The following questions and answers constitute the substance of an interview conducted in July of this year by a priest of the Society of St. Pius X, interviewing a well-informed Italian layman who watches closely Church events in Rome, where he lives. Of this interview, Father James Peek, a Society priest and Professor at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, says: "The questions are as topical as they are important. The answers are sound and well-balanced, penetrating and revealing. The whole presents a picture that is lucid. It could serve greatly to awaken and to enlighten. Many a perplexed Catholic will find much to answer his questions as to what is wrong and why. Those who would take the trouble to read it, cannot but be helped. The interview should be diffused, at least to those inquiring minds seeking light." Footnotes by Father Laisney, Editor

Q.  When was the latest point in the recent history of the Church when this crisis situation of the Church, called "horrendous" by Dom Putti, could have been avoided?

A.  In Pope Pius XII's reign this crisis could still have been avoided, but, with the Second Vatican Council, the devils were let loose and could hardly be bottled up again. Vatican II was like the French Revolution—1789 within the Church—as Cardinal Suenens said. There is a great esteem for Pius XII in conservative circles, but a book of Nino Badano (published by Volpe in 1978) called The First and the Last Days of the Church shows that Pius XII was very strong in doctrine, but he had grave defects in the way he governed the Church. He spoke clearly in his encyclicals, but he made errors in his choice of collaborators.¹ For Confessor he chose Bea, a major figure in the imminent revolution. Also, Volumes I and II of Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité's book on Fatima presents Pius XII as having been chosen to complete the work of Pius X, and he was elected pope on the Fatima anniversary of May 13. At the beginning of his reign, he strongly supported Fatima; for instance, he consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart in 1942. By 1950 the papacy had an unparalleled moral prestige, and Pius XII could have carried out the complete Consecration, making public the Third Secret. Instead, he chose never to read it. He did define the Dogma of the Assumption, and he saw the Fatima miracle of the sun in the Vatican gardens, but, still, he did not complete the Consecration. This was comparable to King Louis XIV's failure in 1685 to consecrate France to the Sacred Heart as God asked him to do—the result was the one-hundred-year slide downhill to the French Revolution in 1789. At the end of Pius XII's reign, the years 1956 to 1958 were years of decadence. Pius XII was much influenced by the Jesuits of the wrong kind. He was well aware of Msgr. Montini's secret dealings with the Communists, but he still sent him as Archbishop of Milan, which served for Montini as a springboard to the papacy. Pius XII bears a grave responsibility.

Q.  The prelates in Rome, when questioned about the crisis in the Church, are reported to say in private, "Our hands are all tied." Tied by what, and by whom?

A. Pope Paul VI entrusted Cardinal Gagnon with carrying out an inquest on the Roman Curia, and he was even released from the normal curial oath of secrecy to carry it out. Gagnon was terrified by the results of his own inquest, and wept tears in front of Paul VI to emphasize its gravity. The liberal mafia in the Vatican duly made Gagnon look like an over-emotional weakling. Paul VI died. Gagnon was, in effect, stripped of power and withdrew to Canada, until he was summoned again by John Paul II. Today Gagnon is playing, in fact, a very secondary role. He has no real power.

The prelates' hands are tied by the psychological bond of an oath, and they are intimidated by the threat of blackmail. The mafia in power, in the person of Msgr. Silvestrini, has the machinery in hand to control the choice of bishops. Now that the priesthood is a profession and no longer a vocation, all that matters is being promoted to monsignor. The mafia's principal means is money. They have a great deal of money at their disposal; they get the prelates into compromising situations and then blackmail them. Their second means is loose morals. They often manage to corrupt even the best of prelates. They make use of a system of delation and calumny within the official structures. A person can be very swiftly isolated. Many prelates are suffering, but they keep their suffering to themselves. The majority of them are weak, and are capable of making disastrous concessions. They slide little by little into evil. As for the "good" ones, what can they do? They have a very twisted view of the situation; they absolutely do not grasp the epoch-making gravity of this crisis. Their intelligence is blinded and their will paralyzed. They are prisoners within a prison they have made themselves. They no longer believe in the supernatural. They do not want to believe in the gravity of the situation because it would bring them to despair, so they deceive themselves, saying, for instance, that the Second Vatican Council was a good thing. Or else they say, "It's all impossible; what can we do?" Humanly speaking, the situation requires a heroic act of self-abandonment to Providence.² Hence, the people who do the most self-deceiving are actually the priests and theologians. The laity do not have such a need to deceive themselves.

Q. Has the grip of this mafia, as we might call them, grown tighter recently?

A. Their grip is tightening all the time, because with every day that passes the spark of Faith grows weaker in the Vatican. No one is taking a completely coherent stand on the Faith. Many look to a few positive acts under this pontificate, and it is true that there does exist a line of resistance in the person of Cardinal Ratzinger which did not exist before. However, this resistance is not integrally Catholic as was the conservative wing at the Second Vatican Council, which wing lasted until the 1970's but was then dissolved. The resistance today is like that of the Girondins in the French Revolution, i.e., conservative liberals who let loose the Revolution and then were horrified by what they let loose. True, these Girondins in the Church are putting up a resistance, but it is not an integral or water-tight resistance because their Catholic doctrine is incomplete. Now to deny just one Catholic Truth is to become a heretic. Hence Cardinal Ratzinger is, relatively speaking, less bad, but he and his like are bad all the same. Thus in today's Vatican there is not a single prelate who is good right down the line.

Hence the mafia's power is continually increasing. Their opponents have no principles with which to oppose them. The 1985 Synod increased the mafia's power. The Girondins are yielding ground day by day because they want to show that they are not against the Council. This is self-contradictory. It is to want the causes and not want their effects! Hence it is a battle lost in advance, even from the practical point of view. For instance, John Paul II, by his belief in democracy, renders himself incapable of acting with authority! The revolutionary extremists, like the party of the Jacobins in the French Revolution, have no such belief in democracy; they impose their own power and will on the course of events. But the Girondins believe in democracy. Hence John Paul II fails to impose his own will—he believes in collegiality. The Girondins are prisoners of the false myths they believe in. They don't even have hope in a spiritual victory.

Q.  Is there any hope of the "good" Cardinals—like Palazzini, Thiandoum, Oddi, Siri—forming a coalition? Was there any hope of such a coalition at the Synod of 1985, or was Archbishop Lefebvre deluding himself with such a hope?

A.  The Archbishop's attitude of living in hope is the right attitude. Conversions are always possible. There is no law against hoping. However, realistically, knowing these people as we do, there is not much to be hoped for. Not from Palazzini. There is more hope in Ratzinger in the sense that, if he converted, he would do a great deal, because he is relatively young, and he had ability and character, but in the meantime he is a Girondin. Now to attack the Girondins in public is not right, insofar as it pushes them into the arms of the Jacobins. Staying in contact with them, even just human contact, will be useful in the dramatic days and amidst the traumatic events to come, when the weak will be won back. That is why Archbishop Lefebvre keeps on hoping.

Q. How decisive is the Assisi meeting likely to be?

A. It looks like it will be important indeed. In John Paul II's plans it looks as though it is being designed to combine ecumenism with anti-Marxism. His last encyclical [on the Holy Ghost] was attacked by the left. He is wishing to create an anti-Marxist coalition of religions, united together against materialism. This is a Girondin policy of the revolution with brakes on, but it is also a step forward in ecumenism. It is a little soon right now [early July 1986], to say what will happen. We don't know much about the Assisi meeting yet. It is a brain-child of John Paul II, like the upcoming Catholic-Marxist Symposium in Budapest is a brain-child of Cardinal Koenig of Vienna. Koenig is a Jacobin, all for the revolution with no brakes on. He wrote a pamphlet against Ratzinger and worked with the anti-Mindszenty successor of Cardinal Mindszenty in Hungary. This sort of thing we know from the very interesting press agency, Agenzia Adista, which is like the spokesman for the Jacobins.

Q. What is the effect of the traditionalist fortnightly paper, Si, Si, No, No? Why is it read?

A.  Si, Si, No, No has a wide readership; it is much read in ecclesiastical circles by people who pretend not to read it. They are all curious and interested. Many know but few say out loud what Si, Si, No, No says. Many are happy to read these things. While Dom Putti was still editor, Si.Si, No, No was sharper verbally but not ideologically. People in the Vatican like such verbal attacks, but they don't care for ideology. Within the Vatican reigns hatred and discord, but on the personal, not the ideological level. In Si, Si, No, No they can see their enemies being attacked. However, very few in the Vatican share the opinions of Si, Si, No, No and those that do so are cowards. Their one and only act of courage is to read in secret Si, Si, No, No. The positions of Si, Si, No, No are good, but the coherent overall stand it takes is shared only in part. Even amongst the readers of Si, Si, No, No, they all accept the Council. Thus many sympathize in secret with Msgr. Lefebvre, but rather because of his courage for daring to speak out, than because they agree with his ideas. They are glad that he exists, but they do not share his positions.

Archbishop Lefebvre's campaign against religious liberty has had almost no impact at all. One important function of Si, Si, No, No is to give an airing to these ideological questions. However, the Society of St. Pius X is more likely to get a sympathetic reception outside of ecclesiastical circles.

Q. How many people in Rome are aware of the full gravity of the situation? Where are they? What are they doing about it?

A. There is almost nobody! Very few attend the traditional Mass. In Rome about sixty to seventy people is all. Inside the Church private revelations say, "The crisis is terrible. There is nothing to be done. God will intervene. Meanwhile, all that is left is to pray and suffer in silence."³ This outlook paralyzes action, and leads to the attitude that one need not speak out or raise problems, but one should cover over the disgraces. Such people have a sense of the end-times, a presentiment of an imminent punishment, but it is only a sentiment, a sensation, there is no thinking things through doctrinally. The Italian mentality, especially of the clergy, is deeply papist, to the point of papolatry. "The Pope is Pope, the Church is the Church," they say, in a human and no longer supernatural way. There is a deep-down relativism, a human attachment to the Church as a human institution. Let us just follow the Pope and we shall all be saved.

Q. What about the question of the Pope?

A. There is a mystery as to his origins, his formation, his past. A well-known French priest, the Abbé de Nantes, quotes strange facts like his involvement in an anthroposophical theater movement…there in Italy, a leader of the more or less modernist "Communion Liberation" movement, Buttiglione wrote a book entitled Karol Wojtyla's Thought. John Paul II read the book and said, "That is what I think." What emerges is a way of thinking substantially anti-Thomist, steeped in the modern schools of phenomenology and existentialism. So, in philosophy and theology, he is far from Thomist. In spirituality he has a surprising devotion to St. Grignion de Montfort, to Padre Pio and to the Madonna, but this lacks any firm philosophical or theological foundation. As for history, he has an apocalyptic concept of the world coming to an end around the year 2000—a concept rather Slav than Catholic. In the realm of morals, his stand against abortion and divorce is contradicted by his public teaching on the human body and by his celebrating Mass in front of bare-breasted girls. His theology of the body is very displeasing, and raises real questions as to his moral sense. In politics, he believes neither in the Catholic city nor in the social kingship of Christ the King.

All the evidence points to his being a progressive, but different from Paul VI. Unfortunately he has had no bloody revolution right under his nose to open his eyes, as the revolution of 1848 did for Pius IX. John Paul II steers a middle course between Girondins and Jacobins. In his heart he is a Girondin, but when it comes to making a choice he tries to balance the two. Hence he is less resistant than Ratzinger.

He has served his purpose. The revolution is ready to cast him aside. His role was to dissolve the opposition to Paul VI and the atmosphere that was in 1978 still favorable to Tradition. He has drawn people's sympathies to his person and to the Church. Now the revolution needs the Church and needs a strong Church. John Paul II has made the Church popular in the world once more. Without John Paul II the revolution would have been more difficult in the Philippines. Communism is a corpse, no one is enthusiastic over it any more. With the revolution decomposition sets in, hence the stench of a corpse. The revolution is death, but it has to live, so it feeds on the life of the man it kills, like a cancer. The more it conquers the world, the closer it is getting to its own extinction. Now Catholicism is life, so the revolution turns to Catholicism for life. However, Catholicism must be purified of its theology and its doctrine. Once stripped bare it becomes just a sentimental pneumatic breath of life, a religion without God, an import of life needed by the corpse, or supplement of soul for the modern world in crisis. Beyond the Iron Curtain, the communists need the Church to stabilize their own power. Castro in Cuba is making overtures to the Church for it to collaborate in the consolidation of his regime—similarly, the symposium in Budapest. Yet when communism is not yet in power, it asks for the Church's collaboration in order to de-stabilize the regime, and the help it gets from the clergy in this sense is decisive, for instance, Cardinal Sin in the Philippines, Archbishop Hurley in South Africa. If the Church enjoys any prestige today, that is thanks to John Paul II's gathering sympathy for the Church throughout the world, but now the sympathy has been gathered in, he may be eliminated. He is less popular now than he was a few years ago.

Q.  Why has the Pope given up governing?

A.  Because he has a mistaken notion of the papacy. He thinks the pope is just a pastor to announce the good news, the Gospel. And then, by temperament, he is not inclined to govern. He did not govern in Poland.

Q.  Was Pope John Paul I "eliminated"?

A.  We don't know. We have no clear evidence. The opposition to him was personal rather than ideological. Yallop denounces in his book on John Paul I the mafia of Marcinkus. However, Marcinkus has no ideological plans. The true mafia is Casaroli and Silvestrini. Noe is part of the Jacobin group that holds power.

Q.  What about the "Indult" of 1984, "legitimizing" the Tridentine Mass?

A. It was an experiment that failed. Probably it was a maneuver to divide Traditionalists. As coming from the Girondins, it was sincere, but the Jacobins built into it the conditions which can stop it dead.

Q. Is there really a "mafia" in the Vatican?

A. At any rate, all telephone lines in the Vatican are spied on, all entries and exits are checked, all requests for an audience—everything is spied on and checked. Many people tell us that there is an incredible capacity to terrorize victims. There is a whole power structure of the masonic-type at various levels, with ties going from pure self interest to the deeply ideological.

There is a discipline of the devil, and satanic rites go on—we know of one priest who, on returning unexpectedly soon to his house which had been rented out to a French family, found everything prepared for a black Mass. Satanism is very widespread in Italy. So are the esoteric secret societies. Just before the Second Vatican Council a number of theologians met in the catacombs to swear a solemn oath together to restore the Catholic Church to the purity of its beginnings, and we all know what that meant!—the dismantling of the Church on the pretext of restoration.

Q.  If Dom Putti had had documents to prove these things, would he have published them?

A. With prudence, maybe. However, there exist depths of evil of which we haven't even the faintest idea. Grave immorality is widespread among the prelates; for instance, it is public knowledge that Virgilio-Levi, the Jewish director of the L'Osservatore Romano, had a grown son. I could name a few cardinals involved in the gravest immorality.

Q. Where do the secret orders governing the Vatican originate from? Is anything known?

A. It is difficult to tell who is calling the shots. Msgr. Silvestrini probably just does what he's told. By whom? People in the shadows. A religious order, "Our Lady of Sion," is fighting to convert the Church to Judaism. The Chief Rabbi of Rome is teaching at the Gregorian, the famous Jesuit university in Rome, a course on "Hebrew Mysticism," that is, the Cabala. The well-known formerly Catholic publishers, Marietti, are now publishing almost nothing but Jewish books. The Cabala is held to be the way of greater spiritual perfection!

Q. In what sense might one say John Paul II is in heresy?

A. The Catholic definition of heresy is very clear, but the problem of today is very complex. The medieval concept of faith was much broader. What is the Faith? Answer: what we strictly have to believe in order to save our souls. The Church is an infallible teacher in the field of faith and morals. That is a large field and includes politics. A truly Catholic mind adheres not only to what the Church has defined but also to what it can define. Thus in the Middle Ages it was considered heretical to frequent heretics in a way it is not so considered today. In modern times the theologians have pinned things down with a great deal of precision, but at the same time theirs is a perspective in which one can lose sight of the basic problem: is such and such a pope, or such and such a council, Catholic or not? In truth, Vatican II is bad, the Novus Ordo Mass is bad, Pope John Paul II is bad. Not formally heretical, but equivocal, which is very grave. More important in a way than formal heresy is the sense of the Faith—I reject an uncatholic proposition whether it is formally heretical or not. From which follows a radically negative judgment on everything that has happened in the last twenty years. In this sense John Paul II is more than heretical; in the strict sense, maybe he is not formally heretical. John Paul II does not have the dispositions of a Catholic soul; various gestures and words of his give rise to a suspicion of heresy. And if after years of being suspect of heresy he still doesn't change—what must we conclude?

