Documenta Lefebvriana Omnia

POPE PAUL VI, LETTER TO MARCEL LEFEBVRE, ARCHBISHOP AND FORMER BISHOP OF TULLE

Unofficial translation from the Latin original

When we received you in person at Castel Gandolfo on the 11th of September of this year, we gave you the opportunity to freely express your thoughts and desires, even though we already had a clear understanding of the various aspects of your case. Indeed, the memory that lives on in Us of those things which commended you in former times when you were devoted to the service of the Church—that is, the zeal with which you were inflamed for the faith and the apostolate, and the good works you accomplished—instilled in Us, and still instills, the hope that, once re-established in perfect ecclesial communion, you may again become one who builds up the Church. We asked you once more that, before God and conscious of the duty by which you are bound, you would weigh all things following the exceptionally grave actions you have carried out.

We waited for a month. However, the attitude of your mind, as your words and actions still testify, and indeed publicly, does not seem to have changed. In actual fact, we have before our eyes the letter sent by you on the 16th of September, in which you affirm the following: "One thing unites us: a burning desire directed to this, that the abuses which deform the Church may cease. How much I desire to unite my labor with Your Holiness and under Your authority for such a salutary work, with the intention that the Church may recover her true face." How are these few words to be interpreted—which in themselves are certainly to be approved—in which your entire response is contained? For you speak as if you had forgotten your statements and your actions of a thoroughly deplorable example, which you perpetrated against the ecclesial community and which you have never retracted. For, as is manifestly apparent, you do not repent of such actions, not even of that matter for which the suspension a divinis was imposed upon you. By no means do you say openly that you adhere to the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Apostolic See—which is the crux of the whole question—and you continue to devote yourself to the works you have instigated, even though you were expressly ordered by legitimate authority to suspend them. Thus it happens that the ambiguity persists, arising from this double way of speaking. But We, as we promised, now communicate to you those conclusions We have reached after We have carefully considered the matter.

I.

You effectively make yourself the defender and spokesman of the faithful and priests who are "torn apart by what is happening in the Church," believing with sorrow that the Catholic faith and the essential goods of Tradition are not sufficiently esteemed, nor is life lived according to them by a certain part of the People of God, at least in some regions. Nevertheless, in your explanation of the facts, in the specific role you have assumed for yourself, and in the manner in which you exercise it, there is something that leads the People of God into error and deceives men of good will, who rightly seek fidelity and desire to more fully understand and live out their spiritual and apostolic life.

If today there is a deviation from the right path regarding the faith and the practice of the Sacraments, this must undoubtedly be considered a most grave matter, wherever it is known to occur. We have long been anxious concerning this, directing Our attention to doctrine and pastoral action. However, one must not therefore neglect the highly positive signs, as they say, of a reviving spiritual life and an increased sense of duty among not a few Catholics, nor must one obliterate the complex cause from which the crisis arose: for the immense change that has occurred in the world of our time deeply affects the inmost souls of the faithful, and this makes apostolic care for those who are far away all the more necessary. But it remains true that some priests and faithful cover their own interpretations and perverse, damaging, nay rather scandalous and sometimes even sacrilegious abuses under the name of "conciliar" prescriptions. Yet these depraved abuses cannot be attributed to the Council itself nor to the work of renewal which legitimately flowed from it; rather, they have gained strength precisely because genuine fidelity to those [conciliar prescriptions] was lacking. You, however, persuade the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis, rather than being a false interpretation of the Council, proceeds from the Council itself.

Furthermore, you conduct yourself as if a special mandate in this province has been entrusted to you. However, the office of discerning and correcting abuses belongs primarily to Us, and to all the Bishops who work together with Us. We indeed do not cease to raise Our voice, rejecting such unbridled and immoderate ways of thinking and acting. In the allocution which We delivered in the Sacred Consistory on the 24th of May of this year, We reiterated this very thing clearly and openly. More than anyone else, We perceive the sorrows of the distressed Christian faithful and We respond to the cry of those who thirst for faith and the spiritual life. In actual fact, We have never in any way omitted to testify to Our solicitude for preserving in the Church fidelity toward authentic Tradition, as well as Our will to ensure that the same Church, with the help of God's grace, might be able to meet the present age and the time to come.

