THE WORK
We have just shown that Mgr. Lefebvre is a man lacking doctrine, determined to act in accordance with his programme, cost what it may. Like many others, he might have been the victim of an error, if not involuntary, at least one in which his consent would have been little involved. However all his behaviour demonstrates the opposite. His activities result from a firmly fixed will, totally indifferent to various entreaties except to reject them. Several times Providence has called upon him to set out the clarifications which his action required, to draw from them all the consequences and to do his duty as a bishop. Deaf to these calls, Mgr. Lefebvre receives events as so many irritating obstacles which it is fitting to brush aside by any means other than that of conversion.
We have thus understood that "Lefebvrism" is first and above all a praxis: in the name of Tradition - understood here in an improper sense, since it is separated from the living Magisterium - to act in everything against the authorities recognized by the Church. With the passing years, the immutable justification of this praxis has given birth to a system which clearly has for its end not to take account of reality but rather to give an idea of reality calculated to leave the Work intact. A system of this sort, which judges everything and justifies everything, is an ideology.
It is characteristic of an ideology that it imprisons both its authors and their victims. The more time passes, the more difficult is the return to the truth, if only because of the upsets which necessarily accompany it. In addition, through seeing reality in a deformed manner, they lose the taste for truth and, in consequence, for moral behaviour. The ideology brings with it its own punishment: blinding of the intelligence and hardness of heart. "Lefebvrism" unfortunately is no exception to the rule. The consequences for Mgr. Lefebvre are heavy. Heavy too are the consequences for the individuals in his care and for the work which he directs: for the Fraternity of St. Pius X is wholly in the image of its founder.
AN INCONSISTENT SEMINARY
Ecône claims to form "true and holy priests." But the reality is less heartening. The priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X excel rather by their propensity for causing distress. We have all had occasion to endure the boring sermons stuffed with platitudes, the inaccurate language barely hiding ignorance if not indeed downright heresy. Here a priest says that the new mass is valid, that there is a sacrament but no sacrifice, while one of his colleagues declares that the physical body of Our Lord is not present on the altar.(1) It is possible to multiply examples. If we turn towards those who are thought to be rather better instructed, we experience the same trouble. Fr. Aulagnier, director of the review
Fideliter, excels in the free and liberal exegesis of poor Father Schwalm, who is at the end of his tether.(2) He allows his review to print surprising revelations: for example, it was the sin of the Jews at the time of Moses which obtained for us the Redeemer.(3) As for the Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X, it is directed by Fr. Lorans, but on the admissions even of those interested in it, only contributions from exterior sources have been able to stave off its collapse. All these foibles would be more easily supportable and even amusing if they did not contrast with a huge complacency.(4) Fr. Simoulin, Mgr. Lefebvre's priest if ever there was one, is an unwilling witness to what the faithful have to endure from his colleagues and himself, although as a rule these faithful are not very demanding in regard to the quality of their priests: "We would like to express the bitterness of many of the young priests coming out of Ecône. Pious and learned lay people have been occupied for too long in criticizing them because they are young and inexperienced, without taking heed that they are perhaps fragile. Some cast doubt on the doctrinal purity of the teaching at Ecône, while others question the intelligence or competence of the priests who emerge."(5) This admission is ingenuous but is evidence of a reality.
The matter might appear surprising among those who were expected to reconquer the world for the true religion. It is less so if we consider the principles upon which rests the formation given at Ecône. These principles flow directly from the doctrine, or rather from the pragmatism of Mgr. Lefebvre: the primacy of quantity over quality, the desire to make priests as in times past, the will to keep silent on all questions which give rise to difficulties.
We have already shown Mgr. Lefebvre's illusions about the decisive influence of his work against the conciliar will to destroy the Church. In his opinion it is necessary above all to ensure the sacraments, and for that purpose to be present everywhere. In his opinion the wheat must inevitably prevail over the cockle, though too much regard should not be paid to the quality of the wheat. It is not surprising therefore that they put quantity first: the priests of Ecône are to be the one-eyed in the kingdom of the blind.
The thing appears clearly in the recruitment of seminarians. The conditions for admission are very undemanding: a baccalaureate, a recommendation from a traditionalist priest, a visit to the director of the seminary, in fact a pure formality. There is practically no examination of personal worth, of doctrine or of the candidate's vocation.(6) The same thing appears in the rapidity of promotions. Mgr. Lefebvre is in the habit of advancing(7) ordination when the occupation of territory by the Fraternity of St. Pius X requires it. On the other hand priests, newly ordained and with no experience of the priesthood, nor even of practical life outside the sheltered comfort of Ecône, find themselves proclaimed "masters in Israel" with no period of transition, some with the title of prior, some at the head of a school, some as head of a university college, others as professors of philosophy.(8) No doubt the absence of selection and rapidity of promotion might in the end be justified if their formation was matched to the needs of the time, but this is not the case: very much the reverse.
Mgr. Lefebvre wishes to have priests as they used to be, that is to say - and this is to do no wrong to priests of earlier times - priests who are pious but by no means learned, and this at a time when the situation demands that they should be no less pious but above all highly instructed. By reproducing the defects of the seminaries of this century, he is producing priests as ill-prepared as all the others who allowed themselves to be swept away by the gale of Vatican II.(9)
The fact is made still worse by the wish to keep the seminarians, and the priests, in ignorance of those points which ought to be their reason for existence. At Ecône, they defy the authority of the "pope" without giving their reasons and cast doubt on the new sacraments without saying why. What is more, they refuse to give explanations to those who ask for them, the very fact of daring to ask being considered as an inconvenience or as a sign of a wrong attitude.(10) Mgr. Lefebvre's seminarians are thus formed in an allegedly universal manner as though they had to live outside time, and this under the pretext of doing as the Church has always done. In reality, the means to confront the situation in the Church are refused to them. They are given only as much doctrine as is necessary for them to keep up appearances.
The teaching given at Ecône is thus mediocre in its principles. This mediocrity is reinforced by the quality of the professorial staff. The criterion which decides whether one man or another should teach is not primarily real Catholic knowledge, but agreement with "Monseigneur's" views: one more anomaly in the context. Over the years, the professors who have remained have either conformed to the "Lefebvrist" mould or are the products of it. In fact the best of them are content to give a purely theoretical teaching and their teaching is a compound of questions from a course for a mediocre seminary of the period between the wars.
