ROME AND THE ARRANGEMENTS. MONS. MARCEL LEFEBVRE. (CONTINUATION)

 

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")