Statement of Archbishop Lefebvre 29 March 1988 ON OBEDIENCE & Interview Given to Fideliter Magazine

[Dawn Marie]

 

 

Statement of Archbishop Lefebvre
29 March 1988
The Rector of the Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Switzerland, Father Lorans, having
asked me to help in drawing up this issue of the Letter from Econe, it seemed to me, in these
circumstances, that it would not be without benefit to put before you again what I wrote on
January 20, 1978, concerning certain objections which could be made as to our attitude with
regard to the problems created by the present situation of the Church.
One of these questions was: "How do you see obedience to the Pope?" Here is the reply I gave
ten years ago:
The principles governing obedience are known and are so in conformity with sane reason and
common sense that one is driven to wonder how intelligent persons can make a statement like,
"They prefer to be mistaken with the Pope, than to be with the truth against the Pope."
That is not what the natural law teaches, nor the Magisterium of the Church. Obedience
presupposes an authority, which gives an order or issues a law. Human authorities, even those
instituted by God, have no authority other than to attain the end apportioned them by God and
not to turn away from it. When an authority uses power in opposition to the law for which this
power was given it, such an authority has no right to be obeyed and one must disobey it.
This need to disobey is accepted with regard to a family father who would encourage his
daughter to prostitute herself, with regard to the civil authority which would oblige doctors to
perform abortions and kill innocent souls, yet people accept in every case the authority of the
Pope, who is supposedly infallible in his government and in all words. Such an attitude betrays a
sad ignorance of history and of the true nature of papal infallibility.
A long time ago St Paul said to St Peter that he was "Not walking according to the truth of the
Gospel" (Gal. 2:14). St. Paul encouraged the faithful not to obey him, St. Paul, if he happened to
preach any other gospel than the Gospel that he had already taught them (Gal. 1:8).
St. Thomas, when he speaks of fraternal correction, alludes to St Paul's resistance to St. Peter and
he makes the following comment: "To resist openly and in public goes beyond the measure of
fraternal correction. St Paul would not have done it towards St. Peter if he had not in some way
been his equal…We must realize, however, that if there was question of a danger for the faith,
the superiors would have to be rebuked by their inferiors, even in public." This is clear from the
manner and reason for St. Paul's acting as he did with regard to St. Peter, whose subject he was,
in such a way, says the gloss of St. Augustine, "that the very head of the Church showed to
superiors that if they ever chanced to leave the straight and narrow path, they should accept to be
corrected by their inferiors" (St. Thomas IIa, IIae, q.33, art.4, ad 2).
The case evoked by St. Thomas is not merely imaginary because it took place with regard to
John XXII during his life. This pope thought he could state as a personal opinion that the souls of
the elect do not enjoy the Beatific Vision until after the Last Judgment He wrote this opinion
down in 1331 and in 1332 he preached a similar opinion with regard to the pains of the damned.
He had the intention of putting forward this opinion in a solemn decree.
But the very lively action on the part of the Dominicans, above all in Paris, and of the
Franciscans, made him renounce this opinion in favor of the traditional opinion defined by his
successor, Benedict XII, in 1336.
And here is what Pope Leo XIII said in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, June 20, 1888:
"If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles
of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no
binding force of law." And a little further on, he says: "But where the power to command is
wanting, or where a law is enacted contrary to reason, or to the eternal law, or to some ordinance
of God, obedience is unlawful, lest while obeying man, we become disobedient to God."
Now our disobedience is motivated by the need to keep the Catholic Faith. The orders being
given us clearly express that they are being given us in order to oblige us to submit without
reserve to the Second Vatican Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the prescriptions of
the Holy See, that is to say, to the orientations and acts which are undermining our Faith and