To that is added a lack of proper control of understanding. Every seminarian except the profoundly ignorant passes the examinations. And to that again is added the absence of direction of studies. At Ecône they form themselves as they like or as best they can. In fact, those who form themselves do so against the spirit of the seminary, against their professors and against their superiors.(11) To all this is added the spirituality of the seminary. In this field, in the absence of a common direction, diversity prevails with three separate schools of thought. The most exacting, behind Fr. Barrielle and his dauphin Father Williamson, follows the lgnatian model. Others, behind Fr. Cottard, are inspired with a spirituality hard to distinguish between Dominican and Carmelite, but which certainly is openly liberal. Lastly, the most numerous behind Fr. Tissier de Mallerais, adopt "the spirituality of Monseigneur." This, according to those interested, follows that of St. Francis de Sales and strives to achieve humility and meekness. Their exterior attitudes could perhaps lead one to think so. However, if one digs a little deeper, things are less polished. It is necessary only to ask one of the heralds of this school one awkward question to find oneself immediately reproached with lack of humility and bitter zeal. In their opinion, true humility lies in not contradicting their bishop. If we add to that a good dose of clericalism and the defence of the middle way between liberalism and Catholicism, we have a better idea of "the spirituality of Monseigneur." The rest is no more than attitudes: the distribution of holy pictures, a smooth tongue, a pious air, eyes half-closed, the head bowed and the hands joined.
What we have just reported largely explains the statement which we made in the introduction to this chapter. The errors and childishness of the review
Fideliter, the doctrinal poverty of the priests from Ecône and all its manifestations are the obvious fruits of the seminary. It is surprising in the circumstances that the Fraternity of St. Pius X continues on its way apparently without serious problems. In fact the spiritual and doctrinal emptiness of Ecône is largely made good by "Lefebvrism", that is to say the cult - sincere or not - devoted to the activities and the person of the bishop. The men of Ecône think like "Monseigneur" and adopt his system. They are aligned with "Monseigneur" and follow all his variations, however aberrant they may be. They imitate the man whom they consider - or pretend to consider - to be a saint. The final result is that there is no real contradiction between the desire to form priests expressed by Mgr. Lefebvre and the concrete results of his work. The contradiction is only apparent. For the prelate of Ecône, it is a matter above all of having priests, plenty of priests, who are faithful to him. It is a matter above all of having subservient executives; to such an extent that the Fraternity of St. Pius X forms militants rather than Catholic priests.
THE PARTY MENTALITY
The Fraternity of St. Pius X having refused, in the person of its superior, to base itself solidly on Catholic doctrine and having finally turned its back upon it in order to adopt a system, it was necessary in order to ensure its cohesion to take certain liberties little related to the normal exercise of authority. As always in ideological groups, it was necessary to find another unifying principle. In the same way that "the spirit of Marc" - that is Marc Sangnier - animated the Sillon, condemned by St. Pius X early this century, so "the spirit of Monseigneur" animates the whole Fraternity.
A charismatic leadership For Mgr. Lefebvre, the situation is in some ways devoid of stress. He is the only bishop in his party and the only man who has the power of ordination. For this reason he need not fear becoming the victim of internal quarrels. His authority, if we may still call it that, is exercised smoothly, switching from sectarian intransigence to the deepest liberalism according to whether the "Lefebvrist" ideology is or is not involved.(12) For his subjects, the art is perilous. For them it is a matter of following the line, which in the absence of true doctrine, sometimes gives rise to surprises. To be or not to be in the good books of the "leader", that is what decides survival in the Fraternity of St. Pius X.
Since its foundation, the Fraternity has lived to some extent between two stools: fidelity to "tradition" and "fidelity" to the conciliar pontiffs. The partisans of an effective move to join the new church on the one hand and those in favour of breaking with it on the other have for some time been able to believe that they were the only two groups in the field. They were seriously mistaken; for survival at Ecône depends upon belonging, regardless of opinions, to a third group, that of servile admiration for the conduct of the bishop.(13)
In conditions like these a succession of crises was inevitable, each one followed by a collective purge: in 1972, Fr. Masson, the first director of the seminary, followed by three professors and twenty seminarians, who wanted to assist at the new
ordo missæ in 1974, those favouring submission to the conciliar heads in 1977, the hard core of liberals following an attempted coup; the same year, the first reprimands for those who were disturbed by the orientations of Mgr. Lefebvre; from 1978 to 1980, all those who refused to recognize John Paul II and dared to say so were eliminated one by one; in 1981, Fr. Cantoni, a professor, and several seminarians joined the conciliar church. The phenomenon also affected individual priests: thus in 1980 Fr. Samson left the Fraternity of St. Pius X because he did not understand how to reconcile the practice of Ecône with the Catholic doctrine of submission to the Magisterium.(14)
Whatever we may think of the reasons for one or another, reasons sometimes conflicting, the fact is that these successive crises have had the effect of preventing any deviating tendency and making the present atmosphere of the Fraternity of St. Pius X painful and suffocating for anyone who is not a certified conforming "Lefebvrist." They have, moreover, committed injustices unworthy of a society, still less of a Catholic religious community, and clearly revealing Mgr. Lefebvre's contempt for people, for the good of souls and for the good of the Church. All those who have survived these purges, actively or as spectators, know that instead of being the normal exercise of authority they have been the occasions of arbitrary action, of contempt of law, of blackmail at ordinations, of group pressure. For example, exclusion from a religious society is a grave matter, but Mgr. Lefebvre never gives clear reasons for the exclusions which he decides upon, nor does he ever allow the accused the opportunity to defend himself. These purges which strike sometimes on one side, sometimes on the other, also show clearly the muddle into which fundamental questions have always been allowed to settle. We see also the interior drama of certain priests, such as Frs. Samson and Cantoni, who realise that Ecône has set them on a false trail and who think it good, since they have not been taught sound doctrine, to join the new church.(15)
At the present time Ecône seems to have entered a stable phase. Foreign bodies have been ejected and consciences stifled. The essential thing for Mgr. Lefebvre is that the Work should flourish. The essential thing for the seminarians is that the bishop should be willing to ordain them. However, since the fundamental questions remain unresolved, any serious event is capable of provoking a new crisis. A sort of tacit contract exists in which the interests of both parties are safeguarded: on one side they want the priesthood at any price, and on the other it is required that consciences are silenced, especially if they are still sound, and all must obediently toe the line. Confrontation will not take place unless one of the parties breaks the terms of the contract.(16)
The personality cult The exercise which consists in acquiring "the spirit of Monseigneur" clearly causes the loss of the taste for right reason. Its final result is a greater consideration for the person of the bishop than for adherence to any ideal. There have always been individuals ready to follow the cult of a personality, but at Ecône the matter has become an integral part of the system. For Ecône is above all one man: Mgr. Lefebvre. Everything is centred about him and everything rests upon him. The members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X are first of all his disciples; doctrinal problems and the good of the Church come afterwards. Furthermore, that which "Lefebvrists" reproach the most in those who criticise the way followed by the bishop is not so much the arguments advanced - some are even ready to accept those - as the fact of casting a slur on the person of Mgr. Lefebvre. Even those who have had to suffer his persecutions for non-conformity to his praxis have rarely dared to attack him openly, no doubt unconscious victims of the personality cult.
