
Archbishop
Lefebvre
Rome-SSPX:
Background
to the Doctrinal Discussions
By John Vennari
Pope Benedict XVI’s withdrawal of
the alleged “excommunications” is good news for the entire Catholic world.[1]
Perhaps the cause for greatest rejoicing is that the “excommunications” were
lifted without the Society of St. Pius X compromising the Faith one inch;
without compromising their principles and their open resistance to the Council
and its disastrous liberal reforms. Long may this steadfast refusal to
compromise continue.
Both Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior
General of the Society of St. Pius X, and Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, SSPX,
stated that next on the program is doctrinal discussion regarding Vatican II and
the crisis in the Church. Bishop Fellay always refrained from using the word
“negotiations” in this regard, since, “there is nothing to negotiate. You can
not
negotiate the faith”.[2]
Bishop Fellay mentioned these doctrinal
discussions in his initial response to the lifting of the excommunications on
January 24: “Consequently we wish to begin these ‘talks’ -- which the decree
acknowledges to be ‘necessary’ -- about the doctrinal issues which are opposed
to the Magisterium of all time. We cannot help noticing the unprecedented crisis
which is shaking the Church today: crisis of vocations, crisis of religious
practice, of catechism, of the reception of the sacraments…”[3]
Likewise, Bishop Tissier de Malleriais
noted in a February 1 interview, “There will be doctrinal theological
discussions regarding doctrines of the Second Vatican Council between the
delegates of the Holy See and us … We do not change our positions, but we have
the intention of converting Rome [to our positions], that is, to lead Rome
towards our positions."[4]
The issue of doctrinal discussions
is not new. The Society of St. Pius X made clear on numerous occasions their
desire for any form of regularization to take place according to the following
program:
1) Obtaining the two preconditions,
which are the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication and the freedom of
every priest to celebrate the Mass of Saint Pius V;
2) The resolution of doctrinal
questions regarding the Council and the new orientation since the
Council;
3) The search for the most adequate
canonical solution after the doctrinal questions are resolved.[5]
The motu proprio freeing the Old Mass and
the January 21 lifting of the “excommunications” fulfills the first of the
three-point outline. The SSPX now appears headed toward a stage in the
proceedings that will be fraught with interest: the doctrinal discussion
regarding Vatican II.
It is true that Archbishop Lefebvre
said he was prepared to accept Vatican II in light of Tradition, but the issue
goes beyond a mere interpretation of texts laden with ambiguities and crucial
omissions. In his correspondence with
Cardinal Ratzinger in the mid-1980s, Archbishop Lefebvre stated his position
that the criterion for interpreting Vatican II in light of Tradition comprises
three elements:
1) He and the SSPX would accept
anything in Vatican II that is clearly consistent with
Tradition;
2) Any ambiguous texts of Vatican II
must be interpreted strictly according to Tradition; according to the consistent
teaching of the Church throughout the centuries;
3) Anything in the Council that cannot
be interpreted according to Tradition should be revised.
The Archbishop laid this out
explicitly in his letters to Cardinal Ratzinger in 1982 and 1985.
In his letter of July 21 1982 to
Cardinal Ratzinger, Archbishop Lefebvre speaks of “The necessity of judging the Second Vatican
Council in light of Tradition and the unchanging Magisterium of the
Church,
so as to correct the texts that are either
incompatible with Tradition or equivocal.”[6]
Again, in a letter to Cardinal
Ratzinger of April 17, 1985, the Archbishop is even more specific. After
explaining that he and the SSPX were ready to accept the texts of the Council
“in accordance with the criterion of Tradition”, that is, “according to the
Traditional Magisterium of the Church”, the Archbishop states clearly what this
criterion demands. Archbishop Lefebvre writes:
“Considering that the Declaration of
Religious Liberty is contrary to the Magisterium of the Church, we ask for a
wholesale revision of the text.
“We consider likewise indispensable
noteworthy revisions of documents like ‘The Church in the Modern World’,
‘Non-Christian Religions’, ‘Ecumenism’, and clarifications of numerous texts
presently tending toward confusion.
“Similarly on several points of prime
importance, the new Code of Canon Law is unacceptable by it opposition to the
definitive Magisterium of the Church.”[7]
The Dubia
There is another important historic
fact often buried that should be brought back to the surface.
In the 1980s, as the disorientation
of the Church was accelerating due to an increased application of the most
radical aspects of the Council, Archbishop Lefebvre prayed for a sign from
Providence whether or not to consecrate bishops for the
SSPX.
He explained he received two signs
that it was necessary to proceed. The first was Pope John Paul II’s prayer
meeting at Assisi. The second was a doctrinal response from Cardinal Ratzinger’s
office that Archbishop Lefebvre considered even more serious than
Assisi.
As for the first: Pope John Paul
II’s held the first interreligious prayer meeting at Assisi in 1986, wherein
Protestants, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Shintos, Jains, and various pagan
religions gathered in Assisi to pray for peace, according to the rituals of
their own heretical or pagan practices.
