June 1988 Print

By Wayne Nichols

Since the time when I first composed my response to the article by Fr. Bruckberger, I have answered some objections which were raised by those having doubts regarding the position of His Grace, and who needed more proof than my short letter contained. I am assured by His Grace Msgr. Lefebvre that my understanding of his position is true. He is of the opinion that I should publish my answers in the Angelus, and this I am doing in the following article.

I protest that I am not the last word on this matter; and I submit all I say to the judgment of the Holy Roman church. I dedicate this work to the Holy Mother of God.

Objection 1. Fr. Bruckberger was not actually accusing the archbishop of Jansenism, but pointing out that his course was taking him in a like direction.

Answer: I understand well what Fr. Bruckberger was driving at in bringing up Jansenism. However, it is what he said that I answered. I would like to see him formulate a concrete charge, that I may answer it. The Jansenists held that the Church had obscured individual articles of faith. This is not the position of His Grace, who maintains that Vatican II did not agree with the teaching of the Church.

 

Objection 2.  It would be a disaster for the Church and the Society if the archbishop consecrated bishops without papal approval.

Answer: The worst disaster that could happen is that His Grace should compromise with the liberals on matters of faith. To whom would the faithful turn for untainted doctrine and sacraments? But this is highly improbable. God cannot leave the orthodox faith without a champion—and the past twenty years have proven this to be Msgr. Lefebvre.

 

Objection 3. The archbishop has been grossly disobedient to the pope.

Answer: One has not only the moral right, but the duty, to disobey superiors who are commanding sin. This is the teaching of the Church and of St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa, IIa IIae, Q. 33, Art. 8). Paul VI and John Paul II have been, either by example or by word, trying to make a law binding on Catholics this terrible ecumenism, which places truth and error on equal footing. This teaching has been consistently condemned by popes and saints until the Second Vatican Council. The archbishop, in refusing to obey this totally "new order" is, in reality, obeying the constant and infallible teaching of the church.

 

Objection 4. The archbishop's intention to consecrate against the will of the pope constitutes schism.

Answer: St. Thomas teaches (Summa, IIa, IIae, Q. 39, Art. I): "Schismatics, in the strict sense, are those who of their own will and intention sever themselves from the unity of the Church; who consequently refuse to be under the supreme pontiff" (emphasis mine). It is evident from His Grace's dealings with the popes that he has always had the intention of remaining in communion with Rome.

 

Objection 5. Vatican II was a legitimate general council of the Church, approved by the pope. The archbishop's belief that it could err may be heresy.

Answer: A. General councils were always called by the Church at extraordinary times to combat the prevailing errors by means of the Church's extraordinary magisterium. This is also the opinion of His Grace, based on his long experience as a prelate of Holy Church. Yet the Second Vatican Council met and specifically ruled out any use of this extraordinary magisterium of the Church, (M. Davies, Pope John's Council, Angelus Press: 1977, pp. 208-209; Msgr. M. Lefebvre, Open Letter To Confused Catholics, Angelus Press: 1987, pp. 125-135). What is left, then, is the Church's ordinary magisterium (or ordinary infallibility). Who has ever heard of an extraordinary council being called to define things ordinarily? It seems to me that this is contrary to the nature of a general council. B. If we admit that Vatican II defined things using the ordinary magisterium, we must apply the test of unanimity. Is the doctrine proposed taught by the pope and bishops as revealed truth; and has the doctrine been held without interruption since Apostolic times? In other words, is it traditional, i.e., found in the Church's living Tradition? (M. Sheehan, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, 1948, pp. 177-178) C. It must be obvious by now that the mind of the Church cannot be different at one time from what it was at another. If the mind of the Church, i.e., Tradition, had been consulted at Vatican II, it could not have issued documents like "Dignitatis Humanae" (Declaration on Religious Liberty), which contradicts previous papal teaching as found in "Mirari Vos" of Gregory XVI, "Qui Pluribus" and "Quanta Cura" of Pius IX (and the Syllabus), and "Libertas Humanae" and "Immortale Dei" of Leo XIII (M. Davies, "Archbishop Lefebvre And Religious Liberty," Angelus Press: 1980, pp. 7-8). That the fault lies with the council, and not with "abuses", is not an opinion peculiar to the Archbishop. Hans Kung, an "expert" at the council, made these revealing statements in an interview in 1977:

"Lefebvre has every right to question the Council's Declaration on Religious Freedom," Kung says, "because Vatican II completely reversed Vatican I's position without explanation... The Council evaporated the problem," Kung insists, "because it called into question the doctrine of infallibility..." The council bishops said: It's too complicated to explain how you can go from a condemnation of religious liberty to an affirmation of it purely by the notion of progress, (op. cit., p. 14, emphasis mine).

 

Objection 6. The Church, and specifically the pope, are protected from error in matters of discipline, according to the definition of Vatican I.

Answer: Bishop Joseph Fessler, Secretary General of Vatican I, wrote a book called "The True and the False Infallibility of the Popes" which received a brief of approbation from Pius IX. By this, we may judge that his words are a correct interpretation of Vatican I. I quote:

Since, then, it is here expressly said that those definitions on which the Infallibility of the pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows, as a matter of course, that all those laws which are issued from time to time by the popes in matters of discipline, and which are alterable, are by the very reason that they are alterable, not included in the de fide definition of the Vatican Council...

"Whoever imagined before...that the pope was infallible in the province of declaring legal pains and penalties?" (op. cit., 1875, pp. 60, 89, emphasis mine).

Again, I must insist that this interpretation is authoritative, since it received the approval of the pope who himself presided at Vatican I. Interpretations of other famous apologists, eg. Cardinal Manning, were not so approved.

