Correspondence between Archbishop Lefebvre, Ratzinger and John Paul II, leading up to and after the May 5, 1988 Protocol.
Letter
of Pope John Paul II to Cardinal Ratzinger, April 8, 1988
To
my Venerable Brother Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect
of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
In
this liturgical period, when we have relived through the Holy Week celebrations
the events of Easter, Christ’s words by which He promised the Apostles the
coming of the Holy Spirit take on for us a special relevance: “And I will pray
the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you forever,
even the Spirit of Truth—whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach
you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you” (Jn.
14:16; 17:26).
The
Church at all times has been guided by faith in these words of her Teacher and
Lord, in the certainty that thanks to the help and assistance of the Holy
Spirit she will remain forever in the divine Truth, preserving the apostolic
succession through the College of Bishops united with their Head, the Successor
of Peter.
Reinforcing the teaching of the Church as inherited from Tradition
The
Church manifested this conviction of Faith also at the last Council, which met
to reconfirm and reinforce the teaching of the Church inherited from Tradition
already existing for almost 20 centuries, as a living reality which progresses
vis-a-vis the problems and needs of every age and deepens our understanding of
what is already contained in the Faith transmitted once and for all (cf. Jude
3). We are profoundly convinced that the Spirit of Truth who speaks to the
Church (cf. Apoc. 2:7, 11, 17, et al.) has spoken—in a particularly solemn and
authoritative manner—through the Second Vatican Council preparing the Church to
enter the third millennium after Christ.
Given
that the work of the Council taken as a whole constitutes a reconfirmation of
the same truth lived by the Church from the beginning, it is likewise a
“renewal” of that truth (an aggiornamento according to the well-known
expression of Pope John XXIII), in order to bring closer to the great human
family in the modern world both the way of teaching faith and morals and also
the whole apostolic and pastoral work of the Church. And it is obvious how
diversified and indeed divided this world is.
Through
the doctrinal and pastoral service of the whole College of Bishops in union
with the pope, the Church took up the tasks connected with the implementation
of everything which became the specific heritage of Vatican II. The meetings of
the synods of bishops are one of the ways in which this collegial solicitude
finds expression. In this context the Extraordinary Assembly of the Synod in
1985, held on the 20th anniversary of the end of the Council, deserves special
mention. It emphasized the most important tasks connected with the
implementation of Vatican II, and it stated that the teaching of that council
remains the path which the Church must take into the future, entrusting her
efforts to the Spirit of Truth. In reference to these efforts, particular
relevance attaches to the duties of the Holy See on behalf of the universal
Church, both through the ministerium petrinum of the Bishop of Rome and also
through the departments of the Roman Curia which he makes use of for the carrying
out of his universal ministry. Among the latter the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith led by Your Eminence is of particularly special
importance.
“Progressivism” breaks with the past
In
the period since the Council we are witnessing a great effort on the part of
the Church to ensure that this novum [new thing] constituted by Vatican II
correctly penetrates the mind and conduct of the individual communities of the
People of God. However, side by side with this effort there have appeared tendencies
which create a certain difficulty in putting the Council into practice. One of
these tendencies is characterized by a desire for changes which are not always
in harmony with the teaching and spirit of Vatican II, even though they seek to
appeal to the Council. These changes claim to express progress, and so this
tendency is given the name “progressivism.” In this case progress consists in
an aspiration toward the future which breaks with the past, without taking into
account the function of Tradition, which is fundamental to the Church’s mission
in order that she may continue in the Truth which was transmitted to her by
Christ the Lord and by the Apostles and which is diligently safeguarded by the
magisterium.
The
opposite tendency, which is usually called “conservatism” or “integralism,”
stops at the past itself, without taking into account the correct aspiration
towards the future which manifested itself precisely in the work of Vatican II.
While the former tendency seems to recognize the correctness of what is new,
the latter sees correctness only in what is “old,” considering it synonymous
with Tradition. But it is not what is “old” as such, or what is “new” per se,
which corresponds to the correct idea of Tradition in the life of the Church.
