Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Did He Incur Any Ecclesiastical Censure?

[Dawn Marie]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre Did He Incur Any Ecclesiastical Censure?

AT A GLANCE

 

I The suppression of the St. Pius XFraternity and Seminary The validity of the suppression depends on: -the veracity of the reasons given for it. And -the legality of the procedure followed. Therefore we ask the questions: 1. Were thereasons given on the suppression true? 2. Was theprocedure followed legal

 

II The Suspension of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre 1. What are the conditions required to incur an Ecclesiastical Censure such as a suspension? 2. Whether these conditions were fulfilled in the case of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
III The Conclusions
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre: Did he incur any ecclesiastical censure? Preliminary Remarks “Nemo reus nisi probetur” - No one is guilty until proved so. The purpose to this study is to show that never has any valid proof been adduced, norcould be adducedto show that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was suspended because he never put himself in any circumstances as would deprive him of the exercise of his episcopal powers. Before entering into any argument we shall do well to know what “Suspension” is and under what conditions it could be inflicted.
“Suspension”according to Canon Law means: A censure depriving a cleric of the right to exercise the duties of his office and the power of his orders or to perceive the fruits of his benefice or both.(C.2278) For a delinquent to incur an established penalty it is required: (a) That there be an external act. (C.2195) (b) That the offence be complete according to all the characteristics of such a transgression. (c) That a mortal sin be committed.(C.2218) (d) That the delinquent (in case of a censure) be obstinate.(C.2241) In doubt of whether one of the four conditions obtains, it is presumed that the delinquent has NOT incurred the censure. - (Joan Moral Th. No. 422,424)

 

Suspension is a legal term which denotes a legal punishment. To inflict a legal punishment certain legal formalities must be followed; otherwise many innocent people will be unjustly condemned and punished. Thereforean illegal suspension is invalid. Now we shall examine whether the requirements of law had been verified in the “Suspension” of Archbishop Lefebvre and also whether he incurred any suspension “ipso facto”.

 

 

