Abp. Lefebvre and the 'heretics can't excommunicate' argument
Just before the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre himself presented the argument which we have been proposing this week.
Just before the 1988 episcopal consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre himself presented the argument which we have been proposing this week.
Editors’ Notes
Yesterday, we shared the letter from SSPX Superior General Fr Davide Pagliarani, responding to the Vatican decree declaring excommunications and schism against the Society. That article also included a republication of the Open Letter of the SSPX District Superiors, dated 6 July 1988.
This present article is a new translation of a press conference given by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, on 15 June 1988 – two weeks before the famous episcopal consecrations. In the conference, he discusses the imminent prospect of excommunications and declarations of schism – and why he is unafraid of such measures:
The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?
Bon. Excommunication by whom?
By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.
One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.
So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.
Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.
Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.
Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.
Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.
The explanation is the very same argument I have been advancing over the last week – and has nothing to do with “grave fear” or canonical loopholes. It is also completely clear: the problem is on the side of the Vatican. While we might have wished that the Archbishop had simply stated the illegitimacy of its occupants, he certainly stated the principle which we have been defending, and he was certainly the one on the offensive.1
The argument in question, which is based on sound Catholic authorities, states:
That heretics, excommunicates, and those who preach heresy, are unable to excommunicate.
By analogy and for the same reasons, such persons are also unable to issue declaratory sentences of automatic excommunications, or to designate organisations as schismatic sects (such that others incur automatic excommunications by involvement with them).
The practical conclusion for our day is that Leo XIV's and his officers cannot excommunicate, issue declaratory sentences, or condemn groups as schismatic sects, and that their attempts to do so should be disregarded.
(Whether or not the consecrations were justified is a separate question, as are the related questions of whether the six men involved incurred automatic excommunications, and, if so, how these undeclared excommunications should be treated by Catholics.)
The passage above represents the principal reason for sharing the text; however, the conference contains many other points of interest, and we prefer to give readers the full context for such passages. The conference also sheds further light on the relations between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican – and the various responses to Cardinal Fernández’s 2 July 2026 decree of excommunication.
Why the ‘heretics can’t excommunicate’ argument is important
As stated, I have been repeatedly explaining that heretics are unable to excommunicate. As Pope St Celestine said, “those already prostrate [cannot] cast down anyone else”. “From the moment” which such persons begin preaching and exteriorising heresy (as opposed to misspeaking, or speaking under correction) they are unable to excommunicate anyone else. However this is to be explained (e.g., loss of office, automatic excommunication, etc), this inability is the primary fact.
There is a temptation, when dealing with situations like this, for Catholics to adopt a legalistic mentality and search for canonical technicalities – forgetting two key points.
First, few people are convinced by such arguments. Generally they only convince those who want to be convinced; they are also complicated and uncertain. Even if these arguments held, the presumption is in favour of the superior. If, as many hold, Leo XIV is the true Pope, and his officers hold authority, then they enjoy the benefit of the doubt.
Second, and building on the first, such arguments ultimately do not matter. Consider the following from Pope Pius IX in Quartus Supra:
“For any man to be able to prove his Catholic faith and affirm that he is truly a Catholic, he must be able to convince the Apostolic See of this. For this See is predominant and with it the faithful of the whole Church should agree. And the man who abandons the See of Peter can only be falsely confident that he is in the Church.”
“All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.”
“Most men feel that the Church’s supreme head and shepherd should decide who are Catholics and who are not.”
If the Roman Pontiff, or those whom he delegates to act on his behalf, declares that a man or group is excommunicated, or in schism, and sets up legal machinery reflective of this for the rest of those subject to him, then such legalistic arguments are to no avail.