Archbishop Lefebvre denounced Assisi
in strong terms. “He who now sits upon the Throne of Peter mocks publicly the
first article of the Creed and the first Commandment of the Decalogue”, said the
Archbishop. “The scandal given to Catholic souls cannot be measured. The Church
is shaken to its very foundation.”[8]
The “second providential sign” that
Archbishop saw was in the 1987 reply Cardinal Ratzinger’s office gave to
Archbishop Lefebvre’s formal theological objections to the Council document on
Religious Liberty.
Regarding this new doctrine,
Archbishop Lefebvre explained:
“The new and liberal doctrine of religious
liberty was the main objective of the Council for many [progressivist] experts
such as Fr. Congar, Fr. John Courtney Murray, and many others, together with the
Secretariat for Christian Unity which incorporated this idea of religious
liberty into its charter. Cardinal Bea, Bishop Willebrand, and Bishop de Smet
were the great proponents of this thesis, with the support of the American
episcopate and the encouragement of anti-Catholic associations such as the B’Nai
B’rith of New York, a Jewish and Masonic group,
as well as the ecumenical Council of Churches in Geneva.”[9]
Archbishop Lefebvre quoted the
progressvist Father Yves Congar, one of the most influential theologians of
Vatican II and its aftermath. Father Congar admitted, “It cannot be denied that
the declaration on Religious Liberty does say something else than the Syllabus
of 1864; it even says just about the opposite.”[10]
Congar said further about Vatican II
in general, “It is clear that the decree on ecumenism does say, on several
points something else than Pius XI’s Encyclical Mortalium Animos, and the declaration on
religious Liberty says the contrary of several articles of Pius IX’s syllabus,
as Lumen Gentium 16 and Ad Gentes 7 do say something else than
‘There is no salvation outside the Church’…”[11]
It is also well-known that the
eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, Editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review and true
expert on the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ, had been a
peritus at Vatican II. He left the Council and resigned from the American Ecclesiastical Review rather
than accept the new direction of Religious Liberty.[12]
As Michael Davies often noted in this regard, “Yesterday’s heresy had become
today’s orthodoxy”.[13]
Perhaps the most damning indictment of
the Council’s Religious Liberty came from the synagogue of Satan itself. During
the Council Archbishop Lefebvre noted:
“This very year [1965], Yves Marsaudon,
the Freemason, has published the book L’oecumenisme vu par un franc-macon de
tradition (Ecumenism as Seen by a Traditional Freemason). In it the author
expresses hope of Freemasons that our Council will solemnly proclaim religious
liberty .... What more information do we need?”[14]
In October 1985, Archbishop Lefebvre
submitted to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith a document
that contained thirty-nine doubts (dubia) concerning incongruities between
Vatican II’s new doctrine on Religious Liberty and the consistent teaching of
the Church from the past.
Rome replied to the Archbishop
Lefebvre’s Dubia with a fifty-page
document that considered none of the doubts in particular. Cardinal Ratzinger’s
office admitted that Vatican II’s doctrine of religious liberty was “inconstestably a novelty”, but
claimed it was the outcome of “doctrinal development of continuity,”[15] whatever that means.
To detail Religious Liberty’s effective
overthrowing of the Church’s perennial magisterium on the Social Kingship of
Jesus Christ is beyond the scope of this short article.[16]
Suffice to say that the Vatican’s response – which was, in effect, a principled
adherence to the new doctrine – shook Archbishop Lefebvre to the
bone.
Archbishop Lefebvre saw Rome’s reply to
the Dubia as “the sign that I was
waiting for, a more serious sign than Assisi. For it is one thing to perform a
serious and scandalous act, but quite another thing to affirm false principles
that in practice have disastrous consequences”, which is the practical
overturning of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the “pantheon of
all religions”.[17]
This is the background against which
the doctrinal discussions between the Society of St. Pius X and the Vatican will
take place. I do not pretend to forecast the outcome of these discussions, what
they will accomplish or how long they will take. A conservative English-speaking
Cardinal, who is glad of the lifting of the ”excommunications”, and who recently
had a friendly encounter with some SSPX supporters, told them, “There is a lot
that remains to discuss.”[18]
Pray a great
deal…
The Society of St. Pius X credits Pope
Benedict XVI for the motu proprio,
and for the lifting of the “excommunications”. Indeed it is probably true that
no other cardinal elected to the Papacy in 2005 would have both freed the old
Mass and removed the unjust stigma laid upon the SSPX
bishops.
But the SSPX primarily credits Our
Blessed Mother. The Society organized two Rosary Crusades to which SSPX
supporters worldwide responded with generous enthusiasm.
Two and a half million Rosaries were
prayed in the first Rosary Crusade for the freeing of the Tridentine Mass. In
the second, SSPX supporters offered one million, seven-hundred-three thousand
Rosaries in less than two months. These are impressive numbers for those who are
a minority in the Church.
