August 1980 Print

To Remain a Good Catholic Must One Become a Protestant?

This text was written in October, 1964, when few of the Council's schemata had been approved. We believe that this 1964 cry of warning remains even more relevant today. It proves also that from that moment the consequences of the neo-modernist spirit which ruled the Council, consequences which we are witnessing horror-stricken today, might have been foreseen.

Without speaking of the unexpected ways in which the Council Fathers found themselves confronted with various schemata having no roots in the magisterium of the Church, we should like in the following pages to echo the word which the Council Fathers cannot forget: "Caveamus!"

Let us be aware of allowing ourselves to be influenced by a spirit wholly irreconcilable with that which the Roman Pontiffs and earlier Councils have unwearyingly striven to diffuse among Christians. It is not a spirit of progress, it is a spirit of rupture and suicide. The statements made on the subject by some of the Fathers are instructive. Some maintain that between the declarations of the past and those of the authors of some of the schemata there is no contradiction because circumstances have changed. What the magisterium of the Church affirmed a hundred years ago was valid for its time, but is no longer valid for ours.

Others take refuge in the mystery of the Church. Others hold that the purpose of a Council is the modification of the doctrine of earlier Councils. Yet others maintain that since a Council is above the ordinary magisterium, it may disregard that teaching and be self-sufficient. Listen also to the voice of the Liberal press which affirms that the Church has at last come to admit the evolution of dogma. Is it possible to discover the motive, at least the apparent motive, for allowing these revolutionary theses to find an official place at the bar of the Council? We believe it may be laid at the door of an ecumenism which presented itself at first as Catholic but, in the actual course of the sessions, developed into a rationalist ecumenism.

This spirit of non-Catholic ecumenism has been the battering-ram used by mysterious hands in an attempt to pervert and shake the doctrine taught in the Church from the days of the Apostles to our own time, the doctrine for which the blood of hosts of martyrs has flowed and still flows today. Unimaginable as it may seem, this is a fact. Henceforward the history of the Church will speak of those theses contrary to the doctrine of the Church which, on the pretext of ecumenism, have been put before the Fathers of Vatican Council II. Thus, on specifically Catholic points of doctrine there has been an attempt to attenuate or even do away with whatever might be displeasing to the Orthodox, and, above all, the Protestant churches.

We should like to deal with a few of the new theses put forward. To us there seems no point in developing the traditional Catholic teaching on these points. That doctrine is known by all and taught in our catechisms. It nourishes our Liturgy and, for a century, has been the subject of the most steadfast and luminous teaching of the Popes. To express the grief of those Fathers strongly attached to the continuity of doctrine as they listened to the exposition of these new theses propounded by the official rapporteurs of the Commissions is an impossibility. We thought of the voices of the Popes whose bodies lie buried in the very place at which we were. We thought of the immense scandal soon to be brought about by the manner in which the press would echo these expositions.

 

The Primacy of Peter

Let us begin with the Primacy of Peter which it is hoped to hold in check by means of an ill-defined and half-understood collegiality, amounting to a challenge to common sense; whereas it could have been a fine and useful thing to show the part played in the Church by the bishop in relation to his own flock under the watchful eye of Peter, and through his flock, to which he is in duty bound, show how he is bound by the duty of charity to the Universal Church—first to his neighboring churches, then to the mission churches, then to the Church as a whole, but in immediate dependence on Peter, who alone is bound in justice to all the Churches and to the whole Church.

Consider then the new thesis, made up of two affirmations:

1 . All power, absolutely all power over the Church is given to Peter alone.

2. All this same power has been given to Peter and the Apostles collectively.

If all has truly been given to Peter alone, what the others can share with him they can share only through him. If, with Peter, the bishops have a share in universal government, a share which Peter cannot take from them or which adds an iota to the power which Peter alone possesses, Peter no longer has sole power.

Let there be no talk of mystery! The contradiction is flagrant. Peter, in that case, has no more than the greatest share of power—a proposition condemned by Vatican I: "Should any say that the Roman Pontiff has only 'potiores partes' and not the full plenitude of supreme power, let him be anathema."

After that on Peter, there is an attack on the Curia, which is treated as the Pope's secretariat, whereas it is the noblest part of the particular Church in Rome, the Church whose faith is indefectible, the Church which is Mother and Mistress of all Churches. It is towards her that the eyes of all the Faithful should be turned, it is in her that they are certain to find the Truth.

Alas! Why must the Church, Mistress of Truth, keep silent or all but silent? From whence shall light come to us if the Council Fathers of the Church of Rome are silent?

Then again to thrust between the Bishop of Rome and his Church the episcopal body of the Church Universal as an institution would amount to depriving the Roman Church of its title of Mother and Mistress of all Churches.

