Heard in the SSPX Priories: A Consecration of New Bishops for the SSPX is coming, sooner rather than later

 We can't add much more right now, but talk is growing.

The SSPX leadership will obviously request Rome's approval, as Abp. Lefebvre himself requested in 1987/1988 (with unclear, then clear, results...), but what exactly will unfold is unclear at the moment.

We'll have more to add soon.

Video Suggestion: "Archbishop Lefebvre - A Documentary" online

From a reader:

Many are aware of the role of French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as the consecrator of bishops in the events that took place in Écône, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988, in a climate of extreme tension with the Holy See. What is less well known is his work as the most important character of the Church in the continent where its growth is truly explosive in our age -- Africa -- in the crucial decades of deconolization, and that he set in place around forty dioceses in the continent, before being a leading figure during the Second Vatican Council.

A Call for Unity

Ecce quam bonum et quam iucundum...

The division of the Traditional Catholic world was a master stroke by the enemies of the 1962 Missal and of the Roman Catechism. They have managed to sow discord between friends and to establish fratricidal hatred among priests who used to march together hand in hand. The first group began to treat their brothers as radicals, the second called the others sellouts. The former were convinced that those who remained under Abp. Lefebvre would soon fall in total schism, and the latter thought with certitude that their former brothers would abandon both Mass and Catechism.

What can we say more than a quarter-century later? That, on both sides, these judgments were, in great measure, overreactions.

On its own side, for all its known problems, the Society of Saint Pius X did not become schismatic or a parallel "church". It has always kept contacts with Rome and has made what it considered necessary in order to regularize its situation with the successive popes, even if, for reasons that its superiors considers prudential (and with which we ourselves may prudentially disagree), regularization has not been achieved for the moment. On the other side, the Ecclesia Dei communities never abandoned the Traditional Mass, nor traditional Catechesis.

It must be said in all honesty: on the side of the SSPX, recognition of the Pope remains, and the desire for its work to be recognized is still sought, according to different measures that vary from person to person. On the side of the Ecclesia Dei communities, there remains a disapproval of the new Mass (regardless of the fact that it is considered both valid and legitimate) and of the alteration of traditional doctrine, both of which are also expressed differently from person to person. The exceptions within these groups confirm the rule in both communities.

An achievement and a mission: The legacy of Abp. Lefebvre and Romanitas

From the sermon pronounced on Saturday, November 16, 2013, by Fr. Vincent Ribeton, superior of the French District of the Fraternity of Saint Peter, in the Mass for the 25th anniversary of the FSSP (Saint-Sulpice, Paris):

In the message conveyed by Abp. Luigi Ventura, Apostolic Nuncio in France, the Supreme Pontiff recalled that it was in a moment of trial for the Church that the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter was born. The tears inscribed in the arms of our community testify to this painful history.

During the meeting that assembled our priests this week in Lourdes, Father Denis Coiffet recalled those circumstances. They were even more excruciating for our founders because they had received everything from Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, and because they loved him like a father. For the very fidelity to the entire tradition of the Church that this prelate had taught them, which calls for fidelity to the successor of Peter, faith on the promises of Christ to his Church: Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church; and also for this spirit of Romanitas learned from Abp. Lefebvre, who had himself received it from his years of seminary in Rome, under the direction of the Reverend Father Le Floch, our founders could not see themselves joining the consecration of bishops against the will of the successor of Peter. There where Peter is, there is the Church. Animated by this faith, our founders made an act of obedience and hope. They turned, as the papal message says, with confidence towards the successor of Peter, and they were not let down in this confidence, because to that small band of ten priests the conditions foreseen in the protocol of agreement of May 5, 1988, were guaranteed, offering the faithful attached to the Missal of 1962 and to the Latin traditions the possibility of living their faith in the full communion of the Church.

By celebrating this morning this thanksgiving Mass, I invite you, my very dear faithful, to share a particular intention for our brother priests of the Society of Saint Pius X. We know that the hand of the Pope is always extended to them, and we know them to be hesitant, torn. Let us pray that they may have the courage to make the choice of Peter. Even in his decision to consecrate four bishops, Abp. Lefebvre always refused to be considered the head of an autocephalous church. He judged that the bishops that he consecrated should one day deliver their episcopate in the hands of Peter. Let us pray that they do not delay further, so that the best of what they received may be in the service of the welfare of the whole Church, and that the truth be preached in the unity of charity. That is even more urgent because the present situation forbids division. That is even more imperative because it is shoulder to shoulder [lit. coude à coude] that we must act against the culture of death in a secularized society.

The Pope's encouragement to serve the mission of reconciliation between all the faithful is an appeal that the Fraternity of Saint Peter especially wishes to put into motion. Yes, we do adhere with all our strength to this request of the Pope that "all welcome one another in the profession of the same faith and the bond of an intense fraternal charity."

[Tip: Le Forum Catholique. Image: French Seminary, Rome]

For the record: Declaration of bishops of Society of St.Pius X on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations

1- On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the episcopal consecrations the bishops of The Society Saint Pius X are eager to express solemnly their gratitude towards Archbishop Lefevbre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer for the heroic deed they were not afraid of performing on the 30th June 1988. Most especially they would like to express their filial gratitude towards their venerable founder who, after so many years spent serving the Church and the Sovereign Pontiff, so as to safeguard the Faith and the Catholic priesthood, did not hesitate to suffer the unjust accusation of disobedience.

For the record: SSPX Superior-General Bp. Fellay interviewed by SSPX magazine on the 25th anniversary of 1988 Ordinations. "Of course I remain open to contacts from Rome"

1. What was your initial reaction when you learned that Archbishop Lefebvre had chosen you to be one of the priests to be consecrated?

