Author Topic: Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre 1974 ' Declaration ', Mockery of a Trial, Jean Madiran 1975 (Read 4478 times)

Twice dyed · « **on:** December 29, 2024, 10:33:14 PM »

Appendix "G" is a must read. How could anyone, after reading this article, trust the Roman authorities, who won't even follow Canon Law? Td.

A Bishop Betrayed
The “Declaration” condemned by Rome.
"...a mockery of a trial..."

March-April, 1976 THE MARYFAITHFUL Powers Lake, No. Dak. 58713

We are proud to be able to present this docuмentary of a most scandalous event in recent Church History. One does not expect such goings-on in the Church of God, the one and only divine institution on earth. This affair makes “Watergate” look like tiddlywinks in comparison. Should we call it “Vaticangate,” “Cardinalgate” or “Bishopgate”? If the Church were not divine, and had not Christ promised that “the gates of Hell would not prevail,” it would have disappeared long ago through human frailty and the politics and errors of men. The existence of the Church, in spite of corruption and human error within it is what we call a “moral miracle,” and is proof positive that the Catholic Church is the Church of Christ, and therefore, infallible, indefectible, and indestructible. There are many today inside the Church who are knowingly or unknowingly contributing to the destruction of the True Faith and the True Church. Archbishop Lefebvre has recognized what is happening, and, being true to his calling, is speaking out for Christ and His Church. The Archbishop is one of the very few, if not the only, Bishop who is courageous enough to speak out and call error and heresy by its real name. For this he is being mercilessly persecuted by those who should be protecting the Faith and the Church. We consider this great Archbishop to be a modern Saint John Fisher (the only Bishop in all England who stood up to King Henry VIII and refused to recognize him as head of the Church). Archbishop Lefebvre is a living martyr for the faith. Pray for him, support him in every way possible. The greatest honor that has ever come to our humble little village of Powers Lake, North Dakota, are the two visits [August 28, 1972, for the ordination of Fr. G. Post; and also a Pilgrimage ] of this great modern-day Athanasius.
Father Frederic J, Nelson, Editor The MARYFAITHFUL, POWERS LAKE, N.D. 58773 U.S.A.

THE MARYFAITHFUL THE CONDEMNATION OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
Adapted from Jean Madiran
”La condamnation sauvage de Mgr. Lefebvre” in
Itinéraires (juillet- aout 1975), numéro 195
Translated by Bernard Pothier

- CONTENTS -
Preamble: Veritable Religious War Pages 1 – 4

Appendices: “A” The “Declaration” of 21 November 1974 Pages 5 – 6

“B” The Commission of Cardinals Invitation Pages 7 – 8

“C” The Cardinal’s Sentence, 6 May 1975 Pages 9 – 13

“D” Bishop Mamie’s Letter, 6 May 1975 Pages 14 – 16

“E” L’Osservatore Romano Article, 8 May 1975 Pages 17 – 21

“F” Mgr.Lefebvre’s Letter to Cardinal Staffa 21 1975 Pages 22 – 23

“G“ Msg. Lefebvre’s “Relation” of 30 May 1975 Page 24 to 27

Conclusion: Page 28
**** ****

Preamble
A Veritable Religious War

Following Mgr. Lefebvre’s condemnation for his “Declaration” of 21 November 1974, we indicated in our issue of January that the Archbishop “made this ‘Declaration’ on the basis of circuмstances upon which we would expand at the appropriate time.” The time being opportune, the following commentary and correspondence will be of interest to this question.

Mgr. Lefebvre published his “Declaration” as a result of the unorthodox (however perfectly post-conciliar!) procedures of two Vatican envoys who visited the seminary at Econe in 1974. These Apostolic Visitors, both Belgians, were Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. Their conduct was nothing short of scandalous.
Addressing the assembled seminarians, the visitors spoke on three subjects of unequivocally doubtful orthodoxy:
1. They considered it normal and inevitable that there should be a married clergy;
2.They did not believe that there was an Immutable Truth;
3.They expressed doubts concerning the traditional concept of Our Lord ‘s Resurrection.

The Apostolic Visitors, of course, came from Rome, but which Rome? Certainly not from the eternal Rome, the mistress of Wisdom and Truth, the guardian of both the Catholic faith and the traditions essential to its sustenance. Rather their discussions cast doubt on three aspects of the traditional doctrine promulgated by Rome over the centuries.

These visitors, coming as they did from Neomodernist Rome, had as their very goal to inoculate Econe with the germ of the New Religion. Mgr. Lefebvre himself made this point clear in his “Relation” of 30 May 1975:
page 1

“I could not adhere to the Rome represented by Apostolic Delegates who considered the ordination of married men both normal and inevitable; who could not accept the idea of immutable Truth and who expressed doubts concerning the traditional concept of Our Lord’s Resurrection.

This was the origin of my Declaration.[1]

To have condemned Mgr. Lefebvre solely on the strength of his “Declaration” of 21 November 1974 was neither an accident nor simply a pretext. Both the “Declaration” and its subsequent condemnation are precisely at the very centre of the entire religious debate of our time: those wielding power in the Church today insist on unconditional obedience, even though they be tainted with Modernism, regardless of what they command and teach. That is not, never was, Catholic!

