"Less than a week after the crucial moments in the relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican 1988...">
The text of this conference is appropriately included here.
If there is no agreement with Rome, we shall just have to continue our work. But supposing that there is an agreement with Rome, we would find ourselves in a different atmosphere. This would be a new period in the Society, a new period for Tradition that will require infinite precautions.
Why do I say, "if" there is an agreement? It is not difficult; I shall explain it to you in a few words. Thus I have signed the Protocol; I have it here. It contains five pages. The first is on doctrinal questions, and the others on disciplinary questions.
On the doctrinal questions the discussion was a little difficult. They prepared this text; we did not; they put it on the table. We corrected some omissions. It is always the same question: a few sentences on the Pope saying that we recognize the Pope, that we submit ourselves to the Sovereign Pontiff, that we acknowledge his primacy.
And they had added that we acknowledge him as "the head of the college of bishops." I said, "I don't like that. It is an ambiguous notion. The best proof of this is that an explanatory note had to be included in the Council, to explain what "college" meant in this sense, saying that it was not a true college." So I said, "You should not put that. It will give the impression that we accept collegiality." So they said, "Let's put the body of bishops."' The Pope is the head of the episcopal body.
Then they said we had to accept the paragraph in Lumen Gentium, which deals with the Magisterium of the Church, no.25. When you read this paragraph, you understand it condemns them, not us; they would have to sign it because it is not so badly written and it contains a whole paragraph stressing the immutability of the doctrine, the immutability of the Faith, the immutability of the formulas. We agree with that. There are those who need to sign this. Thus there is no difficulty in accepting this paragraph, which expresses traditional doctrine.
Then they added a number three which made us swallow the pill that followed. It was not easy to accept but with this number three, we were "saved from the waters." In this number three they recognized that there were some points in the Council and in the reform of the liturgy and of the canon law, which we considered irreconcilable with Tradition. They agreed to speak of this, which they had always refused before. Every time that we had said something was not reconcilable with Tradition, such as religious liberty, they used to say, "You can't say that; there is nothing in the Council opposed to Tradition. Let us change the expression. We cannot say that there is anything irreconcilable with Tradition."
Then came the question of the liturgy. We recognized "the validity of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Sacraments celebrated with the intention of doing what the Church does, and according to the rites indicated in the typical editions of the Roman Missal." It was maybe too much, but since they had put that there were some points in the liturgy that were eventually against Tradition... I wanted to add, "taking into account what was stated in no. 3..." but they did not accept it.
Number five was on canon law. We promised, "to respect the common discipline of the Church and the ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II." They wanted to say "all ecclesiastical law." I objected, it would have been to recognize all the new canon law. [I.e., including canon 844 on Eucharistic sharing with non-Catholics.] So they took away the word "all." As you see, it was a constant fight.
At the conclusion of number three they put "we pledge that we will have a positive attitude of study and communication with the Apostolic See, avoiding all polemics," as we had done on religious liberty (with the Dubia). "Without polemics," I said, "we never made any polemics!" "Oh, no. See what you did to the Pope." They were referring to the little drawings (see below-Ed.) which the Pope looked at attentively...and maybe they were looking at them with a little smile ....So I said, "This was not polemics; it was a catechism lesson! Indeed, who is responsible for these actions? It is not us, it is the Pope. If the Pope would not do reprehensible things, we would say nothing. But since he does things, which are absolutely unbelievable, unacceptable, therefore, we react; it is absolutely natural. Let the Pope stop doing these reprehensible things, incomprehensible, unthinkable, and we will stop reacting." They said nothing; they did not answer. Then we spoke of the juridical questions.
The first was on the Roman Commission. There we lost some points. We wanted all the members of the Roman Commission to be members of Tradition. It did not matter whether they would belong to the Society or not, but they should be members of Tradition in order to be able to judge of the things of Tradition. They said, "No, this is not an embassy. We must be present, too." Thus the President would be Card. Ratzinger. There would be a Vice-President, too; but they did not want to release his name, but he probably would not be from Tradition. Then there would be other members from Rome and only two from Tradition. I said, "Well! That's very few."
Please note that; you shall see that throughout the discussions, and already you found that on the doctrinal discussions, their intentions have clearly appeared. I suspected they had such intentions but I did not expect them to manifest them so clearly. Their intention is clear: they want to put their hands on the Roman Commission. For the Society of Saint Pius X, its recognition would not raise any difficulty, but all the other foundations, which surround the Society, would have to deal directly with the Roman Commission. They would have no more relations with the Society. They put "the members of the community living according to the rules of various religious institutes ...are to be given case by case a particular statute regulating their relations with their respective order." One can see their intentions, separating these traditional communities from the Society and putting them under their (modernist) superiors general, making them defend themselves.