My first reaction was to think there must be others better than me; if possible, let this chalice pass from me! My second reaction was for my fellow priests, my brothers in the priesthood, "pro fratribus" because it is obvious that it is a big cross. It is a question of dedication for the others.

2. Can you recall your emotions and state of mind on June 30, 1988, after having received consecration from the hands of the Archbishop?

I don't recall much about my own feelings or emotions. What I remember was how the whole congregation was electrified. The atmosphere was absolutely electric. I've never seen that in my whole life. This I do remember. It was during the ceremony as well as after; a great joy, nothing else. It was overwhelming.

3. In his Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre describes a vision he had in the Cathedral of Dakar. Can you discuss how the 1988 Consecrations would seem to be a fulfillment of that vision?

Amazingly, I would say that I don't even make the connection between both. In fact, I don't think there is any. I don't think the measure of having bishops is directly related to the work itself. It's only a survival measure. It's not the essential of the work, which is to form and build priests according to the heart of Jesus. This is the main thing.

It is true that without bishops, we would not have priests, but it was definitely not the essential element of the work. It is essential to survive but not for the nature of the work. Of course with all the developments we had in our apostolate and the situation of the Church the question of the Bishops has to be seen in a new light!

4. Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to underline the extraordinary nature of his decision to consecrate as well as distinguishing it from a schismatic act by emphasizing that he did not attempt to transmit any delegated episcopal jurisdiction but only the power of ordination. Some have over the past 25 years expressed disapproval of the election of one of the bishops as Superior General, arguing that such act suggests a jurisdictional claim as a bishop. Can you explain how such an argument is incorrect and elaborate how fulfilling the role of Superior General does not involve any claim to delegated episcopal jurisdiction?

First, why did the Archbishop not, at the time of the consecration, want a bishop to be Superior General? It was expressly to make it easier to deal with Rome. If the Superior General was a bishop, he would be under the "penalty" of Rome, which would make discussions more difficult than if it were, for instance, Fr. Schmidberger at the time. This was clearly limited to the circumstances; it was not a principle. It was a question of prudence. It was not a direct exclusion of a bishop being Superior General in the future.

But we must distinguish two kinds of jurisdiction. There is a normal, ordinary jurisdiction of a Superior General over his members and there is ordinary episcopal jurisdiction. As bishops, we have no ordinary jurisdiction right now, but as Superior General, I do have the other kind. They are not the same.

5. Do you have a particularly important memory of the Archbishop you would be willing to share?

On the one hand, his simplicity and common sense, and on the other hand, his very high vision of things. It was always supernatural. He always looked at God. It was clearly the case that he was guided by prayer, the Faith, and union with God. For him it was normal and obvious that someone had to be, in ordinary actions, always united with Our Lord.

6. How do you cultivate into your seminaries and priests Archbishop Lefebvre’s unique spirit of priestly piety, doctrinal soundness, and counter-revolutionary action?

First of all, we try to put the seminarians in contact, as far as possible, with Archbishop Lefebvre himself: his voice, his teaching, his books, etc. We have tapes of his conferences to seminarians. The French here have an advantage! But we are working on translating these so that all seminarians may have them. In English, some have already been collected in book form: They Have Uncrowned Him, Priestly Holiness, and The Mass of All Time.

Second, we try to fulfill and apply the means he himself gave to us in the seminaries: the organization, the plan of studies, and lectures prepared by him, for instance. He determined their set up, and how they are structured. For example, our philosophy and theology is based on the teachings of St. Thomas, as the Church has recommended. The Acts of the Magisterium is a class in particular desired by the Archbishop, which teaches the encyclicals of the great Popes of the 19th until Pius XII in their fight against the introduction of Enlightenment principles into the Church and society. We still follow this with great fruits.

7. What have been the most significant changes, good and bad, for the Society since the 1988 Consecrations?

I don't know whether there are so many changes. We are getting a little bit older, although we are still a young congregation. But we now have elderly priests, which we did not have in 1988. This is an external change, you may say. We had 4 bishops then and now we have 3. This is again a change, but nothing major or essential. We have more houses in more countries but this is not so much change as a normal development of the work.

We remain faithful to the line Archbishop Lefebvre gave. If we look at the last few years, in fact, Archbishop Lefebvre said in 1988 that Rome would come to us in 5 to 6 years after the consecrations. It lasted almost 24 or 25 years, and obviously things are not yet ripe. The changes Archbishop Lefebvre expected in the Church, the coming back, are not yet there. But obviously, if they continue the way they go, the destruction will continue, and one day they will have to go back. And that day they will come to us again.

On another hand, look at what has happened in recent years: the admission that the Old Mass is not abrogated, the lifting of the "1988 excommunications" and the influence in the Church that we have never had before! And this is not to mention the growing critique of the Council, even in Rome, outside of Society circles which is a relatively new phenomenon on this scale.

8. Can you describe the works and services that have occurred during the past 25 years that would have been impossible without the Consecrations?

It's simple: since the consecrations, the SSPX bishops have ordained more priests than were at the consecrations in 1988. Therefore it is clear that the bishops were necessary for the growth of the work of the Society. We would be a dying Society without the bishops. It is vital for the continuation of the work. There are also the confirmations, the making of soldiers of Christ to fight for God and His kingdom. Finally we cannot deny this influence on the whole Church so that Tradition may regain its rights.

9. Some critics of the Society point to Ecclesia Dei Communities none of which, with the exception of the case of Campos, have bishops of their own. They argue that the Consecrations were therefore unnecessary since these communities have existed without their own bishops. How does the contrast between the history of the Society and the Ecclesia Dei Communities over the past 25 years demonstrate even more clearly today than in 1988 the correct judgment of the Archbishop that a bishop of and from the Society was necessary not merely for her survival but for preservation of her complete mission?