Part I
The condemnation ofArchbishopLefebvreand the suppression of the Fraternity of the Society of St. Pius X and Seminary Archbishop Lefebvre was condemned by a commission of three Cardinals (Garrone, Wright and Tabera) in a joint communication to him on 6th May 1975. It must be noted that no letter of appointment of thiscommission has been published or produced anywhere any time. This commission of Cardinals gave the reason for theArch Bishop’s condemnation and the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X and Seminary to be that theArch Bishoprejected the Second Vatican Council, and that he disobeyed Pope Paul VI.
Did Archbishop Lefebvre reject the Second Vatican Council? Archbishop Lefebvre did not reject the Second Vatican Council. He signed fourteen out of the total sixteen council documents. He had serious reasons for reservation regarding two documents namely: “Church in the Modern World” and “Religious Liberty” which he refused to sign. In his private audience with Pope John Paul II on 18th November 1978, he told the Holy Father that he was prepared to sign a declaration like this: “I accept the acts of the Council interpreted in the sense of Tradition”. The Pope was satisfied and said “That is ordinary and obvious”. -(Apologia Vol II Michael Davies P. 261) Archbishop Lefebvre sees several ambiguous passages and phrases in the Second Vatican Council documents, which depart from Catholic Tradition, and therefore he asks that they must be interpreted according to our Tradition failing which they have to be rejected by any faithful and conscientious Catholic. We shall now examine a few passages of the Second Vatican Council’s documents and compare them with the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.
A “Religious Freedom” and “Liberty of Conscience” are condemned by the common teaching of the Catholic Church. ………“they (the enemies of the Church) fear not to uphold the erroneous opinion, most pernicious to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls which opinion was called by our predecessor Gregory XVI as INSANITY (13thAugust 1832) namely: Liberty of conscience and worship is the inalienable right of everyman which should be proclaimed by law”. (Quanta Cura,Pius IX, 1869) “Anyone is free to join and profess the religion to which he is led according to the light of his own intellect and thinks to be true”- this sentence is condemned by the “Syllabus of errors”1864–D.1715.
But Vatican II upholds Religious Freedom and Liberty of Conscience and says that it must become a civil right recognized by Constitutional Law: “Religious Freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs whether privately or publicly…… This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed and thus it is to become a civil right”- (Vatican II “Dignitatis Humanae”No 2)
B The Catholic Church’s teaching refuses the right for error to be propagated: “The Catholic Church is a perfect society and has its foundation on the Truth of Faith revealed by God. For this reason that which is opposed to this truth is necessarily in error. The same rights which are objectively recognized for truth cannot be afforded to error”- (Pius XII Discourse Fcco Che gia Un anno 6th October 1946)
But Vatican IIrecognizes the right for error to be propagated: “The social nature of man requires that he should give external expression to his internal acts of religion that he should share with others in matters religious, that he should profess his religion in community. Injury therefore is done to the human person and to the very order established by God for human life if the free exercise of religion is denied in Society provided public order is observed”(D.H No.3)(Note that free exercise of false religions are against God and good of the society).
C Catholic teaching does not recognize any protestant sects as Churches: “Protestantism is nothing else than a different form of the Christian religion and one can please God in it equally as in the Catholic Church” is a statement that stands condemned by “The Syllabus of Errors”- (Pope Pius IX 1864-D 1718) But Vatican II recognize protestant sects as Churches: “The brethren divided from us also carry out many liturgical actions of the Christian religion. In the ways that vary according to the conditions of each Church or Community these most certainly can truly engender a life of grace and one must say can aptly give access to the communion of salvation………. The spirit Christ has not refrained from using these Churches are as means of salvation” -(Degree on Ecumenism No.3)
D The Catholic Church forbids active participation of Catholics in Non- Catholic Services: “Active participation in Non-Catholic services is entirely forbidden”-(Canon 1258). Natural law forbids participation in services that are heretical. If the service is one that heretics have in common with us, even though no scandal comes from such participation, is at least forbidden by Church law.
It is forbidden to sing, play the organ or other instruments in the religious services of Non-Catholics. “Whoever acts contrary to the prescription ofC.1258and takes part in Non-Catholic services is suspected of heresy -(C.2316)” “To sing or pray in Non-Catholic services is wrong because it is a participation in an illicit form of worship” (Jones, Mor. Theol. Nos 125,148) St. John warns us to beware of heretics: “If any man comes to you and bring not this doctrine receive him not into the house say to him God speed you for he that saith unto him God speed you communicateth with his wicked works” (II John Ver10, 11)
But Vatican II encourages “Cooperation in sacris” with heretics: “In certain special circumstances such as in prayer services for unity and during ecumenical gatherings it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separatedbrethren. Such prayers are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the grace of unity……” (Decree on Ecumenism No. 8)
But now the question naturally arises: Could the Second Vatican Council Err?
Two questions: 1. Is it possible that the documents of an Ecumenical Council contain statements contrary to the Traditional teachings of the Catholic Church? 2. Is anyone allowed to have reservations as regards to the teachings of a general Council?