This does not mean that the Sovereign Pontiff is in any way precluded from consulting the bishops more often or hinder his making changes and modifications in the structure of the Curia if he sees fit.

But the plan of those desirous of creating a new legal institution in pursuance of a collegiality unceasingly exercised might easily result in making this new institution the electoral body for the Sovereign Pontiff. Now, it is unthinkable that the Pope should not be elected by his clergy, seeing that—to become the Successor of Peter—he must first be Bishop of Rome.

 

The Virgin Mary

It is incredible impudence, that, despite the Holy Father's expressed wishes, the proposed schema should do away with the title of Mary, Mother of the Church. The ecumenists deplore her being named in it as Mediatrix.

It may be hoped, however, that the Fathers' devotion to Mary will restore the honor owed by the Council to the Virgin Mary by solemnly proclaiming her Mother of the Church and consecrating the world to her Immaculate Heart.

 

The Holy Eucharist

In the matter of the Eucharist, though the subject has not been treated ex professo, two allusions stand out as tending to lessen reverence for the Real Presence of Our Lord.

In the schema on the Holy Scriptures, the Scriptures and the Eucharist are put on an equal footing. How can we fail to reflect on all the gospels which will henceforth replace the Eucharist on the high altars of our Churches.

Moreover, it is said of the Protestants that they lack "the full reality of the Eucharist"! What Eucharist is in question? Certainly not a Catholic Eucharist where the Real Presence is or is not!

 

Revelation

In all the schemata on Revelation there is an attempt to minimize the value of Tradition in favor of the Scriptures. Laity and priests are alike unduly blamed for too little devotion to the Scriptures.

Actually, the Scriptures were intended for the community of the people of God in their leaders, not for its every individual member as the Protestants claim. That is why the Church, as a Mother, gives her children the milk of doctrine by a happy presentation of the Scriptures in the Liturgy, in the catechism and in Sunday sermons. How natural it is that we should have people authorized to teach us and present the Scriptures to us. It was Our Lord's wish. We have nothing to borrow from Protestants, whose history has given sufficient proof that the Scriptures cannot, of themselves, either maintain unity or preserve from error.

 

The Truth of the Church

The Truth of the Church has evident implications which embarrass Protestants and, alas! a number of Catholics imbued with Liberalism.

From now on the new dogma which will take the place of the Truth of the Church will be the dignity of the human person and the supreme benefit of liberty, two concepts which it has avoided defining clearly.

According to our innovators it follows that freedom to make public manifestation of the religion of one's conscience becomes a strict right of every human being, a right with which no one living may interfere. Whether the religion be true or not, whether it bring virtue or vices in its train matters little to them. The only limitation would be a common good which the innovators are careful not to define.

This belief would necessitate a revision of the agreements between the Vatican and some nations which rightly grant preferential treatment to the Catholic religion. On the question of religion, the State must be neutral. Many State constitutions would need revision, not in Catholic States only. Did it ever occur to these new legislators for human nature that the Pope is himself the head of a State? Will he be invited to laicise the Vatican?

It would follow that Catholics would no longer have the right to labor for the establishment or re-establishment of a Catholic State. It would be their duty to support the religious indifference of the State. Pius IX, following Gregory XVI, called this 'delirium' and again 'freedom for perdition' (Quanta Cura, 3 December 1864).

Leo XIII issued an admirable encyclical on the subject—Libertas praestantissimum. But all that was for their day, not for 1964!

Liberty as sought by those who see it as an absolute good, is a chimera. It if be true that it is often restricted in the moral order, how much more is this true in the order of intellectual choice. God has wonderfully provided for what our human nature lacks by the families with which he has surrounded us—the family which gave us birth and should give us our breeding; the country whose directors should further the normal development of families towards material, moral, and spiritual perfection; the Church by her dioceses with the bishops as their Father, whose parishes form religious cells where souls are born into the divine life and nurtured for that life by the sacraments.

To define liberty as the absence of constraint is to destroy all the authorities placed by God in the bosom of these families to foster the right use of the freedom given us to seek the Good spontaneously and possibly to increase it as with children and their likes. The Truth of the Church is the essential reason for its apostolic zeal, its proselytizing and hence the deep-rooted motive for missionary vocations, priestly and religious vocations which demand generosity, sacrifice, and perseverance in affliction and crosses.

This zeal, which would fain set the world on fire, is embarrassing to Protestants. They would like to produce a schema on the Church in the world, carefully avoiding any mention of evangelization. The terrestrial city could be built without any question of priests, of monks or nuns, of the sacraments, of the Sacrifice of the Mass, or of Catholic institutions—schools or the spiritual and corporal works of charity. In this spirit a schema on Missions becomes very difficult to frame. Do the innovators imagine that this is the way to fill seminaries and novitiates?