The cult is exercised collectively as much as individually. The "Lefebvrists" are henceforth broken in to the adulation of their "saint." We think of Fr. Marziac's book, ridiculous in its obsequious flattery.(17) We think also of the jubilee of 1979, an expensive operation entirely for the glory of him who is the Bishop, with a capital B.(18) Since 1976 the "Lefebvrists" have never missed an opportunity to sing the "Tu es Petrus" on the passage of "their" bishop. No doubt in the minds of many of them it was less a matter of singing their fidelity to the conciliar pontiffs than their indefectible attachment to the bishop of the "traditionalists, and perhaps even a foolish hope.
When it takes an individual form, the cult offered to Mgr. Lefebvre assumes proportions equally doubtful but more amusing. Thus the priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, occasionally aware of the absurd nature of some of their superior's statements, do not hesitate to invoke his incomparable virtues to excuse him.(19) Sometimes matters take a frankly hilarious turn. We recall the poem - kindly annotated for the enlightenment of his supposedly ignorant readers - which Fr. Jean-Paul André dedicated to Mgr. Lefebvre on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the Fraternity of St. Pius X.(20)
Let there be no mistake: the cult offered to the prelate of Ecône is seldom innocent and very often interested; as much among the practitioners as for the object of it. This cult serves Mgr. Lefebvre's interests and he does not discourage it. In particular, it saves him from having to justify his acts to individuals already on his side without even having heard him. For these, the ordinations, the confirmations, financial support, the maintenance of a clientele is well worth the trouble entailed in flattering him.(21) Even if he had nothing to offer, devoting their time to his praises saves them from having to think.
Intolerance and free thinking We have heavily emphasized the necessity for anyone who wishes to belong to the Fraternity of St. Pius X to compete in servility towards his superior. Given Mgr. Lefebvre's pragmatism, it is easy to imagine the consequences in the matter of human selection. We shall return to this subject later. There are certainly some who have abandoned what previously served them for intelligence and for whom the solution is simple: let Mgr. Lefebvre do the thinking. There are also others within the Fraternity who do not totally refuse to think, for the right to hold an opinion is not forbidden to "Lefebvrists", on the one condition that they know how to remain silent when it is important to do so. They are permitted to think but must value it lightly enough to be able to stifle their consciences when necessary.(22) At a pinch, the fact of not recognizing John Paul II can be accepted, it is necessary only to refrain from giving it publicity. Thus certain priests have found themselves being offered posts in some obscure priory where their "abnormality" would present little risk of clashing with the official line. Similarly, the discreet followers of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, now a schismatic bishop, were able to remain subjects of Mgr. Lefebvre for a long time, and until recent months. Even today, Fr. Philippe Laguerie, a convinced "Guerardien" who privately makes no secret of it, lives at his ease in the Fraternity of St. Pius X. He merely has to pay the price of an accommodation with his conscience.(23) Fr. Aulagnier himself, the superior of the Franco-Belgian district, sometimes does not hide his sympathy with Catholic good sense.(24) However, he was sufficiently "prudent" to bend his preferences when Mgr. Lefebvre made his position known. Since then Fr. Aulagnier fumes at being unable to rend John Paul II and his church. His heart leans to the right but his interests lead into maintaining a position to the right of centre, subject to all the adjustments which the next whim of his superior may impose on him. Nor are Frs. Aulagnier and Laguerie isolated cases.
Whether they have set aside all intelligence or whether they have chosen the faint-hearted silence of a grovelling conscience, the result is the same. Those who remain in the Fraternity of St. Pius X, with very few exceptions, are offering sacrifice to the party spirit. Rather than Catholic priests, they are perfect "Lefebvrist" militants.
HARD LITTLE MINDS
Mgr. Lefebvre wanted and still wants priests, many priests. In this respect he has manifestly succeeded and misses no opportunity to congratulate himself on such a success. However, the doctrinal and spiritual emptiness of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, and the party spirit which prevails in it are clearly not without their effect on the quality of the products of the enterprise. More or less faithful reproductions of Mgr. Lefebvre, characteristics are found among them which are not usually the attributes of a Catholic priest: in particular the inability to justify their acts, and hardness of heart.
We do not intend to examine again what we have already underlined: the distressing level of the members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. However, we must emphasize one very serious matter. All those who take their place in the "Lefebvrist" system are called upon to exercise their ministry in unusual or even irregular circumstances. They are all confronted with a world which has never before been so hostile to the true religion. They are all led to undertake crushing responsibilities: the direction of souls, the direction of communities, of schools etc. Now not one of them is able to justify what he is doing.
We know that Mgr. Lefebvre himself is not willing to do it; and this default is multiplied again among his faithful subjects. The work of the prelate of Ecône is notable for the fact that it makes no contribution to the debate on doctrinal subjects. Neither
Cor Unum, the internal bulletin, nor
Fideliter, the review for general circulation, is or wishes to be equal to the task. Sometimes individuals, in their own names, venture on learned argument but always in documents of the most restricted circulation, discouraging in manner and as we have mentioned earlier, always with the object of justifying retrospectively and at any price the practices of Mgr. Lefebvre. As for the priests at the core, they refuse even to speak of doctrine. At the first attempt they are content to give the same threadbare excuses: we are not the teaching Church, leave that to the theologians leave "Monseigneur" alone, he knows where he is going - listen, he thinks for us; let us be humble, etc. Pushed a little harder, they use this bludgeon of an argument: you are attacking Mgr. Lefebvre.(25)
A technique like this cannot produce moral behaviour. To the faithful who are prepared to open their eyes and see clearly, the priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X appear in general as "hard little minds." It is true that once again their superior has set the example. Obstinately following his course, he takes grave exception to anything which might be an obstacle to him or which might prove offensive. He is considered to be a pleasant man, gentle and humble. All those who meet him for the first time think that of him, the more so since he can appear changeable and elusive and can make use of different, even conflicting, language according to his interests and his interviewers. However, the true personality of Mgr. Lefebvre never appears so clearly as when he is contradicted or upset. He then shows himself to be indifferent to people and harsh towards them.