destroying the Church. It is impossible for us to do this. To collaborate in the destruction of the
Church is to betray the Church and to betray Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Now all the theologians worthy of this name teach that if the pope, by his acts, destroys the
Church, we cannot obey him (Vitoria: Obras, pp. 486-487; Suarez: De Fide, disp. X, sec. VI,
no.16; St. Robert Bellarmine: de Rom. Pont., Book 2, Ch. 29; Cornelius a Lapide: ad Gal. 2,11,
etc.) and he must be respectfully, but publicly, rebuked.
The principles governing obedience to the Pope's authority are the same as those governing
relations between a delegated authority and its subjects. They do not apply to the Divine
Authority which is always infallible and indefectible and hence incapable of failing. To the
extent that God has communicated His infallibility to the Pope and to the extent that the Pope
intends to use this infallibility, which involves four very precise conditions in its exercise, there
can be no failure.
Outside of these precisely fixed conditions, the authority of the Pope is fallible and so the
criteria, which bind us to obedience, apply to his acts. Hence it is not inconceivable that there
could be a duty of disobedience with regard to the Pope.
The authority, which was granted him, was granted him for precise purposes and in the last resort
for the glory of the Holy Trinity, for Our Lord Jesus Christ, and for the salvation of souls.
Whatever would be carried out by the Pope in opposition to this purpose would have no legal
value and no right to be obeyed, nay, rather, it would oblige us to disobey in order for us to
remain obedient to God and faithful to the Church.
This holds true for everything that the recent popes have commanded in the name of Religious
Liberty or ecumenism since the Council: all the reforms carried out under this heading are
deprived of any legal standing or force of law. In these cases the popes use their authority
contrary to the end for which this authority was given them. They have a right to be disobeyed
by us.
The Society and its history show publicly this need to remain faithful to God and to the Church.
The years 1974, 1975 and 1976 leave us with the memory of this incredible clash between Econe
and the Vatican, between the Pope and myself.
The result was the condemnation, the suspension a divinis, wholly null and void because the
Pope was tyrannically abusing his authority in order to defend laws contrary to the good of the
Church and to the good of souls.
These events are an historical application of the principles concerning the duty to disobey.
That clash was the occasion for a departure of a certain number of priests who were friends or
members of the Society, who were scared by the condemnation, and did not understand the duty
to disobey under certain circumstances. Since then, twelve years have passed. Officially, the
condemnation still stands; relations with the Pope are still tense, especially as the consequences
of this ecumenism are drawing us into an apostasy, which forced us to react vigorously.
However, the announcement of consecration of bishops in June stirred Rome into action: it at last
made up its mind to fulfill our request for an Apostolic Visitation by sending on November 11,
1987, Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl. As far as we were able to judge by the speeches and
reflections of our Visitors, their judgment was very favorable indeed, and the Cardinal did not
hesitate to attend the Pontifical Mass on December 8th, at Econe, celebrated by the prelate
suspended a divinis.
What can we conclude from all this except that our disobedience is bearing good fruit,
recognized by the envoys of the authority, which we disobey? And here we are now confronted
with new decisions to be taken. We are more than ever encouraged to give the Society the means
it needs to continue its essential work, the formation of true priests of the holy, and Catholic, and
Roman Church. That is to say, to give me successors in the episcopate.
Rome understands this need, but will the Pope accept these bishops from the ranks of Tradition?
For ourselves it cannot be otherwise. Any other solution would be the sign that they want to align
us with the conciliar revolution, and there our duty to disobey immediately revives. The
negotiations are now under way and we shall soon know the true intentions of Rome. They will
decide the future. We must continue to pray and to watch. May the Holy Ghost guide us through
the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima!