Rather that idea means that the Church’s remaining faithful to the truth
received from God throughout the changing circumstances of history. The Church,
like that householder in the Gospel, wisely brings “from the storeroom both the
new and the old” (Mt. 13:52), while remaining absolutely obedient to the Spirit
of Truth whom Christ has given to the Church as her divine Guide. And the
Church performs this delicate task of discernment through her authentic
magisterium (cf. Lumen Gentium, §25).
The
position taken up by individuals, groups or circles connected with one or the
other tendency is to a certain extent understandable, especially after an event
as important in the history of the Church as the last Council. Although, on the
one hand, that event unleashed an aspiration for renewal (this also contains an
element of “novelty”), on the other hand certain abuses in the realization of
this aspiration, in so far as they forget essential values of Catholic doctrine
on faith and morals and in other areas of ecclesial life, for example in that
of the Liturgy, can and indeed must cause justified objection. Nevertheless, if
by reason of these excesses every healthy kind of “renewal” conforming to the
teaching and spirit of the Council is rejected, such an attitude can lead to
another deviation which itself is in opposition to the principle of the living
Tradition of the Church obedient to the Spirit of Truth.
The
duties which in this concrete situation face the Apostolic See require a
special perspicacity, prudence and farsightedness. The need to distinguish what
authentically “builds up” the Church from what destroys her is becoming in the
present period a particular demand of our service to the whole community of
believers.
Concern for Church unity
The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is of key importance in the context
of this ministry, as is shown by the documents which your dicastery has
published in this matter of faith and morals during the last few years. Among
the subjects which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has recently
had to deal with, the problems connected with the “Society of St. Pius X,”
founded and led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, also figure prominently.
Your
Eminence knows very well how many efforts have been made by the Apostolic See
since the beginning of the Society’s existence, in order to ensure ecclesial
unity in relation to its activity. The latest such effort was the canonical
visit made by Cardinal Edward Gagnon. Your Eminence is concerned with this case
in a special way, as was your predecessor of venerable memory, Cardinal Franjo
Seper. Everything done by the Apostolic See, which is in continual contact with
the bishops and episcopal conferences concerned, has the same purpose: that in
this case too the words of the Lord in His priestly prayer for the unity of all
His disciples and followers may be fulfilled. All the bishops of the Catholic
Church, inasmuch as by divine command they are solicitous for the unity of the
universal Church, are bound to collaborate with the Apostolic See for the
welfare of the whole Mystical Body, which is also the body of the Church (cf.
Lumen gentium, 23).
For
all these reasons I would assure Your Eminence once more of my desire that
these efforts should continue. We do not cease to hope that—under the
protection of the Mother of the Church—they will bear fruit for the glory of
God and the salvation of men.
From
the Vatican, on April 8, in the year 1988, the tenth of my pontificate.
In
fraternal charity,
Joannes Paulus PP.II
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, April 15, 1988
FRATERNITA SACERDOTALE
SAN PIO X
Via Trilussa 35 – Tel 932.03.44
00041 Albano Laziale (Roma)
+ Albano, April 15, 1988
Your Eminence,
Having had the opportunity to follow the works
of the Commission in charge of preparing an acceptable solution to the problem
which preoccupies us, it seems that with the grace of God we are coming closer
to an agreement, which makes us very happy.
With this letter I attach the doctrinal
declaration, modified slightly in such a way that I believe that I can sign it;
I hope it will be agreeable to you.
No doubt, there will be more clarifications to
add to the canonical document on the Roman Commission; at least at the beginning,
I would like to be able to play a part in it so as to facilitate the solutions
of the various cases of those who have been at our side during these last few
years, and who also wish a happy outcome of their problems.
On this occasion, wouldn’t it be desirable that
the option to use the liturgical books of John XXIII be granted to all bishops
and all priests?
The prospect of having a successor in the
episcopate gives me great joy, and I thank the Holy Father and yourself for it.
Only one bishop will hardly suffice for the heavy work load; wouldn’t it be
possible to have two, or at the least, couldn’t provisions be made for the
possibility of raising its number in the next six months or a year?