This shows clearly in his behaviour towards those priests or seminarians who leave the Fraternity of St. Pius X, through fidelity to John Paul II, through refusing to recognize John Paul II as pope or for any other reason. In the eyes of a Catholic superior, these ought to be seen as straying sheep whom moral duty demands should be led back to the fold. Mgr. Lefebvre however never treats them like that. So far as he is concerned, they are nuisances. To their repeated requests for an explanation or for a hearing, he has only one reply and that without any benevolence: you do not agree with me, go away.(26)
Similarly, Mgr. Lefebvre, who is a bishop though his behaviour sometimes makes it easy to forget it, ought to reply to anyone who shows himself to be in error by argument, which ought not to be gratuitous assertions unrelated to Catholic doctrine. Those who, in an attempt to enlighten him, have had the "audacity" to exercise charity towards him, have had this for their reward: at best silence, at worst, venomous answers. Fr. Barbara has been able to put this to the test on a number of occasions. As early as 1977 the object of an uncouth ostracism on the part of the hardline "Lefebvrists", on 3rd December that year he took the risk of writing to ask him the reason for this state of affairs. The letter was extremely respectful.(27) The reply, dated 8th December, was less so. Among other compliments, the bishop slipped this charitable shaft: "In your state of mind, I ask myself how you still manage to pray." In 1980, Fr. Barbara wrote again on 23rd February and 2nd June, each letter as respectful as the first, to remind Mgr. Lefebvre of his duties as a Catholic bishop. The affront must have been intolerable, since the addressee has not even thought fit to reply.(28)
This coldness and hardness, the more scandalous for being the work of a man who has received the fullness of the priesthood and who ought to be a "good shepherd", is found in varying degrees among the priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, though some of them no doubt are not conscious of it.(29) To that is added the fact that the luxurious cocoon of Ecône is hardly a preparation for present-day realities. In fact, the young priests who emerge are totally unrealistic: unrealistic about the conditions in which they have to exercise their priesthood, unrealistic about their true capabilities, unrealistic about the daily lives of the faithful, etc. Cradled in the notion that they are "the apostles of the last days"(30), benefiting from an almost absolute monopoly, knowing themselves to be waited upon by the faithful who are in no position to be over-particular, authorized to live amply in the direct line of luxury displayed by their religious society, they act wherever they go like boors, without regard for those who have prepared the ground for them, sometimes at the cost of bitter struggles, indifferent to the objections which are made to them - are they not "Monseigneur's" priests? - pitiless towards those bold enough not to yield to their good pleasure.(31) Formed in the mould of a hollow seminary, without other intelligence or conscience than that of Bishop Lefebvre, entrusted with missions they cannot properly fulfil, these perfect militants act not as priests but as barbarians. The fact is more scandalous for the faithful who still support them because these "hard little minds" have learned fine ecclesiastical manners and because they accomplish their misdeeds under the exterior, but only the exterior, of a pious and soothing attitude. The fact is more scandalous still because the Fraternity of St. Pius X, far from practising the humility suitable to its real means, unceasingly gives itself airs.
COLLECTIVE SELF-SATISFACTION
The mediocrity of Mgr. Lefebvre's work hides behind an unrivalled self-esteem. For the Fraternity of St. Pius X, appearances are more important than reality. Its members excel at presenting a fine organization, truly well equipped: international seminaries, districts, priories, religious houses, monks, nuns, monasteries, schools, universities, etc. This fine display allows everything else to be overlooked. Here again, quantity is preferred to quality. Mgr. Lefebvre himself has made a specialty of insisting on the growth of his work. Apart from remarks on the progress of the "arrangement" with Rome, always deferred, his
Lettres aux amis et bienfaiteurs are always marked by expansionist euphoria: a school is being built here, a seminary opened there, we do not stop growing, etc.
It is necessary to find the real explanation for this growth. Nothing is easier for the founder of Ecône: his work is "visibly blessed by God", as he writes in the preface of a pamphlet lovingly compiled by his seminarians and humbly entitled: "The Fraternity of St. Pius X. A work of the Church. The miracle of Ecône."(32) For to Mgr. Lefebvre and his admirers it is no less than a miracle. The pamphlet we have just named contains for example a revealing chapter entitled "A backward look" which we shall quote almost in its entirety: "For eleven years now the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X has shown in a continuous and unfailing manner its attachment to the Holy Roman Catholic Church, to all her institutions, to all her doctrine and particularly to her priesthood, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and to the centuries-old "Magisterium which finds in Tradition its full and life-giving expression."(33)
"Thus a look back at the Fraternity since its preparation and its existence dating from 1st November 1970, "clearly shows the certain action of Providence, not only in events, but also in the permanence of its form and finality, the vigour of its growth, in spite of trials from within and without."
"Since its first foundation ... the Fraternity has not ceased to grow in an almost miraculous manner" (on 1st January 1981 it numbered 44 houses spread throughout the whole world).
"And if it is true that a miracle occurred in its growth, it appeared also in the fact that this growth has not been stopped by the savage attacks of the progressive bishops and clergy of France and Switzerland, nor by those of the cardinals of the Roman Curia.
"Now it is quite evident that from the human point of view this internal and external opposition should have destroyed the Work.
"The evidence of these events is unanimous. The Work only survives because it is continuing the Church ..."(34)
Thus the "Lefebvrists" see in the success of "the Work" the obvious sign that they are blessed by God, because they are continuing the Church. The argument is well calculated to impress the ignorant and the weak, because it is crude. All it does is to reproduce the current self-satisfaction of the heretico-schismatics, the Calvinists for example, seeing in material success - and we have seen how carefully Bishop Lefebvre and his followers insist on numerical growth - the sign of their predestination. The "Lefebvrists", satisfied with their reward here below, do not cease to make much of it to assert that they are the ones "blessed by God." So thoroughly are they persuaded of it that they think that everything is permissible, in particular to claim for themselves or to destroy anything which has been done apart from them or without them for the Church.
HEGEMONY
Originally, the "traditionalists" were priests and above all lay people who, faced with the conduct of the clergy and the liturgical and sacramental innovations of the period following the council, took the initiative and broke with the new church. Opposed by indifference, contempt or hatred by the greater part of bishops and priests, they undertook to preserve the true sacraments and the true catechism. They did so in the most difficult circumstances. From the material point of view, their strength was insignificant, their priests few, their makeshift buildings miserable. From the moral point of view, they were the object of sarcasm, faced with the apathy of the great majority, lacking leaders and without organization. That is to say, they did not act as they did for pleasure, but because they knew, in a more or less confused way, that something serious was at stake. They did not have time to make a complete and accurate analysis of it, but the instinct of the faith warned them that they must act. They had not yet fully understood the true extent of the crisis, and were notably not truly interested in the council, but many clearly saw the need to study Catholic doctrine in order to see it more clearly and to back up their own positions.
In a situation like this, the appearance of Mgr. Lefebvre and his Fraternity of St. Pius X could have been most beneficial. It ought to have been so. It would have been enough if Mgr. Lefebvre had decided to be truly a bishop and combat the new errors with the weapons of sound doctrine. What followed showed that he was not the bishop that Providence required him to be. Worse than that, far from responding to the expectations of those who looked to him, he was to make use of them solely for the benefit of his own work.
The circle of "traditionalists" thus already existed without the Fraternity of St. Pius X, at least in some countries and particularly in France and Mexico. An enterprise like this could certainly never have sprung into full vigour without this circle, sympathetic from the first to his cause. How could it have been otherwise? They hoped for everything from Mgr. Lefebvre. He for his part showed himself to be gracious and discreet towards those who had begun to work without him. He promised them priests in the reasonably near future. Although at the time he might have been nursing intentions of hegemony, his means did not allow him to put them into practice. It was thought that he foresaw for himself a very unobtrusive role. Did he not repeat that he wished only "to form good priests as in former times", and that he did not wish to be the bishop of the "traditionalists"?
However, over the years, while he was refusing to do his duty and his Fraternity was flourishing, Mgr. Lefebvre's attitude changed. Contrary to all his denials, it appeared that he was asserting himself in fact as the head of the "traditionalists." He profited from their weakness the better to assure his domination. He so acted that all their achievements fell before the cutting edge of his Fraternity.
Thenceforward, the Fraternity of St. Pius X reached such a level of growth that it authorises itself to do absolutely everything and that it intends to be, at least in practice and increasingly in theory, the necessary and obligatory way to all Catholic fidelity. Far from according recognition to those who for long struggled without it, and without whom it would not exist, it requires them to disappear to make way for the all-powerful work of Mgr. Lefebvre.
In practice the hegemony of the Fraternity of St. Pius X takes a strictly classic form. It consists in establishing itself everywhere. There would be nothing scandalous in that in itself if it did not act without the slightest regard for the pre-existing situation. The efforts and achievements of faithful Catholics find no more recognition in the eyes of the little "Lefebvrist" church than the bishops in office whom they recognize as legitimate. For the faithful, the choice is simple: allow themselves to be absorbed or fight. The first solution is less cost-free than might be supposed.(35) As for the second, it is unavoidable for anyone with the intention of remaining Catholic free from the embrace of Mgr. Lefebvre. Faced with resistance, the Fraternity of St. Pius X does not hesitate to establish itself in competition.(36) No matter if the one to be trodden under has worked all his life for the Church, no matter if he has prepared the ground, he must disappear. This type of situation carries no risks for the little "Lefebvrist" church, always assured of the support of a fashionable circle. What is more, the zealous members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X hold in reserve a number of most immoral methods to make the recalcitrants yield: lying, calumny and even - after all why not? - blackmail through the sacraments.(37)
At first sight, behaviour like this might seem surprising on the part of those who claim to have no other intention than to do "a work of the Church." In reality, however, the practical hegemony of the Fraternity of St. Pius X proceeds from an internal logic. Having abandoned Catholic doctrine, being convinced that they are continuing the Church, obstinate in their schismatic practices, Mgr. Lefebvre and his zealous followers are no longer working for the Church but on their own account.
It is surprising also that so few Catholics have reacted against the expansionism of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Though the first cries of alarm are beginning to be heard here and there(38), it must be clearly recognized that the great majority of "traditionalists" have been followers of Mgr. Lefebvre. Whatever may have been their intentions at the beginning, for many the energetic reaction against the new religion has well and truly miscarried into a short-sighted transfer on the providential man whom they hope will save everything.
Mgr. Lefebvre claims to be doing "a work of the Church." Unfortunately the reality is otherwise. He exercises a charismatic direction over his work without reference to the authority of any Catholic superior. He has his own militants, hard and ignorant sectaries. In spite of all the warnings addressed to him, he has turned his back on Catholic truth and has forged his own doctrine, carrying his Fraternity with him in his fall. This Fraternity lives henceforward in the admiration of its own development. It is its own end. It intends to absorb everything outside itself which has the desire to be Catholic. It establishes itself everywhere, in parallel with the new church, whose legitimacy it nevertheless recognizes. In short, the Fraternity of St. Pius X has become a "new" new church with its own structures and laws.(39) More briefly still, the word strikes fear but is exact, it is a sect.
We shall end with a long quotation: "On the subject of ceremonies, we have often spoken here of our point of view: we are in favour of preserving the liturgy of St. Pius V" (mass and divine office, accepting for the latter the reforms made by St. Pius X), Gregorian chant again recommended by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II." On the subject of the four canons of the mass of Paul VI, "we do not say and have never claimed that they were invalid", but they do not correspond to the needs of the faithful of our community. "We shall try to review our position if the Holy Father forbids our custom of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice according to the Tridentine rite." In all the masses celebrated by the priests of our community the name of the Holy Father is mentioned in the Canon: "
Una cum famulo tuo papa nostro Joanne Paolo." "Our community is in no way in sympathy with those who deny the existence, the supremacy or the authority of the pope." From the point of view of clothing and habits of life, we are committed to retaining, without excess, "the practice of the parish clergy of former times. That is what we are modestly attempting to give and to transmit. We do not offer a pure and sectarian traditionalism, but one adapted as best we can to the present world." We add for the reader's information that despite appearances, this statement does not emanate from Mgr. Lefebvre but from the sectaries of the Latin Church of Toulouse.(40)
ANNEXE
A case of conscience "Ecône's system" tends to flatten consciences. Its most obvious effect is an inverted moral education, by which the members of the Fraternity are pressed into a servile docility towards the dominating ideology of their group. This state of affairs is achieved with most without great difficulty, but there are some exceptions. The two cases which follow show the sort of drama which can arise.
Exasperation: the case of Fr. Samson On 30th March 1980, a young priest, Fr. Samson, signed a letter in which he explained his reasons for leaving the Fraternity the year before. It is impossible to reproduce here the four pages of text, but short extracts from it will show its interest. Fr. Samson considers that it is the retention of the mass of St. Pius V which constitutes the principal justification given by Mgr. Lefebvre to his priests and seminarians. He showed that what worried him was the fact that Paul VI had made the new
ordo missæ obligatory, and therefore the attitude of Mgr. Lefebvre was a disobedience to the authority of him whom the priest, like the prelate, recognized as the legitimate pope: "Beyond any question of rite, there is at stake the question of faith in the Holy Spirit who governs the Church and directs her towards all Truth (John XVI, 13). The refusal to adhere to the Magisterium expressed by the 2nd Vatican Council is the stumbling block which has conducted Ecône into the path of schism. If we admit, as does Ecône, that the Church was mistaken at Vatican II, we must logically conclude from it that she has failed in her mission and that the Gates of Hell have prevailed against her. This is what led Mgr. Lefebvre to say in "
Le coup de Maitre de Satan": "how can you reconcile the propagation and practice of liberal errors by Rome with the infallibility of the Church and the Pope?" I conclude from this that it is not Rome which is mistaken, but Ecône which has unfortunately lost the sense of the Church.
