Note. The
paragraphs in parentheses and highlighted in yellow are from the editor and not
from Bishop Lefebvre.
· Protection
of liberal groups loyal
“Especially
if there was an arrangement (with Rome), we would be invaded by many people:
now that you have Tradition and are recognized by Rome, we will come to
you. (It is important to note that Bishop
Lefebvre is right to affirm this, because this gives rise to the modernists
invade the fraternity and even modernist bishops choose the Congregation to
spend their “voluntary” retirement that the Vatican gives them as a certain
bishop who currently lives. at the seminary in Germany)
There
are many people who will keep their modern and liberal spirit, but who will
come to us because they will be happy to attend a traditional ceremony from
time to time, to have contact with the traditionalists.
And
this will be very dangerous for our communities. If we are invaded by this
world, what will become of Tradition? Little by little, a kind of osmosis
will take place, a kind of consensus.
¡Oh
After all, the New Mass isn’t that bad, ¡you can’t overdo it! Very slowly,
very slowly, we will end up not seeing the distinction between liberalism and
Tradition anymore. It's very dangerous." (Archbishop Lefebvre,
Lecture delivered at the Saint-Curé-d'Ars de Flavigny seminary on June 11,
1988, Fideliter n ° 68, March-April 1989, p. 23)
· Only an error of mid-modernity
can completely clear permit renewal
“Only
an environment completely free from errors and modern customs can allow the
renewal of the Church. This environment is the one visited by Cardinal
Gagnon and Bishop Perl, an environment made up of deeply Christian families, with
many children, and from which many excellent vocations come. » (Letter to
the Pope, May 20, 1988, Fideliter , June 29-30, 1988.)
· Two ways to protect traditional
bishops of Rome and Roman commission in charge of regulating the
relationship of Tradition with Rome
“Then
we agreed to enter into this new dialogue, but on the condition that our
identity is well protected against the liberal influences of the bishops taken
in Tradition and of the majority of the members of the Roman Commission for
Tradition. ("Why did Archbishop Lefebvre's lectures stop when an Agreement
was signed on May 5, 1988?" Fideliter , June 29-30,
1988)
“What
did it take to be protected from Rome and the bishops? He wanted a commission
in Rome that was made up entirely of traditionalists and that would have been
like a delegation of Tradition in Rome. When difficulties had arisen in the
place, we could have approached this commission that has the possibility of
defending us since it is made up of people of Tradition. This commission would
be made up of seven members. (This
commission was never formed, the current agreements of the Congregation with
Rome are made with the Eclesia Dei Commission and made up of modernist bishops
"sympathetic" to the tradition.)
I
asked that all seven members be from the Tradition. They did not want
to." (Archbishop Lefebvre, “After the agreements, the hour of truth
will sound”, Fideliter n ° 68, March-April 1989,
p. 15) (cf. Archbishop Lefebvre, Letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24,
1988, Fideliter 29 June-30 1988, p. 48)
¨ The tradition can only continue
with one or more bishops
“For
several years I tried to make Rome understand that as I progressed in years I
had to ensure my succession, that someone one day or another would take my
place. You cannot have seminaries and seminarians without a
bishop; the faithful themselves also need a bishop for the transmission of
the faith and the sacraments, in particular that of confirmation. We were
very aware of this in Rome. " (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter n
° 70, July-August 1989, p. 5)
¨ These bishops must have the same
principles as Archbishop Lefebvre to continue the work in the same spirit
“I
do not believe that it is possible for a community to remain faithful to the
faith and to Tradition, if the bishops do not have this faith and this fidelity
to Tradition. It is impossible. In any case, the Church is made up mostly of
bishops. We may have priests, but bishops influence priests. It is all the
bishops who make the priests and, therefore, who guide them, whether in
seminaries, with preaching, retreats or with a whole set of things. It is
impossible to maintain Tradition with progressive bishops. " (More clearly it cannot be, but what happens when
these bishops no longer have the same spirit of the founder? Their arrangements
with Modernist Rome can take away, in the long run, the combative spirit of
defense of faith, tradition and doctrine and this is very dangerous)(Archbishop