When Lefebvre’s first appeared, many among the faithful felt the Archbishop was exaggerating, that he had gone too far, that he was even mistaken in referring to “neo-modernist tendencies which have manifested themselves clearly during the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms which have since emanated therefrom”. Of course, these elements of the faithful allowed, neo-modernist tendencies do creep in here there, for example in this or that national episcopal conference, but not in Rome! Not in Rome! Not in Rome! The abject liars among the leaders of today’s Church, of course, actively encourage a similar lie, and, are visibly the tools, and, in all likelihood, the venal agents of the sinister Cardinal Villot’s Secretariat of State.

Let us suppose Mgr. Lefebvre had been exaggerating, had even erred in his assessment: his error would have been one simply of fact, bearing on the presence and the influence of the modernistic tendency, even in Rome. His “Declaration” then, would have called for a rebuttal, even a condemnation on these erroneous facts alone. But Rome is not dealing with the facts of the case: twice already in the Commission of Cardinals Sentence and in an article in L’Osservatore Romano [2], Rome has not simply denied that modernism inspires post-conciliar reform. Rather both condemnations have questioned the Archbishop’s right to oppose modernism insofar as this modernism come from Rome. In other words, neither deny that Rome is today dominated by modernism; they simply declare that obedience to the Roman hierarchy in this instance is mandatory.
(con’d…)

___________________________________
Footnote 1: Complete text of the “Relation” of 30 May is in Appendix ‘G’
Footnote 2: Appendix ‘C’ Pages 9—13; and Appendix ‘E’, Pages 17-21
page 2

In the context of the Econe issue, what is implied here is that obedience is in order even though the Roman hierarchy be dominated by modernists, even though this hierarchy be opposed to Catholic tradition.

Both rebuttals affirm that Mgr. Lefebvre is in excommunication by refusing to submit to the modernism which today dominates the spiritual power in the Church: Were modernism not present and in control in Rome, Mgr. Lefebvre would have been so advised: for his part it would simply have been a misunderstanding of the facts which, of course, would not have implied excommunication.

This whole issue points to fascinating at once and awesome insights. To a Bishop who declares, “I refuse to accept your modernism”, Rome does not answer, “But it is not modernism.” Rather, Rome answers, “Even if it is modernism, you are bound to obedience nevertheless”.

Thus it is that the sentence pronounced by the Commission of Cardinals condemns Mgr. Lefebvre’s “Declaration” as “unacceptable to us on all points”. On all points? Then, including, of course, point number one: “We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome... to eternal Rome.” The present Roman hierarchy, obviously, wishes that the Archbishop adhere rather to occupied Rome in lieu of eternal Rome.

There remain many further important comments to make on the docuмents which follow in the appendices. Footnotes will provide some of these. Our foremost intention at this time, however, is to present some of the key docuмents which are essential to the issue. These make it obvious that a veritable state of religious war exists, pitting the Catholic faith of Mgr. Lefebvre against the new religion of occupied Rome.

**** ****
The condemnation of Mgr. Lefebvre is not unlike that directed against l’Action Francaise in 1926, amid terrible cruelty and injustice, and a concerted effort on the part of the perpetrators to associate other groups not directly concerned with the condemnation. Thus, in order to avoid being thrown into the same basket, those under unjust suspicion were driven to compromises and denials which in the last instance did little to alleviate the suspicions artificially cast upon them.
Page 3

Similar tactics are in force today: individuals are outright either because of Mgr. Lefebvre’s condemnation, or, in the case of those who independently raise their voices against the Church’s self-destruction and the apostasy of its officers, by being told that they must therefore be like Lefebvre. Thus, they are condemned to suffer a fate similar to that of the Archbishop, or to withdraw their opposition to apostasy and self-destruction within the Church. Two examples illustrate this by analogy:

1. Not far from Econe, and in sympathy with Lefebvre’s aims, a small monastery of 16 monks, operating out of premises leased from another order, were abruptly asked to vacate. The landlord-prior explained how he waited to hear Rome’s decision vis-a—vis Econe before aligning his attitude towards the monastery with Rome’s. Thus, the landlord aligns his attitude with that of Rome by evicting the monks. Yet these monks had no institutional links with Msg. Lefebvre’s Society of St. Pius X, nor even with the Econe Seminary. One aligns by analogy one’s attitude with that of Rome.

2. Similarly in Paris, Cardinal Marty also aligns by analogy his attitude with that of Rome by taking the opportunity of Lefebvre’s condemnation to accuse those in France vho would appear to be seeking to establish a Church of Silence (”les Silencieux”) parallel to the official Church.

In this war, then, the only strong position is to stick without compromise to the letter of Mgr. Lefebvre’s of 21 November 1974. Though the savagery of occupied Rome has condemned this in its entirety, it remains nevertheless an eminently Catholic docuмent and, as such, it is to be defended in its entirety as well.
Page 4

THE MARYFAITHFUL March-April, 1976
APPENDIX "A" 1 of 2

THE “DECLARATION” OF 21 NOVEMBER 1974

Rome, 21 November 1974
Feast of the Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of those traditions necessary for the maintenance of that faith, to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth.

Because of this adherence, we refuse and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo-protestant tendencies, such as were clearly manifested during the second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the resulting reforms.

ΑLL these reforms have, indeed, contributed and still contribute to the demolition of the Church, to the ruin of the Priesthood, to the destruction of the Holy Sacrifice and of the Sacraments, to the disappearance of the religious life, and to naturalistic and teilhardian teachlng in universities, seminarles, and catechetics, a teaching born of Liberalism and Protestantism many times condemned by the solemn Magisterium of the Church.
Νο authority, even the very highest in the hierarchy, can constrain to abandon or to diminish our Catholic faith, such as it has been clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries.

