have tried to show goodwill, but from the day I decided to sign, I asked Cardinal Ratzinger about the bishop: "¿So now that we have signed the protocol, ¿do you already Can you give us the date of the bishop’s consecration? "(It was May 4)" You have until June 30 to elect the bishop. I myself participated in the presentation of the bishops when I was apostolic delegate, for thirty-seven years, I know how to do it. "I had submitted the names. The names were already in the Vatican office, three names, this is called the shortlist. This is a classic term in Rome for the names of three proposed bishops, and the Holy See chooses one of these three names. So I gave them three names.

He said to me: "" Ah! No, no, no, that's not impossible, June 30 impossible. So I asked: ¿So when? August 15? ¿At the end of the Marian Year? Ah! No, no, no, my lord. You know, there is no one in Rome on August 15th. July 15th to September 15th, they are the holidays, it is not possible on August 15th, it is not possible. - So let's say that the November 1 All Saints? - Ah! I don't know, I can't tell you. - For Christmas? I can't tell you "

I said, it's over, I understood. They want to give us a ride, it's over, it's over, there's no trust anymore. I have the right not to have confidence, they are playing with me. I have completely lost confidence. And on the same day, May 5, I wrote a letter to the Pope and a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, saying that I was hoping to achieve a result, I think it's over. we were doing very well. There was a willingness on our part to submit to his will and his guidance. It is useless to continue. We are totally opposed to each other.

Obviously, a great commotion broke out in Rome at that time, about this letter that I wrote: “Ratifying the protocol is not possible"Yes, but I can quickly read some excerpts from the letter I wrote: it was May 6 (see the text of the letter in the documents, and Cardinal Ratzinger's response). The cardinal's letter is attached a draft letter to the Pope in which I did not apologize for that, but for everything that was done during those thirteen years, for the "errors" that I could have, according to them even in good faith. They are the ones who write this for me to sign, not me. "In good faith, we can make mistakes. So I humbly ask you to forgive me for anything in my behavior or that of the Brotherhood, which could harm the Vicar of Christ on earth."

All of the above had already been abandoned, it was handed over to us once again before our eyes.  This showed that there was never a good will from them towards us, and that the only wish of the Saint was to take us to the Second Vatican Council, that is, to fully accept everything about the Council and its reforms, this is unacceptable.

That is why I ultimately wrote to the Pope on June: “Most Holy Father, meetings and interviews with Cardinal Ratzinger and his staff, even though it occurred in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, we are convinced that the moment of frank and effective collaboration has not yet arrived ", because it does not coincide in anything with your wishes or ours. And I added:" That is why we take the means that providence has entrusted to us. "

Of course there was a panic in Rome! I have received a letter from the Pope, signed by him, in which he asked me not to divide the Church, but to be faithful to the Church”.

But specifically, we are not in the same truth. For them, the truth is progressive, the truth changes over time, and Tradition, the Second Vatican Council is today. Tradition for us is what the Church has taught from the apostles to the present. For them, no, it is the tradition of Vatican II, which sums up in itself everything that was said before. The historical circumstances are such that we must now believe what Vatican II did. This has happened before, it no longer exists. It belongs to the past tense. That is why the cardinal did not hesitate to say: "The Second Vatican Council is an anti-traditionalist study program."

One wonders how a Cardinal of the Holy Church can say that Vatican II is a study program against the official act of Pope Pius IX Encyclical Quanta Cura this is unimaginable.
One day he told Cardinal Ratzinger: "Your Eminence, it is necessary to choose: either religious freedom, or the Syllabus of Pius IX." Then he told me: "But, my lord, we are no longer in the time of the Syllabus." ¡Ah! I said to myself, then the truth changes over time. So what they say today, and what they will do tomorrow is no longer true. There is no way to agree, it is continuous evolution, it is impossible to speak. "

They have that in mind. He repeated: "There are no longer two churches but one that of the Second Vatican Council, this represents tradition."