Lefebvre, Fideliter , n ° 70, July-August 1989, p. 5) “Rome
understands this need, but will the Pope accept that bishops are members of
Tradition? For us, it cannot be otherwise. Any other solution would
be the signal that they want to align us with the conciliar Revolution, and
there our duty of disobedience immediately reappears. " (Archbishop
Lefebvre, "Can Obedience Force Us to Disobey ?" Fideliter June
29-30, 1988, p. 63)
¨ The sermon of June 29, 1987
In
1985, Archbishop Lefebvre had presented to Rome a document, Dubia or My
Doubts on Religious Freedom , in which he expressed the opposition between the Second Vatican Council's doctrine on
religious freedom and the previous traditional teaching of the
Church. In March 1987, Rome responded to these Dubia and
reaffirmed the false principles. In the sermon of June 29, 1987, Archbishop
Lefebvre threatens Rome with the consecration of bishops. He explains that this
response to Dubia s was a sign that he was waiting to
perform this act, a sign “more serious than Assisi (the meeting of all
religions in Assisi in October 1986). Because it is one thing to perform a
serious and scandalous action,and another to affirm
false principles, which in practice have disastrous consequences ”, that is,
the discouragement of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the“ pantheon of all
religions. "
I.3. Rome attitude
¨ Rome reaction
“In
Rome they were afraid that I could really consecrate bishops and that was when
it was decided to open ourselves more to what we have always been asking
for. "It is incredible, but they are afraid of a traditional bishop
who works against conciliar errors and that they cannot bear
it." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter , n ° 70,
July-August 1989, p. 2, 15)
¨ Archbishop
Lefebvre reluctantly tries an agreement · What
confidence?
"Are
we taking the hand that is extended to us?" Or do we reject it? Personally, I am not confident. I
have been in this environment for years and years, where I see the way they
act. I no longer have any confidence . " (Archbishop
Lefebvre, Fideliter , n ° 70, July-August 1989, p. 2)
· Dialogue of the deaf against
opposing doctrines
Archbishop Lefebvre was not overly favorable
to purely diplomatic conferences and agreements.
“We
do not have the same way of conceiving reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it in the sense of
reducing us, of bringing us back to Vatican II. We don't see it as a return from Rome to Tradition.
We
do not get along. It is a dialogue of the deaf. I can't talk much about the
future, because mine is behind me. But if I live a little longer and assuming
that for a certain time Rome will make a call, that we want to meet again, to
resume our language, then I will be setting the conditions. I will no longer
accept being in the situation we find ourselves in during the conferences. It's over.
I
would ask the question at the doctrinal level: "Do you agree with the
great encyclicals of all the popes that have preceded you?" Do you agree
with Quanta Cura de Pius IX, Immortale Dei Libertas de
León XIII, Pascendi de San Pius X, Quas
Primas de Pius XI, Humani generis de Pius
XII? ¿Are you in full communion with these popes and their affirmations? ¿Are
you still accepting the anti-modernist oath? ¿Are you in favor of the social
reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your
predecessors, there is no point in talking. As long as he has not accepted to
reform the Council considering the doctrine of these popes who have preceded
him, there is no possible dialogue. It's useless. The positions would thus be clearer.
" (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter , n ° 66,
November-December 1988, p. 12-
¨ The good faithful feared this agreement
“Our
true faithful, those who understood the problem and who precisely helped us to
follow the straight and firm line of Tradition and faith, feared the steps I
took in Rome. They told me it was dangerous and that I was wasting my
time. " (Archbishop Lefebvre, Fideliter ,
n ° 79, p. 11)(Who writes this in the chapter
of 2012, I asked Bishop de Galarreta for a public retraction from Bishop Fellay
of the arrangements he was taking with Rome to reassure the priests about his
attitude in April 2012 when he went to Rome and interviewed even with Pope
Benedict XVI himself. But there was no such retraction. As a result of this
event, the uncertainty grew even more and the hope that the Congregation would
take a step back in its relations with Rome was lost, I was appointed in Spain
and I felt In the flesh that ugly uncertainty that arose between priests and
faithful, we already know the consequences.)