"In the same way, in "
J'accuse le Concile": "The spirit which dominated at the Council and inspired in it so many ambiguous and equivocal and frankly erroneous texts was not the Holy Spirit." The question is to know where the Holy Spirit is to be found: in the Church and her Magisterium, or elsewhere?"
In these remarks, which sum up Fr. Samson's letter, the whole drama is revealed. This priest has learned for himself the Catholic doctrine on authority. He knows that when the Pope teaches the Universal Church, he is infallible. He knows that refusing to submit to the pope, in so far as he is recognized as the legitimate pastor of the whole Church, is a schismatic attitude and repugnant to him. Since at Ecône they did not explain to him in detail the gravity of the doctrinal errors contained in the conciliar texts, and since, what is more, they contented themselves with giving him false and fantastic justifications for resistance to the established authority, an authority whose legitimacy it pleased them to recognize, this priest made his choice. Between schism through love of conservatism and what appeared to him to be Catholic obedience, he preferred Catholic obedience.
In fact, Fr. Samson was mistaken, since the true question is to be asked in the following terms, which he failed to discern: the teaching claimed by Vatican II to be the authentic teaching of the Church contradicts in a formal manner the doctrine defined in an infallible and irreformable manner by the popes and councils of the past. This is a matter of fact, but who at Ecône has seriously taken the trouble to prove this fact
? And from this question there is a conclusion to be drawn: Paul VI, who promulgated to the Universal Church doctrines already condemned by the Magisterium could not have been pope when he acted thus; on the contrary he showed by this act that he had lost all jurisdiction and was no more than an impostor. Who at Ecône had the courage to speak this truth to Fr. Samson? To ask the question is to answer it: no one.
Thus we can understand the action of this priest whose conscience, insufficiently instructed by those whose duty it was to form it, remains clear in the circumstances he describes. But objectively, it is a scandalous mess.
Normalisation: an American example The moral pressure seeking to obtain perfect conformity to the praxis of its superior from the members of the Fraternity sometimes provokes departures, but more often a less noticeable falling into step. Among the different cases of this sort, we shall mention one little known to French readers. It concerns a group of three responsible members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X in the United States, Frs. Clarence Kelly, Antony Cekada and Daniel Dolan. These three priests, suspect in the eyes of Mgr. Lefebvre on account of their freedom of speech on the subjects of the new
ordo missæ and John Paul II, found themselves required to sign a paper which Mgr. Lefebvre himself addressed to them on 29th May 1980. This paper, drawn up in English, is short: "What your Superior and Bishop requires of you - to give as an answer to those who ask what one should think about the pope: "the practice and attitude of the Society since its origin.(41) And that you should not publicly give an opinion, either verbally or in writing, contrary to the attitude of the Fraternity either in regard to the pope or to the invalidity "
ex se" of the
Novus Ordo.
"More clearly; on the question of the pope, the practice of the Fraternity is to decide in favour of validity, giving it the benefit of the doubt; on the question of the
Novus Ordo: the policy of the Fraternity does not decide whether it is of its proper nature, "
ex se" invalid. However, the Fraternity recognizes that the definitive solution of these questions must necessarily fall to the Magisterium of the Church in the future, when normality is restored." The text is signed by Mgr. Lefebvre and the three priests brought to book.
The whole schismatic orientation of Ecône is expressed in this. In the Fraternity, one acts, one has a "policy" and a "practice", but one forbids oneself - and one is forbidden to give a theoretical justification for one's acts. Mgr. Lefebvre is entirely responsible for this situation, and his appeal to some future ruling on questions which are crucial at the present time shows clearly the contempt in which he holds the needs of the moral conscience.
A leonine contract In those places where Catholic centres existed before the appearance of the Fraternity, they made use of oblique manoeuvres in order to achieve their hegemony. However, in those countries where the Fraternity possesses the monopoly of the sacraments, it is the harsh law of the stony heart of the worst economic liberalism. Thus in the United states, groups of Catholic lay people find themselves being offered "association" on the basis of thoroughly leonine contracts. The following letter from Fr. Bolduc, Superior of the South West District of the United states, is an eloquent witness.
The Society of Saint Pius X
SAINT MARYS COLLEGE
Post Office Drawer 159
St. Marys, Kansas 66536
Telephone (913)437-2471
June 3, 1980
Col. Jack Looney
4009 Van Buren N. E.
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87110
Dear Col. Looney:
Thank you for making me aware of your intentions as regards the Society of St. Pius X. More than ever traditional Catholic chapels are discovering the advantages of placing themselves under the Society. As members of your board have desired information concerning their obligations to the Society or the Society's obligations to the chapel should affiliation take place, I am writing this short letter in order to make this matter clear.
First of all, the Society would be obliged to furnish a priest for Sunday Mass in Albuquerque. I can assure you that your Mass schedule would not be interrupted and that I would place a priest there as soon as possible. Secondly, the Society would always have the obligation of furnishing you with Mass and the Sacraments and a priest. The Society would expect that the property would be deeded to it, that is, to Archbishop Lefebvre through his representative, the South-West District Superior. This means that the Society would accept all debts and mortgages. The Society would also have to be incorporated within the state of New Mexico as soon as possible.
As regards the obligations of the chapel to the Society, we would expect a sum of about $100.00 per month to be sent to District head-quarter at St. Marys, Kansas for their share in contributing to the support of the parent organization. Occasionally we would also expect the chapel to participate in a special way for the training of seminarians and religious. Other than this, all funds would be used locally.
Because the Society is the only traditional Catholic organization with seminaries, it is the only group that can assure priests for the future. Therefore, I feel that your chapel would be assuring its future by becoming a part of the Society.
If there is anything that I can do to assist you, please let me know. I discussed this matter with the Archbishop during his visit and he has given his approval to accepting the Albuquerque chapel.
Please be assured of our prayers.
In Mary Immaculate,
[signed]
Rev. Hector L. Bolduc
South-West District Superior
Society of St. Pius X
ENDNOTES TO THE ABOVE SECTION:(1) Fr. Simoulin, preaching "for the salvation of the soul of the Church" (sic) for Lent 1981, in the church of St. Nicholas du Chardonnet. The abbe, shining with not less than six months priesthood, had his errors and inaccuracies published in a book, prefaced what is more by Mgr. Ducaud-Bourget. The review Itineraires, having chosen to give it some publicity, insisted however on correcting the abbe's youthful faults. His pride touched to the quick, the abbe thought it good to publish and distribute widely a ridiculous and venomous pamphlet entitled "O God, protect me from my friends. My enemies I can take care of myself." We shall quote from this pamphlet again, since it is so revealing of the characteristics of the priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X. Regarding this matter, cf.
