3 September 1975 Dear Friends and Benefactors, It seems to me that the moment has come to bring to
your knowledge the latest events concerning Ecône, and the attitude
which in conscience before God we believe we must take in these grave
circumstances. As far as the appeal to the Apostolic Signature is
concerned: the last attempt on the part of my lawyer, to find out
from the Cardinals forming the Supreme Court exactly how the Pope
intervened in the proceedings being brought against us, was stopped
in its tracks by a hand-written letter from Cardinal Villot to
Cardinal Staffa, President of the Supreme Court, ordering him to
forbid any appeal. As for my audience with the Holy Father, it has
likewise been refused by Cardinal Villot. I shall obtain an audience
only when my work has disappeared and when I have conformed my way of
thinking to that which reigns supreme in today’s reformed Church. However, the most important event is undoubtedly the
signed letter from the Holy Father (of 29 June) presented as the
Pope’s own handwriting by the Papal Nuncio in Bern, but in fact
typewritten, and which takes up again in a new form the arguments or
rather the statements of the Cardinal’s letter. This I received on
10 July last. It calls on me to make a public act of submission “to
the Council, to the post-conciliar reforms, and to the orientations
to which the Pope himself is committed (orientations qui engagent
le pape luimême).” A second letter from the Pope which I received on 10
September urgently required an answer to the first letter. This time, through no desire of my own, my only aim
being to serve the Church in the humble and very consoling task of
giving Her true priests devoted to Her service, I found myself
confronted with the Church authorities at their top-most level on
earth, the Pope. So I wrote an answer to the Holy Father, stating my
submission to the successor of Peter in his essential function, that
of faithfully transmitting to us the deposit of the faith. If we consider the facts from a purely material
point of view, it is a trifling matter: the suppression of a Society
which has barely come into existence, with no more than a few dozen
members, the closing down of a Seminary – how little it is in
reality, hardly worth anyone’s attention. On the other hand if for a moment we heed the
reactions stirred up in Catholic and even Protestant, Orthodox and
atheist circles, moreover throughout the entire world, the countless
articles in the world press, reactions of enthusiasm and true hope,
reactions of spite and opposition, reactions of mere curiosity, we
cannot help thinking, even against our will, that Ecône is posing a
problem reaching far beyond the modest confines of the Society and
its Seminary, a deep and unavoidable problem that cannot be pushed to
one side with a sweep of the hand, nor solved by any formal order,
from whatever authority it may come. For the problem of Ecône is the
problem of thousands and millions of Christian consciences,
distressed, divided and torn for the past ten years by the agonising
dilemma: whether to obey and risk losing one’s faith, or disobey
and keep one’s faith intact; whether to obey and join in the
destruction of the Church, whether to accept the reformed Liberal
Church, or to go on belonging to the Catholic Church. It is because Ecône is at the heart of this crucial
problem, seldom till now posed with such fullness or gravity, that so
many people are looking to this house which has resolutely made its
choice of belonging to the eternal Church and of refusing to belong
to the reformed Liberal Church. And now the Church, through her official
representatives, is taking up a position against Ecône’s choice,
thus condemning in public the traditional training of priests, in the
name of the Second Vatican Council, in the name of post-conciliar
reforms, and in the name of post-conciliar orientations to which the
Pope himself is committed. How can such opposition to Tradition in the name of
a Council and its practical application be explained? Can one
reasonably oppose, should one in reality oppose, a Council and its
reforms? What is more, can one and should one oppose the orders of a
hierarchy commanding one to follow the Council and all the official
post-conciliar changes? That is the grave problem, today, after ten
post-conciliar years, confronting our conscience, as a result of the
condemnation of Ecône. One cannot give a prudent answer to these questions
without making a rapid survey of the history of Liberalism and
Catholic Liberalism over the last centuries. The present can only be
explained by the past. Principles of Liberalism Let us first define in a few words the Liberalism of
which the most typical historical example is Protestantism.
Liberalism pretends to free man from any constraint not wished or
accepted by himself. First liberation: frees the intelligence
from any objective truth imposed on it. The Truth must be accepted as
differing according to the individual or group of individuals, so it
is necessarily divided up. The making of the Truth and the search for
it go on all the time. Nobody can claim to have exclusive or complete
possession of it. It is obvious how contrary that is to Our Lord
Jesus Christ and His Church. Second liberation: frees the faith from any
dogmas imposed on us, formulated in a definitive fashion, and which
the intelligence and will must submit to. Dogmas, according to the
Liberal, must be submitted to the test of reason and science,
constantly, because science is constantly progressing. Hence it is
impossible to admit any revealed truth defined once and for all. It
will be noticed how opposed such a principle is to the Revelation of
Our Lord and His divine authority. Lastly, Third liberation: frees us from the
law. The law, according, to the Liberal, limits freedom and imposes
on it a restraint first moral and then physical. The law and its
restraint are an affront to human dignity and human conscience.