« But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to γοu besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema … » (Gal. 1, 8).

Is this not what the holy Father is repeating to us today? And if a certain contradiction ίs apparent in his words and actions, as well as in the acts of various Roman Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught, and we turn a deaf ear to the innovations which are destroying the Church.
(con’d...)
page 5

March-April, 1976
THE MARYFAITHFUL APPENDIX “Α” 2 of 2

... The «lex orandi » (law of prayer) cannot be profoundly changed, without changing the « lex credendi » (law of belief). The new Mass is in line with the new catechism, the new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, and the charismatic or pentecostal church, all of which are in opposition to orthodoxy and to the age-old Magisterium.

This Reform, since it has issued from Liberalism and from Modernism, ίs entirely corrupt [1]; it comes from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is thus impossible for any faithful Catholic Who is aware of these things to adopt this Reform, or to submit to it in any way at all. Το ensure our salvation, the only attitude of fidelity to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

It is for this reason that, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we pursue our work of the formation of priests under the star of the age-old Magisterium, in the conviction that we can thus do no greater service to the holy Catholic Church, to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to future generations.

For this reason we hold firmly to all that has been believed and practiced by the Church of always, in her faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation and her institutions, and codified in the books which appeared before the modernist influence of the late Council. Meanwhile, we wait for the true Light of Tradition to dispel the darkness which obscures the Sky of eternal Rome.

Βy acting thus we are sure, with the grace of God, and the help of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and Saint Plus Χ, of remaining faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of Saint Peter, and of being « fideles dispensatores mysteriorum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi in Spiritu Sancto. Amen[2] . »
Mgr. M. LEFEBVRE.
Albano

Footnote 1. Literally “poisoned” in French
Footnote 2. « Faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Ghost. Amen ».
page 6

APPENDIX “B” 1 of 2
THE COMMISSION OF CARDINALS INVITATION

Two letters of January 1975, inviting Mgr. Lefebvre to Rome to meet with Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy, and Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes, clearly reflect the intention to conceal the real nature of the visit: the Archbishop was being in fact convened to appear before a tribunal expressly created by the Holy See to judge him on the sole basis of his of 21 November 1974:

******
Rome, 25 January 1975

Your Excellency (sic),
Their Excellencies, Cardinal Wright, Cardinal Tabera and I have studied the result of the visit to the Econe Seminary by His Excellency Mgr. Descamps. We are grateful to you for having given him every facility to accomplish the mission on behalf of the Holy See.

We would now like to discuss with you some points which leave us somewhat bewildered following this visit, and concerning which, among others, we must report to the Holy Father.

Can you arrange to be free for this meeting at 10 a.m.* on the morning of February 13 next in the premises of our Congregation.

Thanking you in anticipation in the name of the three Cardinals entrusted with this question and assuring you of respectful and fraternal sentiments. (signed: Garrone, Wright, Tabera)..
page 7

Appendix “B” 2 of 2

Rome, 28 January 1975

Your Excellency (Sic),

An unforeseen circuмstance obliges us to change the time of our meeting from 10 a.m. to 9 a.m. on 13 February 1975.

In asking that you note this new time, may I once again express my kindest regards.
(signed: Garrone)
page 8

APPENDIX “C” 1 of 5

THE CARDINALS‘ SENTENCE 6 MAY 1975
Rome, 6 May 1975

Your Excellency (sic),
It is in the name of the Commission of Cardinals and by the express mandate of the Holy Father that we write to you.[1]

We remain deeply grateful to you for enabling our recent discussions to take place in such a fraternal atmosphere that on no occasion did our differences of opinion compromise the profound and serene communion which exists among us. [2] But this only increases our sorrow and the apparent intransigence of your views, with the consequences that cannot but derive from them.

Our discussions were concerned principally with your public Declaration published in the review Itinéraires. It could not be otherwise in view of the fact that the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Econe (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light. He suggested that we clear this up in a discussion with you.
(con’d...)

___________________
Footnote 1: Because of its juridical implications, this is an extremely important detail, mentioned here for the first time. As we saw in the Cardinals’ invitations of January 1975, the trio did not advise Mgr. Lefebvre of the nature and the extent of their mandate, nor that he was in fact being made to appear before a tribunal appointed to judge the case. He had simply been asked to come to Rome for a meeting “to discuss... some points”. In this docuмent, however, he is being condemned, and without having been heard, for he was never advised to prepare a defense on the basis of formal accusations to which he would normally be required to respond before his judges.

Footnote 2: This, Of course, is a blatant lie: the very next sentence puts the lie to “profound communion”, while Mgr. Lefebvre’s “Relation” of his “trial”, in Appendix “G”, describes the vehement invectives to which he was subject at the Rome meetings are anything but serene.
Page 9

APPENDIX “C” 2 of 5

Now such a Declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points.[3] It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations contained in this docuмent with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for her, and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed.[4] It is inadmissible that every individual should be invited to submit papal directives to his own private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them.[5]
(con’d...)
_____________________________
Footnote 3: Unacceptable on all points! Bearing in mind our comment on this in the preamble, it is impossible to believe that an official sentence of this consequence should contain such a slip attributable simply to editorial inattention.