First of all, all the Ecclesia Dei members understand that if we would not have had bishops, they would not exist. Directly or indirectly, they depend on the Society's life. That is very, very clear. And now the fruits of their apostolates are totally subjected to the good will of the local bishops. They drastically limit any solid desire to establish traditional Catholic life by limiting the possibilities of the apostolate in that direction. They are obliged to mix with the novelties of Vatican II, the world, and the Novus Ordo. This is the great difference between the Society and Ecclesia Dei groups.

I do see that some Ecclesia Dei groups are getting closer to us. This is definitely not all of them, though.

10. The Archbishop had exhausted himself over the years prior to the Consecration by traveling the world as the only traditional bishop (with the exception of Bishop de Castro Mayer who limited his sphere of activity mostly to his own diocese.) As a result he chose to consecrate four bishops rather than simply one. The number of traditional faithful has grown in the past 25 years, yet sadly the number of bishops in the Society has now been reduced to three. Are 3 bishops sufficient to carry on the work of Tradition? Is it necessary to consecrate more bishops now?

Since 2009, in fact, we have only been working with 3 bishops. Obviously, it is working. Thus, it is clear that with 3 it still works. So there is no urgency or extreme need to consecrate another bishop.

We certainly do have to ask ourselves the question concerning the future even if right now there is no necessity. My answer is very simple: if and when the circumstances which led the Archbishop to make such a decision present themselves again, we will take the same means.

11. Although Archbishop Lefebvre always maintained the desire to arrive at a peaceful relationship with the Roman authorities, the consecrations resulted in a new phase of hostile treatment and persecution of the Society by the Roman authorities. You have tried over the past decade, at least, to find a resolution of these hostilities and persecutions in a manner which in no way compromises the principles of the Society's mission. So far at least your efforts have not succeeded in a resolution. Why do you think, notwithstanding your good will, the efforts have not succeeded thus far?

First of all, I would point out that the initiative of normalization came from Rome, not from us. I did not make the first move. I tried to see if the situation was such that we could go ahead while keeping our identity. Obviously, it is not yet the case.

Why? The authorities still stick to the dangerous and poisonous principles which were introduced in the Church at the time of the Council. This is the reason we cannot go along.

I have no idea how much time we will need, or how many tribulations we will have to suffer through, until then. Perhaps ten years; perhaps more, perhaps less. It is in God's hands.

12. Do you remain open to receive contacts from Rome and in particular the new Holy Father?

Of course, I do remain open! It is God's Church. The Holy Ghost is still above to move beyond the obstacles put in place after Vatican II in the Church. If Our Lord wants to make things straight, He will. God knows when it will happen, but we must be always ready for it. A complete and true solution can only come when the authorities work again in that direction.

Archbishop Lefebvre and relations with Rome

A guest-post by 

Côme de Prévigny

Following the consecrations conferred in Écône, Switzerland, on June 30, 1988, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, did not maintain further discussions with the Holy See while he lived. The grave decision to move forward with this ceremony doubtless had consequences for the relations between the Holy See and the Archbishop. The tension had reached strong levels, and the excommunication decree of July 2 proved it. Is it possible, without much imagination, to explain things otherwise?

An act of survival

We could carelessly think that the Archbishop had finally reached the conclusion that pursuing discussions with a  world of hardened neo-Modernist ideas would prove nefarious for the progression of his foundation, which only could prosper far away from this darkened world. However, it seems that this impression is nothing more than an unfortunate ommission.

Let us recall the context: up to the eve of the consecrations, Abp. Lefebvre tried to reach an agreement with the Holy See by all possible means. He did not cease to write to and communicate with some Cardinals and prelates whom he knew, in the heart of the Curia, during the 1970s-1980s, and he repeatedly affirmed that the solution would come from Rome. He went so far as to sign a protocol in May 1988. Concluding that he would have changed his mind diametrically within a single month would show him to be an ill-tempered and impulsive man - which was not the case. On the contrary, the affair of the consecrations came along as the fruit of long reflection, which did not prevent him from simultaneously pursuing discussions with the Apostolic See, as much as his strength allowed him to do. Only the approach of death constrained him to move on with "Operation Survival".

The May 5 Protocol is signed

In order to understand the mind of Abp. Lefebvre, it is necessary to note that he truly acted in articulo mortis. He says it himself in the consecration sermon. His death would come soon: "This will happen soon." And the ceremony of the consecrations would probably not have taken place if its author had not justified the state of necessity with the fact that he was out of recourses, and that soon he would be gone. To go back to negotiations following the consecrations would have inevitably meant going back on the act he had just accomplished. His action is explained solely by the fact that he felt he was at the eve of his death, and that it was a last resort, after which there would not be any humanly possible exchanges while he lived.

The talks after 1988

Beyond the 'in extremis' position in which he found himself, Abp. Lefebvre envisaged, in any even, a very quick resumption of the discussions with Rome. He wished that his successors would relaunch the process. In the press conference granted on June 15, 1988, to journalists assembled in Écône, in which he announced his firm decision to move forward with the consecrations and suspend relations with Rome, he reckoned that the interruption of this exchange would last, considering the gravity of the consecrations, for approximately two or three years.