Conscience is the supreme law. The Liberal confuses liberty with
license. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the living Law, as He is the Word
of God; it will be realised once more how deep runs the opposition
between the Liberal and Our Lord. Consequences of Liberalism The consequences of Liberal principles are to
destroy the philosophy of being and to refuse all definition of
things, so as to shut oneself into nominalism or existentialism and
evolutionism. Everything is subject to mutation and change. A second consequence, as grave as the first, if not
more so, is to deny the supernatural, and hence original sin,
justification by grace, the true reason for the Incarnation, the
Sacrifice of the Cross, the Church, the Priesthood. Everything Our
Lord accomplished gets falsified; which works out in practical terms
as a Protestant view of the Liturgy of the Sacrifice of the Mass and
the Sacraments whose object is no longer to apply the merits of the
Redemption to souls, to each single soul, in order to impart to it
the grace of divine life and to prepare it for eternal life through
its belonging to the Mystical Body of Our Lord, but whose central
purpose from now on is the belonging to a human community of a
religious character. The whole liturgical Reform reflects this change
of direction. Another consequence: the denying of all personal
authority as sharing in the authority of God. Human dignity demands
that man submit only to what he agrees to submit to. Since, however,
no society can live without authority, man will accept only authority
approved by the majority, because that represents authority being
delegated by the largest number of individuals to a designated person
or group of persons, such authority being never more than delegated. Now these principles and their consequences,
requiring freedom of thought, freedom of teaching, freedom of
conscience, freedom to choose one’s own religion, these false
freedoms which presuppose the secular state, the separation of Church
and State, have been, ever since the Council of Trent, steadily
condemned by the successors of Peter, starting with the Council of
Trent itself. Condemnation of Liberalism by the
Magisterium of the Church It is the Church’s opposition to Protestant
Liberalism which gave rise to the Council of Trent, and hence the
considerable importance of this dogmatic Council in the struggle
against Liberal errors, in the defense of the Truth and the Faith, in
particular in the codifying of the Liturgy of the Mass and the
Sacraments, in the definitions concerning justification by grace. Let us list a few of the most important documents,
completing and confirming the Council of Trent’s doctrine: - The Bull Auctorem fidei of Pius VI
against the Council of Pistoia. - The Encyclical Mirari vos of Gregory XVI
against Lamennais. - The Encyclical Quanta cura and the
Syllabus of Pius IX. - The Encyclical Immortale Dei of Leo XIII
condemning the secularisation of states. - The Papal Acts of Saint Pius X against
the Sillon and Modernism, and especially the Decree Lamentabili
and the Anti-Modernist Oath. - The Encyclical Divini Redemptoris of Pius
XI against Communism. - The Encyclical Humani generis of Pius
XII. Thus Liberalism and Liberal Catholicism have always
been condemned by Peter’s successors in the name of the Gospel and
apostolic Tradition. This obvious conclusion is of capital importance in
deciding what attitude to adopt in order to show that we are
unfailingly at one with the Church’s Magisterium and with Peter’s
successors. Nobody is more attached than we are to Peter’s
successor reigning today when he echoes the apostolic Traditions and
all his predecessors’ teachings. For it is the very definition of
Peter’s successor to guard the deposit of Faith and hand it
faithfully down. Here is what Pope Pius IX proclaimed on the subject
in Pastor aeternus: For the Holy Spirit was not promised to the
successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new
doctrine, but that by His assistance they might individually keep and
faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered
through the Apostles. Influence of Liberalism on Vatican II Now we come to the question which so concerns us:
How is it possible that anyone can, in the name of the Second Vatican
Council, oppose the centuries-old apostolic traditions, and so bring
into question the Catholic Priesthood itself, and its essential act,
the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass? A grave and tragic ambiguity hangs over the Second
Vatican Council which is presented by the Popes themselves3
in terms favouring that ambiguity: for instance, the Council of the
aggiornamento, the “bringing up-to-date” of the Church,
the pastoral non-dogmatic Council, as the Pope again called it just a
month ago. This way of presenting the Council, in the Church
and the world as they were in 1962, ran very grave risks which the
Council did not succeed in avoiding. It was easy to interpret these
words in such a way that the Council was opened wide to the errors of
Liberalism. A Liberal minority among the Council Fathers, and above
all among the Cardinals, was very active, very well organised and
fully supported by a constellation of Modernist theologians and
numerous secretariats. Take for example the enormous flow of printed
matter from the I.D.O.C., subsidised by the Bishops’ Conferences of