The answer to the second question depends upon the answer to the first question. Normally a General Council having the authority of Extraordinary Magisterium cannot err in matters of Faith and Morals since it has the protection of the Holy Ghost.
Now whether or not the Second Vatican Council was of this nature? Did Vatican II teach with the Extraordinary Authority- in other words- with infallible authority of the Extraordinary Magisterium?
To put it differently:  Was Vatican II a Dogmatic Council? It is common knowledge that Pope John XIII who convoked the Council even at the outset made its position clear by saying that it is just Pastoral Council and NOT a DOGMATIC COUNCIL. Pope Paul VI who continued the council has also declared in clear terms that Vatican II was NOT a Council that claimed INFALLIBILTY for itself. On Jan 12th 1966 he made this declaration: “Given its pastoral character, the council avoided pronouncing in the ExtraordinaryManner, dogmas endowed with the note of infallibility” (“House top publications” 2ndseries No.5-P. 25) Therefore Vatican II being only a Pastoral Council, it could not claim the protection of the Holy Ghost for its pronouncements; which means there is possibility that it could err in certain things. Since the Traditional teachings of the Church are correct and Vatican II went contrary to that Tradition (as it was shown above) in these things at least this Council is in error. And when once error is detected in the teaching of a Council which is only Pastoral, any Catholic is not only allowed but obliged to have reservations regarding the erroneous teachings of that Council. What Archbishop Lefebvre does is just that! He has got serious reservations regarding the many errors of Vatican II. He demands that these errors be corrected. This is not in any way rejecting the Council. Probably the Cardinals who condemned the Arch Bishop knew it and they began to search for a real fault on his part in order to condemn him and cripple his work of maintaining the Traditional Doctrines and Liturgy.
The Attack on Econe As a first step, the commission of Cardinals decided upon a Canonical Visitation of the Seminary at Econe founded by the ArchBishop. They sent two Apostolic visitors to the St. Pius X Seminary namely Mgr. Descamps (Biblical Scholar) and Mgr. Onclin (Canonist) both of them Belgians. After a thorough examination (11th - 13th November 1974) the two visitors were well impressed and made a favorable report at the Seminary. However they created a great scandal among the students by expressing freely their ideas against clerical celibacy, bodily resurrection of Our Lord and againstobjective truth. This was no less than a modernist demolishing of the high doctrinal standard of the Seminary that had been built up with so much zeal and labor and the Arch Bishop was wounded to the heart. He wanted to make clear the truths for which the Seminary stood and to that effect he drew up a Declaration on 21st November 1974. Since the commission of the Cardinals could find nothing against the Seminary even after the Apostolic Visitation (because the visitors had only praise for it) they laid hold on the Arch Bishop’s Declarationin order to accuse him on the 6th May 1975 that: “This declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points. It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations in it with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for her and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed”.
Did the declaration contain anything unacceptable or irreconcilable with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the Pope and to the will of the Church? Let us examine the textof the Declaration. Here it is in full: “We hold firmly with all our heart and with all our mind to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith and Traditions necessary to the maintenance of their Faith-to the eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth.” “We refuse on the other hand, and we have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies which became clearly manifest during the Second Vatican Council in all the reforms which issued from it”. In effect all these reforms have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, (Here it is good to recall Paul
VI’ own words: “The Church is undergoing a process ofself-destruction” L’Osservatore Romano-8th December 1968)to the ruin of Priesthood, to the abolition of the Sacrifice of the Mass and Sacraments, disappearance of Religious Life and to the naturalistic and Teilhardian education in the Universities in the Seminaries in Catechetic: an education deriving from liberalism and Protestantism which has been condemned many times by the solemn Magisterium of the Church. “No authority not even the highest in the Hierarchy can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic Faith so clearly expressed and professed by the Magisterium of the Church for 19 centuries ” “Friends said St. Paul, though it were we ourselves, though it were an Angel from Heaven that should preach you a Gospel other thanthe Gospel we have preached to you a curse upon him”(Gal 1:8) “Is it not this that the Holy Father is repeating to us today? And if there is a certain contradiction manifest in his words and deeds as well as in the actsof the Roman congregation, then we cleave to what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the novelties which destroy the Church”. “It is impossible to profoundly modify the Lex Orandi without modifying theLex Credendi. To the New Mass there corresponds the new Catechism and the New Priesthood, the New Seminaries, the New Universities the Charismatic Pentecostalism: all of them opposed to the orthodoxy and never changing Magisterium” “This reformation deriving as it does from liberalism and modernism, is essentially corrupted; it derives from heresy even and results in heresy even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is therefore impossible for any conscientious faithful Catholic to espouse this reformation and to submit to it in anyway whatsoever”. “The only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic Doctrine appropriate for our salvation is a categorical refusal to accept this reformation”.