¨ Visit of Cardinal Cagnon: approval of
the work
Sent
from Rome, Cardinal Cagnon visits all the houses and works of the Society of
Saint Pius X and of the friendly communities; everywhere he meets an
enthusiastic and benevolent welcome. At the end of his visit, in December
1987, he publicly attended Archbishop Lefebvre's Pontifical Mass and the
engagements of the young seminarians of the Saint Pius X Fraternity. In the
seminary's guestbook he wrote: “May the Immaculate Virgin hear our Fervent
Prayers that the work of formation wonderfully carried out in this house may
find all its splendor for the life of the Church. " (Cf. the life of
Bishop Lefebvre written by Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, Clovis, p. 580)
I.4. Archbishop Lefebvre rejects any agreement
with Rome
¨ The disagreement comes from an
opposition of doctrine admitted by the bishops
· Doctrinal opposition and non
- liturgical
The
rejection of the new rite reveals “a deeper attitude, sometimes hidden,
sometimes clearly affirmed, of rejecting the authority of the Council and of
Popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II. This rejection in itself comes from
a fixist conception of Tradition contrary to the
teaching of the Conciliar Constitution Dei Verbum, from
a categorical a priori rejection of the entire ecumenical
movement assumed and reoriented by the Conciliar Decree Unitatis
redintegratio, a total rejection of the new
relationship with Judaism, with other religions (presented in
the declaration Nostra aetate) and finally
with the men of our time (ConstitutionGaudium
et spes and Declaration Dignitatis humanae on
religious freedom). »(Cardinal Albert Decourtray, Archbishop of Lyon, to the
members of the Presbyteral Council and the Diocesan Pastoral Council meeting in
extraordinary session, September 2, 1988)
The
Bishop of Laval, in February 2003, in the Courrier de la Mayenne ,
also points out the cause of the disagreement: "rejecting the teaching of
Vatican II on the essential points: religious freedom, ecumenism, Mass (the new
one), authority of the Pope in the Church and of the bishops in their diocese
(according to Vatican II, that is, the collegiality that democracy introduces
in the Church). ”He then reveals the true reason for this opposition: “ There is no expression of faith forever. faith is lived as perpetual
newness , source of life. Faith is embodied in History ... "
After
Archbishop Fellay's interview with Pope Benedict XVI on August 29, 2005,
Cardinal Medina also said: “If the Holy Father wants it, starting tomorrow he
can make a decision on liturgical problems, I don't see any difficulties. . On
the other hand, if we do not agree on the doctrinal problems raised by some
members of the Fraternity, we will obtain useful and supportive decisions, but
without reaching the full communion, so eagerly desired. Authorizing all
priests to celebrate according to the ancient form of the Roman rite will not
solve the fundamental problem that exists with the Society of Saint Pius X. If
its members said, for example, we reject the Second Vatican Council, then you
would face a difficult situation to resolve. »(September 26, 2005, I. Media
press agency, DICI n ° 121, p.(Currently it
seems that this problem is raised as a condition for a settlement, they accept
the Council if not implicitly, I hope I am wrong, if explicitly because they no
longer preach against it as Archbishop Lefebvre did until his death)
In
the same way, Bishop Vingt-Trois, in Le Figaro of September
22, 2005, stated: “We know that the dialogue with the Fraternity of Saint Pius
X is not mainly conditioned by the liturgy. This question is a simple flag
waved to mobilize good people and make them believe that this is the real
problem. His problem lies in the refusal of the Second Vatican Council, of
interreligious dialogue and of the respect due by all to personal conscience. "
Following
the founding of the Institute of the Good Shepherd, the French bishops gave the
same advice. Bishop Vingt-Trois, on October 26, 2006 at the Catholic Institute
in Paris, declared that “under the protection of the mobilization for the
defense of a liturgical form, it is in fact a radical criticism of the Second
Vatican Council that we are witnessing. (…)
The
problem is not exclusively liturgical, but it is still an ecclesiological
problem. "The bishops of the province of Normandy to all their priests,
on October 17, 2006, the bishops of the province of Besançon, Strasbourg and
Metz in a press release dated October 25, 2006 fear that" the use of the
Roman Missal 1962 does not relativize the orientations of the Second Vatican
Council. Bishop Dagens, Defois and Noyer have the same opinion. (DICI
n ° 145, November 4, 2006)
· An evolutionary conception of
truth
It
should be noted that everything must evolve: we do not need "a fixist
conception of Tradition," Cardinal Decourtray said. "Faith is
lived as a perpetual novelty," said the Bishop of Laval. "I have
always wanted to be faithful to Vatican II, this today of the Church, without
nostalgia for an irretrievably past yesterday, without impatience for a
tomorrow that does not belong to us," wrote the future Benedict XVI
(Cardinal Ratzinger, Interview on Faith , Fayard, 1985,
p. 17)
Nothing
is more contrary to the very notion of truth and to the immutable deposit of
faith. This is the heart of the crisis in the Church. It is in this
sense that they must be understood when speaking of Living Tradition. (See
below IV, 5)
¨ The disagreement comes not only
from doctrinal errors but also from the perversity of their
mind…
“And
we have also chosen to be counterrevolutionaries, with the Syllabus, against
modern errors, to be in the Catholic truth and to defend it.
