By the Theologians of His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer

1. Necessity

Faced with the present unprecedented crisis in the history of the Church, the crisis of Faith and morals, faced with "progressivism," which is nothing less than Modernism infiltrated even to the highest places in the Church, faced with the lamentable generalized apostasy of priests and bishops, it is of the highest necessity and of the utmost urgency to provide for bishops faithful to Tradition.

Necessity: for upholding and transmitting the Deposit of Faith in its purity and integrity, and for the ordination of priests who will guarantee the continuation of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments.

Urgency: Because we are now more than twenty years since the beginning of this crisis and see no prospect of correction by the present authorities: we should not wait any longer!

Theologians teach (see Dom Grea, The Divine Constitution of the Church, on the extraordinary action of the episcopate, pp. 240-264) that, in order to lawfully perform an episcopal consecration without papal mandate, two conditions are required:

The crisis of the Faith is today universal. The apostasy reaches every domain, and all areas of the Church. Bishop Manuel Pestana, of Anapolis, Brazil, said in a recent interview (Jornal do Brasil, March 11, 1988), though he does not share our position: "I believe we have gone farther that what may be tolerated.... It is not only the smoke of Satan which has entered into the Church through a hidden opening, as Pope Paul VI has said; it is rather through the main doors that the Devil has entered with triumph, even up to the highest places, entirely through his faithful servants!"

The impossibility of having recourse to the competent authorities is evident. Indeed, we unfortunately witness the cooperation of Rome with the general destruction of the Catholic Faith. As Archbishop Lefebvre said in his sermon of June 29, 1987, Rome wants to build up the "pantheon of all religions," as the pagan emperors did. How can one have recourse to Rome, when Rome fosters the evil? When Rome has organized the lamentable meeting of all religions at Assisi, inviting each one to invoke its false god? It was most certainly an injury to God, a negation of the necessity of Redemption, a lack of justice and charity towards the infidels, a scandal for Catholics and a treason of the Mission of the Church and of Peter! How then can one have recourse to Rome to maintain Tradition? We can see before our eyes the fulfillment of the prophecy of Our Lady at La Salette: "Rome shall lose the Faith."

Therefore we make ours these words of Archbishop Lefebvre: "We adhere with all our heart, with all our soul, to Catholic Rome, Guardian of the Catholic Faith, and of the traditions necessary for the conservation of the same Catholic Faith; to the Eternal Rome, Mistress of Wisdom and Truth. On the other hand, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and Neo-protestant tendencies which manifested itself clearly at the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council, all the reforms which came from it."

2. The Agreement

We have always desired peace and unity. It was Archbishop Lefebvre himself who asked Rome for a Visitor. But the agreement which we desired could only be in the unity of the traditional doctrine of the Church. Otherwise it would have been fragile and superficial.

The Holy See sent a visitor in the person of Edward Cardinal Gagnon. After a thorough examination of the works of the Society of St. Pius X, the Cardinal had, on December 8, 1987, only words of praise for the Archbishop and his work: "I want to say that it has been manifest to us everywhere. We keep a great admiration for the piety of the persons, for the timeliness and the importance of the works, especially regarding catechesis, the formation, the administration of the Sacraments. Certainly we have in hand all that is necessary to make a very positive report" (Fideliter, N. 62, March-April 1988, p. 29).

Now this priestly work, praised and admired by the envoy of the Pope, work that counts hundreds of priests and seminarians, a great number of nuns, of priories, schools and seminaries... this work cannot subsist without being given bishops faithful to Tradition.

Why has the authorization of the episcopal consecrations been refused to Archbishop Lefebvre? The reason resides in his fidelity to Tradition: he does not want to engage his Society in the present auto-demolition of the Church.

To praise and support a work, and then to choke it to death by refusing the bishops it needs, is to repeat the gesture of Pilate who, after declaring the innocence of Jesus, condemned Him to the Cross. And this comes in the very moment when the Vatican has just given a certificate of good intentions to the Communist (atheist and materialist) Mikhail Gorbachev! (See O Globo, June 10, 1988).

The European newspapers have just announced the priestly ordination of the Protestant minister Max Thurian, given to him by Cardinal Ursi of Naples, without this Protestant pastor giving the least adjuration of heresy (see Le Monde, May 12, 1988; La Croix, May 11, 1988; Present, May 29,1988).