The Truth of the Church is still the very raison d'etre for the existence of Catholic schools. The new dogma insinuates that the best thing to do would be to fuse the Catholic with other schools, provided that these observe the natural law. Obviously, there can no longer be any question of Brothers or Sisters engaged in teaching! And Pius XI's admirable encyclical on the education of youth was for nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, not for nineteen hundred sixty-four!

 

The Social Doctrine of the Church

The social doctrine of the Church is another embarrassment to ecumenism. That is why we shall be told that "the distribution of property is left to the wisdom of men and the institution of nations seeing that no part of the earth and no possessions have been bestowed by God on any individual." Thus the doctrine still preached by Pope John XXIII that private property is a right essential to human nature would have no basis other than a positive right. The struggle of classes and of nations would be necessary to progress and to the continual evolution of social structures. The common weal would be a notion perpetually developing and, "since no man is universal, none would have a complete vision of the common weal," which has, however, been given a new definition: "the liberty and fulness of human life."

What has become of all the Papal teachings on the social doctrine of the Church: Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno, and Pacem in Terris? We are living in nineteen hundred and sixty-four. Will someone kindly tell us, then, what will become of the teachings of nineteen hundred and sixty-four in nineteen hundred and seventy-four?

* * *

These examples are amply sufficient to prove that the commissions have a majority of members imbued with an ecumenism which, according to their own statement, is not only no longer Catholic, but bears a remarkable resemblance to the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X and which, as Paul VI notes in his Encyclical Ecclesiam Suam, is once more coming to life.

But here are the facts. The Liberal press seized on these theses even before they were officially advanced, after they were embodied in the schemata and, above all, since some of these schemata, seemingly identical with the first, were given a large majority in the Council chamber.

Victory was won. The way is open to all forms of dialogue, that is, for them, to every compromise. To sum up—out with "popolatry" and the monarchical rule of the Church, farewell to the Holy Office and to the Index, consciences are free at last, etc.

Faced with such a storm and all that it has unleased what are we to do?

1. Keep the faith indefectible, our attachment to what the Church has always taught, never let ourselves be moved or discouraged. Our Lord puts our faith to the test as He did with the Apostles and as he tried Abraham. In order that He may do so we must really have the impression that we are about to perish. Thus the Victory of the Truth will be indeed that of God and not our own.

2. Be objective. Recognize the positive aspects shown in the wishes of the Council Fathers, desires which, unfortunately and almost unknown to themselves, have been used to produce legal documents on lines never envisaged by the Fathers themselves.

We may attempt to define these wishes as follows:

A deep longing for greater collaboration leading to a more effective apostolate, collaboration among shepherds and collaboration with the Supreme Shepherd. Who can condemn such a desire?

The desire to extend to our separated brethren and to the whole world their great charity so that all may come to Our Lord and to His Church.

The desire to give the Church a greater simplicity in its Liturgy, in the usual demeanor of her shepherds, particularly the bishops, in a clerical training which will give future priests a more direct training for the pastoral ministry. This trend is motivated by the fear of no longer being listened to, or understood, by the faithful.

These proper and timely desires could easily be brought out in admirable texts and trainings suited to our times without an ill-based and ill-understood collegiality; without a false religious freedom; without the inopportune statement on the Jews; without a seeming limitation of the power of the Pope; by denying the title of Mother of the Church to the Virgin Mary and without calumniating the Roman Curia.

It was not the Council Fathers as a whole who wished for these texts in their published form and in conformity with new doctrine, but rather a group of Fathers and periti (experts) who used the right desires of the Fathers to get their doctrines through.

Thank God, the schemata have not yet been issued in their definitive form. The Pope has not yet approved them at the public session. Moreover, the Council has stated that it does not seek to define any new doctrine, but to be a pastoral and ecumenical council. The Church of Rome, which alone is indefectible among all the individual churches, remains firm in faith: the majority of Cardinals do not approve the new theses. The Council Fathers, who have an important part in the Church of Rome, as well as the greater part if not almost the totality of Roman theologians, do not side with the innovators. This is of capital importance, for it is in this Church of Rome, Mistress of Truth, that the faithful of the world should unite. Irenaeus stated the fact in his day.

3. Publicly profess our faith without flinching—in the press, in our conversations, in our letters, and be ready to obey the Pope, remaining indefectibly attached to him.

4. Pray and do penance. Pray to the Virgin Mary, Mother of the Church, for she is at the heart of all these disputes and she has always defeated heresies. It is in her that the Council Fathers will find themselves of one mind and heart as do children about their mother. It is she who watches over the Successor of Peter and will always ensure that Peter shall be he who confirms his brethren in the faith, which was that of the Apostles, especially Peter, and his successors.