I have also already explained here why it is that unjust excommunications are not wihtout effect – and for the same reasons, even unjust or invalid declarations by legitimate authority also have real consequences, and (all things being equal) must be observed until they are repealed. This is not the case for those excommunicated by heretics, as is clear from the authorities cited in the full explanations:
Can heretics excommunicate? Foundational canonical text says they cannot
‘Audivimus’, ‘Achatius’ and Causa XXIV: Heretics Excommunicating Catholics
Church teaching says you can’t be excommunicated by a heretic
Heretics REALLY can’t excommunicate: More clarifications in light of SSPX excommunications
For these reasons, all the legal loopholes in the world would remain insufficient, and unconvincing to most men. By contrast, this simple, straightforward argument – based on unimpeachable authorities, and expressed by Archbishop Lefebvre himself – is manifestly sufficient to explain why the Vatican’s interventions are without force, and why they should be disregarded (viz. not observed).
Therefore, anyone who considers Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and all the rest to be manifest departures from the faith has no reason to be scrupulous about this; and scrupulous is precisely what such anxieties are. It is irrational to condemn the heretical teaching and laws of the Conciliar/Synodal Church on the one hand, and then on the other hand respect the excommunications and sanctions of its teachers and legislators.
S.D. Wright
This conference is shared for its historical interest, and for Archbishop Lefebvre’s expression of the argument in question. The WM Review does not adhere to all the views expressed in it; principally, the editors firmly hold that the Holy See has been vacant since at least 1965.
You can see our reflections on the reasons for sharing texts from Archbishop Lefebvre below:
Press Conference, 15 June 1988
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Delivered at Écône, Switzerland.
Some headings and line breaks added for ease of reading online.
Full conference (audio only):
Introduction
We have taken the liberty of inviting you, as we did thirteen years ago now, in 1975, at the time of the difficult events between Rome and Écône which struck us. We are once again, one might say, in a hot summer.
Before coming directly to the events of these past few days and the days ahead, I should like first to give you a brief account, so that you may better understand the situation, and so that in the reports you write in the newspapers you may produce, as far as possible, objective accounts.
The events taking place today and those which will take place tomorrow – particularly the episcopal consecration of four young bishops on the 30th of June – must be placed in the context of our difficulties with Rome, not only since 1970, since the foundation of Écône, but since the Council.
The Council as the root of it all
At the Council, I myself and a certain number of bishops fought against modernism and against the errors which we considered inadmissible and incompatible with the Catholic faith. The fundamental problem is precisely that. It is a formal, profound, radical opposition to the modern and modernist ideas which passed through the Council.
You will say to me: but what do you mean by that? Well, I shall cite for you some of the subjects of this modernism. They are, for example, the acceptance of the Rights of Man of 1789.
It is the equal right in civil society of all religions – that is to say, the principle of the secularity of the State.
It is ecumenism, or the association of all religions. It is Assisi; it is Kyoto; it is the visits to the Synagogue, to the Protestant Temple; and within the Church, it is collegiality, with the synods, the episcopal conferences, the change of the liturgy, the change of catechesis, the increase of lay and female participation in religious affairs. You have spoken of these things in your newspapers; you know them well, since all of this appeared on the occasion of the Roman synods. It is the negation of the Church’s past. There is a battle being waged within the Church to make the past disappear – the tradition of the Church. This continual persecution against those who wish to remain Catholic, as the popes were before Vatican II. That is our position. We continue what the popes taught and did before Vatican II. We oppose what Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II have done, because they have accomplished a rupture with their predecessors. We prefer the tradition of the Church to the work of a few rare popes who set themselves against their predecessors.
Nevertheless, we wished to maintain contact with Rome throughout these years, since 1976, when we received the suspensio a divinis, because we continued to perform priestly ordinations. We wished to maintain contact with Rome, hoping that Tradition would one day recover its rights. But it was labour lost.
Requests for bishops
Faced with Rome’s refusal to take into consideration our protests and our requests for a return to Tradition, and faced with my age – for I am now eighty-two years old, I am in my eighty-third year, and it is evident that I feel the end approaching – I need a successor. I cannot leave five seminaries across the world without a bishop to ordain these seminarians, since one cannot make priests without a bishop. And as long as there is no agreement with Rome, there will be no bishops willing to perform ordinations. I therefore find myself in an absolute impasse, and I have a choice to make: either die and leave my seminarians in this state of abandonment, leave my seminarians orphaned, or else make bishops. I have no choice.
So I asked Rome several times: let me make bishops; allow me to have successors. That is why, on the 29th of June last (1987), I made a clear allusion in my sermon here at Écône, on the occasion of the ordination of seminarians. I said: I am going to perform episcopal consecrations, since Rome will not listen to me, will not hear us, and abandons us. I see myself obliged to provide myself with successors. Consequently, on the 25th of October next, I shall consecrate bishops for my succession.
Great consternation at Rome!
It was from this declaration that Rome was profoundly stirred, and that I received a letter on the 28th of July, after having met Cardinal Ratzinger on the 14th of July, to whom I said:
“Either Rome grants me permission to make bishops, or I do it myself.”
In his letter of the 28th of July, Cardinal Ratzinger replied to me:
“As regards bishops, you must wait until your Society is recognised. As for the rest, we can perhaps make concessions to you on the liturgy, on the existence of your seminaries, and then, at a pinch, send you a visitor.”
I had indeed asked for a visitation, so that we might be known, since they did not know us – they never came to see us. There was therefore an opening on the part of Rome at that moment.
How the discussions proceeded
I confess that I hesitated a great deal. Should I accept this opening, or should I refuse it? I very much wanted to refuse it, because I have no confidence whatsoever in these Roman authorities – I must say so plainly – for their ideas are completely opposed to ours. We are not at all on the same wavelength, and I therefore had no confidence.
We had always been persecuted. It was still the time of Port-Marly, of the persecution of Fr Lecareux for his parishes, approved by Rome moreover, the bishops being approved by Rome. All of this inspired in us no confidence at all in placing ourselves in the hands of Rome – of a Rome which was fighting Tradition.
Nevertheless, we wished to make an effort: let us try; we shall sound out what Rome’s dispositions towards us will be. It was in this spirit that I went to Rome, and that we then received the visitation of Cardinal Gagnon. It seems that this visitation was favourable. I confess that I know nothing of it, since I have not had a single word about the result of this visitation, which took place seven months ago. I said as much to Cardinal Ratzinger: it is inadmissible. A visitation is conducted in order to find out whether we are doing well, whether we are doing badly, whether there are reproaches to be made to us, whether there are compliments to be paid us – and they tell us nothing. I learnt nothing from the visitation of the two Belgian prelates in 1974, who came here to visit the seminary fourteen years ago now. I have never received a single line telling me what the result of that visitation was.
So Cardinal Gagnon came, and then afterwards they proposed colloquia to us, to draw up a protocol preparing an agreement intended to establish the institutions which would have governed tradition. We therefore had these colloquia. I confess that I should very much have liked to take part myself in the first of the colloquia, but they preferred that I not be there, and that I designate a theologian and a canonist. This I did. I designated Fr Tissier de Mallerais and Fr Laroche to go to Rome to confer with representatives of Cardinal Ratzinger. They were three: a theologian, a canonist, and Father Duroux, who chaired the meeting.
A first draft was finalised after forty-eight hours, settling the doctrinal questions and the disciplinary questions. We were surprised to see that they wished to have us sign a doctrinal text. Given the opening which Cardinal Ratzinger had manifested by his letter of the 28th of July the previous year, there was no longer any question of doctrinal problems. We were therefore somewhat surprised that they should put before our eyes again what had been the object of a misunderstanding for fifteen years. We had been in opposition on doctrinal questions precisely.
But since Article 3 of the doctrinal portion of the protocol assured that we could acknowledge that there were points in the Council, in the liturgy, and in the Code of Canon Law which were not perfectly reconcilable with Tradition, that gave us satisfaction. In a manner, they were giving us satisfaction on those points. It allowed us to discuss points in the Council, in the liturgy, and in the Code of Canon Law. That is what enabled us to sign this doctrinal protocol; without that, we should not have signed it.
And then came the disciplinary questions. There was above all the question of the bishop, and that of a bureau in Rome – a bureau in which Rome would have had five members and we only two. This did not please us much. We discussed the matter because we found that we were truly put in a minority on this Roman bureau. But on the other hand, to a certain degree, we were exempt from the jurisdiction of the bishops.
The second meeting – and the accord
In the course of a second meeting, this time with Cardinal Ratzinger and myself, and with the various theologians and canonists who had already discussed matters amongst themselves, we arrived at a conclusion which was, on paper, acceptable. Cardinal Ratzinger signed first; I signed on the 5th of May, at Albano. The protocol was therefore signed.
The press announced: agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican. It seems that things are being arranged, that everything is going to be settled. Personally, as I told you, I went forward with mistrust. I always felt a sense of mistrust, and I must confess that I always thought that everything they were doing was aimed at reducing us, at getting us to accept the Council and the post-conciliar reforms.
They cannot admit – and moreover the Cardinal said it recently in an interview with a German newspaper:
“We cannot accept that there should be groups, after the Council, which do not admit the Council and the reforms which have been made since the Council. We cannot admit that.”
The Cardinal repeated it several times:
“Your Grace, there is only one Church; there cannot be a parallel Church.”
I said to him:
“Eminence, it is not we who are making a parallel Church, since we continue the Church of all time. It is you who are making a parallel Church, by having invented the Church of the Council – the one which Cardinal Benelli called the conciliar Church. It is you who have invented a new Church, not we. It is you who have made new catechisms, new sacraments, a new Mass, a new liturgy – not we. We continue what was done before. It is not we who are making a new Church.”
We therefore felt, throughout the whole course of these colloquia, a desire, a will to bring us back to the Council.
The real intentions revealed
Very well. Despite everything, I signed; I tried to show good will. But from the very day on which we decided to sign, on the subject of the bishop I asked Cardinal Ratzinger:
“So now, we are going to sign the protocol – could you already give us the date for the consecration of the bishop?”
(It was the 4th of May.)
“You have time between now and the 30th of June to give me the mandate for the bishop. I myself took part in the presentation of bishops when I was Apostolic Delegate, for thirty-seven bishops; I know how it is done.”
I had presented the names. The names were already on the desk at the Vatican – three names: what is called the terna. It is a classical term at Rome for the three names of the bishops who are proposed, and the Holy See chooses from among these three names. I therefore gave three names.
“Between now and the 30th of June, you have time to prepare, to conduct an enquiry, and to give me the mandate.”
“Oh no, no, no – impossible. The 30th of June is impossible. – Then when? The 15th of August? At the end of the Marian Year? – Oh no, no, no, Your Grace. You know very well, on the 15th of August there is no one left in Rome. From the 15th of July to the 15th of September it is the holidays; you must not count on the 15th of August, it is not possible. – Then let us say the 1st of November, All Saints? – Oh, I do not know; I cannot tell you. – By Christmas? – I cannot tell you.”
I said: it is finished; I have understood. They want to lead us on. It is over; it is finished; I no longer have any confidence. I was quite right not to have confidence; they are playing us. I have lost confidence completely. And on that very day, the 5th of May, I wrote a letter to the Pope and a letter to Cardinal Ratzinger, saying: I had hoped to arrive at a result; I believe it is finished. We see very well. There is a will on the part of the Holy See to subject us to its wishes and its orientations. It is pointless to continue. We are utterly opposed to one another.
Great consternation at Rome, of course, at that moment, on the subject of the letter I had written:
“What – you are denouncing the protocol! That is not permitted! It is deplorable!”