"These events that we will live in these days will certainly be talked about, and there will be unexpected crowds at the June 30 ceremony for the consecration of these four young bishops who will be at the service of the Society. This was foreseen as such by Rome. The bishops consecrated for the Society will be at the service of the Society. And, well, these four bishops will be at the service of the Society, that is it. The one who will therefore have responsibility, as a matter of principle, for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Father Schmidberger, who still has six years of leadership before him. He is the one who will, eventually, maintain contacts with Rome from now on, in order to continue the discussions, if these discussions go on, or if contact is kept, which is unlikely for some time, because in L'Osservatore Romano a large headline will say, 'Schism of Abp. Lefebvre,' 'Excommunication'... Therefore, for x years, perhaps two years, three years, I don't know, there will be separation."

 It can be noticed there the great optimism of Abp. Lefebvre. He realized that there would be a temporary separation for a certain lapse of time. He himself outlived the consecrations by two and a half years. The absence of relations seemed natural to him, not due to a radical change, but due to the jolt provoked by the act of the episcopal consecrations. From 1988 onwards, Father Schmidberger became the designated responsible for relations with Rome, as the founder had desired. He did not resume relations after two or three years, or at the moment of the death of Abp. Lefebvre, as the latter might have imagined. Twelve years passed by, after six years of leadership of Father Schmidberger, plus six years of leadership of Bp. Fellay, for the "talks to continue". As it happens, the Society could be reproached more for their extreme prudence than by their rashness. But the sole judge for this chronology was, in any event, the man mandated to appraise this delay, that is, the Superior General of the SSPX. Thus wished the founder.

[Note: as always, guest-posts reflect the view of the author, and do not necessarily reflect an editorial position of the blog.]

SSPX: The founder is keeping watch

A guest-post by Côme de Prévigny

"The four Lefebvrist bishops split," Le Figaro says in its headline. And, it must be said, the division has never seemed so apparent since they were consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre, on June 30, 1988. Only apparently, because, at times, the internal differences have been pronounced, but they have not always been known to all. Likewise, whoever made the decision to bring to the public square the correspondence, took a decision that was extremely grave in its consequences, insofar as the act risked to disturb what a Cardinal had once called "a thorn for the entire Church": the Society of Saint Pius X. But risking or disturbing is not sinking. The founder is keeping watch.

1. The trap of a fratricidal war.

There is a great danger of trying to split the Society in two different parts, by gathering behind two different camps antagonized forces that were, however, raised in the same mold through forty years of energy, of efforts, and of prayers, of shared resistance to the prevailing Neo-modernism, and this despite the desertions of some and the excesses of others. Those who are now rubbing their hands thinking of a hypothetical division are already showing their true faces.

On the one hand, they are the predators coming from Sedevacantist mini-chapels that have, as their main sign of charity, the fact that they hate one another, and that double their efforts to collect the bodies of  a fratricidal war. Abp. Lefebvre was categorical concerning these sowers of despair and destruction. Those who are today their American leaders are those same ungrateful sons who, in 1983, brought the aged archbishop before the courts in order to collect, in vain, the real estate "spoils" of the Society. They answer particularly to the names of Clarence Kelly, Donald Sanborn, Daniel Dolan...

On the other hand, there are all the adversaries of the Tradition of the Church who agitate to despoil the main force of opposition to the Liberalism that destroys our societies. All their contacts in the media have unanimously presented the object of the correspondence disconnected from its private setting, wishing to transform the divergences between the bishops into public opposition. And in Paris, anticlerical forces already eye with envy the church of Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet, this bastion of Catholic restoration, that appears as an object of prey due to what are essentially human disagreements.

2.      Who will foot the bill?

To tell the truth, the SSPX bishops themselves are not following a pattern of division. It is one thing to counsel, even firmly, one's superior to consider the consequences of his actions. It is quite another to state publicly what one thinks. And it is still something else to cause a division when one's superior has not compromised on the faith, which does not then justify disobedience. Let us take the example of Bp. Tissier de Mallerais. In 1988, after he had, on May 30, counseled Abp. Lefebvre against the consecrations, he nonetheless followed the founder and received the episcopacy from his hands. These last few days, even after the reception of his superior, he has called the faithful to unity in several different places.

But this, however, does not prevent the promoters of division from doing their work. Because, in the end, let us imagine a regularized Society: its priests will keep publishing the same weekly announcements, or pronouncing the same sermons. And its leaders will continue to criticize Assisi and the new mass. But a division for passionate motives will have as a consequence a decrease in the number of priests; the separatists will go to the large metropolitan areas, there where the greater number of faithful are found. On the other hand, in remote areas, the faithful will no longer benefit from the sacraments. And schools will close. Such will be the fruit of the division inspired by the enemy of God and by the historical enemies of the Society.

3.      A thorn for the Church.

The Society of Saint Pius X has a prophetic role in today's Church. If it were nothing more than the work of 550 priests along with their tens or hundreds of thousands of faithful, no one - and the Pope above all - would care for it. The Society is a thorn for the Church as the Society of Jesus was in its time, always condemned and regularized for its steadfast witness to the faith. The strongest souls are those that do not abandon everything under the impact of emotions, at the very gate of regularization or condemnation, that is, of the fact of a change of situation. They are those who manage to cross the ages and to withstand the circumstances with the same witness of faith. "A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand: but it shall not come nigh thee," says Psalm 90. 

This providential work lives essentially off two forces. First, the graces that God grants to it; then, the charism of its founder that remains the main opposing force to the new doctrines of the Council, whatever those who dispute the Society's legacy, on one side or the other, may say. It is not the sermon of a Father X or of a Father Y that will change that. It is not the admonition of a Prelate Z that will modify it. The Society is the bearer of a patrimony, that of the Church, that it transmits and will transmit, not only to some faithful, but to the largest number, in particular to the priests, whom Abp. Lefebvre had chosen as his preferred targets in a work that viewed itself primarily as priestly, apostolic, directed towards priests.