If we are to deserve the help of Our Lord's grace, we must do penance; penance in carrying out the duties of our state with no flinching, yielding nothing, undiscouraged. This we must do despite the infernal background of license, immodesty, scorn of authority, failure of respect for oneself and for one's neighbor. Let us trust. God is all powerful and He has given Our Lord all power in heaven and on earth. Is this omnipotence less in nineteen hundred and sixty-four than in eighteen hundred and seventy at the time of the last Council, or in the time of all the other Councils? Our Lord will never break the promises of everlastingness that He has made to the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Confidite, ego sum, nolite temere.

+ Marcel Lefebvre,
11 October 1964.

The Feast of the Motherhood of the Virgin Mary.

 

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE

We have not made any changes in this text and we believe that today we should reflect particularly on the reality expressed by the title—indeed, it is impossible to deny that, within every sphere of the Church there has been a dangerous sliding towards Protestantism.

The most serious is that which concerns the Faith through the publication of new catechisms, from the Dutch to the common ground of the new Italian catechisms taking in France, Germany, and above all, the incredible Canadian catechism. All show the influence of the doctrine submitted to us in the first schema of "The Church in the Modern World" which, it must be said, is not Catholic. Faith, the Word of God, the Spirit and the People of God are described on Modernist and Protestant lines, i.e., rationalist. Revelation is replaced by conscience which, breathed upon by the Holy Spirit, expresses itself in Prophetism. This prophetism, which belongs to all the people of God, expresses itself particularly in the Liturgy of the Word. Baptism and the sacraments are rather expressions of Faith than causes of grace and the virtues. But, were we to point out all the dangers inherent in these catechisms, all deriving from Vatican II, we should never come to an end. Indeed, within the Council itself, especially in the document "Gaudium et Spes" there are equivocal expressions and a spirit originating from the first schema.

After the Magisterium, it is the sacerdotal ministry which is also attributed to all the people of God. It is by virtue of this ministry that the People of God constitute the Eucharistic Assembly and carry out the communal worship of which the priest is the president and will soon be the elected delegate. His sacerdotal character and celibacy have no longer a reason for existence. It cannot be denied that the liturgical reforms are written in Protestant terms, minimizing the role of the priest, the reality of the Sacrifice, and the Real and permanent Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

Finally, the government bestowed by Our Lord on the Priesthood becomes the royal power of the People of God, i.e., the "democratization" of authority in the Church by collegiality as understood by Cardinal Suenens, and by national synods in which all the Church's institutions are subject to the suffrage of the People of God, prophet, priest and king.

Thus, into the three powers committed to the Priesthood by Our Lord, there has penetrated the Protestant, rationalist, naturalist, and Liberal virus. These powers, which were intended to divinize and to humanize persons re-created by Our Lord in the image of God, mined by the virus of rationalism, dehumanize and deliver individuals and societies over to all the vices of fallen humanity.

We must, then, fight to safeguard the Priesthood as Our Lord instituted it, in the integrity of its magisterium, its ministry and its government.

We must teach our ancient Faith intact, worship the Eucharist and venerate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as taught by the Scriptures and Tradition, revere the persons of our priests, our bishops and the Vicar of Jesus Christ because they bear within themselves the Priesthood and the mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Following those of Holland and Copenhagen, other national synods are in preparation. If their effects are the same, there will soon be many more Protestant sects. We are warned of these by the opposition between the conclusions of the synods and the directives of the Holy See. The hour is very grave. The choice confronting the faithful in Holland and Denmark may tomorrow face us. We are already confronted by it in the catechisms and some forms of liturgical worship, by the trends of some bishops or groups of bishops contrary to those of the Successor of Peter, as, for example, on the question of family morality and the celibacy of the clergy.

Let us remember that Peter bears the responsibility for all the Shepherds and all the lambs and that where there is any contradiction between the faith of our Shepherd and that of Peter, there can be no hesitation—we must keep that of Peter. Peter has warned us against the Dutch catechism and thus against all the new catechisms which more or less derive from it. Peter has laid down the moral law for the family. Peter has affirmed his Credo. Peter has enjoined the continued celibacy of our priests. Our Shepherds have no right to minimize these teachings of the Shepherd of Shepherds.

Let us remember also that authorizations granted in the domain of the Liturgy are not tantamount to obligations. This is the case in respect of Mass said facing the people, of concelebration, of communion in two kinds, of communion standing, and of the reception of the Holy Eucharist in the hand.

This attitude of vigilance is made necessary by reason of all the scandals we have witnessed within the Church itself. We cannot deny the facts, the writings and the speeches which led to the servitude of the Church of Rome and its annihilation as Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and which tend to make Protestants of us all. To hold out against these scandals is to live one's faith, keep it free from all contagion and safeguard the grace in our souls. To offer no resistance is to allow oneself to be poisoned slowly but surely and, all unconsciously, to become Protestants.

Feast of the Sacred Heart of Jesus Rome, 5 June 1970