Footnote 4: If Mgr. Lefebvre’s position is indeed incompatible with “authentic fidelity to the Church”, one wonders about the Cardinals’ earlier declaration, in the second paragraph, of the “profound and serene communion which exists among us”.

Footnote 5: This is the Cardinals’ only defense against the Archbishop and at that it is a false one. Mgr. Lefebvre never at any time, in his “Declaration” or elsewhere, neither literally nor in essence, invited anyone to subordinate directives from the Holy See to their own judgment. When, on the other hand, the Sacred Congregations, in the name of the Pope, impose or encourage the self-destruction and immanent apostasy of the Church, it is not as a result of personal judgment, but rather it is a question of one’s Creed, and because of the virtue of Faith, and because of Catholic tradition that all baptized Catholics are called to refuse and resist. The most striking case recently was in 1969 when Pope Paul VI promulgated the original Article 7 of the New Order of the Mass: Catholics who refused to accept this heretical definition of the Mass were not acting accordingly to their personal judgment exclusively, but rather in the name of the Church’s certain and clear doctrine on the subject. Subsequently, as we know, Pope Paul signed and promulgated a corrected version of Article 7.

Thus, it is not simply a matter, as the three Cardinals would have it, of a struggle between “papal directives” on the one hand, and “private judgment” on the other: rather, above even papal authority there stands the Church’s action, constant and unchangeable tradition, to which witness has been borne uninterruptedly by the infallible definitions of those the Cardinals contemptuously refer to as “the popes of the past”. The significant aspect of this whole religious drama of our time is that in appealing to the authority of the Pope and Council the party currently in power in the Church is in fact imposing a religion which is increasingly at variance with the substance of Catholic teaching and practice from the earliest times up to the demise of Pius XII.
Page 10

APPENDIX “C” 3 of 5

… This is nothing less than the customary language of those sects which appeal to the popes of yesterday in order to refuse obedience to the Pope of today.[6]

Throughout our conversations, our desire was to lead you, your Excellency, to recognize the cogency of such objections and to withdraw your own affirmations. You told us that you found this impossible.'If I had to rewrite this text' you said, 'I would write the same things.'

Under such circuмstances the Commission was left with no alternative but to pass on its absolutely unanimous conclusions to the Pope together with the complete dossier of the affair so that he could judge for himself. It is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the decisions to you:[7]
(con’d...)
____________________________
Footnote 6: The Cardinals miss the point: Catholic truth requires that the pope of the day continue, and not contradict, the "popes of yesterday".

Footnote 7: - Whose decisions exactly? The Commission assures us that the entire file was turned over to the Holy Father “so that he could judge for himself”. However, the Holy Father neither formulated his judgment, nor made his own decisions, for we are told these decisions received rather his “entire approval”. Hence the contradiction: the Pope either made the decisions, or he approved them, but surely not both at once as the Cardinals imply.

Thus, more serious, we are left in doubt as to the origin of the sentence against Mgr. Lefebvre. While we cannot conclude in the matter in the face of this uncertainty, we cannot but note the growing dishonesty which now permeates even the sacred docuмents of the Roman curia.
Page 11

APPENDIX "C" 4 of 5

1) ‘A letter will be dispatched to Mgr. Mamie according him the right to withdraw the approval which his predecessor gave to the Fraternity to its statutes.’ This has been done in a letter from His Excellency Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious.

2) Once it is suppressed, the Society 'no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Econe, lose by the same act the right to existence'.

3) It is obvious – we are invited to notify it clearly[8] -‘that no support whatsoever can be given to Mgr. Lefebvre as long as the ideas contained in the Manifesto of November 21 continue to be the basis for his work.' [9]

We cannot communicate these decisions to you without profound sadness. We know the generous perseverance with which you have worked and the good which in consequence has been accomplished. We can well imagine what a cruel predicament you will find yourself in. But we are sure that all those who have read or wish to read your Declaration without gratuitously suspecting any motives other than the Declaration itself for the actions which have been taken, will concede that in the face of the evidence matters could not have been resolved differently, given your refusal to withdraw this text. No Church institution, no priestly formation can be built upon such a foundation.[10]
(con’d...)

__________________________
Footnote 8: Who invited the Cardinals “to notify it clearly”? If it was the Pope, why is he hiding his involvement in the matter, or rather why is he being shielded by others? It is well to recall the intermediate level of Vatican authority between the Commission of Cardinals and the Pope, and that is the office of Secretary of State, now in the hands of the sinister Jean Cardinal Villot. His functions grant him full executive power over the Curia as a whole, consequently, over each of the Cardinal-Prefects for the various Sacred Congregations.

Footnote 9: This, of course, is nothing short of excommunication in practical terms, ruthless, shameless, a historically uncharacteristic excommunication. Such an interdict is intended to remain in force as long as the Archbishop refuses to retract his “Declaration”.

Footnote 10: On the contrary, proper priestly formation cannot but be premised on fully Catholic Foundations: that is, specifically, upon Mgr. Lefebvre’s “Declaration”, rather than upon the new religion, the new catechetics, the new liturgy with its Marxist songs and erotic dances. These are novelties over which the Sacred Congregations and their Cardinal-Prefects preside with remarkable affability.
Page 12

APPENDIX “C” 5 of 5

... We hope, your Excellency, that the Lord will give you the light and enable you to find the path that conforms with his will, in the confidence of the one to whom as bishops we owe a sincere and effective obedience.