Finally, your course of action is internally inconsistent; since, as you say, you wish to remedy the perverse abuses by which the Church is defiled; you complain that authority in the Church is not given sufficient honor; you wish to safeguard the authentic faith, the esteem of the ministerial priesthood, and the zeal of souls for the Eucharist, accepted in its fullness, insofar as it is a sacrifice and a sacrament: this zeal would in itself merit Our approval and confirmation, because it concerns matters which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, are Our vigilant cares and the intimate reason of Our apostolic ministry. Nevertheless, how can you, in order to fulfill this duty, simultaneously assert that you are bound by the obligation to resist the recently celebrated Council—and this against your Brothers in the Episcopate—to distrust the Apostolic See itself, which you accuse of being a "Rome inclined to neo-modernism and neo-protestantism," and to openly deny the obedience owed to Us? If indeed, as you asserted in your last private letter, you wish to operate "under Our authority," you must first of all put an end to these ambiguities and to this discordant and contradictory manner of acting.

II.

But let us now come to the more precisely formulated demands which you brought forward in that meeting held on the 11th of September. You ask that the right be recognized to celebrate Mass according to the rite promulgated by the Council of Trent, in various places of worship. It is also your intention to continue the training of candidates for the priesthood according to your own methods or criteria, namely "as before the Council," in special seminaries, such as the seminary in the village of Ecône. Nevertheless, beneath these and similar questions, which we will examine in detail, the very crux of the entire problem must be uncovered, which is truly and properly theological. For those questions have become specific and concrete ways, so to speak, of expressing an ecclesiology which is known to be utterly false in its principal points.

It is indeed a matter which must be called fundamental, namely the fact that, as you have publicly declared, you entirely reject the authority of the Council and of the Supreme Pontiff; an organized action is joined to this refusal of yours, tending to propagate and organize this rebellion of yours—for so, sadly, it must be called. This is surely the primary and principal matter, which can in no way be approved.

Is it necessary that we remind you of this, you who are our Brother in the Episcopate, and furthermore honored with the title of Assistant at the Pontifical Throne, by which you ought to be united even more closely with the Chair of Peter? Christ handed over the supreme authority in His Church to Peter and the Apostolic College, and thus to the Supreme Pontiff and the College of Bishops "together with its Head"; for every Catholic faithful is convinced that by the words spoken by the Lord to Peter, the office of his legitimate Successors, namely the Supreme Pontiffs, is also signified: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19); "Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17); "Confirm your brethren" (Luke 22:32).

Indeed, the First Vatican Council pronounces the assent due to the Supreme Pontiff in these words: "Pastors and faithful of whatever rite and dignity, both individually and collectively, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world; so that, unity of communion and of profession of the same faith being preserved with the Roman Pontiff, the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor. This is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation" (Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3: Denz.-Schön., 3060).

Regarding the Bishops united with the Supreme Pontiff, their power, insofar as it respects the universal Church, is exercised in a solemn manner in Councils, according to the words with which Jesus addressed all the Apostles together: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). From this it follows that in the course of action you maintain, you refuse to acknowledge these two forms in which the supreme authority is put into practice.

Every Bishop is indeed an authentic teacher, since it is his duty to teach the faith to the people entrusted to him, by which their minds and morals may be directed, and to ward off errors which pose a danger to the flock. However, this must be kept in mind: "Episcopal consecration, together with the office of sanctifying, also confers the offices of teaching and governing; these, however, of their very nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the Head of the College" (Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. 35). But a single Bishop, lacking a canonical mission, much less enjoys, "in readiness to act," the faculty of universally decreeing what the rule of faith is, and of determining Tradition itself. You, however, separated and alone, wish to pass judgment on those things which are encompassed by Tradition itself.

You profess indeed to be subject to the Church and faithful to Tradition, but only insofar as you obey certain norms of the past—norms, we say, established by the Predecessors of him to whom God has conferred the power given to Peter in this very age. Thus, in this matter also, the concept of Tradition to which you appeal is flawed. For Tradition is not something motionless and dead, or a static fact, as they call it, which at a certain and definite historical time would arrest the life of an organic and active institution, which is the Church or the mystical Body of Christ. It is the role of the Supreme Pontiff and the Councils to pass judgment by which to discern in the traditions of the Church those things from which one cannot depart without becoming unfaithful to the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit—this is, of course, the deposit of faith—and those things which can and must be adapted to the demands of the times. This adaptation is done with the intention that the manner of praying and the mission of the Church in a variety of times and places may become easier, and that the divine message may be more aptly translated into modern languages and better communicated, entirely rejecting any unbecoming compromises.