The SSPX’s Father David Hewko, in his
February 1 homily at Our Lady of the Rosary Chapel in South Buffalo, New York,
told the congregation, “Look what Our Lady did through the Rosary in only two
years!”
He urged his people to keep up the
fight for Catholic Tradition, to arm themselves with the truths of the Faith
and the writings of the pre-Conciliar popes, noting that we may be entering a
more difficult and confusing battle.
He also urged his people to pray hard
for Superior General Bishop Fellay, as he carries all 500 SSPX priests on his
back, and the devil will pull out all the stops to try to make him stumble.
Indeed, the intense pressure Bishop
Fellay must be under right now, especially due to worldwide media uproar
regarding Bishop Williamson’s comments,[19]
must be far beyond what most men are called upon to endure.
I am sure all of our readers will offer
many prayers for Pope Benedict XVI who is taking his share of hits for his
positive moves toward the Society.[20]
I am also confident our readers will offer numerous prayers, especially the Holy
Rosary, for Bishop Bernard Fellay, and all bishops, priests and religious of the
SSPX as they strive to maintain unswerving fidelity to the perennial magisterium
and to the wise counsel of their founder, the late Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre.
Notes:
[1]
“Excommunication”
is placed in quotes as the SSPX never considered these excommunications as
valid. See the Society’s Media Brochure released on January 24,
2009.
[2]
Bishop
Fellay's Ordination
Sermon at Winona, June 22, 2009.
[3]
Statement
of Bishop Fellay, Jan 24, 2009.
[4]
Bishop
Tissier de Mallerais speaks: Feb. 1, 2009.
[5]
These
points were outlined by Superior for the District Superior of France, Father
Regis de Cacqueray, and posted on the Rorate Caeli webpage, April 5,
2006.
[6]
Apologia
Pro, Marcel Lefebvre, Vol.
III, Michael Davies [Dickenson: Angelus Press, 1988], p. 426.
[7]
Taken
from Winona Seminary Letter, April 14, 1985.
[8]
The
Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier
de Mallarais [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004], p.
537.
[9]
Religious
Liberty Questioned, Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre, [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2002], p. xiii.
[10]
Congar,
La crie dans L’Eglise et Mgr. Lefebvre (Cerf, 1976), 51; taken from
Religious Liberty Questioned, p. viii.
[12]
At a meeting during the Council on November 11, 1963, Msgr. Fenton, along
with Cardinal Ottaviani, learned that the liberal position of Father
John Courtney Murray would gain ascendance at the Council. Msgr. Fenton
was well aware of the implications, as he had opposed Fr. Murray's liberal
thesis throughout the 1950s in the American Ecclesiastical Review.
Michael Davies writes, "A priest of Msgr. Fenton's moral and intellectual
stature could hardly have been expected to make a complete volte-face
and uphold Fr. Murray's views as authentic Catholic teaching. He [Fenton]
resigned as editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review within
a few weeks of the meeting." The Second Vatican Council and Religious
Liberty, Michael Davies, [Long
Prairie: Newmann Press, 1992], See Chapter 1, "A Historic Confrontation.".
[13]
Ibid., p. *11..
[14] The
Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Tissier
de Mallarais [Kansas City: Angelus Press, 2004], p.
328.
[15]
Ibid., p
546 [emphasis added].
[16]
See Archbishop Lefebvre and Religious Liberty by Michael Davies, and
Religious Liberty Questioned by Archbishop
Lefebvre.
[17]
Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, p. 546.
[18] Private
communication.
[19]
I have greatly profited
from Bishop Williamson’s lectures on the Papal Encyclicals, which are quite well
done. Also, anyone who has benefited from most of the recorded lectures of the
magnificent Dr. David Allen White has Bishop Williamson to thank, as it was
Bishop Williamson who year-after-year, invited Dr. White to lecture the
seminarians on literature. However, I
believe the “gas chamber” comments were a sad mistake. In the 14 years I have
been Editor of CFN, I have never once
published, or even considered publishing, a single article on what is called
“holocaust revisionism”. Though I have sympathy for all who suffered
and died in Nazi camps, it is subject that does not compell me
to study in detail. Further, "holocaust revisionism" is
too explosive a topic, it doesn’t really concern the Faith and it unnecessarily
gives our opponents a club to beat us with. Bishop Fellay has formally directed
Bishop Williamson to no longer speak on such topics.
[20] For example: "Call for pope to step down over Holocaust
denier", Agence France Presse, Feb. 2, 2009; ."Top Cardinal Says
Vatican Botched Holocaust Affair", Reuters, Feb. 3, 2009;
" The Lefebvrite case: What was the Vatican thinking?",
National Catholic Reporter, Jan. 30, 2009.
Posted
February 3, 2009 by
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY
14302
905-871-6292
CFN is published once a month (12 times per year)
Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy
Audio CDs and Cassettes * CFN Index * New DVD Offer * Subscribe on line