Itineraires No. 261, March 1982.
(2) Cf. particularly
Fideliter No. 16 where Fr. Aulagnier gives the child as the efficient cause of the family.
(3)
Fideliter No. 23, p. 22.
(4) A complacency which sometimes attains the heights of ridiculous affectation. Fr. Lorans, promoted rector of the Institut Universitaire Saint-Pie X after a few months in the priesthood thought fit to deliver an "inaugural lesson" in high-flown style of which the grandiloquence was ill-matched to the modesty of the enterprise: "Every man naturally desires to know because between his intelligence and the truth there exists a relationship which is not accidental but essential - in the language of the Schools, a relationship not predicamental but transcendental ...
"The scholastic method which clearly distinguishes in a proposition the subject from the predicate, in a syllogism the major and minor from the conclusion, this ascetic method seemed to him insufficiently poetic, in the Greek sense of the term. "This poetic promotion which lifts the human understanding to the level of the angelic and divine understanding leads on in the short term to an ontological promotion which makes of man a god and makes of philosophy a gnosis ..."
In the language of the Schools and in the Greek sense of the term, that is known as being out of one's depth, to put it politely.
(5) Pamphlet already quoted.
(6) Some have been surprised to see their names already on the list of seminarians when making their first visit to the director of the seminary.
(7) Or "bombarding" (that is, precipitating) according to an expression used by Fr. Simoulin in
Fideliter No. 26, p. 15. (8) This is the case, for example, with Fr. de la Tour, though gently teased by his confreres for his limited abilities when animating church clubs.
(9) We think of the drama of certain worker-priests, thrown into the savagery of the world with no other formation than a few questions from a brief course and advice from irresponsible sources.
(10) At Ecône, practically no teaching is given on the 2nd Vatican Council, the new rites or the canonical reforms. They begin by doing something on the new mass, since some seminarians take too many liberties with this subject. In revenge, Fr. Barrielle is able to deliver at leisure the revelations of the Virgin of Shawinigan who appeared to him one evening at a conference. It is true that the Virgin told him that Fr. Barbara was wrong. What a godsend! The muddle which prevails over the new rites reaches the level of a joke. Thus the seminarians are unsure of the validity of the ordination of Fr. Cottard. We know for a fact that he was ordained by Mgr. Lefebvre according to the new rite. After that, opinions differ. It remains true that Mgr. Lefebvre is unwilling to shed further light on the affair, we might well ask why, and that some seminarians carefully avoid assisting at the masses of this doubtful priest: to the extent, for example, that a certain functionary at Ecône arranged that his friends should not have to assist at the community mass when it was said by Fr. Cottard.
(11) This partly explains why most of those who left the seminary because they refused to recognize John Paul II are now amongst the followers of Fr. Guerard des Lauriers, such followers being noted for their allergy to any discipline.
(12) A fine example of liberalism: Frs. Kelly and Bolduc, both priests in the same district of the United states, being unable to live in amity, came to complain about each other to their superior, whose solution was to divide the district with one of the quarrelsome pair in charge of each part.
(13) Mgr. Lefebvre is a past master of the art of the middle way. In 1977, he decided to break with the Office of the Rue des Renaudes, and although refusing to discuss the matter fully, he forbade his subjects to attend the congress at Lausanne. The "anti-liberals" rejoiced. But the next conference, led by their superior, was directed against them. Similarly, he forbade the members of his Fraternity to take part in the camps of a mixed youth movement. Again the "anti-liberals" rejoiced. However, a campaign led by Fr. Blin caused a change of mind by the prelate, who withdrew his prohibition. Those in the Fraternity who still retained dignity or lucidity thus underwent a good period of "douche ecossaise" before learning the real intentions of the bishop.
(14) Cf. below in Annexe, "Exasperation: the case of Fr. Samson." (15) We do not know the intentions of these priests. However, it is quite clear that what was said to them at Ecône concerning the new mass and the 2nd Vatican Council did not prepare them for what lay in wait. Discovering one day the Catholic doctrine which had been concealed from them - in particular the infallibility of the universal Magisterium - and unconvinced of the intrinsic malice of the new ordo missæ and the conciliar texts, their fall was facilitated.
(16) We can imagine the chaos within the Fraternity if Mgr. Lefebvre happened to die. True, this is not a hypothesis his most faithful subjects are prepared to consider.
(17) Mgr. Lefebvre, sun rising or setting, N.E.L., 1979.
(18) It has become usual among "traditionalists" to refer to this bishop as "Monseigneur" without further particulars. The habit irritates some. Thus, at a committee meeting to draft the review "Itinerares", A. B. thought it necessary to remind the meeting that "Monseigneur" was not the only bishop on earth. (19) Fr. B, called upon to explain the repeated demands of his superior to be allowed to make "the experiment of Tradition", saw fit to excuse the silliness of the expression by the unequalled virtue of "Monseigneur's" humility.
(20) This poem has already been commented on in our review (Cf. No. 4 NS). We present a new and uncorrected edition: "Some time ago it was suggested to me, I ask myself more than ever why after what we have just heard (for genuine poets have read beautiful poetry before me), to express poetically, if possible, some beautiful thoughts on the occasion of this anniversary. I do not know if the thoughts which I have tried to capture are beautiful, nor if their expression is poetic, but I willingly offer you, Monseigneur, in the form of a sonnet, this homage of filial piety:
"Blessed be God: You watch over the world.
If Your work is ruined by those who betray You,
You raise up a man, in order that he may rebuild.
Sublimely once, confronted with vile sins,
The Man-God came. By redeeming our souls,
He made us understand the cost of His suffering.
It is the Spouse today which tears the lance.
(as a note: the Spouse of Jesus Christ is the Catholic Church)
(as a note: the lance which pierced the side of Our Lord on the Cross).
In the love of the flesh is the cause of the drama.
(as a note: in the sense of St. Paul in his epistles: the love of worldly things)
But ten years ago, a Prince of the Church arose.
He resists, accepts suffering
To feed his sheep, in spite of the terrible crisis.
In his Fraternity, we shall be united with him,
And expect one day to see the sky open for him,
For he has based his life on charity.
(As a note: "We believed in charity" is the device of Mgr. Lefebvre).
(21) The spectacle posed by certain "traditionalist leaders" is painful enough. In spite of their differences with Mgr. Lefebvre, and by reason of these very differences, they unceasingly proclaim their indefectible attachment to him who, if he happened to designate them for reprobation, would cause them to lose their following and thus their livelihood.