Jean Guitton, great friend and confidant of Paul VI, complained: "How can I make my separated brethren understand how welcoming our Roman Church is towards them, when they see her so hard towards certain of the faithful? ...It is hard to open our arms towards those who are outside, and to close them towards those who are inside..." (Silence on the Essential, p. 42).

What greater contradiction than this one: openness and comprehension for the enemies of the Church on the one hand; chastisements for those who want to remain faithful to the Church on the other hand?

3. Schism

Schism means a rupture, a break with the Church and its head, the Pope. (This is, of course, when the Pope is with the Church.)¹

On the other hand, to break with those who have broken with Tradition is not schism, but rather fidelity!² A union of charity presupposes unity of Faith: there can be no union of charity with those who have broken the unity of Faith of the Church. In a similar way, to revolt against enemy invaders of our country (e.g., communists) does not constitute a rebellion, but rather patriotism.

St. Robert Bellarmine says: "Thus, as it is lawful to resist a Pontiff who attacks the body, so it is lawful to resist a Pontiff who attacks the soul... especially one who would strive to destroy the Church. I say that it is lawful to resist him in not doing what he orders, and in putting obstacles to the execution of his will" (De Romano Pontifice—"Concerning the Roman Pontiff," II, 29).

The history of the Church gives several examples of saints who, in order to remain faithful, have resisted Church authorities who were wrong. Thus St. Godefroy of Amiens, St. Hughes of Grenoble and Guy of Vienne (who later became Pope Calixtus II), wrote to Pope Pascal II who was wavering concerning "the investitures": "If, what we absolutely do not believe, you would choose another way and would—God forbid—refuse to confirm the decisions of our paternity, you would force us away from obeying you" (Bouix, Tract, de Papa, t. II, p. 650).

Excommunication?

Canonical sanctions presuppose a fault, even a grievous fault. But, is it a fault, is it a sin to be faithful to Tradition? Moreover, all the laws of the Church, as even all good laws, are ordinances of reason promulgated for the common good. Laws are not arbitrary, nor can they be used arbitrarily.

Thus there cannot be episcopal consecration without papal mandate; yet on the other hand, the Pope cannot refuse his mandate without a proportionate motive. On the contrary, his mission and duty is to see to it that there be bishops for the transmission of true doctrine and the conservation of the sacraments. What makes the present case worse, is the fact of the refusal of the mandate because of our attachment to Tradition.

Any episcopal conference, even those who favor errors, easily get authorizations to consecrate bishops. Why would the Society of St. Pius X, acknowledged by the papal Visitor as a work of God for the restoration of the Church, be denied this authorization?

The conservation of the Faith and the salvation of souls are the supreme Law of the Church (Canon 1752). Being the Supreme Law, all the others are subject to it.

St. Athanasius, in the fourth century, did not obey Pope Liberius who was favoring the Arian heresy, and for this reason the Pope excommunicated him (DzS 238—Ep. "Studens Paci"). Both the order given to him, and the excommunication were arbitrary; for this reason, they were of no value. St. Athanasius therefore was not a schismatic. On one hand, Pope Liberius is recalled in history as favoring heresy; on the other hand, St. Athanasius has been canonized by the Church! He is in heaven! This is what matters!

May those who say that they prefer to err with the Pope meditate on these words of the history of the Church, written by St. Vincent de Lerins, in his Commonitoria:

Padre Fernando Areas Rifan

In the name of the Priests of Campos, faithful to Tradition

1. Note of the Editor: The saying "Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia—Where is Peter, there is the Church," is true, but does not mean that one should follow the Pope when he errs! This would be lack of the virtue of prudence. St. John the Apostle did not follow Peter in his denial and abandonment of Our Lord; he stayed at the foot of the Cross. St. Paul rebuked Peter openly for "not walking in the truth of the Gospel (Gal. II, 14). Who would say that one should follow the Pope, even when "he does not walk in the truth of the Gospel"? Organizing a meeting like Assisi is certainly "not walking in the truth of the Gospel," which requires that he preach Jesus Christ and that "there is no other Name given to men by which we must be saved." This is what St. Peter preached; this is what Archbishop Lefebvre preaches! This is what the Pope will preach when he will be converted, according to the words of Our Lord to Peter: "And thou, when thou shalt be converted, confirm thy brethren" (Lk 22:32).

2. Note of the Editor: Only inasmuch as they have broken with Tradition; not to break with them inasmuch as they are the successor of St. Peter.