As for us, ve can only assure you of our fraternal attachment and our prayers.

(Signed Gabriel Marie Cardinal Garrone, Prefect Of Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, President the Commission of Cardinals
John Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy
Arturo Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Religious and for Secular Institutes)

This letter is being sent to Their Excellencies Mgr. Mamie, and Mgr. Adam
**** ****
page 13

APPENDIX “D” 1 of 3

BISHOP MAMIE’S LETTER, 6 May 1975

Monseigneur, [1]
On 1 November 1970, my predecessor, Mgr. Francois Charrière authorized the founding and approved the statutes of the International Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, with headquarters at Fribourg. After long months of prayer and reflection and an ardent desire to maintain a brotherly union between us, after having discussed with you and written to you several times (you will recall, notably, our last conversation when you asserted that you could not accept certain conciliar measures and during which we discussed your refusal particularly on the matter of the celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the rite promulgated by His Holiness Pope Paul VI, I pointed out the extent to which your attitude and your actions presented for me a grave problem of conscience insofar as the continued canonical support by the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva Fribourg affected your Institute), I have reluctantly come to the following sad but necessary decision:

I regret therefore to inform you that I hereby withdraw all the acts and concessions made by predecessor on behalf of the Society of Saint Pius X, and in particular the decrees of 1 November 1970.

You shall receive shortly a letter of similar content from the Holy See, specifically the “ad hoc” of Cardinals. [2] My decision then is fully in accord with the Holy See, and particularly with a letter received by me on the subject from Arturo Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Religious and Secular Institutes.[3]
(con’d...)

Footnote 1: Mgr. Mamie still knows how to write his language, which is more than can be said of his compatriot Garrone: in French a Bishop is addressed as ‘Monseigneur‘, not “Excellence”.

2: See Appendix ‘C”, for the letter from Cardinal Garrone, Cardinal Wright and Cardinal Tabera, 6 May 1975.

3: While we have not seen this letter from Cardinal Tabera to Bishop Mamie, we may presume the Cardinal advised the local ordinary that not only could he revoke the Society‘s canonical authorization, but in fact he ought to.
Page 14

APPENDIX D 2 of 3

... On 21 November 1974 you published a signed “Declaration” beginning with the words, “We adhere with our whole heart, and with our whole soul to Catholic Rome…”. It was this “Declaration” which confirmed for me that in conscience I could no longer support your Society.

You are manifestly opposed to Vatican 2 and, in consequence, to the person and acts of the successor of Saint Peter, His Holiness Pope Paul VI. Thus I may not allow you to claim any longer that the Society has the support of the Bishop of Fribourg, nor may I allow the authority of the Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg to continue to provide the canonical basis of your institutes. I realize also that my decision affects as well all provisions contained in the statutes formerly granted to the Society of Saint Pius X.

This decision takes effect immediately, and I have informed accordingly the relevant Roman Congregations of my action by the same post, namely the Sacred Congregation for the Religious, for Catholic Education and for the Clergy, as well as Mgr. Ambrogio Marchioni, Apostolic Nuncio to Switzerland, and Mgr. Nestor Adam, President of the Swiss Episcopal Conference.

As for us, we shall continue to demand that the faithful as well as the clergy accept and apply all the orientations and decisions of the Second Vatican Council, all the teachings of John XXIII and Paul VI, all the directives of the secretariats instituted by the Council, including of course that on the new liturgy.[4] This we have done and this we shall continue to do even in the most difficult of days and with the grace of God, because for us it is the only way to edify the Church.
_________________________
Footnote 4: If Bishop Mamie did not exist, he would have to be invented by the new religion: here have a bishop who, expressing himself in an official docuмent professes to obey all directives of the Vatican secretariats. The authority of the secretariats, for him, supersede that of the episcopacy. This is by no means a negligible feature of the new religion.
Page 15

APPENDIX “D” 3 of 3

... It is, therefore, with great sadness, Monseigneur, that I assure you of my prayers and most fraternal sentiments, in union with Christ Jesus, His Church, and the one who has received the divine power of confirming his brothers, the Sovereign Pontiff, the Successor of Peter.

(Signed:) + Pierre Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg

Antoine Troxler, Chancellor
**** ****
page 16

APPENDIX “E” 1 of 5

L’ OSSERVATORE ROMANO ARTICLE, 8 MAY 1975

This article, published originally on 8 May 1975, though unsigned, appears to be a clear representation of the guiding concept leading to Mgr. Lefebvre’s condemnation. We are using here the version which appeared in L‘Osservatore Romano’s English edition of 12 June 1975. It was entitled in all editions, “Concerning a “Manifesto”, which has a connotation substantially different from Mgr. Lefebvre’s firm but respectful “Declaration” of 21 November 1974.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

One is always “conservative” in the eyes of some one, and “progressive” in the eyes of another. For there is always some one to one‘s left—-more concerned with realities. So that the words “conservative” and “progressist” end up by having no real meaning any longer. They are “quarrels of tendencies”, that is, one runs the risk, when using such words, of falling short of truth, as regards things, and of justice, as regards persons.

It happens, however, that in some circles of thought or action, extremes are reached that go far beyond tendencies and reveal a hardening of attitude in which the Christian faith and fidelity are no longer safe. There is, alas, no lack of examples today.

In such cases, it is no longer possible not to call out: halt! before habit has made us lose the sense of the seriousness of remarks or attitudes that go beyond all bounds and reveal in depth dangerous deviations.