Tradition, therefore, cannot be separated from the living Magisterium of the Church, just as it cannot be separated from Sacred Scripture: "It is clear... that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church... are so connected and associated together that one does not stand without the others, and all together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (Dei Verbum, 10).

Thus, indeed, the Supreme Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have been accustomed to act, with the special assistance of the Holy Spirit; and this is exactly what the Second Vatican Council did. In the matters decreed by this Council, and in the work of renewal by which we have determined they be put into practice, nothing is found that opposes the ecclesiastical Tradition of two thousand years, as regards those things which are fundamental and immutable. We are the authors or sponsors of this matter, not by virtue of the personal qualities with which we are endowed, but by virtue of the office which the Lord entrusted to Us as holding the place of Peter by legitimate succession, and also by virtue of the special assistance which He promised to Us as formerly to Peter: "But I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Luke 22:32). Together with Us, the authors of this matter are the Bishops living throughout the whole world.

Nor is it any longer permissible for you to bring forward that distinction between dogmatic and pastoral matters, relying upon which you accept some texts of the Second Vatican Council and reject others. In truth, the things enacted in any Council do not all demand the same kind of assent; for only that which is affirmed as a truth of faith or as annexed to faith by "definitive" acts exacts the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the solemn Magisterium of the Church, which each of the faithful must trustingly accept and sincerely put into effect.

You state furthermore that, bound by the duty of conscience, you do not always understand how certain texts of the Council, or certain decisions and decrees of Ours by which we have put them into practice, can be reconciled with the sound Tradition of the Church—and in a special way with the Council of Trent, or with the statements of Our Predecessors. You cite, for example, the College of Bishops united with the Supreme Pontiff, the new Order of the Mass, ecumenism, religious liberty, the method of engaging in dialogue, and the evangelization of the modern world. This Letter is not the place to treat each of these questions individually. The very tenor of the documents, the nuances expressed therein, the context in which they are contained, the authoritative explanations, and the commentaries by which the matters have been examined deeply and objectively, are certainly sufficient to help you overcome the doubts and hesitations by which you are troubled. Trustworthy counselors, experts in theology and spiritual matters, can assist you with the light of God; and We are prepared to render this kind of fraternal help to you more readily. But how is it possible that the difficulty of your own mind—namely, the grave spiritual disturbance under which you labor and which we respectfully observe—should give you the right to make yourself the public judge of those things which have been legitimately and almost unanimously introduced, and to consciously urge a portion of the faithful to follow you in this rejection?

Even if the reasons brought forward are useful to make it easier for someone to submit to commands—and We greatly desire that the troubled or reticent faithful possess the wisdom, honesty, and humility to accept such probatory reasons, already abundantly provided—these reasons themselves are not strictly necessary for the consent, joined with obedience, which is owed to an Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the Supreme Pontiff. What is at stake here is truly the ecclesial sense itself.

If we examine the deeper truth of the matter, you yourself and your followers strive to halt immovably at a certain and definite period of ecclesial life. In doing this, you refuse to adhere to the living Church, such as she has always been; you alienate yourselves from the legitimate Pastors, criticizing the exercise of the offices which they lawfully discharge. And although you deplore the "subversion" which you say is taking place in the Church, you nevertheless confess that you are moved neither by the prescriptions of the Supreme Pontiff nor by the suspension a divinis. Led by this mindset, have you not ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our express prohibition, creating a flock of priests who are irregular in the Church and entangled in grave ecclesiastical penalties? Furthermore, you assert that the suspension a divinis which you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the renewed rite—as if they had been introduced into the Church contrary to right and justice. Going so far as to call the Church schismatic, you think you avoid that penalty if you administer the sacraments using the previous formulas, opposing established norms (Cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).