Germany and Holland. Everything was in their favour, for their demanding
the instant adaptation of the Church to modern man, in other words
man who wishes to be freed from all shackles, for their presenting
the Church as out of touch and impotent, for their saying “mea
culpa” on behalf of their predecessors. The Church is
presented as being as guilty as the Protestants and Orthodox for the
divisions of old. She must ask present-day Protestants for
forgiveness. The Traditional Church is guilty in Her wealth, in
her triumphalism; the Council Fathers feel guilty at being out of the
world, at not belonging to the world; they are already blushing at
their Episcopal insignia, soon they will be ashamed of their
cassocks. Soon this atmosphere of liberation will spread to
all fields and it will show in the spirit of collegiality which will
veil the shame felt at exercising a personal authority so opposed to
the spirit of modern man, let us say Liberal man. The Pope and
Bishops will exercise their authority collegially in Synods, Bishops’
Conferences, Priests’ Councils. Finally the Church is opened wide
to the principles of the modern world. The Liturgy too will be Liberalized, adapted,
subjected to experiments by the Bishops’ Conferences. Religious liberty, ecumenism, theological research,
the revision of Canon Law will all soften down the triumphalism of a
Church which used to proclaim herself the only ark of salvation! The
Truth is to be found divided up among all religions, joint research
will carry the universal religious community forward around the
Church. Geneva Protestants, Marsaudon in his book Ecumenism
as Seen by a Freemason, Liberals like Fesquet, are triumphant.
At last the era of Catholic states will disappear. All religions
equal before the Law! “The Church free in the free State,”
Lamennais’ formula! Now the Church is in touch with the modern
world! The Church’s privileged status before the Law and all the
documents cited above turn into museum pieces for an age that has
out-grown them! Read the beginning of the Schema on The Church in the
Modern World (Gaudium et Spes), the description of how
modern times are changing; read the conclusions, they are pure
Liberalism. Read the Declaration on Religious Freedom and compare it
with the Encyclical Mirari vos of Gregory XVI, or with
Quanta cura of Pius IX, and you can recognize the
contradiction almost word for word.4 To say that Liberal ideas had no influence on the
Second Vatican Council is to fly in the face of the evidence. The
internal and external evidence both make that influence abundantly
clear. Influence of Liberalism on the
post-conciliar reforms and trends And if we pass on from the Council to the reforms
and changes of direction since the Council the proof is so clear as
to be blinding. Now, let us take careful note that in the letters
from Rome calling upon us to make a public act of submission, the
Council and its subsequent reforms and orientations are always
presented as being three parts of one whole. Hence all those people
are gravely mistaken who talk of a wrong interpretation of the
Council, as though the Council in itself was perfect and could not be
interpreted along the lines of the subsequent reforms and changes. Clearer than any written account of the Council, the
official reforms and changes that have followed in its wake show how
the Council is officially meant to be interpreted. Now on this point we need not elaborate: the facts
speak for themselves, alas all too eloquently. What still remains intact of the pre-conciliar
Church? Where has the self-destruction (as Pope Paul called it) not
been at work? Catechetics – seminaries – religious congregations
– liturgy of the Mass and the Sacraments – constitution of the
Church – concept of the Priesthood. Liberal ideas have wrought
havoc all round and are taking the Church far beyond Protestant
ideas, to the amazement of the Protestants and to the disgust of the
Orthodox. One of the most horrifying practical applications of
these Liberal principles is the opening wide of the Church to embrace
all errors and in particular the most monstrous error ever devised by
Satan: Communism. Communism now has official access to the Vatican,
and its world revolution is made markedly easier by the official
non-resistance of the Church, nay, by her regular support of the
revolution, in spite of the despairing warnings by cardinals who have
been through Communist jails. The refusal of this pastoral Council to issue any
official condemnation of Communism alone suffices to disgrace it for
all time, when one thinks of the tens of millions of martyrs, of
people having their personalities scientifically destroyed in the
psychiatric hospitals, serving as guinea-pigs for all sorts of
experiments. And the pastoral Council which brought together 2,350
Bishops said not a word, in spite of the 450 signatures of Fathers
demanding a condemnation, which I myself took to Mgr. Felici,
Secretary of the Council, together with Mgr. Sigaud, Archbishop of
Diamantina. Need the analysis be pushed any further to reach its
conclusion? These lines seem to me to be enough to justify one’s
refusing to follow this Council, these reforms, these changes in all
their Liberalism and Neo-modernism. We should like to reply to the objection that will
no doubt be raised under the heading of obedience, and of the
jurisdiction held by those who seek to impose this Liberalization.
