The Prestigious Destiny of a Founding Text (2)

A “Casus Belli” Nonetheless...

The seminarians greeted the reading of this historic text with enthusiastic applause. Although not intended for the public, the text nevertheless became widely known, and fragments of it were divulged without the author's knowledge, in various and sometimes regrettable circumstances. For this reason, Archbishop Lefebvre decided to publish an authentic and complete version, barely altered, in the January 1975 issue of Itinéraires.

However, he was unperturbed: “Whatever sanctions are taken against us, there is no longer any question of obedience in these conditions, but of keeping the Faith. If ten, twenty, forty leave, I will stay!”

At the end of January, Archbishop Lefebvre was summoned to Rome, where he met three cardinals on February 13. One of them brandished Itinéraires: “Your Declaration, published in Itinéraires! So you are against the Pope and the Council! It is inadmissible!”

After letting him monologue for 25 minutes, Archbishop Lefebvre calmly clarified the attitude and thinking of the seminary and the Society. No, it was not true, he was not against the Pope. He always refrained from saying anything derogatory and refused to allow anyone in the seminary to say anything derogatory about the Holy Father.

On the other hand, he pointed out that the consequences of the Council, as manifested in the reforms, are very serious, and that they cannot be accepted: Tradition must be adhered to. But the cardinals hardened their position: “If you maintain your Declaration, then we will not be able to recognize the Society, we will not be able to recognize your seminary...” Letting them speak, Archbishop Lefebvre concluded: “I do not see how I can change my opinion.”

After a second meeting on March 3, where he was told again: “Your manifesto is inadmissible,” Archbishop Lefebvre commented to his seminarians: “We can see the increasingly obvious degradation of morals, faith, and liturgy: therefore we cannot remain indifferent in the face of this destruction, it is not possible!

“That is why we must remain absolutely firm and not doubt for an instant the legitimacy of our position. It is not we who judge, it is not I who judge. I am merely echoing a clear Magisterium that has been professed for 2,000 years. It is the Magisterium of the Church, it is the Tradition of the Church that condemns. [...]

“People will say, ‘You are separating yourselves from Rome!’ On the contrary, we are attached to it more than anyone else! We are attached to the Rome that has always professed the truth, professed the Magisterium of the Church. This Rome is ours, and we make it our own. That is why we have nothing to worry about.”

Grounds for Condemnation?

The sentence was passed on May 6, 1975. In three words: suppression of the Society, closure of the seminary, and no further support for Archbishop Lefebvre as long as he maintained the ideas expressed in his manifesto.

“It was around your public declaration, in the journal Itinéraires, that our exchange began and continued. It could not have been otherwise. [...] However, such a Declaration appeared to us to be unacceptable in every respect. It is impossible to reconcile most of the assertions contained in this document with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the person in charge of it, and to the Council, where the thought and will of the Church were expressed.”

Jean Madiran commented laconically: “In all respects unacceptable. In an official sentence, it is impossible to suppose that this is a mistake or an editing oversight.” The only argument in the cardinals’ sentence is this: Archbishop Lefebvre is accused of inviting everyone “to subordinate to his own judgment the directives coming from the Pope.”

“Not only,” Madiran continues, “is this a falsification”; but “when, in the name of the Pope, Roman congregations promote or impose the self-demolition of the Church and immanent apostasy, it is not because of one's own judgment, it is because of the Creed, it is because of the theological virtue of faith, it is because of Catholic Tradition that every baptized person is called to refuse and resist.”

In June, filing an appeal against the suppression of the Society and the seminary, Archbishop Lefebvre addressed to Paul VI the following statement, which sums up the absolutely central role played by his Declaration: “Noting that the visitors had come with the desire to bring us into line with the changes made in the Church since the Council, I decided to clarify my thinking before the seminary.

“I could not adhere to the Rome represented by the Apostolic Visitors, who took the liberty of finding the ordination of married men normal and inevitable, who did not admit of there being an immutable truth, who expressed doubts about the traditional way of understanding the Resurrection of Our Lord. [...]

“On February 13 and March 3, my Declaration of November 21 was the only issue raised. Cardinal Garrone vehemently reproached me for this Declaration, going so far as to call me ‘crazy,’ telling me that ‘I was making myself an Athanasius,’ and this for 25 minutes. Cardinal Tabera went further, telling me that ‘what you're doing is worse than what all the progressives are doing,’ that ‘I had broken communion with the Church.’ [...]

“I tried in vain to formulate arguments, explanations, that indicated the exact meaning of my Declaration. I affirmed that I respected and would always respect the Pope and the bishops, but that it did not seem evident that criticizing certain texts of the Council and the ensuing reforms amounted to a break with the Church; that I was trying to determine the root causes of the crisis facing the Church, and that all my actions demonstrated my desire to build up the Church and not to destroy it. But none of these arguments were taken into consideration. [...]

“And so, after this sham of a trial, this supposedly favorable visit with a few slight reservations, and two interviews which focused solely on my Declaration and condemned it totally, without reservation, without nuance, without concrete examination, and without my being given the slightest piece of writing, I received letter after letter from H. E. Bishop Mamie suppressing the Society and the seminary, with the approval of the cardinals’ Commission, and then a letter from the Commission confirming H. E. Bishop Mamie's letter, without any formal, precise accusation being made about the proposals given.

“I therefore had to immediately dismiss one hundred and four seminarians, thirteen professors and the staff from the seminary, two months before the end of the school year! It is enough to write these things to guess what people who still have some common sense and honesty might think.”