Please, Your Eminence, express to the Holy
Father my deep gratitude on my behalf and on behalf of all those whom I
represent. Please be assured of my respectful and fraternal sentiments, in
Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop Emeritus of Tulle
To His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Vatican
Protocol of Agreement, May 5, 1988
I. TEXT OF THE DOCTRINAL DECLARATION
I, Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, as well
as the members of the Society of St. Pius X founded by me:
1.
Promise always to be faithful to the Catholic Church and the Roman
Pontiff, its Supreme Pastor, Vicar of Christ, Successor of Blessed Peter in his
primacy as head of the body of bishops.
2.
We declare our acceptance of the doctrine contained in §25 of the
Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium of Vatican Council II on the ecclesiastical
Magisterium and the adherence which is due to it.
3.
Regarding certain points taught by Vatican Council II or
concerning later reforms of the liturgy and law, and which do not appear to us
easily reconcilable with Tradition, we pledge that we will have a positive
attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all
polemics.
4.
Moreover, we declare that we recognize the validity of the
Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing
what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical
editions of the Roman Missal and the Rituals of the Sacraments promulgated
by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II.
5.
Finally, we promise to respect the common discipline of the Church
and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon
Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II, without prejudice to the special
discipline granted to the Society by particular law.
II. JURIDICAL QUESTIONS
Considering the fact that for 18 years now the Society of St. Pius
X has been understood to be a society of common life—and after studying the
proposals formulated by His Excellency Marcel Lefebvre and the conclusions of
the Apostolic Visitation conducted by His Eminence Cardinal Gagnon—the
canonical form most suitable is that of a society of apostolic life.
1.
Society
of Apostolic Life
This
solution is canonically possible and has the advantage of possibly
incorporating lay people as well (for example, coadjutor brothers) into the
clerical Society of Apostolic Life.
According
to the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1983, Canons 731-746, this Society
enjoys full autonomy, can form its members, can incardinate clerics, and
provides for the common life of its members.
In the proper Statutes, with flexibility and room for creativity
in comparison with the known models of such Societies of apostolic life, some
exemption is foreseen with respect to the diocesan bishops (cf. canon 591) in
matters concerning public worship, the cura animarum [pastoral care of souls],
and other apostolic activities, taking into account canons 679-683. As for
jurisdiction with regard to the faithful who have recourse to the priests of
the Society, it will be conferred on these priests either by the local
Ordinaries or by the Apostolic See.
2.
Roman
Commission
A
commission to coordinate relations with the different dicasteries and diocesan
bishops, and also to resolve problems and disputes that may arise, will be
established through the good offices of the Holy See, and will be endowed with
the necessary faculties to deal with the abovementioned questions (for example,
at the request of the faithful, the establishment of a house of worship where
there is no house of the Society, ad mentem [in keeping with] canon 683, §2).
This
commission will be composed of a president, a vice-president, and five members,
two of which shall be from the Society.
Among other things it would have the function of supervising and
offering assistance to consolidate the work of reconciliation, and to settle
questions related to the religious communities having a juridical or moral bond
with the Society.
3.
Condition
of Persons Affiliated with the Society
3.1.
The members of the clerical Society of Apostolic Life (priests and lay
coadjutor brothers) are governed by the Statutes of the Society of Pontifical
Right.
3.2.
The oblates, both male and female, whether or not they have taken private vows,
and the members of the Third Order affiliated with the Society, all belong to
an association of the faithful affiliated with the Society according to the
terms of canon 303, and collaborate with it.
3.3.
The Sisters (i.e. the Congregation founded by Archbishop Lefebvre) who take
public vows constitute a true institute of consecrated life, with its own
structure and proper autonomy, even though a certain kind of bond with the
Superior of the Society may be envisaged for the unity of its spirituality.
This Congregation—at least at the beginning—would be dependent on the Roman
Commission, instead of the Congregation for Religious.
3.4.