 

“This is why without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment we pursue our work of priestly formation under the guidance of the never changing Magisterium, convinced as we are that we cannot possibly
render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff and to posterity” “That is why we hold firmly to everything that has been consistently taught and practiced by the Church (and codified in books published before the modernistic influence ofthe Council) concerning faith, morals, divine worship, catechetic, priestly formation and the institution of the Church until such time as the true light of Tradition dissipates the gloom whichobscuresthe sky of eternal Rome.” “Doing this with the grace of God, help of the Virgin Mary, St. Joseph and St. Pius X, we are certain that we are being faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church to all Peter’s Successors, and of being Fideles dispensatores Mysteriorum, Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto”. +Marcel Lefebvre.

 
What can one think of this Declaration? This declaration of the Arch Bishop is a glorious profession of the Roman Catholic Faith! It contains nothing against the Traditional Faith of the past 19 centuries. But the commission of Cardinals condemned the Arch Bishop on its account! Normally if anyone is condemned, only the condemned will be under penalty. But here the Cardinals ordered the suppression of the Sacerdotal Fraternity of St. Pius X founded by the Arch Bishop and his Seminary at Econe. They asked the Bishop of Fribourg Mgr. Mamie to withdraw the Canonical approval granted in 1970 to the Society in whose Diocese it was established. And Mgr. Mamie did withdraw the recognition. On 6th May 1975 the Commission of Cardinals wrote to the Arch Bishop: “Once the Society is suppressed, it no longer having juridical basis, its foundations and notably the Seminary at Econe lose by the same act the right of existence”.

 
Totally Invalid Condemnation and Suppression This condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre by the commission of Cardinals and the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X and the
Seminary by Bishop. Mamie of Fribourg are totally invalid actions for the following reasons: 1. To pronouncejudgement upon the declaration of theArch Bishop whether it went against “authentic fidelity to the Church” is NOT within the competence of a Commission of Cardinals (whose credential were not even established). The competent Tribunal which could do it is that of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. On this point the Arch Bishop appealed to Cardinal. Staffa, head of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signaturein which hepleaded: “Against the competence of the Commission of Cardinals which condemns me on the matter of faith, because of my declaration of 21st November 1974, I demand to be judged by the only Tribunal competent in these matters, the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine of Faith”(Letter to Cardinal Staffa, 21st November 1975). This legitimate appeal of the Arch Bishoptouches upon a natural right and also a canonical right of his: to be heard! But his appeal was rejected-which means he was denied canonical and even natural justice as a human person. A condemnation which denies natural justice as well as legal justice cannot be valid.

 
2. According to Canon 493 any canonical authorization given by a Bishop for the erection of a Foundation cannot be withdrawn except by the Holy See. The Society of St. Pius X founded had already spread to other Several Dioceses when Mgr. Mamie as Bishop of Fribourg withdrew canonical authorization granted to it by its predecessor. The Holy See has never ordered the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X or the Seminary. Therefore the words of the Arch Bishop in his letter to Cardinal. Staffa dated 21st May 1975 “until proof to the contrary, my Fraternity and all that depends on it keep their canonical existence,” are quite legitimate.

 
3. It is pure injustice to suppress canonically erected Foundations which are functioning well, for alleged and until yet unproved fault of the founders. The Arch Bishop wrote to Cardinal. Staffa on the 21st May 1975 “……. My declaration if it deserves condemnation should condemn me personally and not destroy the Fraternity nor the Seminary, nor the houses that have been erected, the more so as the Cardinals assured me that the Apostolic Visitation (of the Seminary) had passed a favorable judgement on the work of the Seminary”.

 
4. The condemnation by the commission of Cardinals if ever it had to take effect should have been approved IN FORMA SPECIFICA by the Pope. Because punishment of this nature needs an “express Mandate” from the Holy Father. The forma specifica is the most important document in any case of an ecclesiastical censure inflicted on a Bishop of the Catholic Church. There is no shred of evidence to show that this forma specifica document was ever written in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, and therefore the action taken against him was an uncanonical and automatically void. The Cardinals ought to have cited this forma specifica document in their letter of Condemnation of theArch Bishop. They did not instead they said simply: “It is the entire approval of the His Holiness that we communicate the following to you”- (Letter of Condemnation dated 6th May 1975). Had this document existed there is not the least doubt that those Cardinals would have produced it; the enemies of theArch Bishopwould have also made capital use of it even today. Not only theforma specificadocument but also the letter of Mandate of the Holy Father instituting the commission of Cardinals and authorizing them to act against theArch Bishop has never been produced at any time anywhere! So what spurious and unauthorized commission of Cardinals has condemned an Arch Bishop without the essential forma specifica document rejecting all his appeals to Justice! Such an act cannot be valid! (cf. Apologia I-P. 36,106)