Q. What are we to think of the Pope's April thirteenth visit to the Roman synagogue?

A. It is not the behavior of a Catholic. The gesture was significant as also were the Pope's words—he failed to proclaim the divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. And he's head of the Church! The Jews accused the Church, and the Pope asked forgiveness for faults which the Church never committed. "We are followers of Jesus of Nazareth," he said, making Christianity look like a sect! When Peter Judaized, he was decried by Paul (Gal. II).

Q. What proportion of John Paul II's enemies are internal, that is, inside his own mind and heart, and what proportion are external, that is, people around him?

A. He has many enemies in this sense inside him. The responsibility lies rather with himself. Had he no internal enemies, he could conquer the external enemies. The octopus of the mafia is merely the externalizing of this internal corruption of minds and hearts. The primary problem is what we are calling here the internal enemies. The main internal enemy is this incredibly widespread liberalism, much more widespread than it was in the last century.

Q. How many people are asking these kinds of questions?

A. Not many. Yet they are the vital questions. There is a great deal of superficiality.

Q. Is it true that Cardinal Ottaviani was the promoter of Msgr. Montini at the 1963 conclave?

A. That's a rumor now circulating.⁴ In Frère Michel's third volume on the Secret of Fatima, the role played by Ottaviani comes out as highly ambiguous. He could have done much more than he actually did. The Revolution succeeds only through the weakness of those in authority, that is to say, it works not upwards from below but downwards from on top.

Q. What do the authorities in Rome think of the Society of St. Pius X?

A. They do not know of it. They know the name of Archbishop Lefebvre, but as for the Society, only a few progressives—who have a sense of what it stands for—know it at all well, because they do not feel threatened by the Society; they feel too strong. They are not afraid of Msgr. Lefebvre because he is very old, and with his death they reckon the whole Society will come to an end.

Q. What about the consecrating of a bishop by Archbishop Lefebvre?

A. The moderates fear such a consecration, the progressives would be happy because it would stop any alliance forming between Archbishop Lefebvre and the moderates. It would isolate Msgr. Lefebvre. Someone in the Vatican is certainly following the affairs of the Society. They have not yet let loose a persecution like they could have done. They are remaining relatively calm. Perhaps they have realized that the frontal attack doesn't work. They failed in their attack of 1976. Presently they are attacking Opus Dei as being the center of conservative power. Here John Paul II is his own prisoner, wishing to do nothing against his own colleagues, for example, Silvestrini. Ratzinger has influence and is esteemed as a theologian by John Paul II. The mafia's strength lies in its influence over government, not in its system of ideas. In government they are like the tentacles of an octopus. It's difficult for us to see the head. Maybe it could be struck, but it can't be seen. Maybe they are blackmailing John Paul II. For what? Who knows?

Q. Is it true, what Msgr. Lefebvre said at the time, that if John Paul II did not make himself some elbow-room by his choice of collaborators in the first six months of his pontificate, then he was bound to become a prisoner?

A. Yes, either he had to establish his own power, or he was bound to be overpowered. He has taken up the role of a pastoral pope who does not govern. The government of the Church he has delegated to Msgr. Casaroli. He himself goes on travels and does not govern. The mafia nominates the bishops. Hence in the near future John Paul II will find himself cut off from all his bishops. Another example: Msgr. Silvestrini and others were responsible for the appalling Italian Concordat of 1984. John Paul II criticized it but did nothing that we know of to stop it.

Q. Is John Paul II presiding consciously over the destruction of the Church?

A. At the beginning of his reign, I don't think so. Now, yes. He has got to be conscious to some extent of what is happening. He is aware of the part played by Freemasonry. Just recently he spoke of forces persecuting the Church. He knew virtually nothing of Fatima, but since the day when he was nearly assassinated on May 13, 1981, he has found out about it! To begin with, he gave the appearance of being ignorant and absolutely not equal to the situation, but not now! It is difficult today to believe in his good faith. He bears a direct responsibility for the course of events.