True, this work of the Fraternity does not possess the gift of everlastingness. But its founder recalled correctly that God did not have the cynicism of bringing souls to combat to finally abandon them, agonizing, on the battlefields: "I do not believe," he said, "that the good God could have said up to now, 'Go on, go on,' and that suddenly He says, 'Stop!' When the works are good, He wants them to go on."^[1] Abp. Lefebvre accepted huge sacrifices for the unity of his work. He will keep watch, one more time, that it may be liberated from the spirit of compromise as well as from that of despair, so that it may keep on advancing on this fine line that separates the Neo-modernist heresy on one side from the Sedevacantist schism on the other. 

_______________________________
[1] Interview of Abp. Lefebvre to Pacte, 1987 [Posted at 1200 AM GMT]

Abp. Lefebvre recalls his July 14, 1987, meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger

Bishop Marcel Lefebvre, Vicar Apostolic of Dakar,
on the day of his Consecration (1947)

Congratulations to the
Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP)
on its twentieth anniversary!

20 years on: Reliving the Events of 1988Part III: The Archbishop rejects the Protocol May 5, 1988 - June 29, 1988

Part I: July 1987 - February 1988
Part II: March 1988 - May 5, 1988

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, founder of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X (FSSPX / SSPX), received in the Fraternity House at Albano Laziale (near Castel Gandolfo) the final text of the Protocol which was sent to him by Cardinal Ratzinger. It was 4:30 PM as the old bishop signed the text. His most extensive biographer, Bishop Tissier de Mallerais (one of the chief negotiators in that afternoon and who would be consecrated on June 30), described the scene:

His face perfectly expresse[d] the mixed feelings which gripped him: "real satisfaction," as he would write to Ratzinger, and silent mistrust which he spoke of to the sisters in the Cenacolo convent [of the Discepole del Cenacolo, in Velletri, near Albano] at 3 PM: "If Don Putti [Fr. Francesco-Maria Putti, a Traditional Roman priest and spiritual son of Padre Pio, who guided and formed the sisters until his death in 1984] were here, what would he say? 'Your Grace, where are you going? What are you doing?' "

The Archbishop did not sleep during what must have felt like one of the longest nights of his life. The following morning, after Mass and Prime, he sent a letter to Cardinal with an ultimatum of his own: the deadline of June 30, 1988, mentioned in one of his previous letters exchanged in the negotiations was still valid. The text of that letter was:

Yesterday it was with real satisfaction that I put my signature on the Protocol drafted during the preceding days. However, you yourself have witnessed my deep disappointment upon the reading of the letter, which you gave me, bringing the Holy Father's answer concerning the episcopal consecrations.

Practically, to postpone the episcopal consecrations to a later undetermined date would be the fourth time that it would have been postponed. The date of June 30 was clearly indicated in my previous letters as the latest possible.

I have already given you a file concerning the candidates. There are still two months to make the mandate.

Given the particular circumstances of this proposal, the Holy Father can very well shorten the procedure so that the mandate be communicated to us around mid-June.

In case the answer will be negative, I would find myself in conscience obliged to proceed with the consecrations, relying upon the agreement given by the Holy See in the Protocol for the consecration of one bishop, member of the Society.

The reticence expressed on the subject of the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society, either by writing or by word of mouth, gives me reason to fear delays. Everything is now prepared for the ceremony of June 30: hotel reservations, transportation, rental of a huge tent to house the ceremony.

The disappointment of our priests and faithful would be extreme. All of them hope that this consecration will be realized with the agreement of the Holy See; but being already disappointed by previous delays they will not understand that I would accept a further delay. They are aware and desirous above all of having truly Catholic bishops transmitting the true Faith to them, and communicating to them in a way that is certain the graces of salvation to which they aspire for themselves and for their children.

In the hope that this request shall not be an insurmountable obstacle to the reconciliation in process, please, Eminence, accept my respectful and fraternal sentiments in Christo et Maria.

+Marcel Lefebvre

Upon receiving the letter, Cardinal Ratzinger immediately canceled the publication of the communiqué which had been prepared - which explains the scarce report by the secular media of what was taking place. Ratzinger first wrote a note to Lefebvre, asking him to "reconsider his position".

I have attentively read the letter, which you just addressed, to me, in which you tell me your intentions concerning the episcopal consecration of a member of the Society on June 30th next.

Since these intentions are in sharp contrast with what has been accepted during our dialogue on May 4th, and which has been signed in the Protocol yesterday, I wish to inform you that the release of the press communiqué has to be deferred.

I earnestly wish that you reconsider your position in conformity with the results of the dialogue, so that the communiqué may be released.

In this hope, please, Excellency

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

In the evening of May 6, he took Lefebvre's letter to Pope John Paul in the Apostolic Palace.

The Archbishop returned promptly to Ecône and, on May 10, assembled most of his priests in Europe at Saint-Nicolas du Chardonnet (Paris), and explained the situation as it stood then:

Fr. [Emmanuel] du Chalard brought [Cardinal Ratzinger's] letter to me at Ecône on Sunday morning. I said to him, "Tell the Secretary of the Cardinal that for me the whole thing is finished. I am not changing the date of June 30th. It is the final date. I feel my strength diminishing. I even have a difficulty in traveling by car. I think it would be to put in danger the continuation of the Society and the seminaries if I do not perform these consecrations." I think they will agree to that date. They are too anxious for this reconciliation.