 
How is it all Possible? We specifically in India given our unquestioning confidence in our ecclesiastical leaders and our unstinted esteem for the Vatican considering it to be almost impeccable, may find it hard to accept that those in charge of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ could behave in such an unjust and insincere manner. “Good Lord” we gasp “how is this all possible!” But we should all remember that when Our Lord promised that “the gate of hell shall not overcome”His Church, he did not promise that it will not be assailed by enemies from within. History is sufficient to prove that enemieshave been there ever since the beginning of the Church. But it is in these latter times, in these apolcalyptic days that the Church is being undermined from withinonauniversal scale.Well did PopePaul VI sadly declare on the feast day of St. Peter and Paul in 1972: “The smoke of Satan has entered the Church.” If Satan is within the Church surely he will be in positions of power. That is exactly what it is! The unprecedented spread of Doctrinal errors, the universal moral decay and liturgical chaos, only prove that Satan is entrenched in almost all positions of power in the Catholic Church. Liberal Church men are serving the cause of Communism and the cause of Masonic Lodges from within the Church. This was evident in the Vatican II council whose various Constitutions being engineered by the “periti” have enshrined within them modernist ideas, phrased in dubious words which are now interpreted according to their plans. (See “The Unknown Council” by Fr. Wiltgan)

 
A Typical Case. Here is a typical case to show how the conciliar Vatican behaves in order to achieve its ends. This is an abridged account of what appeared in the Jan 1976 issue of the world known paper “Itinaraires” about what happened to a French Priest Fr. Coache: Fr. Coache has incurred the displeasure of his Bishop for organizing a procession of the Blessed Sacrament. His misunderstanding went so far that soon he was to be deprived of his parish. Fr. Coache decided to appeal to Rome and informed his Bishop of it. But since there was a postal strike in Italy he deferred posting the letter of appeal. Some days later the Vicar General called on Fr. Coache with a telegram from the Vatican saying his had been rejected. Fr. Coache opened his drawer and took out the letter containing his appeal to the Vatican and showed it to the Vicar General saying that he had not yet posted it! Shamefully the Vicar General made his exit! Just a few days later after the withdrawal of the postal strike in Rome. Fr. Coache received a letter from the Vatican confirming the rejection of his appeal which he never even posted! Here is what that letter from the Vatican contained:
Sacra Congregatio pro clericis: Prot. 124205 Romae 6 Junii 1969
Excellentissime Domine. Esamini subject recusu Reverendi sacerdotis Coache Aloysii,istius dioceseos, haec sacra congregation respondit: “Recursum esse rejiciendum”. Velit excellentia tua de hac responsione certiorem facere recurrentem, qui pareat praeceptis Ordinarii sui. Dum haec tecum communico cuncta fausta tibi a Domino adprecor ac permanere gaudeo. Excellentiae Tuae Rev, Mae addictimus P.Palazzani, a secretis.
Excellentissimo ac Rev mo Dno Stephano Desmazieres Episcopo-Bellovacan.
Translation of the contents: Having examined Fr. Coache’s appeal our Sacred Congregation has decreed: “The appeal is rejected”. Please have the goodness to communicate this decision to the plaintiff in order that he may obey the orders of his Bishop etc….. All this happened before any appeal of Fr. Coache was ever sent to Rome! (Apologia Vol. I P. 109)
Many cases like this could be cited to prove that the Sacred Congregation’s in Vatican are now NOT what they used to be.