Q. Is John Paul II seriously striving to consecrate the world and Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as she wished at Fatima?

A.  Maybe he would like to do it, but he does not want to impose it on the bishops. In 1984 he sent a letter to all the bishops inviting them to join in the Consecration of March 25, 1984. However, the letter was held up; it arrived only after the Consecration took place, and so very few bishops joined in it. The mafia was perfectly well aware of Fatima; they know that this consecration would mean the end of their power.

Q. Is Pope John Paul II being warned by Our Lord in any way?

A. John Paul II is conscious of, and responsible for, what is happening. Many people have spoken to him. He made a sarcastic comment on the last letter of Archbishop Lefebvre and Msgr. de Castro Mayer. Ratzinger's letter of April of this year likewise shows that he and the Pope are perfectly well aware of the situation. Alas, the two letters of Msgrs. Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer have had no effect on public opinion. Maybe within the Vatican, but there have been no practical consequences. The authorities are virtually unconvertible. God blinds those whom He wishes to destroy. I know, for instance, a Roman monsignor who writes in the L'Osservatore Romano. He and those like him are immersed in the world; they know everything going on; they making everything into a joke; they relativize everything. Not one of them is conscious of the gravity of the crisis. Not one manifests any indignation. In Italy, for instance, hardly any priests approved of the Concordat. These priests are against Casaroli and Silvestrini, yet the moment you try to go deeper, you come up against their lack of depth, because they are judging the Concordat purely by its material and not by its ideological consequences. There is nothing to be hoped for from these priests. When the Pope goes to Moscow as he will, somebody may protest a bit, but the Italian clergy accept anything.

Q. Humanly speaking, what are the origins of this blindness of theirs?

A. The desire for a quiet life. A certain theologian will hold a discussion with me on a given problem, very affably, but on no problem with any practical consequences. They don't want any upsets. They have given up the struggle. They are not heroes. They have no interest for these problems.

Q. To save the Church, what must we do?

A. Very difficult to say.⁵ It seems to me firstly that the gravity of the crisis of which we have not even a remote idea, requires extraordinary measures. Today's situation can all of a sudden turn violent. There are no more peaceful solutions possible by diplomatic means. Secondly, I would say our own role is to give a witness of the Faith and of faithfulness. Should we be cooperating with Providence to overthrow the situation? I don't think so. Providence requires men's cooperation taking into consideration the situation as it actually is, and so we must be prudent. We must strike a balance between radical and prudent measures. Maybe some of the things that the sedevacantists say are true, but their attitude is nonetheless most imprudent. On the other hand, one call fall into the error of a prudence lacking all courage. Msgr. Lefebvre has kept the balance between prudence and courage.

Followers of Tradition are bound to break sooner or later with the present Church structure.⁶ The question is, how do we get into the strongest possible position before the break comes? We must prepare public opinion. We must broadcast far and wide the gravity of the crisis, addressing ourselves also to moderates, pointing out to them the extremism of the Jacobins. We must strive to find a meeting point from which we can bring the moderates to traditionalist positions. Hence we must work out how to get through to public opinion, not to the churchmen, but to public opinion. This must be done not in the brutal fashion of the sedevacantists, who scare people away. We need prudence and pedagogy. John Paul II should not be attacked.

Let someone inside the Society study these questions under the guidance of Archbishop Lefebvre, firstly by studying the situation and by their working out how to address oneself to public opinion. Let there be an international bulletin. We must widen our circle of listeners and friends. Hence we need to make contact. There should be letters to friends and benefactors, and flyers like the one on the Mass. The Society must be made known. When it comes to consecrating a bishop, let there be an explanation that it was inevitable.⁷

And then, let Traditionalists overcome a number of disagreements in order to make a common front against the progressives. On complex problems a variety of theological opinions are lawful. When all is said and done there can be a range of lawful opinions. We should be open to anyone on the right, as the liberals are always open to anyone on the left. Let there be meetings and exchanges of opinion. Archbishop Lefebvre himself is very open in this way, but the same can't be said of all Society priests.