Tissier de Mallerais describes the frantic events of late May 1988:

On May 17, Ratzinger wrote to Lefebvre: a letter to the Holy Father "humbly requesting" reconciliation and forgiveness would be welcome: the request for a bishop from the Fraternity could be raised "without demanding any date". ... Not only did [Lefebvre] underline that June 30 was for him the deadline to assure "his succession", but he also considered it necessary to have several bishops. On May 23, he left for Rome. ...

In Rome, on May 24, the Archbishop gave the Cardinal his final request: "Before June 1, let me know the Holy See's intentions as regards the consecration of three bishops planned for June 30 ... . As I wrote to the Pope, one bishop alone will not be enough for the apostolate." ... John Paul II replied through the Cardinal on May 30: ... as for the bishops, "the Holy Father is ready to appoint a bishop from the Fraternity ... such that the consecration could take place before August 15."

Contacted, the Superior General of the Fraternity, Father Franz Schmidberger, who was in America, came to Rome. At the same day, May 30, at the Fraternity priory of Notre Dame du Pointet (at Broût-Vernet, near Vichy), Lefebvre assembled representatives of the Fraternity and of all friendly communities which would be affected by his decision, including Dom Gérard Calvet of Le Barroux and several sisters. Many of those present favored the agreement, but there seemed to be a majority against it. On the Feast of Corpus Christi, June 2, Lefebvre wrote his final letter to the Pope:

June 2, 1988

Most Holy Father,

The conversations and meetings with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, persuaded us that the moment for a frank and efficacious collaboration between us has not yet arrived.

For indeed, if the ordinary Christian is authorized to ask the competent Church authorities to preserve for him the Faith of his Baptism, how much more true is that for priests, religious, and nuns?

It is to keep the Faith of our Baptism intact that we have had to resist the spirit of Vatican II and the reforms inspired by it.

The false ecumenism, which is at the origin of all the Council's innovations in the liturgy, in the new relationship between the Church and the world, in the conception of the Church itself, is leading the Church to its ruin and Catholics to apostasy.

Being radically opposed to this destruction of our Faith and determined to remain within the traditional doctrine and discipline of the Church, especially as far as the formation of priests and the religious life is concerned, we find ourselves in the absolute necessity of having ecclesiastical authorities who embrace our concerns and will help us to protect ourselves against the spirit of Vatican II and the spirit of Assisi.

That is why we are asking for several bishops chosen from within Catholic Tradition, and for a majority of the members on the projected Roman Commission for Tradition, in order to protect ourselves against all compromise.

Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition. That is why we shall give ourselves the means to carry on the work which Providence has entrusted to us, being assured by His Eminence Cardinal Ratzinger's letter of May 30th that the episcopal consecration is not contrary to the will of the Holy See, since it was granted for August 15th.

We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its two-thousand-year-old tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.

Be so good, Most Holy Father, as to accept the expression of my most respectful and filially devoted sentiments in Jesus and Mary.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

On June 9, John Paul wrote to him and called his plan "a schismatic act". The Cardinal's secretary met with the Archbishop in Ecône the next day: the long meeting was fruitless. On June 13, Lefebvre had settled on the names of the four priests he would consecrate on June 30: Bernard Fellay (General Bursar of the Fraternity), Alfonso de Galarreta (Superior of the South American District), Bernard Tissier de Mallerais (Secretary General of the Fraternity and who had favored the agreement at the Notre-Dame du Pointet meeting), and Richard Williamson (Rector of the North American Seminary).

On June 15, the Archbishop held a press conference in Ecône announcing the June 30 consecrations - and the news, hidden from public eyes since early May, spread fast. All major newspapers included the breathtaking announcement on June 16, including The Washington Post:

Lefebvre to Name Renegade Bishops

Maverick Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre announced yesterday that he will consecrate four of his followers as bishops June 30 without papal authority, threatening the first split in the Roman Catholic Church in 118 years. The 82-year-old traditionalist archbishop said he can "no longer trust Rome."

Bishop Henry Schwery, president of the Swiss Conference of Bishops, has said such a breach of discipline would formalize a schism.

The very next day, Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, sent a canonical Monition (French translation):

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.

On June 25, Lefebvre welcomed the Bishop Emeritus of Campos, Brazil, Antonio de Castro Mayer, who had been invited by him to be the co-consecrator. On the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul, June 29, 1988, Lefebvre celebrated the regularly scheduled priestly ordinations; on the preceding afternoon, in Rome, during the secret consistory for the creation of Cardinals, Pope John Paul declared in his address:

We are extremely afflicted by the news, already very much known by all of you, that one of our brothers in the episcopacy, after several such years in which he had denied due obedience to the Holy See and, affected by the penalty of suspension, seemed about to ask for an agreement, will soon move forward with the ordination of Bishops without Apostolic Mandate, and will thus break with the unity of the Church, leading not a few of his followers into a dangerous situation of schism. Because it now seems that neither the will nor the purpose of this our brother may be reversed anymore, we can do no other than invoke the goodness of our Savior, so that he may enlighten those who, while affirming having to defend the true doctrine of the faith against its deformations, abandon communion with the Successor of Peter and are ready to separate from the unity of the flock of Christ, entrusted to the Apostle Peter. We ask him and exhort him with all our heart to remain in the house of the Father and to understand that every truth of faith and every correct mode of life find their place in the Church and that nothing remains standing in it which is contrary to faith.

Meanwhile, in Ecône, all was ready for the event of Thursday, June 30, 1988.

___________________
To be continued.

20 years on: Reliving the Events of 1988Part II: The Protocol is signed

Part I: July 1987 - February 1988

By the end of March 1988, the rumors regarding a possible reconciliation of the movement led by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Pope John Paul II reached feverish levels in Rome and around the world.