To members of the communities living according to the rule of various religious
institutes (Carmelites, Benedictines, Dominicans, etc.) who have a moral bond
with the Society, a particular status should be granted regulating their
relations with their respective Order.
3.5.
Priests who, individually, are morally connected with the Society will receive
a personal status taking into account their aspirations and at the same time
the obligations resulting from their incardination. Other particular cases of
the same nature will be examined and resolved by the Roman Commission.
As
for the lay people who ask for pastoral assistance from the communities of the
Society: they remain under the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishop, but—in
particular because of the liturgical rites of the Society’s communities—they
can go to them for the administration of the sacraments (for the sacraments of
baptism, confirmation, and matrimony, the usual notifications must still be
given to their proper parish; cf. canons 878, 896, 1122).
Note: There is good reason to consider the particular complexity:
1.
of the question of the reception of the sacraments of baptism,
confirmation, and matrimony by the laity in the communities of the Society;
2.
of the question of communities practicing the rule of such and
such a religious institute, without belonging to it.
The Roman Commission will have the responsibility for resolving
these problems.
4.
Ordinations
As for the ordinations, two phases must be distinguished:
1.
In the immediate future: For the ordinations scheduled to take
place in the immediate future, Archbishop Lefebvre would be authorized to
confer them or, if he were unable, another bishop accepted by him.
2.
Once the Society of Apostolic Life is erected:
As far as possible, and in the judgment of the Superior General,
the normal way is to be followed: to send dimissorial letters to a bishop who
agrees to ordain members of the Society.
In view of the particular situation of the Society (see above): the ordination
of a member of the Society as a bishop, who, among other duties, would also be
able to proceed with ordinations.
5.
The
Problem of a Bishop
1.
At the doctrinal (ecclesiological) level, the guarantee of stability and
maintenance of the life and activity of the Society is assured by its erection
as a Society of Apostolic Life of pontifical right, and by the approval of its
Statutes by the Holy Father.
2. However, for practical and psychological reasons, the
consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop appears useful. This is
why, in the framework of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation,
we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from within the
Society, upon the presentation [of a terna of candidates] by Archbishop
Lefebvre. It follows from the above-cited principle (5.1) that this bishop
normally is not the Superior General of the Society, but it appears opportune
that he should be a member of the Roman Commission.
6.
Particular
Problems to be Resolved (by Decree or Declaration)
1.
Lifting of the suspensio a divinis on Archbishop Lefebvre and dispensation from
the irregularities incurred by the fact of the ordinations.
2.
Sanatio in radice, at least ad cautelam (as a precaution), of the marriages
already celebrated by the priests of the Society without the required
delegation.
3.
Provision for an “amnesty” and an agreement for the houses and places of
worship erected—or used—by the Society until now without the authorization of
the [local] bishops.
[SIGNED]
Joseph Card. Ratzinger. Marcel Lefebvre.
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 6, 1988
Your
Eminence,
Yesterday
it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted
during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep
disappointment upon reading the letter that you gave me informing me of the
Holy Father’s answer concerning episcopal consecrations.
Practically
speaking, a postponement of the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined
date would be the fourth time that I had postponed the date of the ceremony.
June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible
date.
I
have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two
months to establish the mandate.
Given
the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very easily
simplify the procedure so that the mandate can be communicated to us around
mid-June.
If
the answer was no, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with
the consecrations, relying on the agreement given by the Holy See in the
Protocol for the consecration of one bishop who is a member of the Society.
The
hesitations expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member
of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, give me reason to fear
delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony on June 30: hotel
reservations, transportation, rental of huge tents to shelter the ceremony.
The
disappointment of our priests and lay faithful would be extreme. All of them
hope that this consecration will be performed with the agreement of the Holy
See; but having been disappointed already by previous delays they would not
understand it if I accepted a new delay. They are aware and desirous above all
of having true Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them and
communicating to them in a sure way the graces of salvation to which they
aspire for themselves and for their children.
In
the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the
reconciliation in process, please, Your Eminence, accept my respectful and
fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
+ Marcel Lefebvre
Former Archbishop-Bishop of Tulle
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 6, 1988
Your
Excellency,
I
have carefully read the letter which you just sent me, in which you tell me of
your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the
Society on June 30 of this year.
Since
these intentions are in sharp contrast with what you agreed to during our
conversation on May 4 and signed your name to in the Protocol yesterday, I wish
to inform you that the release of the press communique has to be deferred.
I
earnestly hope that you would reconsider your position in keeping with the
results of the dialogue, so that the communique might be released.
In
this hope, I ask you, Your Excellency, ...
Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Cardinal Ratzinger, May 24, 1988
Albano,
May 24, 1988
To
His Eminence Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
Your
Eminence,
It
seems to me necessary to clarify what I wrote to you on May 6 of this year.
Upon
reflection, it appears plain to us that the purpose of these dialogues is to
reabsorb us into the Conciliar Church, the only Church that you mentioned to us
in your catechetical instructions.
We
hoped that you would give us the means to continue and develop the works of
Tradition, especially by giving us some coadjutors, at least three, and by
giving a majority to Tradition on the Roman Commission.
Now,
on these two points which we deem necessary to maintain our works outside of
all progressivist and conciliar influence, we are not satisfied.
Therefore,
with much regret, we consider ourselves obliged to ask you, before June 1, to
indicate clearly to us what the intentions of the Holy See are on these two
points: consecration of three bishops requested for June 30, and a
majority of members from Tradition on the Roman Commission.
If I
receive no answer to this request, I shall proceed with the publication of the
names of the candidates to the episcopacy whom I will consecrate on June 30
with the collaboration of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer.
My
health and the apostolic needs for the growth of our works do not allow any
further delay.
In
the hope that these requests will be taken into consideration, please accept,
Your Eminence, my respectful and fraternally devoted sentiments in Jesus and
Mary.
+
Marcel Lefebvre
Letter of Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre, May 30, 1988
May
30, 1988
Your
Excellency,
After
being received in audience by the Holy Father on Friday, May 27, as I had indicated
to you during our conversation on the 24th, I am in a position to respond to
the letter you had given to me the same day, concerning the problems of a
majority of the members of the Society on the Roman Commission, and the
consecration of bishops.
Concerning
the first point, the Holy Father deems it proper to adhere to the principles
decided on in Part III, section 2 of the Protocol which you accepted. This
Commission is an organization of the Holy See in the service of the Society and
of the various authorities with which it will have to deal in order to
establish and consolidate the work of reconciliation. Moreover, it is not
the Commission, but the Holy Father who in the final analysis will make the
decisions; thus the question of a majority does not arise; the interests of
the Society are guaranteed by its representation within the Commission, and the
fears which you have expressed with respect to the other members are groundless,
since the choice of members will be made by the Holy Father himself.
Regarding
the second point, the Holy Father confirms what I had already indicated
to you in his behalf, namely that he is willing to appoint a member
of the Society as a bishop (as described in Part II, section 5, paragraph 2
of the Protocol), and to accelerate the usual process of nomination,
so that the consecration could take place on the concluding day of this
Marian Year, on August 15.
From
the practical point of view this requires that you present without delay to
His Holiness a greater number of dossiers on possible candidates, so as to allow him to choose freely a
candidate who corresponds to the profile envisaged in the agreements and at the
same time the general criteria of aptitude which the Church maintains for
the appointment of bishops.
Finally,
you know that the Holy Father awaits from you a letter containing essentially
the points which we have spoken about, particularly in our conversation of May
24. However, since you recently announced again your intention to ordain
three bishops on June 30 with or without Rome’s approval, it is necessary that
in this letter (cf. Part II, section 4 of the Protocol), you state
clearly that you renounce the idea, and that you place yourself in full
obedience to the decision of the Holy Father.
With
this final step, accomplished as soon as possible, the process of
reconciliation would reach its conclusion, and a public announcement of this
fact could be given.
Your
Excellency, as I conclude this letter, I can only repeat to you as I did last
Tuesday, and with yet more gravity, if that is possible: when one considers the
positive content of the agreement which the benevolence of Pope John Paul II
has allowed us to reach, there is no proportion between the last few
difficulties that you expressed and the damage that would be caused now by a
break, a rupture with the Apostolic See on your part, merely for these reasons.
You must have confidence in the Holy Father: he has shown his goodness and
understanding toward you and toward the Society, and it is the best guarantee
of the future. Finally, you must—as we all must—have confidence in the Lord,
who has allowed the path of reconciliation to be opened as it is today, and
enabled the goal to appear so close now.
Kindly
accept, Your Excellency, the expression of my fraternal and respectfully
devoted sentiments in the Lord.
Joseph
Card. Ratzinger
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, June 2, 1988
Econe,
June 2, 1988
Most
Holy Father,
The
conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators,
although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us
that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not
yet arrived.
For
indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church
authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his baptism, how much more true is
that for priests, religious, and nuns?
It
is to keep the Faith of our baptism intact that we have had to resist the
spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.
The
false ecumenism, which is at the origin of all the Council’s innovations, in
the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the
conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and
Catholics to apostasy.
Being
radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain
within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far
as the formation of priests and religious life is concerned, we find ourselves
in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our
concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II
and the spirit of Assisi.
That
is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition,
and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for
Tradition, in order to
protect ourselves against all compromise.
Given
the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of
this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is
in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the
return of Rome to Tradition.
That
is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence
has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's
letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will
of the Holy See, since it was granted [was not granted] for
August 15.
We
shall continue to pray that modern Rome, infested with Modernism, may once
again become Catholic Rome and rediscover its 2,000 year-old tradition. Then
the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the
Church will experience a new youth.
Be
so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful
and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.
+ Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle,
Founder of the Society of St. Pius X
Letter of Pope John Paul II to Archbishop Lefebvre, June 9, 1988
To His Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle
It
is with intense and profound affliction that I read your letter dated June 2.
Guided
solely by concern for the unity of the Church in fidelity to revealed Truth—an
imperative duty imposed on the Successor of the Apostle Peter—I had arranged
last year an Apostolic Visitation of the Society of St. Pius X and its work,
which was carried out by Edward Cardinal Gagnon. Conversations followed, first
with the experts of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then
between yourself and Cardinal Ratzinger. In the course of these meetings
solutions had been drawn up, accepted, and signed by you on May 5, 1988. They
permitted the Society of St. Pius X to exist and to work in the Church in full
communion with the Supreme Pontiff, the guardian of unity in the Truth.
For its part, the Apostolic See pursued only one end in these conversations
with you: to promote and safeguard this unity in obedience to Divine
Revelation, as translated and interpreted by the Church’s Magisterium,
notably in the 21 Ecumenical Councils from Nicaea to Vatican II.
In
the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the
previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide
for yourself the means to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding
shortly without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and
this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but
also with the Protocol signed on May 5 and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the
letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30.
With
a paternal heart, but with all the gravity required by the present
circumstances, I exhort you, Reverend Brother, not to embark on a course which,
if persisted in, can only appear as a schismatic act whose inevitable
theological and canonical consequences are known to you. I earnestly invite you
to return, in humility, to full obedience to Christ’s Vicar.
Not
only do I invite you to do so, but I ask it of you through the wounds of Christ
our Redeemer, in the name of Christ who, on the eve of His Passion, prayed for
His disciples “that they may all be one” (Jn. 17:20).
To
this request and to this invitation I unite my daily prayer to Mary, Mother of
Christ.
Dear
Brother, do not permit that the year dedicated in a very special way to the
Mother of God should bring another wound to her Mother’s Heart!
Joannes
Paulus PP.II
From the Vatican,
June 9, 1988
Statement by Archbishop Lefebvre on the “cessation of
negotiations”, June 19, 1988
Indeed
it is difficult to understand why the talks ceased unless we put them into
their historical context.
Although
we never wanted to have a break in relations with Conciliar Rome, even after
the first visitation from Rome on November 11, 1974, was followed by measures
that were sectarian and null—the suppression of our work on May 6, 1975, and
the “suspension” in July 1976—these relations could only take place in a
climate of mistrust.
Louis
Veuillot says that there is no one more sectarian than a Liberal; indeed, having made a compromise between
error and Revelation, he feels condemned by those who remain in the Truth,
and thus if he is in power, he persecutes them fiercely. This is the
case with us and with all those who are opposed to the liberal
documents [that Lefebvre himself signed] and liberal reforms of the Council.
They
absolutely want us to have a “guilt complex” with regard to them, but they are
the ones who are guilty of duplicity.
Thus
it was always in a tense albeit polite atmosphere that relations took place
with Cardinal Seper and Cardinal Ratzinger between 1976 and 1987, but also with
some hope that as the self-destruction of the Church accelerated, they would
finally regard us with benevolence.
Until
that time, the goal of the contacts for Rome was to make us accept the Council
and its reforms, and to make us acknowledge our error. The logic of events
necessarily led me to ask for a successor, if not two or three, to assure our
ordinations and confirmations. Given the persistent refusal of Rome, on June
29, 1987, I announced my decision to consecrate bishops.
On
July 28, Cardinal Ratzinger opened up some new horizons which legitimately gave
us reason to think that finally Rome was looking more favorably on us. No
longer was there any question of a doctrinal document to be signed, or of
asking for forgiveness; instead an Apostolic Visitor was finally announced, the
Society could be recognized, the Liturgy would be as before the Council, the
seminarians would remain in the same frame of mind!
Thus
we agreed to enter into this new dialogue, but on the condition that our
identity would be well protected against liberal influences by means of bishops
taken from within Tradition, and by a majority of members in the Roman
Commission for Tradition. Now,
after the visit of Cardinal Gagnon, of which we still know nothing, the
disappointments have accumulated.
The
talks that followed in April and May were a distinct disappointment to us. They
sent us a doctrinal document, they added the new Canon Law to it, Rome
reserved for itself five out of seven members on the Roman Commission, among them a President (who will be
Cardinal Ratzinger) and the Vice-President.
The
question of a bishop was resolved after much hemming and hawing; they
insisted on proving to us that we did not need one [On the contrary, the Pope agreed ”to
accelerate the usual process of nomination, so that the consecration could
take place … on August 15.” Lefebvre
later appealed to that to justify the consecrations].
The
cardinal informed us that we would now have to allow one New Mass to be
celebrated [weekly] at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet. He insisted on the one and
only Church, that of Vatican II.
Despite
these disappointments, I signed the Protocol on May 5. But already the date of
the episcopal consecration caused a problem. Then a draft letter asking the
pope for forgiveness was put into my hands.
I
considered myself obliged to write a letter threatening to perform the
episcopal consecrations in order to manage to get the date of August
15 for the episcopal consecration.
The
atmosphere is no longer one of fraternal collaboration and pure and simple
recognition of the Society—not at all. For Rome the goal of the talks is
reconciliation, as Cardinal Gagnon says in an interview granted to the Italian
newspaper L’Avvenire, meaning the return of the lost sheep to the flock. That
is what I say in my letter to the pope dated June 2: “The purpose of the talks
has not been the same for you as for us.”
And
when we think of the history of relations of Rome with the traditionalists from
1965 to this day, we are compelled to observe that there has been an unceasing
and cruel persecution to force us to submit to the Council [every document of which Lefebvre signed]. The most recent
example is that of the Mater Ecclesiae Seminary for drop-outs from Econe, who
in less than two years have been made to serve the conciliar revolution,
contrary to all promises!
The
present conciliar and Modernist Rome can never tolerate the existence of a
vigorous branch of the Catholic Church [branch theory?] which condemns it by its very vitality.
No
doubt we shall have to wait yet another few years, therefore, for Rome to
recover her bi-millennial Tradition. As for us, we continue to show, with the
grace of God, that this Tradition is the only source of sanctification and
salvation for souls, and the only possibility of renewal for the Church.
+
Marcel Lefebvre
June 19, 1988
Econe