This
struggle between the Church and modernist liberals is that of the Second
Vatican Council. You don't have to search between noon and two
o'clock. And it goes a long way. The more the Vatican II documents
and the interpretation given by the Church authorities are analyzed, the more
it is understood that it is not just about some errors, ecumenism, religious
freedom, collegiality, a certain liberalism, but it continues to be a
perversion of the spirit. .
It
is a completely new philosophy, based on the modern philosophy of
subjectivism. »( Archbishop
Lefebvre, Fideliter , n ° 87, September 1990, p.
5; cf. Fideliter , n ° 79, p. 3)
¨ ... and his lack of honesty
“But
I think that, in my opinion, we
are not dealing with honest people. This
is the terrible thing, we no longer have to deal with honest people. In
the past, when I went to Rome as an apostolic delegate, I dealt with honest
people, people who wanted the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, people who worked
for the salvation of souls. Now, it's not that anymore, it's not that.
They
do not work for the salvation of souls, they work for the human glory of the
Church in the world, pure human glory. " (Archbishop Lefebvre, Ecône, September 4, 1987, Salt
of the Earth n ° 31 p. 205-206)
Rome does not want the Commission or the
bishops as Archbishop Lefebvre understands.
“This
Commission is an organism of the Holy See at the service of the Fraternity and
of the different organs with which it will be necessary to deal to establish
and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Furthermore, it is not her, but the
Holy Father who, ultimately, will make the decisions: therefore, the question
of the majority does not arise; the interests of the Fraternity are guaranteed
by their representation on the Commission, and the fears that you have
expressed in relation to the other members do not have to persist, since the
election of these members will be made by the Holy Father himself. "
(Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 30,
1988, Fideliter June 29-30, 1988, p. 50)
“While
awaiting the approval of the definitive legal structure of the Fraternity, the
Visiting Cardinal will attest to the orthodoxy of teaching in your seminaries,
of the ecclesial spirit and of unity with the Holy See. During this
period, the Cardinal Visitor will also decide on the admission of seminarians
to the priesthood, taking into account the opinion of the competent Superiors.
" (Letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, July 28,
1987, Fideliter June 29-30, 1988, p. 29-30)(I believe that this is already coming to this with
the motu proprio of Francisco "Tradicionis Custodes" the authority is
given to the diocesan bishop to decide who is ordained and who is not. This
governs, for example, the Fraternity of San Pedro because they, on the contrary
of the Neo Fraternity, they do not have their own bishops)
“Given
the refusal to attend to our requests, and it being evident that the objective
of this reconciliation is not at all the same for the Holy See as it is for us,
we believe it is preferable to wait more times. The right time for the return of Rome to Tradition. » (Letter to the Pope, June 2, 1988, Fideliter June
29-30, 1988) (I consider for now that this
moment is very far from being realized and I do not believe that the Neo
Fraternity does it at all now. It is becoming more and more radical. the
current modernism seized the tradition, it is not seen where the current hierarchs
of the New Church convert to the tradition when many of them no longer even
know it)
¨ Archbishop
Lefebvre gives himself the means to continue the work: "operation
survival", the consecrations of 1988
“Given
the refusal of Rome to take into consideration our protests and our requests
for a return to Tradition, and in view of my age because now I am 82 years old,
soon 83 years old, it is obvious that I feel that the end is near, I need a
successor . I cannot leave five seminaries around the world without a bishop to
ordain these seminarians, as we cannot make priests without a bishop. And that
as long as there is no agreement with Rome, there will be no bishops who agree
to carry out ordinations. So I find myself at an absolute dead end and I have
to make a decision: either to die and leave my seminarians like this in
abandonment and leave my seminarians orphans, or else to become bishops. I do
not have an option." (Archbishop Lefebvre, Conference of June 15,
1988, Fideliter June 29-30, 1988, p. 9)
“Today,
this day is the 'survival' operation, and if I had continued with Rome,
continuing the agreements that we signed and continuing to put these agreements
into practice, I was doing the operation. 'Suicide'." (Sermon of June 30, 1988, Fideliter n
° 64, p. 6) (Blessed be God who realized and continued with what was planned,
ignoring the warnings of modernist Rome and putting aside their threats such as
the case of the "excommunication")
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario