Click here to load reader
Upload
stephan-wozniak
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Letter to Archbishop LefebvreM.L. Guerard des Lauriers, O.P.
Archbishop,
You were clear in your letter about the outlines of a protocol of agreement betweenEcône and Rome: Ecône, which up until now we support; Rome, which we resist, just asyou do.
The loyalty demanded by the service of the Truth obliges us to declare: We do not wantthis peace. It appears to be wise. It is, indeed, no more wise than Pilate pretended to be.Jesus was delivered to Pilate because He was accused of saying: “I am the King of theJews” (John 19:21), whereas the Jews claimed to “have no other king than Cesar” (John19: 15).
In reality, Jesus was not brought before Pilate for a royalty “whose origin is not of thisworld” (John 18: 36). And Jesus did not mean to die to conserve anything. He did notmean to die for anything except to “give testimony to the Truth” (John 14:6); regardless ofappearances, it was Pilate who depended on Jesus rather than Jesus on Pilate. YourExcellency, you submit the Mass to the Pope because it disturbs the celebration of the“new mass” (as Paul VI called it), just as Jesus disturbed the Pharisaic order “by teachingthroughout all Judea” (Luke 23:5).
IN REALITY, THE MASS SHOULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE POPE, since the Pope must respectit. We want, with God’s grace, to testify to the Truth; we do not want a peace that“diminishes the Truth” (Psalm 11:2).
Pilate resorts to expedients to save Jesus. He fails. Thrice he fails, in order to accentuate ina providential way that it is not possible to give testimony to the Truth unless one is inabsolute accord with the Truth. Pilate thinks he can save Christ by having recourse toHerod. He is doubly fooled: by expecting Jesus to be saved by those who want His deathand by “becoming the friend of Herod” (Luke 23: 12). It is a false unity, since it is a unityagainst the One who is the Truth.
Your Excellency, you have recourse to the Pope to conserve the Mass. And you admit thatthere can be in the Church inevitably in the same Church the Mass that is THE MASSand the “new mass.” And you believe that “unity would be restored immediately at thelevel of the local Bishops.”
Thus, the unity of the Church would no longer be the radiation of the unique Sacrifice“that Christ commanded from His beloved Spouse”! The unity would no longer be that of“the heavenly Jerusalem that is free and is our mother” (Gal 4: 26). Unity would find itselfdegraded into a juxtaposition made under the iron fist of an unconditional authority. This isa parody of unity! It is a sacrilege against unity! Archbishop, we do not want this peace orthis unity, which would be against the Truth, against the sanctity of the Church, against theLiberty that comes only from the Spirit of Truth. To “save” Jesus, Pilate put Him on par withBarabbas (Marl 15: 9). How could Pilate, mocking the Justice that he should represent,imagine that a changeable mob would impose justice on their [Pharisee] leaders? Pilatecould only wash his hands (Mat 27: 24).
Your Excellency, in order to save the Mass that is the Mass, you put it on par with the “newmass,” in the name of the Religion that you profess. How can you imagine that, instructedby your example, those unstable and weak people who follow you rather than the Truth
could restore the sense of the true Religion in a Church occupied by the “high priests” ofthe god of the Universe? One cannot sit at the same table with Satan. It is Hell that ispaved with these good intentions that justify the means by their end, perpetrating amanifest evil under the illusion of doing a good.
Your Excellency, we do not want this peace that sacrifices the demands of the Religion of“Spirit and Truth” (John 4: 23) for the passing satisfaction of a selfish tranquility. Pilate“found nothing in Jesus that merited death” (Luke 23: 15). It was, however, “by chastisingJesus” (Luke 23: 16), that Pilate thought to buy from the Jews the release of their Prisoner.The public order is worth it isn’t it? Some lashes of the whip, even if they are unjust. ButPilate fails. The only result is that the Flesh of the Incarnate Word is scourged, His Bloodflows, He Himself is humiliated.
Your Excellency, if there were to be in the Church God forbid as you desire the Massthat is THE MASS and the “new mass,” the shrewd polls made about [the preferences of]the “people of God,” duly manipulated, would transform the Mass of the minority into amockery. The only result would be that the broad sacrilegious practice [of theConsecrations in the “new mass”], but actually deprived of object [because theseConsecrations actually do not take place], would have all their blasphemous characternow effective against the [true] Real Presence. Have you considered this? Should theprice of this false security, founded on the illusion of an unconditional submission to thosewho did all they could to destroy the Church, be to inflict on the Crucified Christ the blowsof the most insolent flagellation ever?
Your Excellency, we do not want this peace that would be laden with so many sins. It fallsto us, to us and not to the Crucified Christ, “to complete” [by this accord] what would belacking in this flagellation without us. Archbishop, your protocol of peace gives the finalblow to a trust that we no longer can have in you, regarding both the question of theMass and that of “authority.”
You have celebrated the “new mass” since the beginning of April 1969 until December 24,1970.
On May 5, 1969, some friends who venerated you, including the one who signs these lines,had come to assist at the Mass that you would celebrate at the altar where the bones ofSt. Pius V repose at the Roman Basilica of Saint Mary Major. Astonishment, scandal, sorrow!Over the tomb of St. Pius V, it was the “new mass” that you celebrated! Upon leaving,pressured in the square by respectful and sad questions, you declared: “If someone wereto see Archbishop Lefebvre celebrating the traditional Mass, it would risk raising scandal.”
To those same friends, who, encouraged by you, were working to write the text thatbecame the Letter of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, you gave comforting assurances:“We will have 600 Bishops [to sign this letter].” This would be enough to move the Pope!Instead, there was not one single Bishop, not even yourself.
As a matter of fact, you were more concerned about “not giving scandal” than aboutdefending the Truth. We fear that your letter n. 16 [to friends and benefactors] reveals thatyou did not change.
You continued to celebrate the “new mass” both at Fribourg and Ecône. The first hopes,nonetheless, started to appear: Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Paul Aulagnier, Bernard Waltz,and three others. On December 24, 1969, at the end of the noon meal, the Dominicanpriest who signs these lines, then staying at Ecône, with respectful irony said this to you:
“Monsignor, it is a pity that, while supporting Tradition, you celebrate the ‘new mass,’which is not the Mass of the Tradition.” This simple observation literally set fire to thegunpowder. The “six,” all your living hope, exploded. Each one in his way and all togetherposed the same question to you: How is it possible to base fidelity to Tradition upon a“mass” that was “innovated” against Tradition? That incident was very vehement and, bythe way, quickly closed. Still, be it by some coincidence due to the action of the HolyGhost along with an interior movement on your part, the fact is that on December 24,1970 at the midnight Mass, you returned to saying the Mass according to rite promulgatedby St. Pius V, to the great joy of all present.
Probably you followed the Holy Ghost. But, alas, everything has happened as if you werefollowing your grassroots. Thenceforth you have followed the same tactic. If you would nothave supported the Traditional Mass, the seminary of Ecône would have been deprived ofits end, and those who supported you would have felt the obligation to abandon you.
Nonetheless, you have never made a serious doctrinal study of the “new mass.” You affirmit is valid without justifying it. And you have issued “norms” [on how to behave regarding it]from which many of the faithful, or even Ecône seminarians, can deduce whatever theywant. And now all this is unhappily too coherent you admit that the Mass and the masscan exist together in the Church. This is “ecumenism” inside the Church, the paroxysm of afalse ecumenism that replaces with a deceitful union the true unity, which is theunconditional submission to the Liberty inspired by the Truth.
In the same way, Your Excellency, you admit that there could be a “traditionalinterpretation of Vatican II,” even after you had written – thanks be to God and to you –the work I accuse the Council.
Why do you refuse to enunciate clearly, on the “authority” the principles that unavoidablyexplain your judicious accusations? Instead, as a supposed counterattack, you imitatethe [blind] false prophets who “lead each other into the pit” (Matt 15:14), by announcinga false peace followed by a false prosperity! We must either speak or be silent. But wecannot not proclaim the error and silence the truth. It is with profound sorrow, believe meYour Excellency, that we are obliged in conscience to remind you of this.
We can no longer trust you. We are not “against you,” we are still “for you,” but we can nolonger “be with you.” You count on saving everything through the SSPX; the wholeChurch, certainly, will be thankful to you for what you have done. But, Your Excellency,you promise too much to be true. Do you remember the promise of the 600 Bishops thatnever materialized? Remember that when on that “May 5, 1975 you acted firmly nomatter what [against Rome],” it was because you opposed those whom today you thinkyou can trust, those whose victim you have become since you are following them.
Your Excellency, we can no longer “be with you.” We are only “unconditional” withregard to the Truth!
Holy Thursday April 12, 1979 M.L. Guérard des Lauriers, O.P.