One can understand only too well how it is possible to be led into such aberrations. So abuses have occurred, so many excesses are committed; so many rash ideas have been expressed... It has been possible to speak of the “decomposition’[1] of the Church and the factors of demolition have sometimes been revealed within her. Defensive measures have not been in

____________________________________
Footnote 1: Actually, the word, used by Pope Paul VI, was “self-destruction”, much stronger and more brutal sounding than “decomposition”.
(con’d...)
Page 17

APPENDIX “E” 2 of 5

proportion to the dangers... In this way it is understandable that many people have taken frights. Their reactions, therefore, are only too understandable, but it would be particularly serious to excuse and accept reactions which, with the intention of saving the building, undermine its foundations.[2]

This is the case of the docuмent we would like to present here in its essentials, without comments, which are really superfluous.[3]

We read in this strange declaration, dated 21 November 1974 and published by the Review Itinéraires :

(Here follows the text of Mgr. Lefebvre’s “Declaration” with the last paragraph consciously omitted (see Appendix “A”).)

“We adhere with all our heart and with all our soul to Catholic Rome, the guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary to maintain this faith, to eternal Rome, teacher of wisdom and truth.

“We refuse, on the other hand, and have always refused to follow the Rome of neo-modernist and neo—Protestant tendency that showed itself clearly in the II Vatican Council and after the Council in all the reforms to which it gave rise.

“All these reforms, in fact, have contributed and are still contributing to the demolition of the Church, the ruin of the priesthood, the annihilation of the celebration of Mass and of the Sacraments, the disappearance of religious life, naturalistic and Teilhardian teaching in the Universities and Seminaries, catechetics, teaching derived from the liberalism and Protestantism often condemned by the solemn magisterium of the Church.
(con’d...)
_______________________________
Footnote 2: Thus, according to this article, what is really undermining the foundations of the Church is not self—destruction, nor is it imminent apostasy, nor again is it modernism; it is Mgr. Lefebvre, and his “Declaration”.

Footnote 3: This is a relatively painless way to demand blind obedience from the faithful without having to go to the trouble of mounting a rational rebuttal of the Archbishop’s “Declaration”.
page 18

APPENDIX "E" 3 of 5

‘No authority, even the highest one in the hierarchy, can oblige us to abandon or reduce our Catholic faith, clearly expressed and professed by the magisterium of the Church for nineteen centuries.

“ 'But if even we or an angel from heaven’, St. Paul said, should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema’. (Gal. 1, 8).

“Is this not what the Holy Father repeats to us today? And if a certain contradiction were revealed in his words and his acts as well as in the acts of the Congregations, then we choose what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the destroying novelties of the Church.

       "It is impossible to make deep changes in the « lex orandi » without changing the « lex credendi ». To a new Mass there corresponds a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, a charismatic, pentecostal Church, all things opposed to orthodoxy and to the magisterium of always.

       "This Reform, being derived from liberalism and modernism, is wholly poisoned; it springs from heresy and leads to heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical. It is impossible, therefore, for any conscious, faithful Catholic to adopt this Reform and submit to it in any way whatever.

"The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and to the Catholic doctrine, for our salvation, is a categorical refusal to accept the Reform.

      "That is why, without any rebellion, any bitterness, any resentment, we are continuing our work of priestly formation under the star of the
(con’d...)
page 19

APPENDIX “E” 4 of 5

... magisterium of always, convinced that we cannot render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, the Sovereign Pontiff and future generations.

"That is why we abide firmly by everything that was believed and practiced in the faith, morals, worship, the teaching of the catechism, the formation of the priest, the institution of the Church, by the Church of always and codified in the books that appeared before the modernistic influence of the Council, while waiting for the true light of Tradition to dispel the darkness dimming the sky of eternal Rome...."
**** ****
Whatever may be the intentions that may have presided over the drawing up of such a "Declaration", it is impossible not to pose a certain of number of questions, the answer to which, alas, forces itself upon us: [4]

--- Under such conditions, is there still any real, and not just verbal, communion with the living Church? [5]

--- Whom will they obey, ultimately, those who recognize themselves in this docuмent? Who will be the interpreter of this Tradition to which reference is made, when the interpretation of the living magisterium is suspected a priori? [6]

---- What are we to think of those who will be formed in this spirit?
(con’d...)
__________________________________________
Footnote 4: Perhaps the answers do “force” themselves upon L’Osservatore Romano, but for all their concern, the article does not proceed to give these answers. A more fruitful tactic is to ask insinuating questions.
Footnote 5: This question, for example, insinuates nothing short of excommunication for Mgr. Lefebvre.
Footnote 6: "a priori”? indeed not; it is distinctly "a posteriori"(after the facts) that legitimate suspicions have grown against what is served up as the “interpretation of the living magisterium”.
page 20

March-April, 1976 THE MARYFAITHFUL
APPENDIX "E" 5 of 5

...
- - - - - How is it possible, without an extraordinary presumption, to conceive such a completely negative appreciation of the Episcopate [7] and of all those working in the service of Christ in Seminaries and Universities.?

- - - - - One hesitates to speak of a “sect’ but how can one avoid thinking of it at least?