 

+ Marcel Lefebvre

 

 

Interview of Archbishop Lefebvre
Given to Fideliter Magazine
November-December 1988

 

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais ordained seven priests at Ecône, Switzerland, on September 25, 1988,
and Bishop Bernard Fellay, another of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre, ordained three
at Zaitzkofen, Germany, on October 1, 1988. These constitute the most important actions after the
consecrations. After the ordinations, His Excellency Archbishop Lefebvre granted an interview to Fideliter.
Interviewer: After these ordinations, what are your feelings?
Archbishop Lefebvre: I can feel nothing but joy. It was, indeed, this desire to insure the
continuity of the transmission of the Catholic priesthood that led me to consecrate four
bishops.
This was my wish—to see the work continue. It was a feeling that I had already experienced
when I passed on the charge of Superior General of the Society to Fr. Schmidberger. I
acknowledge that I will be happy if the Good Lord grants me a few more years to live and see
the continuation of the Society. Now there are signs that it will last, that it will endure, and that it
will be strengthened. I am happy to see that my episcopacy shall not be the last one faithful to
Tradition, and that Tradition will continue even should I die now. The fact of having bishops is
of paramount importance.
It was certainly a decision not easily made. On Jan. 2, 1988, I wrote to Fr. Aulagnier, “Behold, a
new year is beginning; it will be a year for great decisions, whether the proposals from
Rome are good or not. I am almost certain that they will be inadmissible, and that we shall
have to continue the work of the Church without the support of the Vatican. It shall be the
year of the bishops of the Society, God willing—Let us hope that it shall be a source of
blessings. He who says blessings, says trials too...”
It is with that spirit that I went to the negotiations which I feared would not succeed.
Interviewer: At the end of July, in the conference to the Chilean bishops, Cardinal Ratzinger had
severe words regarding the disastrous effects of Vatican II, without identifying their causes.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, indeed. He called for an examination of conscience for “the postschism.”
He proposed three areas of reflection.
1) The question of the liturgy too much desacralized;
2) Whether it was an error to present Vatican II as a super-dogma, blotting out the whole of
the Tradition of the Church;
3) That the documents of the Council do not all have the same importance.
The Cardinal said that many see, in Archbishop Lefebvre, a guide and a useful master....One
must take into account the positive elements which do not find a vital place in the Church today.
He expressed the opinion that if the areas are corrected “the schism” of Archbishop Lefebvre
will not last long. What can be the deep feelings of the Cardinal? One is forced to acknowledge
that, for the Cardinal, one must return to the Council.
We indeed had a little hope that something had changed in the Vatican; especially after the Visit
of Cardinal Gagnon and Msgr. Perl and their declarations, I had hoped that things would develop
in Rome.
But, then, when we found out their deeper intentions in the meetings, the discussions on the
Protocol, and the Protocol itself, I realized that nothing had changed. We were faced with a
brick wall. They had hoped to put an end to Tradition. This is, indeed, the position of Rome,
of the Pope, of Cardinal Ratzinger, of Cardinal Mayer, of Cardinal Casaroli....All these people
hold desperately to the Council, to this “new Pentecost,” to the reform of the Church. They do
not want to depart from it.
Cardinal Ratzinger said it openly in an interview to the great Frankfurt newspaper, Die Welt,
about the consecrations: “It is inadmissible, one cannot accept that there be in the Church groups
of Catholics who do not follow the general way of thinking of the bishops in the world.”
Here you have it; it is clear!
For a while I thought something had changed in him, but I have to acknowledge that all he did
was with the intention to suppress the group that we were forming and to bring us back to
the Council. It would be a mistake to impute only to Cardinal Decourtray and to the French
Bishops this will; it is the position of Rome. The only difference is that the Vatican has more
facilities to grant things to attract the traditionalists and, then later, destroy them and bring
them back to the Council. It is just a question of Roman diplomacy.
The French, German and Swiss bishops are not happy with the groups to which Rome has now
granted some privileges. So they have said to the Vatican, “Don’t give us such groups. We don’t
know what to do with them! They are going to cause trouble. We had condemned them; we had
rejected them, and now you say they have the right to do what they want. It cannot go like that.”
I would not be surprised that there be confrontations between the bishops and Rome. Some have
already started. Recently, in the name of the Swiss bishops, Msgr. Henri Schwery made a violent
declaration against Rome, saying that it was inadmissible to have given such admissions to the
traditionalists without consulting them. They have not been consulted and Rome has caused
disorder in their dioceses.1
I will, therefore, not be surprised if during the next bishops’ meeting of France, Germany and
Switzerland there be violent reactions against Rome. The Vatican shall be brought to say to those
who have left us, “You must accept the Council; you must accept the New Mass. You must
not be so intransigent.”
The Vatican “will get them!” It’s impossible that it should be otherwise.
Interviewer: Cardinal Oddi recently declared, “I’m convinced that the division shall not last
long, and that Archbishop Lefebvre shall soon be back in the Church of Rome.” Others say that
the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger feel that the “Lefebvre affair” is not closed. In your last letter