 
An attempt at retroactive Justification of the unjust and null and void Condemnation Now we shall turn our attention to the famous letter of 29th June 1975 of PaulVI to Archbishop Lefebvre which tries to give the “Forma Specifica” document retroactively in an attempt to justify the illegal condemnation. The Pope saysin this letter: “Finally the conclusions which the commission of Cardinals proposed to us. We made all and each of them ours and we personally ordered that they may be immediately put into force”. This alleged statement of the Pope raises many questions: This letter from allaying doubts concerning the regularity of the procedure against the Arch Bishop “constituted the clumsiest possible public admission that it had been irregular”. This is an aposteriori legalization of an illegal act. A condemnation should always follow an enquiry and judgement and not Vice Versa. If the enquiry is denied and the condemnation is done it is a violation of all legal and natural justice which automatically vitiates the act and voids it however high the condemning authority be. There simply cannot be any retroactive justification of an unjust, null and void condemnation. Arch Bishop Lefebvre expressed himself thus: “Has anyone ever seen in the Canon Law or other Legal systems a law, a decree,and adecision, endowed with retroactive effect? One condemnsand then judges afterwards”-(Apol.Vol.I. P.107). One does not know how far the Pope given to understand the full details of this case. It all seems very strange the way the Pope Paul VI alleged to have conducted himself with regard to the Arch Bishop. The doubt increases when one thinks why and how Archbishop Lefebvre was for 5years denied an audience with Pope Paul VI even after repeated requests. The Arch Bishop has rightly asked: “Does the Holy Father really know of these things? We find it difficult to believe he does”- (Apol.Vol.I. P. 49).

 
Inescapable Conclusion Given the above facts it is certain that the condemnation of the Arch Bishop by the commission of Cardinals was illegal and invalid. And as such, the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary is also null and void. If anybody disagrees with this inescapable and logical conclusion then it is up to him to establish the legality and the validity of the condemnationand disprove the nullity and voidity of the suppression. Let him answer the simple question: What fault did the Arch Bishop commit to deserve this condemnation and what mistakes were found in the Society and Seminary to cause their suppression? As for the Arch Bishop Lefebvre: It is his right to enjoy all the rights and privileges of a worthy and eminent Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church and his Society and Seminary hold their Canonical existence and all the rights connected there with.

 
Part II
The Suspension (“Suspended” is an unjust adjective which the World and Media invariably attributes to Archbishop Lefebvre as also do most of the Catholic Publications). On 25th June 1976, the Arch Bishop was ordered by the Pope through Cardinal. Beneli in a letter not to proceed with the ordinations of 13 priests and 13 sub deacons scheduled for 29th June 1976 at Econe in the St. Pius X Seminary. But the Arch Bishop did ordain them on that date. As a consequence the Holy Office made an announcement on the 1st July 1976 and declared that Archbishop Lefebvre “has automatically incurred suspension for a year, a suspension reserved to the Apostolic See”. This is a famous occasion of the “disobedience” of the Arch Bishop to the Holy Father. Let us carefully study the situation. The prohibition to ordain priests came from the Pope as a sequence or follow up of the condemnation of the Arch Bishop by the commission of Cardinals and the suppression of the Society of St. Pius X and the Seminary. But for this condemnation and suppression, there was no other reason to forbid the ordinations. And we have proved in Part I, beyond all doubt that the condemnation of the Arch Bishop, the suppression of the Society and the Seminary were illegal and invalid. How then can a prohibitive order based on this invalid punishment be right or just? Not only that, it is a clear case of abuse of power. But abuse of power should be resisted, specifically when it is a question of safeguarding Our Faith. That is how the Arch Bishop had no choice but to resist that unjust command for the sake of the Faith. This point is made very clear in his own words: “One does not condemn without judgement and one cannot judge if the cause cannot be given a hearing in the forms which assure it’s perfect and free defense before the Tribunal. But we have been condemned without judgement, without being able to plead our cause, and without appearing before any tribunal.