Yes, but I can read to you quickly a few extracts from the letter I wrote; it was the 6th of May (see the text of this letter in the documents, together with Cardinal Ratzinger’s reply). Enclosed with the Cardinal’s letter was a draft of a letter to be addressed to the Pope, in which I was to ask forgiveness – not for this, but for everything that had been done during the past thirteen years, for whatever wrongs I might have committed, even in all good faith. It is they who write this for me to sign; it is not I.
“In all good faith one can commit errors. Therefore I humbly beg you to forgive all that, in my conduct or that of the Society, may have offended the Vicar of Christ and the Church.”
All these things which had been dropped – they were putting them before our eyes again. The petty harassments which they put before our eyes showed that there was no good will towards us, and that the sole desire of the Holy See was to bring us back to the Council and to the reforms.
Breaking the news to the Vatican
That is why you have been given the letter which I ultimately wrote to the Pope on the 2nd of June.
“Most Holy Father, the colloquia and discussions with Cardinal Ratzinger and his collaborators, although they took place in an atmosphere of courtesy and charity, have convinced us that the moment for a frank and effective collaboration has not yet arrived…”
… given that the aim of this reconciliation is not at all the same for the Holy See as for us.
I added:
“That is why we shall provide ourselves with the means to pursue the work which Providence has entrusted to us.”
Naturally, alarm at Rome! I then received a letter from the Holy Father, signed by himself, beseeching me to preserve unity – the unity of the Church – not to divide the Church, to remain in fidelity to the Church.
Doctrinal reasons: Different conceptions of truth
But precisely, we are not within the same truth. For them, truth is evolutionary; truth changes with time; and Tradition is Vatican II today.
For us, Tradition is what the Church has taught from the Apostles down to our own day.
For them, no: Tradition is Vatican II, which sums up in itself everything that was said before. The historical circumstances are such that now one must believe what Vatican II has done. What happened before no longer exists. It belongs to the past. That is why the Cardinal does not hesitate to say:
“The Second Vatican Council is an anti-Syllabus.”2
One wonders how a cardinal of the Holy Church can say that the Second Vatican Council is an anti-Syllabus – a very official act of Pope Pius IX in the encyclical Quanta Cura. It is unimaginable.
I said one day to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Eminence, we must choose: either religious liberty as it is in the Council, or the Syllabus of Pius IX. They are contradictory, and one must choose.”
Then he said to me:
“But Your Grace, we are no longer in the time of the Syllabus.”
“Ah!” I said.
“So truth changes with time! Then what you tell me today, tomorrow it will no longer be true. There is no longer any way of reaching an understanding; we are in a continual evolution. It becomes impossible to speak.”
They have this in their minds. He repeated to me:
“There is now only one Church: it is the Church of Vatican II. Vatican II represents Tradition.”
Unfortunately, the Church of Vatican II sets itself against Tradition. It is not the same thing.
So the Pope beseeches me not to shatter the unity of the Church. He threatens me with canonical penalties if I carry out these consecrations on the 30th of June next.
I confess to you that the atmosphere in which the colloquia preceding the drafting of the protocol unfolded, and then the facts which have befallen those who rallied to Rome, give cause for reflection.
The fate reserved for those who rallied
I take the example of Dom Augustin, who has a convent at Flavigny in which there are twenty-four priests whom I myself ordained – Benedictines – and who leaves me and says to me:
“Your Grace, I can no longer remain with you; I am rallying to Rome; I am returning to obedience with Rome; I cannot remain with you.”
Very well. He rallied to Rome with the hope that they would preserve for him the Tradition which he would keep in his monastery – that is to say, the traditional Mass for his monks, for the conventual Mass. Well, Rome required that for the conventual Mass it should be the Mass of the Council, and not the old Mass. Instead of saying to us: you may keep Tradition – they change Tradition.