Q. You said the gravity of this crisis is beyond anything we can imagine?

A. The three children of Fatima saw hell, and almost died of it. If we could see this crisis as God sees it, we would die of fright. Alas, just confining ourselves to what emerges in public, we get used to it, and our sense of indignation weakens. Everything now going on is more than enough to justify the consecration of bishops. Outside of Msgrs. Lefebvre and de Castro Mayer, there is not one bishop fully orthodox in public. And what would even twenty be in the face of four thousand? I do not like the expression "…we must prepare public opinion." Rather, I would say, "We must help all our fellow Catholics not to fall away with their Modernist bishops when they will be cut off; we must help them to remain with the Faith and its traditional expression in the liturgy."

MOST DEAR LORD JESUS CHRIST, Who, being made a Child for us, didst will to be born in a cave to free us from the darkness of sin, to draw us unto Thee, and to set us on fire with Thy holy love; we adore Thee as our Creator and Redeemer, we acknowledge Thee and choose Thee for our King and Lord, and for tribute we offer Thee all the affection of our poor hearts. Dear Jesus, our Lord and God, graciously accept this offering, and that it may be worthy of Thine acceptance, forgive us our sins, enlighten us, and inflame us with that sacred fire which Thou earnest to bring upon the earth and to enkindle in our hearts. May our souls thus become an altar, on which we may offer Thee the sacrifice of our mortifications; grant that we may ever seek Thy greater glory here on earth, so that one day we may come to enjoy Thine infinite loveliness in heaven. Amen.

 

---

1. Our Lord Himself chose Judas among His twelve apostles. Can we say He made "an error in His choice of collaborators"? No, this is a secret of Divine Providence. Perhaps He chose Judas so that we might learn not to criticize what we do not understand. Who makes no mistake? Who knows the future and how our collaborators will behave? While acknowledging that some actions of Pope Pius XII might have proved unfortunate and of bitter fruit, the Angelus Press itself refuses to make any judgment on his "responsibility," prays for the repose of his soul, and strives to follow his teaching.

2. Hence we must intensify our prayers through the Immaculate Heart of Mary for those prelates, so that our Divine Savior may give them the light and strength and love of Him to do what He requires of them.

3. We believe that it is very important to pray, to sanctify ourselves, but not in silence. We have the duty not only to uphold the Faith with the heart unto justification, but also to profess it with the mouth unto salvation (see Rom. X, 10). We have the duty to profess the true Faith loudly, even if one day God requires of us the supreme sacrifice of martyrdom. As Father Schmidberger says, "We must come back to the spirituality of the martyrs."

4. This is pure speculation; the secrecy of the Conclave is so strict that it binds the cardinals under pain of excommunication. The only way to obtain this kind of information would be for a conclavist to break this solemn secrecy—which would hardly make him a reliable source of information.

5. To such a question, the first answer is: there is only one Savior of the Church, Our Lord Jesus Christ. Our duty is first of all to stay with Him, and to live more and more of His life, by a living faith, unshakeable hope and burning charity. Like Abraham, we must "hope against hope" and take the means He gave us. If there is a means par excellence which Our Lord has adapted to our times, it is the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as she said at Fatima: "My Son wants to establish the devotion to my Immaculate Heart." We must fulfill the requests of Our Lady of Fatima, pray the Rosary in our families, do our duty at our level and "give testimony to the Light," i.e., the true Faith in Jesus Christ. He is the One who will save His Church, for which He shed His Blood.

6. This sentence is put upside-down: those who follow Tradition have no other ideal than to be good members of the Church, good branches on the Vine, as Our Lord said: "I am the Vine, you the branches: he that abideth in Me and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without Me you can do nothing." It is the bad branches which are bound to "be cast forth, and shall wither, and…cast into the fire and burn" (see Jn. XV, 5-6). So it is not the followers of Tradition who are bound to break sooner or later, but rather the Modernists who eventually are bound to be cut off by the Divine Vine-grower.

7. It is not ours to decide whether or not it should be done, whether or not it is "inevitable." This question is above us, even above Archbishop Lefebvre. His problem is whether God wants this of him or not; his concern is only to do the will of God. Unless His Grace has the certainty and the evidence that Our Lord wants this of him, he will not do it. We must pray for him, and for all those in authority in the Church. Pray especially through the Immaculate Heart of Mary.