by Reverend Mr. Douglas Laudenschlager

First of all, let us recall the attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and of the Society of Saint Pius X towards Pope John Paul II and the last two Popes. His Grace acknowledges, as any objective observer must, that the recent Popes, and especially Paul VI, have done great harm to the faith of millions by their words and deeds, and that the present Pope has not yet taken action on the essential issues to remedy this situation. However, the Archbishop acknowledges Popes Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II as validly elected Successors of St. Peter, at least until proof of the contrary. Their behavior he considers a painful mystery, admitting that it poses questions which historians with fuller information will one day have to resolve. But he respects these Popes and has always addressed them respectfully, demanding this same respect of the members of the Society. In fact, Ecône is probably the only seminary in the world which prays publicly for the Vicar of Christ.

Accepting these Pontiffs as validly elected, Archbishop Lefebvre accepts all in their teaching and disciplinary measures which is in conformity with age-old Catholic tradition and which in no way touches or endangers our faith. On the other hand, in the light of the same tradition, the Archbishop rejects, as every Catholic has an obligation to do, everything in new doctrine or discipline which endangers in the least our unchanging faith or the supernatural life of souls.

His failure to reject the recent Popes as spurious has brought down malicious insults upon Archbishop Lefebvre from some impassioned traditionalists less rational and discerning than himself. One priest in France had the audacity this Spring to compare the Archbishop contemptuously to Pontius Pilate!

How, many ask, can he keep going to Rome to discuss things with the very men who are destroying the Church? Once again, the Archbishop believes that we are dealing with genuine if unfaithful Vicars of Christ, and he realizes that any renewal of the entire Church must come from them. He humbly hopes that God may use him as an instrument to open their eyes. In any case, as he has told his seminarians, when he appears before the Eternal Judge, he wants to be able to say that he has done all he can for the good of the Church. This explains his desire to have the Pope officially "permit" once again for all Catholics, what traditional Catholics are doing, which is nothing other than what Catholics have always done.

The worries of some individuals that the Archbishop will "compromise" are unfounded and incomprehensible. Throughout these very same years during which he has been meeting with officials in Rome, hoping to open their eyes to the sorry state of the Church and to the anguish of so many souls, he has calmly continued his work of the formation and ordination of traditional Catholic priests with a constantly growing network of authentic Catholic parishes.

What good might we expect from the rumored decree on the traditional Mass?

Archbishop Lefebvre truly believes that such a measure would be an almost miraculous answer to our prayers, and a cause for rejoicing among the Saints in heaven. When all Catholics could attend the true Mass with no more scruples on "obedience," the inevitable reflourishing of Christian life would necessarily open the eyes of any goodwilled observers and put a lot of pressure on Rome for further improvements in the state of the Church. And the great graces that a return to the true Mass would earn for so many famished souls would infallibly aid them to understand more deeply the crisis in the Church and to work for its resolution, more courageously resisting the remaining evils.

What might be the bad points of such a measure?

Anyone can guess that a schism might result in the Church, for after having fought for many years with such vehemence to extirpate the true Mass, many bishops and priests and the French and American clergy in particular, will not readily accept having it celebrated in their dioceses and parishes. It is obvious, moreover, that materially speaking, a return to the Mass would only be one step in a necessarily long process of healing in the Church. No one can tell what might result or follow. But seen in a supernatural light, Archbishop Lefebvre insists that this would be a considerable step indeed towards that day when through our persevering prayers and humble efforts the Church will regain her previous splendor.

But how could we accept a compromise in which the True Mass and the New Mass would exist side by side?

We would not be accepting a compromise. We would simply be assisting once again at the Catholic Mass in our Catholic churches as we should have been able to do all along. It is our right. The Novus Ordo will not disappear at once; the bishops will not all begin teaching integral Catholic doctrine again at once. But that does not change our situation as faithful Catholics.

This "compromise" scruple develops from an inaccurate notion of the Church and membership in the Church elaborated by a few ill-instructed newsletter publishers according to which the teaching of unorthodox doctrine by a Pope automatically makes the organization of which he is the head a non-Catholic sect, and any true Catholic would have to make a particular act of separation from this act to remain, or rebecome, Catholic.

In fact, however—and simple common sense shows the wisdom of this true solution—the errors of our parish priest do not mean we have to leave our parish; the errors of our bishop do not mean we have to abjure our membership in the diocese; and the errors of a Pope do not mean we have to separate not mean we have to separate ourselves from the Church! We need simply reject their errors and harmful practices, while remaining where we are, clinging to our unchanging faith, assisting at the true Mass and receiving the true Sacraments, praying and working energetically for a return to normal in our parish, our diocese, and in the universal Church. When our shepherds begin teaching Catholic doctrine again and repent of past errors, we will simply begin listening again. When they reopen their churches to us and begin offering us once again the true Mass and Sacraments, we will simply return.

Despite the clarity of these general principles, the rumored decree would still involve considerable practical difficulties. For one thing, we can foresee a lot of friction if, for example, in a given parish, one priest said the New Mass at one hour and preached against the True Mass only to be followed by a priest saying the True Mass and preaching against the New!

Another grave question would arise due to the questionable validity of ordinations, especially to the episcopate, conferred in the new rites introduced in the last decade. Solutions to these various questions will not be easy, but the following questions will be of more immediate importance.

If the decree permits all priests to offer the True Mass again, whose Mass should I attend?

Naturally, in such circumstances, Catholics should prefer the Masses of priests who have remained faithful to the True Mass throughout these trying years. Otherwise, they should attend the Masses of other Catholic priests of orthodox doctrine, such as those older priests who have very reluctantly accepted postconciliar changes. On the other hand, in accordance with canonical legislation, only in danger of death may Catholics receive the Sacraments from an unrepentant priest publicly known for heretical beliefs or scandalous behavior.

Is it alright to attend the True Mass in a church where the New Mass is also offered?

It would seem so, in many cases, as long as the setting is adapted and sufficiently dignified for the True Mass. In many areas, such as in Alsace and in the Holy Land, non-Catholic worship has to be permitted in the same churches where the Mass is offered. It would be difficult to prove that the Novus Ordo constitutes the "impious or sordid use" which desecrates a church and makes worship there illicit. And normally traditional priests have no scruples about celebrating the True Mass on the very altars—in Rome, for example, or at Lourdes or other centers of pilgrimage—where the Novus Ordo is also offered. If, however, scandalous or immoral or sacrilegious things have taken place in a church, then Canon Law requires a ceremony of reconciliation before Catholics may worship there again.

These would seem to be the principal questions which the rumored decree on the traditional Mass could cause to arise. If it really appears, some fanatical traditionalists, already entrenched in a rather bizarre analysis of the crisis in the Church and desperate lest any improvement diminish their mailing list, will probably cry "Compromise!" all the louder and pour abuse with renewed violence on Archbishop Lefebvre, who would welcome such a decree, and the many Catholics who would profit from such a decree. This attitude would only distance them farther from a truly Catholic standpoint. At the same time that we continue to beseech heaven for the restoration of the True Mass and the genuine renewal of our beloved Church, let us pray as well that all may accept this renewal when it comes, even if it only comes little by little, and in an unexpected way.