From this same erroneous habit of your mind stems the illegitimate practice of celebrating the Mass called of St. Pius V. You know that this rite was the outcome of changes made in the course of time, and that the Roman Canon is the first of the Eucharistic Prayers. The work of liturgical reform, completed in this age, drew its rationale and guiding norms from the Council and from the historical sources of the Liturgy. This reform brings it about that the faithful are more abundantly nourished by the word of God; and while they participate more actively in the Liturgy, the role of the priest, "acting in the person of Christ," remains intact. By Our authority We have sanctioned this renewal, commanding that it be observed by all who claim the Catholic name. If We have judged that no further delays are to be brought to this matter nor exceptions granted, We have done so for the spiritual good and unity of the entire ecclesial community, since for Catholics of the Roman Rite, the Order of the Mass is a preeminent sign of their unity. But for you, that earlier rite is a sign of a false ecclesiology and a ground for attacking the Council and its work of reform, under the pretext that only in that old rite is the true sacrifice of the Mass and the true ministerial priesthood preserved. We entirely reject this erroneous judgment and unjust accusation, nor can We permit the divine Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, to generate divisions (Cf. 1 Cor. 11:18) and to be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.

There is indeed room in the Church for a certain pluralism, but only in lawful matters, and certainly within the bounds of obedience. This is not understood by those who entirely reject the liturgical reform, nor by those who call into question the real presence of Christ and the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Similarly, priestly training in which the rationale of the Council is ignored cannot be approved.

Therefore, We cannot comply with your demands, because they involve actions contained in that rebellion against the one and true Church of God. Be persuaded of this: Our severity does not arise from a refusal to concede certain things pertaining to discipline or Liturgy, but rather because doing so—given the significance and consequence of your actions—would allow an utterly false concept of the Church and of Tradition to be introduced.

Wherefore, Venerable Brother, completely conscious of Our duty, We must tell you that you are in error. And, with the fraternal love with which We regard you, and by Our authority whose weight burdens Us, We exhort you to retract your words and actions, to amend your ways, and to cease inflicting wounds upon the Church of Christ.

III.

What, however, do we really demand of you?

A) Above all and first of all, a Declaration of such a kind that heals and settles all these matters for Ourselves and also for the entire People of God, who indeed have a right to clarity and who cannot tolerate such ambiguities any longer without harm. This Declaration, therefore, must affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and all its documents, understood in their "obvious sense," which were drawn up by the Fathers of the Council and approved and promulgated by Our authority. For such adherence to Ecumenical Councils has always been the rule of action in the Church from the beginning.

From the same Declaration it must also be clear that you similarly accept the decisions and decrees which We have issued after the Council in order to put it into effect, with the help of the various departments of the Holy See; among other things, you must explicitly recognize the legitimate force of the renewed Liturgy, and specifically of the "Order of the Mass," and at the same time Our right to command that such renewal be received and used by the entire Christian people.

You must furthermore confess the binding force of the norms of canon law which is now in force and which, for the most part, still agrees with the Code of Canon Law promulgated by Our Predecessor Benedict XV, not excepting those things which touch upon canonical penalties.

As for what concerns Ourselves, you will dismiss and retract all the grave accusations and injurious insinuations which you have publicly leveled against Us, against the integrity of Our faith, and Our fidelity towards Our proper office of Successor of Blessed Peter.

Then, as regards the Bishops, you must likewise acknowledge their authority—each in his own diocese—to forbid you to preach and administer the sacraments there: the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, and the rest, when they have expressly opposed it.

Finally, you must pledge that you will abstain from all initiatives (such as lectures, published writings...) which are contrary to this Declaration, and that you will also openly condemn those initiatives which, undertaken in your name, are equally opposed to the same Declaration. For this is a matter of a certain minimum which every Catholic Bishop must embrace: this assent and adherence can suffer no compromise. Since, therefore, you have indicated to Us that you accept the principle of the matter itself, We in turn explain to you the "concrete" means by which this Declaration is to be presented. For this is the first condition for the suspension a divinis to be lifted.

B) There remains, next, to solve the question of your future activity, of your works, and especially of your seminaries. You perfectly understand, Venerable Brother, that on account of the very ambiguities and actions admitted contrary to the rule, both past and present, which concern these initiatives, We can by no means revoke the juridical suppression of the "Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X." For this has fostered a mindset contrary to the Council and to its implementation, which the Vicar of Christ has earnestly striven to promote. Your declaration, made on the 21st of November 1974, is a testimony of this very mindset; but, as Our Commission of Cardinals very justly judged on the 6th of May 1975, upon such a foundation no priestly institution or formation suitable to the needs of the Church of Christ can be built. This, however, by no means diminishes the good things which are found in those seminaries; but the deficiencies in ecclesiological matters, of which we have spoken, and the capacity to exercise pastoral ministry in the Church at this time, must also be considered. But in matters so unhappily mixed, Our concern is not to destroy, but to correct and, as far as possible, to provide for salvation.