 

From this arbitrary and tyrannical condemnation of the Society of St. Pius X and its Seminary, follow the interdict for ordinations and our personal suspension. Considering the evident nullity the first sentence we do not see now the sentences which are its follow-up can be valid, that is why we are not taking any account of the decisions of an authority which abuses its power.If this was only a juridical problem and if the unjust sentences only concerned us personally we would submit in a penitential spirit. But, to this juridical aspect is attached a much more serious motive, that or safeguarding of our Faith.” “In fact these decisions compel us to submit to a new orientation in the Church, an orientation which is the result of a “Historical Compromise” between Truth and Error. This has been brought about in the Church by the acceptance of liberalideas…. After the Council by men of the Liberal Church…. We refuse this compromise in order to be faithful to Our Faith, Our Baptism, and our only King, Our Lord Jesus Christ”. -Letter to Friends & Benefactors 7th October 1976 The Rome that accuses the Arch Bishop of disobedience to the Council and to the Pope is not at all worried about any Faith or Moral issues. It knows that it cannot accuse him on those points. Then what is all this
question of disobedience about? The question is only about Archbishop Lefebvre, his St. Pius X Society and the Seminary Celebrating the Tridentine Mass!

 

The enemies of the Archbishop accuse him of disobedience because he is holding on to the Tridentine Rite and does not want to use the New Rite. But what is the difficulty, one may ask, if the Tridentine Mass is said by anybody? As a matter of fact it is not abolished!

 

Neither the Bull of Paul VI introducing the New Mass abrogates it, nor has the very fact of its introduction got the power to remove the Old Mass. Both Rites have equal rights in so far as both of them have been approved by Supreme Pontiffs. Not only that the Tridentine Mass has got the indestructible privilege of “immemorial custom” for its existence in perpetuity. St. Pius V’s Bull “Quo Primum Tempore (1570)” explicity grants that privilege for all times to all Bishops and Priests! Because of the immemorial custom enjoyed by the Tridentine Rite, Pope St. Pius V gave it the right-rather acknowledged the right to be valid and licit for all priests for all time to say that Mass. He said: “…..by virtue of Our Apostolic authority we give and grant in perpetuity that for the singing or reading of Mass in any church whatsoever this Missal may be followed absolutely without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty, judgement or censure may be freely and lawfully used. Nor shall Bishops, Administrator’s, Canons, Chaplains and other Secular Priests or Religious of whatsoever Order or by what-so-ever title designated be obliged to celebrate Mass otherwise than enjoined by us. We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced orcoercedin to altering this Missal; and this present constitution can never be revoked or modified, but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law, notwithstanding previous constitutions or edicts of provincial or Synodal Councils and notwithstanding the usage of the Churches afore said, established by very long and even immemorial prescription, saving only usageof more than 200 years” (“Quo Primum” Bull of St. Pius V, 1570)

 
Now since Pope Paul VI introducing the new mass cannot by itself abolish the Tridentine Rite of Mass, nor did the Pope abolish it by a special Bull, by the virtue of the privilege acknowledged and granted by St. Pius V any priest is entitled to say the Tridentine Mass and he cannot be under the penalty on that account. The indult to say the Tridentine Mass under certain conditions granted by John Paul II in 1984 has not standing against the above said privilege possessed by all priests to say it. It is an inalienable right of every Catholic Priest which cannot be curtailed by any ecclesiastical authority- (Confer “The Jurisdiction of the Bull” Quo Primum of St. Pius V by Fr. Raymond Dulac-Supplement to “Itinaraires” No. 162 and also “The Tridentine Mass” by Michael Davies). Therefore the Arch Bishop and his Fraternity and Seminary are perfectly free to adhere to the Tridentine Mass. But this would mean a great obstacle to the modernists to carry out their plan of secularizing the Church. They want the Tridentine Mass to be abolished so that their Conciliar Victory will prevail. Rightly the modernistic Rome they control is worried about it and it is prepared to go to any extent or give any concession to the Arch Bishopprovided he will give up the Tridentine Mass! They were prepared to absolve the Arch Bishop of all censures provided he would accept the New Mass! This startling revelation was made by the Arch Bishop himself in the Sermon he preachedduring the Ordination Mass on 29th June 1986. He said: “….if in all objectivity we seek the true motive animating those who ask us not to perform these Ordinations, if we look in for the hidden motive it is because we are ordaining these priests that they may say the Mass of all time(i.e. The Tridentine Mass)”. It is because they know that these priests will be faithful to the Mass of the Church, the Mass of Tradition, that they urge us not to ordain them”. “In proof of this, consider that 6 times in the last 3 weeks we have been asked to re-establish normal relations with Rome and to give as proof the acceptance of the New Rite; and I have been asked to celebrate it myself. They have gone so far as to send me some one (Cardinal. Hyacinth Thiandoum) who offered to concelebrate with me in the New Rite so as to manifest that I accepted voluntarily this New Liturgy.