(22) Like Fr. Kelly, Cekada and Dolan, for example. Cf. infra in Annexe, "Normalization: an American example." (23) The accommodation consisted at one time in not saying the prayer "pro pontifice" at the salutation of the Blessed Sacrament but in contenting himself with playing the organ. Today the abbe has found a simpler method: he sings the prayer but without thinking.
(24) At Castres, for Easter 1979, he did not say the prayer "pro pontifice", one way of pleasing those who accompanied him. Similarly, in the refectory of his priory at Suresnes and laughing delightedly, he read out Forts dans la Foi No. 59/60 which recapitulates all the hardest things Mgr. Lefebvre has said about the conciliar church.
(25) In his pamphlet quoted above, Fr. Simoulin, short of arguments, uses this final insinuation: "Many lay people ... seem to take a secret pleasure in casting discredit on Mgr. Lefebvre and his Fraternity through his priests, whom he has formed and in whom he has confidence." To present the matter like that is to invert the roles. It is the priests of the Fraternity of St. Pius X who dishonour Mgr. Lefebvre. Whose fault is that?
(26) Cf. what he said of one of his seminarians to whom he had just shown the door: "The situation is clear, it is that of young priests who have left us to follow a way other than that of the Fraternity. So long as he remains in this frame of mind, it is useless for him to try to see me or to write to me. I refuse, and it is clearly my right to do so, to enter into sterile discussions ... He has chosen another society; let him live in it." (Letter to Fr. Siegel, 1 Oct. 1981).
(27) It contained for example this preamble: "Be assured that if in this letter anything should prove to be offensive to you, I withdraw it in advance and wish not to have written it, for I have told you more than once and God is my witness that I am not lying, I have for you not only the respect due to the fullness of your priesthood, but in addition an unfeigned priestly affection. For very many years I do not believe I have failed to recommend you to God at the "
memento" of every one of my Masses." (28) All the items of this file were published in
Forts dans la Foi No. 3 NS, pp. 222 to 236. Many others besides Fr. Barbara have had to acknowledge the incredible acrimony of Mgr. Lefebvre. Thus, M. Denoyelle, director of the Belgian periodical Mysterium Fidei, had written a number of respectful letters to bring the bishop back to reason. His only answer was the following: "His Eminence Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre begs Monsieur Denoyelle no longer to send to him the
Revue Mysterium Fidei, nor to the seminaries of the Fraternity. With his compliments and the assurance of his prayers. 3rd July 1981" (cf
Mysterium Fidei, Dossier fraude Ecône.)
(29) The file published by Forts dans la Foi No. 3 NS also contained two letters, one dated 9 May 80 to all the members of the Fraternity of St. Pius X, the other dated 9 Aug 80 to all Priors and Superiors of Houses of Formation of the Fraternity. The first received no reply. As for the second, Fr. Tissier de Mallerais, director of the seminary at Ecône, replied as strongly as he could by refusing it and returning it unread. Fr. Aulagnier did the same, adding: "Father, I am compelled to tell you that you that your activities disgust me. With my greetings."
(30) Fr. Barrielle and some others choose to apply to them these words of St. Louis Marie Grignion de Montfort.
(31) We must once again quote from Fr. Simoulin's pamphlet, pointing out that he is speaking of himself in the third person: "The author is a priest, after all. If we can admit that he may be contradicted prudently and reverently when he is talking about the liturgical movement, about television or butterfly hunting, we cannot admit it when, vested with the weight and authority of his priesthood, he is preaching the faith of the Church." We might point out that this young priest, speaking from the height of the chair at St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, demands of the faithful a submission which he denies to his "pope" John Paul II speaking from the height of Peter's chair. Let us quote him just once more in the hope that he can understand himself: "it is necessary to watch carefully over one's own doctrine before opposing it to that of the Church. For this purpose, some very good catechisms exist, for adults or for children."
(32) Editions Saint-Gabriel, March 1982.
(33) Underlined by us. The whole error of Mgr. Lefebvre is clearly shown here. If it is true that the Deposit of Faith is above the Magisterium as Christ is above his Vicar, it is nevertheless false to say that the Magisterium finds its expression in Tradition. On the contrary, it is the Church who decides definitively what the Tradition is, it is the function of the living Magisterium to be the authentic witness to it. Protestantism appeals to Scripture against the teaching of the Church. In appealing to Tradition against the Magisterium, Mgr. Lefebvre is following in the direct line of free choice.
(34) Passages in italic are underlined by the authors.
(35) Cf. infra in Annexe, "A leonine convention."
(36) For example, in France, at Marseille, Nantes, Lille, Tours, Strasbourg, Lyon.
(37) In Mexico, to repair a situation which had turned out badly for the Fraternity of St. Pius X, Frs. Faure and Williamson did not hesitate to go, at great expense, from one recalcitrant to another, telling each one the great lie that the others had agreed. In France, M. Mazier de Montbrillant, refusing to hand over the Association of St. Pius of Anjou of which he is the president, found himself hauled before the courts for a fraud arising from the imagination of charitable "Lefebvrist" priests. In the U.S.A., Fr. Bolduc, Superior of the South West district, makes free use of his sacramental monopoly to establish tyranny, as witnessed by his letter of 19th May 1981 to Mr. and Mrs. B., signed before a notary public, containing this significant passage: "This is to inform you that per this notification neither you nor your sons, D. and B., are to ever visit or step foot at St. Mary's College or on the property belonging to the Society of St. Pius X. Should this order be violated, I shall use whatever legal means necessary to enforce it and will hold you directly accountable for any and all consequences arising from its violation. Should any of you feel need of the Sacraments (and I highly recommend that you consider them), you are to contact me and notify me directly and make a private appointment at my discretion. This cannot be done through any other Priest or, member of the Society but only through myself.
(38) Cf. the communique of the International Committee for the Coordination of Catholic Associations, dated 18 October 1981 and entitled "
Quelques reflexions sur la situation presente ..."
(39) Cf. the "
Ordonnances concernant les pouvoirs et facultes dont jouissent les membres de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X" of 1st May 1980. Mgr. Lefebvre gives to simple priests the power of confirmation, fraudulently invoking the
motu proprio Pastorale Munus (30 November 1963). One cannot emphasize enough the gravity of such an act, which might appear harmless to anyone who did not know that there is a Law in the Church, but which constitutes one of the most overwhelming proofs that Mgr. Lefebvre indeed intends to be the head of an autocephalous church.
(40) Quarterly bulletin for the defence of the Faith and the maintenance of Tradition,
Foi et Tradition, No. 76, May-June 1981.
(41) It is thus obviously a matter of giving the "party version" by way of answer to fundamental questions asked by outsiders; and not an objective reply, even a purely speculative one. It is not only in the United States that this lesson has been learned by the young militants of the Fraternity. Many of our readers will have encountered it at one time or other.