 

Objection 7. The ordinary magisterium was expressed by all the bishops of the Church, in union with the pope, at Vatican II. Therefore, they are infallible.

Answer: The test of the ordinary magisterium is Tradition:

"The acts of the ordinary magisterium are, therefore, varied and innumerable and take the form of Encyclicals, liturgical documents, sermons, Lenten pastoral letters, speeches, allocutions, censures, approbations given to books and catechisms, decisions of the Roman Congregations, etc. the sum total of these acts extending over the whole history of the church constitute the exercise of the ordinary magisterium... In fact, history shows that there is unanimity in all the acts of the ordinary magisterium that deal with (a) doctrine," (Andre De Bovis, S.J., What Is The Church? Hawthorne: 1961, pp. 116-117, emphasis mine).

Since there is no basis for ecumenism and collegiality in history, ie. Tradition, they cannot be part of the ordinary magisterium.

 

Objection 8. In Testem Benevolentiae, Leo XIII taught that the rule of life for Catholics allows modifications according to time and place.

Answer: Common sense tells us that any modification made must be in application (as in learning other languages to preach, etc.), not in doctrine. Yet today, it is plainly seen that many are being taught a "faith" that is not Catholic, and that is traceable only to Vatican II.

The Fathers are unanimous, and therefore infallible, in stating that Tradition must be adhered to. I cite two of the most clear:

St. Vincent of Lerins: "...very great care is to be taken that we hold that which hath been believed everywhere, always, and by all men. For Catholic is truly and properly that... if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. Now we shall follow universality thus—if we confess this one faith to be true, which the whole Catholic Church throughout the world confesses,—antiquity, thus, if we in no wise recede from those senses which it is manifest that our holy elders and Fathers openly maintained, —consent, likewise... if, in this antiquity itself, we adhere to the definitions and sentiments of all, or at least of nearly all the priests and doctors together. "What then can a Catholic Christian do... if some novel contagion attempt to taint no longer a small part only, but the whole church alike? then...shall he see to it that he cleave unto antiquity, which is now utterly incapable of being seduced by any craft of novelty," (I. Berington &. J. Kirk, The Faith of Catholics, 1885, Vol. I, pp. 102-104, emphasis mine).

St. Leo I (the Great), Pope: "It is not lawful to differ, even by one word, from the evangelic and apostolic doctrine, or to think otherwise...than as the blessed Apostles and our Fathers learned and taught," (op, cit., p 112, emphasis mine).

Further, Pius DC taught: "...(faith) must also be extended to those things which, through the ordinary teaching of the whole Church throughout the world, are proposed as divinely revealed and, as a result, by universal and constant consent of Catholic Theologians are held to be matters of faith," (Clarkson, Edwards, et al, S.J., The Church Teaches, Tan Books: 1973, p. 84, emphasis mine).

Therefore, I answer that, although certain extraneous elements may be changed to suit the hearer of the Gospel, nothing of its integrity may be adulterated. Since Vatican II, we have witnessed not only cosmetic alterations, but falsification of the truth.

 

Objection 9. There would be no true historical precedent if Archbishop Lefebvre were excommunicated.   The  excommunication  of  St. Athanasius is not certain.

Answer: Cardinal Newman believed that Pope Liberius did indeed condemn St. Athanasius. He based this belief on many old authors who recorded the events of the fourth century in their writings. These include Baronius, Tellemont, N. Alexander, Constant, Mansi, Zaccharia, Petavius, Montefaucon, Valesius. These authors do not agree on which creed of Sirmium Liberius signed (i.e., whether he actually signed a heresy); but all agree that he subscribed to the excommunication of Athanasius in 357 or 358 (7. Cardinal Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century, 1871, p. 476).

Newman quotes Baronius:

"There is nothing, whether in historians and holy fathers, or in his own letters, to prevent our coming to the conclusion, that Liberius communicated with Arians, and confirmed the sentence passed by them against Athanasius; but he is not at all on that account to be called a heretic."

St. Athanasius and St. Jerome, his contemporary, agreed with this statement (op. cit., p. 457). My argument is not that this excommunication was valid, since it was certainly not. I maintain that it was looked upon as valid for a sufficient time for the emperor to publish it and spread it abroad, and to act against the saint. St. Athanasius could not be validly excommunicated, since he was not guilty of sin. I say that neither can Msgr. Lefebvre, for his only crime is upholding the traditional faith.

 

Objection 10. The archbishop is causing scandal by disobeying the pope.

Answer: Scandal may be defined as leading others into sin by bad example. Now, I seriously doubt that preaching Catholic doctrine, conferring Catholic sacraments, and pleading with Rome to grant sanction to the Society has scandalized anyone in possession of a correct formed conscience. On the other hand, when the Holy Father enters the Jewish synagogue in Rome, sits down before a statue of Buddha, receives ashes from Hindus, offers a food-sacrifice to the Great Thumb in Africa, and allows false gods to be worshipped at Assisi, every Catholic worthy of his baptism should be scandalized. We do not sit in judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, the last authority in the Church, or declare the See of Peter vacant. Neither do we accept these actions as blameless. We pray that the Holy Father will give his blessing and support to the Society of St. Pius X, so that souls may be saved from the chaos of these times. We must pray especially to Our Lady, Queen of All Hearts, that she reign in the heart of our Holy Father; that he may return to the straight path of Tradition, and that he may fulfill at last her request at Fatima. We must also pray that Our Lady give strength to His Grace, Msgr. Lefebvre, to fulfill the designs God has for him, and to continue as the champion of Catholic Tradition.