Then they agreed to recognize the Society as of pontifical right with some exemptions in the pastoral domain for the administration of the sacraments. This would be good only for the existing houses.
Then came the question of the bishops. They said very clearly, "You do not need a bishop. As soon as the Society is recognized with a canonical status with the Holy See, you can ask any bishop to perform your ordinations and confirmations. There are 3,000 bishops in the world ready to give you ordinations and confirmations... even Card. Gagnon and Card. Oddi are ready to give you confirmations and perform your ordinations!" I said, "This is impossible. This is a condition sine qua non. The faithful will never accept this. Indeed, what would these bishops preach?" With the intentions that we can see among them, their preaching will always be, "you must accept the Council, you must accept what the Pope does, you must accept the novelties. We respect your Tradition; you must respect our new rights. No difference."
So, we have been very severe. So, they have put a little paragraph, "for psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society appears useful."
What procedure to follow? After signing the Protocol, they wanted me to write a letter to the Pope, asking for the re-establishment of a normal situation for the Society, for the pontifical right, the suppression of the canonical penalties, exemptions, and privileges - so-called privileges - on the liturgy. Thus, I have signed, I have written that letter.
I signed it on Thursday; Feast of St. Pius V They did not know it was the Feast of St. Pius V because they have relocated his feast to another date...
Thus I have said, "We must know where to stand concerning June 30th, it's coming soon." So, with these thoughts, I did not sleep the whole night. I told myself, "They are going to get us." Indeed, the Cardinal had made a few frightening reflections. "Well! There is only one Church ...as we respect your feelings, you must also respect religious liberty, the New Mass, the sacraments. It is inconceivable that you turn the faithful away from these new sacraments, from the New Mass.... For example, if there is an agreement, it is evident that in churches such as St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, Card. Lustiger shall ask that a New Mass be said there. This is the one Church, in it there is the Tradition that we shall grant you, but there are also the new rites that you must accept for the faithful of your parish who do not want Tradition." I said, "Well! Go and tell that to our parishioners and see how they receive you!"
They call all this a "reconciliation." This means that we accept what they do and they accept what we do. Thus, we have to align ourselves on Dom Augustin [Dom Augustin founded a traditional Benedictine monastery in the early 70's. In 1985, after the Indult, he had secret meetings with the Vatican to make a special arrangement. The Vatican required: 1) the New Mass as the Community Mass, 2) the new Breviary, 3) new rites of Ordination, 4) unconditional submission to the local bishop, who even for a while forbade them to preach the Exercises of St. Ignatius, which had been the main apostolic work of his monastery - Ed.] and Fongombault [a conservative Benedictine monastery in France which took the New Mass in the mid-70's under pressure from the local bishop - Ed.].
This is not possible. All this makes me hesitate. We asked the Cardinal when we would be able to consecrate a bishop. On the 30th of June? He said, "No, this is much too early. It takes time to make a bishop. In Germany it takes nine months to make a bishop." When I told that to Card. Oddi, he said, "That must be a beautiful baby then!" I said, "Well, give us a date. Let's be precise. The 15th of August?" "No, on August 15th there is no one in Rome. It is the holidays from July 15th to September 15th." "What about November 1st?" "I can't tell you." "What about Christmas?" "I don't know."
I said to myself, "Finished. I have understood. They do not want to give us a bishop." They put it on the paper because we were ready to quit the negotiations without it, but they will maneuver. They are convinced that when the Society is acknowledged we don't need a bishop.
So, I took my pen on Friday morning and wrote to the Cardinal: "It was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations." Indeed, in that letter - I do not have it here - which he brought me from the Holy Father, there is an astonishing sentence. It goes, "It is possible that we consider one day granting you a consecration," as if it was something very vague, a mere possibility, an eventuality. I cannot accept that. [Here, the Archbishop reads the rest of the letter dated May 6, 1988. (See below)]
Letter of Archbishop Lefebvre to Card. Ratzinger (May 6, 1988)
Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.
Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of the 30th of June was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.
I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.
Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.
In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.
The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30th: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.
The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.
In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.
So, I immediately received an answer. On Friday morning I took my letter to the Cardinal before my departure from Rome. And, on that very evening, Fr. du Chalard was given the answer of the Cardinal, even before the Cardinal saw the Pope at 7:30pm. He should have waited to see the Pope and tell him, "Look what I just received from Archbishop Lefebvre. What shall we do?" He did not even wait. Here, the Archbishop reads the Cardinal's letter of May 6th. (See below.)