to the Holy Father2 you declared that you were waiting for a more propitious time for the return
of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible re-opening of the dialogue with
Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre: We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal
Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II.We see it as a return of
Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of death. I can’t speak much of the future,
mine is behind me, but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue,
then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during
the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of
all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei
and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis
of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still
accept the entire 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, it is useless to talk! As
long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of
these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
Thus, the positions will be clear.
The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional
Mass, but you must accept the Council.”What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear.
This is what Dom Gérard did not see, and what confused him. Dom Gérard has always seen
the liturgy and the monastic life, but he does not clearly see the theological problems of the
Council, especially Religious Liberty. He does not see the malice of these errors. He was
never too much worried about this. What touched him was the liturgical reform and the reform of
the Benedictine monasteries. He left Tournay, saying, “I cannot accept this.”
Then, he founded a community of monks with the liturgy and with a Benedictine spirit. Very
well, wonderful. But he did not appreciate enough that these reforms which led him to leave his
monastery were the consequences of errors in the Council itself.
As long as they grant him what he wanted—this monastic spirit and the traditional liturgy—he
has what he wants and is indifferent to the rest. But he has fallen into a snare: the others have
given up nothing of their false principles.
It is sad because there are around sixty monks, twenty priests, and thirty nuns. There are nearly
one hundred youth there, bewildered, whose families are worried or even divided. It is a disaster.
Interviewer: The nuns of the monastery Notre Dame de l’Annonciation remain very much
attached to you.
Archbishop Lefebvre: Yes, indeed. They came to manifest their affections....However, I do not
seek this affection, but rather that they remain attached to Tradition. Are they willing to
submit to a modernist authority? Here, indeed, is the question. If needed they must separate
themselves from Dom Gérard to keep the Faith and Tradition.
At least the monastery in Brazil [Dom Tomás Aquino’s Monastery of Santa Cruz] refused
to follow Dom Gérard and that is an important point.
I believe that what has contributed to the loss of Dom Gérard was his desire to open to
those who are not with us and who would profit from following Tradition. This was the
theme of what he wrote in his letter to the Friends of the Monastery two years after his arrival at
Le Barroux. He was saying, “We will strive not to have this critical, sterile, negative attitude. We
will strive to open our doors to all those who, though they might not have our ideas, would
love the liturgy, so that they too may benefit from the monastic life.”
From that period, I was worried, considering this as a dangerous operation. It was the
opening of the Church to the world, and one must acknowledge that it was the world that
converted the Church. Dom Gérard let himself be contaminated by the milieu which he
welcomed in his monastery. Rome may be proud to have won a big battle and to have hit in the
right place. It is sad....
Interviewer: Do you believe in the future of the Society of St. Peter?
Archbishop Lefebvre: It is a phantom society. They have copied our statutes and all that we
have done.
Interviewer: Even Cardinal Oddi was skeptical of its future, referring himself to the previous
attempts of Rome to rehabilitate seminarians from the Society of Saint Pius X.
Archbishop Lefebvre:....In one year, one and a half, they may be asked to return to their
dioceses....They will have to choose priests from the dioceses to take care of their seminarians.
They will have to wait for a year and to undergo an examination before being accredited. How
can they see that they are being played with? They came to Rome to deliver themselves into
their hands with the hope of keeping Tradition and they are already rejected. “You are not
allowed to teach in your seminary. You must pass an exam first, because we do not trust you.” It
is unbelievable. It manifests that there is, in Rome, the will to put an end to Tradition.
This is also the reason that they did not want to give us bishops. Rome did not want traditional
bishops. This is why the consecrations annoyed them and caused such a terrible shock. It is like
the stone which hit Goliath.
To excommunicate us after having lifted all other excommunications, is the end of their
ecumenism. How can they imagine that those with whom they wish to shake hands trust them
when they excommunicate those who uphold Tradition?
The most recent issue of Fideliter was entitled, “Rome Is Perplexed.” This is true; they don’t
know what to do: attacking us they attack the Church of all times and the Good Lord cannot
allow that.
1. “Msgr. Henri Schwery, President of the Swiss Episcopal Conference, has publicly lamented
‘the lack of openness of the Vatican regarding the re integration of some traditionalist
communities.’ According to Schwery, open relations and negotiations do not exist between ‘the
Holy See and the local bishops,’ and in his view the Commis¬sion should continue to operate
only ‘on the condition that the bishop of the place concerned be informed and consulted’” (30
Days, No.6, Oct. 1988).
2. June 2, 1988.