In early April, after nine months of talks, the Pope publicly charged the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to negotiate the terms of reconciliation. As The New York Times reported on April 9:

Pope John Paul II today personally stepped into a dispute with one of his severest critics, urging Vatican officials to heal a rift with the ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre of France.

Six months after the Vatican began negotiations aimed at reinstating the rebel Archbishop, John Paul issued an unusual public statement voicing ''my desire that these efforts should continue.'' The statement was in the form of a letter to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is in charge of the talks.

The letter displayed the public will of the Pope to reach an agreement with Archbishop Lefebvre:

The necessity to distinguish that which authentically "edifies" the Church from what destroys it becomes, in this period [after the Council] a particular need of our service regarding the whole community of the faithful.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has, in the field of this ministry, a key role, as the documents on matters of faith and morals which your Dicastery has published in the last few years have been showing. Among the themes of which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had to deal in recent times are included the problems related to the "Fraternité of Pius X", founded and guided by Archbishop M. Lefebvre.

Your Eminence is very aware of how many efforts the Apostolic See has made, from the beginning of the existence of the "Fraternité", to ensure ecclesial unity in relation to its activity. The last of such efforts was the canonical visit made by Cardinal E. Gagnon. You, Lord Cardinal, have occupied yourself with this affair in a particular way, as also your Predecessor of venerable memory, Cardinal F. Šeper. All that which the Apostolic See, which is in constant contact with the interested Bishops and Conference, does aims at the same end: that also in this case the words pronounced by the Lord in the priestly prayer, for the unity of all His disciples and followers, may be fulfilled. ...

For all this, I wish to confirm to you, Lord Cardinal, my desire that such efforts may proceed: we do not cease to wait that - under the protection of the Mother of the Church - they may wield fruits for the glory of God and for the salvation of men.

In fraternal charity.

From the Vatican, April 8, in the year 1988, tenth of the Pontificate

IOANNES PAULUS PP. II

A letter from Cardinal Ratzinger to Archbishop Lefebvre had also been sent on March 18, asking for the appointment of two experts by the Archbishop which could meet in Rome in early April.

Three days after the Papal letter was made public, the informal commission met in Rome: Fathers Patrice Laroche and Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, chosen by Lefebvre, and Fathers Tarcisio Bertone, SDB, and Fernando Ocariz (Opus Dei), chosen by the Cardinal, with Father Benoît Duroux, OP, as moderator and under the chairmanship of Ratzinger himself.

As Lefebvre's biographer and member of the commission, future Bishop Tissier de Mallerais, recalls:

"The meeting, held on April 12 and 13 near the Holy Office, led to a declaration in five points. After adding a few corrections on May 4, Archbishop Lefebvre would decide that he could sign it, since it allowed him to speak about 'certain points of the Council and the reform of the liturgy and Canon Law that seem to him difficult to reconcile with Tradition'."

This text was the famous Protocol of May 5, 1988 (full text), of which two points were particularly important.

First, the "Roman Commission":

"A commission to coordinate relations with the different Dicasteries and diocesan bishops, as well as to resolve eventual problems and disputes, will be constituted through the care of the Holy See, and will be empowered with the necessary faculties to deal with the questions indicated above (for example, implantation of a place of worship, at the request of the faithful, where there is no house of the Society, ad mentem can. 683, par. 2)"

Secondly, the very important matter of the consecration of a bishop, chosen by the Pope from members of the society presented by Archbishop Lefebvre:

"But, for practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society as a bishop seems useful. This is why, in the context of the doctrinal and canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name a bishop chosen from among the members of the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre"

The "grave matter of Archbishop M. Lefebvre" seemed to be approaching a new phase as the skies over Rome darkened on the evening of May 5, 1988.

___________________
To be continued.

40 years ago... A very influential real estate deal

Exactly 40 years ago, on April 11, 1968, a Swiss entrepreneur, Alphonse Pedroni, was visiting the hamlet of Ecône, in the Valais. In a local café, he overheard a loud customer boasting of his future job: demolishing the chapel at the large Ecône estate which belonged to one of the great religious houses in Europe, the Great Saint Bernard - whose main house is located in the nearby border with Italy.

Pedroni soon learned that the estate was up for sale - in fact, the contract which would transfer ownership to a non-religious entity was almost signed. Shocked with the possibility that the great buildings of the estate could soon lose their religious significance, Pedroni contacted his brother, Marcel, and three acquaintances: Gratien Rausis, Guy Genoud, and Roger Lovey, Attorney-General (Procureur-général) of the Bas-Valais region - and cousin of the provost of the Great Saint Bernard.

By April 19, the group of friends had convinced the Chapter of the Great Saint Bernard to sell them the Ecône estate, at the price of 410,000 Swiss Francs, with a 150,000 down payment. The ownership would be transferred on May 31, 1968 - the day after half a million violent protesters crossed Paris in one of the most disturbing days of that troublesome year.

Soon came the time to choose the religious group which should guard the religious nature of the estate. In the following year, after nearly granting the use of the property to a group of women religious, the Pedroni brothers, Rausis, Lovey, and Genoud had a meeting with the former Archbishop of Dakar, a Frenchman called Marcel Lefebvre, who had resigned from his position as Superior-General of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit in October 1968. They would soon choose to grant him the use of their property, with the agreement of Bishop Nestor Adam, of the local Diocese of Sion...

_________________
More information in the April/May 2008 issue of Le Rocher.
Tip: Le Forum Catholique

20 years on: Reliving the Events of 1988 Part I

The agitation in the Vatican halls had begun in early July, 1987, as reports arrived of the clear words of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in his sermon in the Mass of priestly ordinations celebrated in Ecône on July 29, 1987. The first reference was to the Assisi meeting of religious leaders a few months earlier - a event which to this day still mesmerizes Traditional Catholics. Lefebvre declared:

Never has history seen the Pope turning himself into some kind of guardian of the pantheon of all religions, as I have brought it to mind, making himself the pontiff of liberalism.