Letter of Card. Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre (May 6, 1988)
I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.
Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.
I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.
In this hope, please Excellency..
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Fr. du Chalard brought that letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. [Fr. Lorans, former Rector of the Seminary of Ecône, reports that after the decision to proceed with the consecrations was taken, without accepting the Protocol, great peace and better health were noticeable again in the Archbishop - Ed.] I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.
Again, for them, this reconciliation means, "We shall give you this Tradition for a little while but, after two or three years when you will have understood that you must accept the reforms, then your community Masses will be the New Mass - as for Dom Augustin - you may be allowed to say the traditional Mass in private but no more. Vatican II happened; you must accept Vatican II and its consequences. It is inadmissible that there be in the Church people who do not accept the reforms and consequences of Vatican II"
One can see that this is their way of thinking. I want to remain firm. They are afraid. They think that if there is a bishop, he will lead all the faithful attached to Tradition, he will give strength to Tradition by his preaching. For confirmations, ordinations, any occasion, a bishop strengthens the faith of the faithful. So they say, "If there is a bishop we cannot stop it." They want none of this.
But their intention is very clear. If I write the letter they want to the Pope, we are officially recognized. They ask us to be patient for a little while; they do not give us any date. And after the summer holiday, they tell us, "Look, now, you have been living for three months with this official recognition. You do not need a bishop. You can address yourself to any bishop for ordinations." This is almost certain; otherwise, they would give us a date. If they were really sincere about giving us a bishop, it would not have been difficult for them to say, "For sure, at least by Christmas, you will have a bishop." But, no, they did not want that. It was clear that they had previously agreed among themselves on this: they were four in front of us, none of them said anything; not even one said to the Cardinal, "Eminence, couldn't we..."
I think that by the end of this month they will call in Fr. du Chalard and say to him, "Well, let us settle. We shall give you a bishop."
I tell you that this makes a problem for me, given their will to impose Vatican II. After the visit, they could have said a little word such as, "We can see that Tradition has brought a lot of good. We are happy to welcome you, and to allow you to continue." But, no, not even the least compliment.
One can feel very well that they want to hold us under their influence. I fear this influence. These Romans would go and visit the Dominicans, the Benedictines, the priories of the Society. All these traditional foundations will be isolated from the Society. They will send their superiors general, who will talk to these sisters and say, "Be open-minded. Don't be against the New Mass..." They will give conferences to the sisters.... Above that, one has to reckon with the local bishops. What shall they say?...
We shall see what Providence manifests.... We are living through dramatic days. It is the whole of Tradition that is at stake. We must not make a mistake and let all these influences loose. There certainly are some advantages. It is like a bet: they bet that they shall "get us," and we bet that we will "get them!" They say that by having the upper hand on us, they will have the last word. We say that with the authorization of Rome, there will be such a development of our works that they won't be able to do anything against us. This bet is difficult to calculate. They have some flushes; we have some flushes. I did tell them, we really wish to have the authorization of Rome. Everyone wishes to have it, but we cannot remain in limbo.
Question by Fr. Boivin [District Bursar of the District of France.]: "Will there be one or several bishops?"
If there is no authorization from Rome, there will be several bishops. Personally, I think that some important events shall come. Europe was invaded twice and cut from America, from Africa - no more communication. So I think it will be useful to have several bishops. I did insist and ask the Cardinal for two or three, also because of the immensity of the work. He has never accepted, or one at the most...
Question by Fr. Boivin: "What about the churches?"
places of worship will be ratified. They would ask the local bishops
to consider them as regular places of worship in their diocese.
But for any new one, there would be need of an agreement. It would
be the duty of the Roman Commission to see what would be the conditions.
It would certainly be more difficult. As they said for St. Nicolas
du Chardonnet, if the bishops give us a parish - Card. Decourtray
at Lyons has promised a beautiful church - they would require that
one New Mass be said in that parish. Card. Decourtray did that with
Fr. Cottin; he said to him, "I allow you to say the old Mass,
but I request that at least one New Mass be said by the assistant
priest." Thus there would be as much for the novelties as for
Tradition. Of course, this is impossible. We have chosen Tradition
because we deem the novelties to be bad and to hurt the Faith. It
is the position of some conservative groups such as Una Voce who
accept the New Mass. They would like to realign us along these lines.
This is not possible. This would be contrary to all that we have