 

They said in this way all would be straightened out between me and Rome. They put the Missal into my hands saying “Here is the Mass that you must celebrate and that you shall celebrate henceforth in all your houses”.They told me that if on this day today 29th June, before your entire assembly we celebrated a Mass according to the New Rite all would straightened out between ourselves and Rome. It is evidence that it is on the problem of the Mass that the whole drama between Econe and Rome depends…” Now it is clear for all to see the reality behind the Rome-Econe drama. One can see the hollowness of all Vatican’s previous claims that Archbishop Lefebvre was against the council, against the Pope and disobedient to both! If he would accept to say the New Mass, immediately he will be for the Council, for the Pope and obedient to both! This is farce!

 
The real point at the issue in Archbishop Lefebvre case is: Tridentine Mass Vs New Mass! Why should they care which Mass anybody chooses to say? Both have equal status, both are allowed! But no! They care! Because the New Mass is the trump card of the modernists and the Tridentine Mass is the banner of the Traditionalist. They know it. Conciliar Rome insists on the New Mass because with the Traditional Mass alive, their modernistic revolution will fall and Tradition will win. As he was ending his sermons the Arch Bishop echoed in one sentence the inner reflections of his heart and we cannot find better words to end this study with: “We regret infinitely, it is an immense, immense pain for us to think we are in difficulty with Rome BECAUSE OF OUR FAITH!” - (Apologia I. P. 122)
Anybody who reads the above account sincerely judges objectively willbe convinced of the fact that Archbishop Lefebvre is under NO censure. Hence it follows that: 1. Archbishop Lefebvre is not suspended. 2. The Society of St. Pius X and Seminary hold their due place in the Catholic Church.

 

3. All Catholic Priests are free to celebrate the Tridentine mass.
Practical Conclusions Since by his “Apostolic authority” Pope St. Pius V in his Bull “Quo Primum” has granted “In Perpetuity” that the Tridentine Missal may be followed “absolutely without any scruple of conscience or fear of incurring any penalty judgement or censure”, -And because the same Pope has said,in the same Bull “We likewise order and declare that no one whosoever shall be forced or coerced into altering this Missal and this present Constitution can never be revoked or modified but shall forever remain valid and have the force of law”except prescription “by custom of more than 200 years” It is clear like daylight that each and every priest of the Roman Catholic Church is free to say the Tridentine Latin Mass, each and every Catholic is free to participate in it for fulfilling his religious duty towards God. No authority can forbid them to do it nor penalize them for doing it. It is to be noted that Pope Paul VI in his “Constitutio Apostolica Missale Romanum” by which he introduced the New Missal did not abrogate the Tridentine Missal. He only said “….ascivimus nihilo tamen secius fore confidimus ut hoc ipsum (i.e. Missale Romanum) a Christifidelibus….. accipatur” (3/4/1969) Pope Paul VI merely wished and hoped that the New Missal will be accepted by the Faithful. Neither the fact of giving the New Missal abrogate the Tridentine Missal because “PAR IN PAREM TEM NON HABENT”this means equals have no power over each other, and therefore if one Supreme Pontiff ordains something, another Supreme Pontiff cannot abolish it for reasons lesser than those which will motivate the ordaining Pontiff to abolish it himself. Therefore the New Mass at best can claim the right to exist alongside of the Tridentine Mass. It cannot monopolize the Catholic Liturgy as it is happening today, the Tridentine Mass should and it will regain its proper place in the Catholic Church. The New Mass has absolutely no right to be forced upon anybody Priest or Faithful.
So then? The Conclusions are obvious!