Let anyone tell me whether such a situation has ever existed in the Church. What should we do in the face of such a reality? Weep, without a doubt. Oh, we mourn and our heart is broken and sorrowful. We would give our life, our blood, for the situation to change. But the situation is such, the work which the Good Lord has put into our hands is such, that in face of this darkness of Rome, this stubbornness of the Roman authorities in their error, this refusal to return to the Truth and to Tradition, it seems to me that the Good Lord is asking that the Church continue. This is why it is likely that I should, before rendering an account of my life to the Good Lord, perform some episcopal consecrations.

Secret negotiations ensued. The October 18, 1987 edition of the New York Times included the great piece of Vatican news of the previous day:

The Vatican announced plans today to restore legal standing to a rebel French Archbishop and his outlawed following of traditionalist priests, in a move to mend fences with one of its most vociferous critics. The French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who rejects the changes of the Second Vatican Council and who has accused Pope John Paul II of ''blasphemy,'' spent an hour this morning with the Pope's primary exponent of orthodoxy, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. Afterwards the Vatican issued a statement saying John Paul would appoint a personal representative to investigate the Archbishop's priestly order and establish new regulations for it.
...
A senior Vatican official said: ''I do not think that anyone is going to ask the Archbishop to sign a piece of paper saying he accepts all the documents of the Vatican Council, but if things proceed, it is because he is not out there saying what he has been saying until now.'' Before full acceptance and a new legal status can be granted to the Archbishop's priests, the Vatican must determine whether they fully understand and accept church teachings as defined in Rome, the official said. This in turn may depend on the Archbishop's willingness to call on his flock to obey the Vatican, an institution he has described as dominated by a ''liberal-Masonic mafia.''

The personal representative chosen by Pope John Paul was Cardinal Édouard Gagnon. This Apostolic Visitation to the houses of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X ( FSSPX/SSPX ) started on November 11, 1987, and lasted a whole month. The SSPX reported at the time:

The visit started on November 11, at Ecône, and lasted for a whole month. Then Msgr. Perl went to our school in Eguelshardt, our priory in Saarbrucken, the Carmel in Quiévrain. On Saturday, November 21, he came to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet in Paris, and the Cardinal arrived the next day, though intentionally after the Mass; then together they visited the French Youth Group, (MJCF), our University (Institut Universitaire Saint Pie X), and met a large group of traditional priests of the region in Paris. On November 24, they arrived at our school in St. Michel of Niherne, then the Mother House of our Sisters at St. Michel en Brenne, and the nearby Carmel at Ruffec, the Fraternity of the Transfiguration of Fr. Lecareux. At Poitiers, he took part in a meeting with many traditional priests of the area, including Fr. Reynaud (the first chaplain of the MJCF), Fr. André (of the Association Noël Pinot), Fr. Coache, the Dominican foundation of Avrillé, the Benedictine foundation of nuns at Le Rafflay, the Little Sisters of St. Francis, etc. After this, they visited our retreat house at Le Pointet, our priory and school at Unieux, the Benedictine Monastery of Le Barroux, the Dominican school at St. Pré (Brignoles), and the other Dominican novitiate and school at Fanjeaux, our school at St. Joseph des Carmes, our church at Marseilles, our priory at Lyons and our main European publishing house (Fideliter). Then another priestly meeting at Dijon, the Dominican school of Pouilly, the seminary of the Holy Curé of Ars, and returned to Ecône for the Feast of the Immaculate Conception.

On the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, 1987, as the visit drew to a close, Cardinal Gagnon could relate his positive impressions to the then-Superior General, Father Schmidberger:

...I want to say that we have been struck everywhere by and keep a great admiration for the piety of the persons, for the relevance and importance of the works, especially with regards to catechesis, education, and the administration of the sacraments. We certainly have in hand all that is necessary to make a very positive report.

Father Schmidberger addressed the entire Society with a letter filled with hope signed on that day:

According to his [Cardinal Gagnon's] own words, he has gathered an excellent impression of the seminaries, schools, priories, and friendly religious communities, as well as of the faithful who gather themselves around all these houses. We must now, in the weeks and months to come, accompany his efforts with our fervent prayers.

Rome did not respond officially for months. Exactly 20 years ago, in January 1988, Pope John Paul received Gagnon's report. Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, one of the priests who would be consecrated in June, recalls the rapid succession of events in his biography of Marcel Lefebvre:

By January 5, 1988, his Eminence's report was on the desk of the Pope, who read it immediately. (...) [Lefebvre] had already indicated to Cardinal Gagnon his three "demands": to guarantee independence from the diocesan bishops, the Society should have the Superior General as its Ordinary; there should be a Roman commission chaired by a Cardinal but all its members, including the Archbishop-Secretary General, must be nominated by the Superior General; finally, there should be three bishops including the Superior General himself [Proposal for regularization, annex to a letter to Cardinal Gagnon, dated Nov. 21, 1987.]

After one month of official Roman silence, on February 2, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre would once again raise the issue which had caused the Vatican to act in the previous year. In an interview to the French paper Le Figaro (published on February 4, 1988), Lefebvre would state that, if things remained the same, he would be forced to consecrate Bishops to ensure apostolic succession to the Priestly Fraternity.

In the interview, Lefebvre established a date (the following June 30) and a number of priests who would be made bishops (three).

___________________
To be continued.