This, furthermore, is the reason why We—as the supreme guarantors of the faith and of priestly formation—command you to entrust to Us the responsibility and direction of your works, and most especially of your seminaries.

This is undoubtedly a very great sacrifice for you, but it is also a test of your trust and obedience; moreover, it is the one necessary condition so that those seminaries, which have no canonical status in the Church, might perhaps someday obtain a place within her.

When you have accepted these principles, only then will we be able to perfectly provide for and look after all those persons concerned, always taking care, of course, that true priestly vocations are promoted and that the demands of the doctrine, discipline, and pastoral action of the Church are duly observed. At that time We will also be able to benevolently attend to your petitions and desires, while We, together with the departments of Our Curia, will initiate just and opportune plans.

As for the sacred ministers whom you have initiated into the priesthood contrary to the law, the sanctions which they have incurred by virtue of canons 985, 7 and 2374, may indeed be lifted, if they demonstrate their repentance and if they specifically subscribe to the Declaration which We have demanded of you. We trust that you, through your sense of and love for the Church, will render this step easier for them.

Regarding the remaining foundations, houses of formation, "priories," and various other institutes which have been founded either by your own authorship or support, We equally command you to entrust each of them to the Holy See, which will ponder their case under different aspects with the local Bishop. Their life, constitution, and apostolic activity will be subjected—as commonly happens in the entire Catholic Church—to an agreement made individually with the local Bishop—nothing without the Bishop—and according to that mindset and spirit which the above-mentioned Declaration will contain.

All the arguments and main points which are found in this Letter, and which We have maturely prepared with the help of the Heads of the Dicasteries concerned, have been undertaken solely for the greater good and advantage of the whole Church. Speaking with Us yourself on the 11th of September, you asserted: "I am ready for anything for the good of the Church." Now the answer is in your hands!

If—God forbid—you refuse to make the Declaration of assent which We demand of you, you will remain suspended a divinis. On the contrary, Our indulgence and the very lifting of the suspension will be granted to you to the extent that you honestly and unambiguously fulfill the conditions of this Our Letter and repair the scandals as well. The obedience and trust which you will prove to Us will permit Us to deal with you calmly regarding your own difficulties.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten and guide you to that one solution of this problem which will allow you to recover the peace of your conscience, lost for a time, but which will also ensure that the good of souls is secured, that the unity of the Church, whose care the Lord Himself entrusted to Us, is strengthened, and that the danger of schism is averted. Considering the state of mind in which you now find yourself, we understand how difficult it is for you to perceive things clearly and how harsh and hard it is to humbly change your course of action: is it not therefore entirely necessary—as happens in all similar cases—that you establish for yourself a time and place of silent retreat, where you may prepare the necessary return? With a fraternal heart we warn you to beware completely of the pressing solicitations of certain individuals who prefer that you persevere in an intolerable path and opinion; for We Ourselves, all your Brothers in the Episcopate, and certainly the greatest part of the Christian faithful, finally expect from you that ecclesial mode of action which will do you greater honor.

In order to eradicate the wicked abuses which We deplore, and to guarantee a true spiritual renewal, as well as the necessary and courageous evangelization to which the Holy Spirit incites Us more than ever before, the help and most prompt zeal of the entire ecclesial community around the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops is needed now. But the rebellion of some on one side ultimately binds together, or perhaps sharpens, the disobedience or, as you say, the "subversion" of others on the other side, whereas, without your own contumacy, Venerable Brother, you could have—as you affirmed you wished in your latest letter—assisted Us through your fidelity and under Our authority in effecting the advancement of the Church.

Therefore, Venerable Brother, without any delay, receive and consider this solemn supplication of the humble but legitimate Successor of Peter with a most attentive and truly religious mind. Diligently weighing the gravity of this time and occasion, take only that counsel which becomes a faithful son of the Church. This is indeed Our hope, this is Our prayer.

From the Vatican Palace, on the 11th day of October, in the year 1976, the fourteenth of Our Pontificate.

POPE PAUL VI