Our reply is: In the Church, law and jurisdiction are at the service
of the Faith, the primary reason for the Church. There is no law, no
jurisdiction which can impose on us a lessening of our Faith. We accept this jurisdiction and this law when they
are at the service of the Faith. But on what basis can they be
judged? Tradition, the Faith taught for 2,000 years. Every Catholic
can and must resist anyone in the Church who lays hands on his Faith,
the Faith of the eternal Church, relying on his childhood catechism. Defending his Faith is the prime duty of every
Christian, all the more of every priest and bishop. Wherever an order
carries with it a danger of corrupting Faith and morals, it becomes a
grave duty not to obey it. It is because we believe that our whole Faith is
endangered by the post-Conciliar reforms and changes that it is our
duty to disobey, and to maintain the traditions of our Faith. The
greatest service we can render to the Catholic Church, to Peter’s
successor, to the salvation of souls and of our own, is to say “No”
to the reformed Liberal Church, because we believe in our Lord Jesus
Christ, Son of God made Man, Who is neither Liberal nor reformable. One final objection: the Council is a Council like
the others, therefore it should be followed like the others. It is
like them in its ecumenicity and in the manner of its being called,
yes; like them in its object, which is what is essential, no. A
non-dogmatic Council need not be infallible; it is only infallible
when it repeats traditional dogmatic truths. How do you justify your attitude towards the Pope? We are the keenest defenders of his authority as
Peter’s successor, but our attitude is governed by the words of
Pius IX quoted above. We applaud the Pope when he echoes Tradition
and is faithful to his mission of handing down the deposit of the
Faith. We accept changes in close conformity with Tradition and the
Faith. We do not feel bound by any obedience to accept changes going
against Tradition and threatening our Faith. In that case, we take up
position behind the papal documents listed above. We do not see how, in conscience, a Catholic layman,
priest or bishop can adopt any other attitude towards the grievous
crisis the Church is going through. Nihil innovetur nisi quod
traditum est – innovate nothing outside Tradition. May Jesus and Mary help us to remain faithful to our
episcopal promises! “Call not true what is false, call not good
what is evil.” That is what we were told at our consecration. †Marcel Lefebvre On the Feast of Saint Pius X, A few lines added to the above document will inform
you of how our work is progressing. A dozen seminarians left us at the end of the
academic year, some of them because of the repeated attacks on us by
the hierarchy. Ten more have been called up for military service. On
the other hand, we have 25 new seminarians entering at Ecône, 5 at
Weissbad in the Appenzell Canton, and 6 at Armada in the USA. Moreover, we have five postulant brothers and eight
postulant sisters. You can see that young people, by their sense of
the Faith, know where to find the sources of the graces necessary for
their vocation. We are preparing for the future: in the United States
by building a chapel at Armada with 18 rooms for seminarians; in
England by buying a larger house for the four priests now dispensing
true doctrine, the true Sacrifice and the Sacraments. In France, we
have acquired our first Priory, at St. Michel-en-Brenne. These
priories, including one house for priests and brothers, another for
sisters and a house of 25 to 30 rooms for the spiritual exercises,
will be sources of prayer-life and sanctification for lay-folk and
priests, and centres of missionary activity. In Switzerland at
Weissbad, a Society of St. Charles Borromeo is putting rooms at our
disposal in a rented building in which private lessons are being
organized for German-speaking students. That is why we are counting on the support of your
prayers and generosity in order to continue, despite the trials, this
training of priests indispensable to the life of the Church. We are
being attacked neither by the Church nor by the Successor of Peter,
but by churchmen steeped in the errors of Liberalism and occupying
high positions, who are making use of their power to make the Church
of the past disappear, and to install in its place a new Church which
no longer has anything to do with Catholicism. Therefore we must save the true Church and Peter’s
successor from this diabolical assault which calls to mind the
prophecies of the Book of Revelation. Let us pray unceasingly to the Blessed Virgin Mary,
St. Joseph, the Holy Angels, St. Pius X, to come to our help so that
the Catholic Faith may triumph over errors. Let us remain united in
this Faith, let us avoid disputations, let us love one another, let
us pray for those who persecute us and let us render good for evil. And may God bless you.
Letter
to Friends and Benefactors
†Marcel Lefebvre