That such attitudes can develop in the Church today, that they can be publicly expressed and sweep along people in good faith, cannot but make us reflect seriously. The appearances must be grave indeed for people to be able to lose the sense of the Church to such an extent, on the pretext of saving her. [8]

**** ****
_________________________________________________
Footnote 7: We know from our Church History, of course, that many times “ the completely negative appreciation of the Episcopate” was, fortunately, the correct one.
Footnote 8: This last paragraph evoked the following comment from the periodical Itineraires (juillet - aout 1975) No. 195: Page 134 “Voila; c'est tout. Tel est le niveau", which translates, roughly, “That's it, that’s all; that is their level of debate".
Page21

APPENDIX "F" 1 of 2

Mgr. LEFEBVRE’S LETTER TO CARDINAL STAFFA.
21 MAY 1975

Your Eminence:

Please find enclosed the several docuмents which touch upon the reasons for recourse to your tribunal.[1]

I wish, therefore, to register the following appeal:

1. Against the manner in which were made the decisions expressed in the letters of 6 May 1975, from Bishop Mamie of Fribourg and from the Commission of Cardinals. Such a procedure clearly contravenes Canon 493 of the Codex Juris Canonici [2]

2. Against the competence of the Commission of Cardinals which condemned me in a matter of faith as a result of my "Declaration" published in the periodical Itinéraires as written by me on 21 November 1974. I request a hearing before the one competent tribunal in matters of faith, namely the Sacred Congregation for Doctrine and Faith.
(con’d...)

_______________________________________
Footnote 1: Dino Cardinal Staffa is one Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature. The docuмents in question are those we have seen as well as Mgr. Lefebvre's 'Relation' (Appendix G)

Footnote 2: Canon 493 stipulates that a canonical authorization granted by a local Ordinary to a foundation may only be revoked by the Holy See, and not by the granting bishop, or his successors.
Page 22

APPENDIX "F" 2 OF 2

... 3. Against the judgment brought forward by Bishop Mamie and with which the Commission of Cardinals concurred: if my "Declaration" is blameworthy, it affects me personally and as such ought not affect the fate of either my Society, the seminary at Econe, or my religious foundations, indeed especially since the Cardinals assured me the Apostolic Visitation of 11, 12 and 13 November 1974 reported favorably on the work of the seminary.

By virtue of present submission, an appeal having a suspensory effect, I am therefore assuming that pending a judgment to the contrary my Society and all its dependencies do retain their canonical status.

I remain at your service for any further details you may require on this matter, and I am, your Eminence, most respectfully yours in Our Lord and Our Lady.

(Signed: Marcel Lefebvre )

page 23

APPENDIX “G” I of 4

MGR. LEFEBVRE‘s “RELATION” OF MAY 1975

THE ‘ TRIAL’ of MGR. LEFEBVRE

It should be remembered that even before the proceedings opened, the Seminary of the Society, from the time of its very foundation, had been the victim of a campaign of denigration in the press, more especially when its attraction for the young and its world—wide reputation became evident. This campaign of denigration included the odious calumny that Econe was a 'wild—cat seminary’ [1]. Calumnies such as these were re—echoed first by the French episcopate, and then by the Swiss Episcopate, in spite of the fact that the Bishop of Fribourg knew perfectly well that they had no foundation in fact.

It was obvious that steps had been taken in Rome to obtain our suppression. On November 9, we received a letter from the Nunciature of Berne, informing us that a Commission, nominated by the Pope, and consisting of the three Cardinal Prefects of the Congregations involved — Religious, Catholic Education, Clergy — was sending us two Apostolic Visitors: His Excellency Mgr. Descamps and Mgr. Onclin.

The two Visitors arrived at 9 a.m. on Monday November 11. For three days, they questioned 10 Professors, 20 of the 104 students and myself. They left at 6 p.m. on November 13 without having signed any Protocol of Visit. We have never been given information concerning the contents of their Report.
(con’d...)
________________________________
Footnote 1: This was also the description used in the headline above a most misleading and slanted report in the “Universe” of June 6, 1975. This report would have disgraced any newspaper, let alone a ‘Catholic’ paper which boasts on its masthead of Pope Paul’s prayerful concern for its efficacy as an instrument of the truth. Moreover, even when the false nature of the entire report was drawn to the editor's attention, the "Universe" refused to print any correction.
Page 24

APPENDIX “G” 2 of 4

... Convinced that this was the first step towards the suppression of our seminary, which for long had been the aim of the ‘Progressives’, and realizing that the Visitors had come with the aim of bringing us into line with the changes that had taken place within the Church since the Council, I decided to make my position clear to the entire Seminary.

I could not adhere to the Rome represented by Apostolic Delegates who considered the ordination of married men both normal and inevitable; who could not accept the idea of immutable Truth and who expressed doubts concerning the traditional concept of Our Lord‘s Resurrection.

This was the origin of my Declaration, which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtless excessive indignation.

Two and a half months passed without any news. Then on January 30, 1975, I received a letter, signed by the members of the Commission, inviting me to Rome 'to discuss' with them ‘certain points which caused certain bewilderment’.

Accepting this invitation, I went to Rome, to the Congregation for Catholic Education on February 13, 1975. Their Eminences Cardinals Garrone, Wright, and Tabera, accompanied by a Secretary, invited me to join them at a conference table. His Eminence Cardinal Garrone asked me whether I had any objection to the discussion being recorded and the Secretary proceeded to install a recording machine.

After telling me of the favorable impression received by the Apostolic Visitors, no further reference was made either to the Society or to the Seminary either on February 13 or on March 3. It was exclusively a question of my Declaration of November 21, 1974, which had been made as a consequence of the Apostolic Visit.

Cardinal Garrone vehemently reproached me on account of this, even going so far as to imply that I was a ‘lunatic’, that I imagined myself to be an Athanasius. This tirade lasted for some 25 minutes. Cardinal Tabera, going one better, said: ‘What you are doing is worse than what is being done by all the “Progressives" '. He also said that I had severed communion with the Church, etc.
(con’d...)
page 25

APPENDIX “G” 3 of 4

Was I taking part in a discussion? Or was I rather facing Judges? What was the competence of this Commission? I had merely been told that it had been mandated by the Holy Father and that it was he who would judge. But it was clear that judgment had already been passed.

I tried in vain to formulate arguments or explanations giving the true meaning of my Declaration. I made it clear that I respected and would always respect the Pope and the Bishops but added that to me it was not an evident fact that to criticize certain texts of the Council and the Reforms which derived therefrom was equivalent to breaking with the Church. I said that I was making every effort to discover the deeply rooted causes of the present crisis in the Church and that everything I had done proved that my desire was to build the Church, not to destroy it. But not one of arguments was taken into consideration. Cardinal Garrone insisted that the cause of the crisis lay in the media of social communications.

At the end of the meeting of February 13 as at the end of that of March 3, my impression was that I had been deceived. Whereas I had been invited to a discussion, in fact, I was facing a Tribunal which had already decided to condemn me. Nothing was done to help me towards a compromise or towards an amicable solution. no written monition. Nothing but the argument of authority, accompanied by invective and threats, was presented to me in the course of five hours of discussion.

After the end of the second session, I asked for a copy of the recording. Cardinal Garrone replied that it was only right that I should have a copy, that I had a right to it, and he informed his Secretary accordingly.

That very evening I sent a man with all the necessary equipment to 'make a recording from the original tape’. But the Secretary stated that there was no question of my having more than a transcription. I went myself next day to ask for the copy 'of the recording'. The Secretary went to consult the Cardinal and returned to inform that it was a transcription I was to get. This was promised for the following evening. To be certain that it would be ready I telephoned the following morning. The Secretary then told me that there was no question of my being given
(con’d...)
page 26

M APPENDIX "G" -4 of 4

...a transcription, but that I could call between 5 p.m. and 8 p.m. to see it. Faced with this kind of behavior I let the matter drop.

So then, after this mockery of a trial concerning a supposedly favorable Visitation about which there were only some slight reservations, and after two sessions which concentrated exclusively on my DECLARATION in order to condemn it totally, without reservation or nuance whatsoever, without its being concretely examined and without being given anything in writing, one after the other I received first a letter from His Excellency Mgr. Mamie suppressing the Society and the Seminary with the approval of the Commission of Cardinals, and then a letter from the Commission confirming Mgr. Mamie’s letter. All this without the formulation of a formal and precise accusation concerning what had been discussed. And this decision, declared Mgr. Mamie, into effect immediately (‘immédiatement exécutive’).

I was therefore expected immediately to dismiss from the Seminary 104 seminarians, 13 professors and other personnel. And this, two months before the end of the scholastic year! One requires only to write all this down in order to know the reactions of anyone who still retains a little common sense and honesty. And all this on May 8 of the Year of Reconciliation!

Does the Holy Father really know of these things? We find it difficult to believe he does.

+ MARCEL LEFEBVRE
page 27

C O N C L U S I O N

The docuмents we have just read leave no doubt as to where truth, rights and Catholic loyalty are to be found in our time.

These docuмents confirm (if indeed confirmation is necessary) that there is no hope, in human terms, for Mgr. Lefebvre‘s Society to retain canonical status so long as the administrative power of the Church remains captive to the sinister persecutors who hold Rome under the heel of a virtual foreign occupation.

Mgr. Lefebvre has promised not to abandon his seminarians. Indeed, the very notion of loyalty to the Church makes it mandatory that he continue, especially now, the task of forming true priests. Similarly, by our own loyalty to the Church, each of us in our state of life and without flinching, we also bring assistance and support to his efforts to the extent of our capacity.

Jean Madiran

page 28

The END.
On July 22, 1976 "Archbishop Lefebvre was sentenced with a “suspens a divinis,” a sanction that, as he noted with some humor, prevented him from saying the New Mass! " From : https://fsspx.org/en/roman-sanctions-31140.

That was the Feast of St. Mary Magdalen, where Mother Church prays in the Gradual: “Thou hast loved justice, and hated iniquity. Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness.”

Plenus Venter · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2024, 02:54:51 AM »

How could anyone, after reading this article, trust the Roman authorities, who won't even follow Canon Law?

As Bishop Fellay said, Rome has changed, it would be an historical error to deny this!

And he is right. All he neglected to say is that Rome has changed for the worse...

The Archbishop admitted to writing this declaration under the influence of excessive indignation. No risk of that with Fr Pagliarani or Bishop Fellay... unless that is indignation against the Resistance. But certainly not against Rome. Tell me who your friends are...

Author Topic: Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre 1974 ' Declaration ', Mockery of a Trial, Jean Madiran 1975 (Read 4478 times)

Twice dyed

Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre 1974 ' Declaration ', Mockery of a Trial, Jean Madiran 1975

Plenus Venter

Re: Mgr. Marcel Lefebvre 1974 ' Declaration ', Mockery of a Trial, Jean Madiran 1975