Let us take a second example: another monastery, Fontgombault. They had accepted, out of obedience, to keep the new Mass for fifteen years, because the bishops had said it was necessary to adopt the new Mass; and they did so. Then comes the indult from Rome: all those who had accepted the new Mass would henceforth be permitted to say the old Mass. This applied perfectly to Fontgombault. Refusal from the Archbishop of Bourges. You cannot say the old Mass for the conventual Mass. You must keep the new Mass – that is how it is. The Abbot of Fontgombault goes to see Monsignor Mayer at the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome, who says to him: “You know, it is difficult; try to see the Pope.” The Pope sends him back to Cardinal Mayer, saying: “Make an effort; perhaps we can arrange something…” Cardinal Mayer ends by sending him back to the Bishop of Bourges, and they still have the new Mass for the conventual Mass.
And yet they perfectly fulfilled the conditions of the indult.
We cannot have confidence; it is not possible. And I shall cite you a final example: an extraordinary example.
The real ‘Naughty Nine’ (not who you think)
You have no doubt heard – and you wrote some articles in the newspapers two years ago – about the defectors from Écône, the famous defectors from Écône! Nine seminarians had left from here, from Écône. The one who was the ringleader, so to speak, of this little rebellion – the abbé – had remained in the seminary for a certain time; he concealed his game well, and managed to persuade eight other seminarians to leave Écône. He put himself in contact with Fr Grégoire Billot, who is here in Switzerland, at Baden; this Fr Billot is himself in contact with Cardinal Ratzinger; he speaks German. He telephoned Cardinal Ratzinger:
“There you are – there are at Écône nine seminarians who are ready to leave. What do you promise them? What do you do with them?”
Oh, it is marvellous! A unique opportunity! If they are promised the earth, there will be others who will come. He said it explicitly. Cardinal Ratzinger said it:
“I am glad that some have left Écône, and I very much hope that others will follow the first.”
You know very well: they set up the famous seminary Mater Ecclesiae, directed by a cardinal – Cardinal Innocenti – with Cardinal Garrone and a third cardinal, Cardinal Ratzinger, approved by the Pope officially in L’Osservatore Romano. A worldwide affair. Every newspaper in the world spoke of this traditional seminary, made with the defectors from Écône, and which would likewise bring together seminarians who had the same sensibility.
They went there, and found themselves perhaps twenty seminarians.
I assure you that it is worth reading the letter which the abbé – who was the instigator of the departure of these seminarians – has just sent us these past few days. He writes: “I regret” – in large letters at the head of his letter.
“I regret. We have lost everything. Not a single promise has been kept. We are wretches. We do not even know where to go any more.”
Well, there you have it, for people who wished to rally to Rome! That is going to be our case. We are more and more convinced of it. The more we reflect upon the atmosphere of these colloquia, the more we realise that we are being led into a trap, that we are being trapped, and that tomorrow they will tell us: henceforth the traditional Mass is finished; you must accept the new Mass as well; you must not be against the new Mass. That, they have told us.
The expectations of Rome
Here is an example which Cardinal Ratzinger gave:
“For instance, at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, Your Grace – when the protocol is signed, when matters are settled, it is evident that Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet is not going to remain as it is now. – Why? – Because Saint-Nicolas is a parish of Paris and falls under Cardinal Lustiger. Consequently, it will be absolutely necessary that in the parish of Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet there be a new Mass regularly, every Sunday. One cannot accept that the parishioners who desire a new Mass should be unable to go to their parish for that new Mass.”
You see! That is the beginning of the introduction: accept the new Mass; bring us into line… It is not possible! We feel ourselves caught in a mechanism from which we can no longer escape.
Inextricable difficulties will arise with the bishops, with the movements of the dioceses which will insist that we collaborate with them if we are recognised by Rome. We shall have every difficulty possible and imaginable. So that is why I think, and it seemed to me in conscience, that I could not continue. I decided… Hence my letter of the 2nd of June to the Holy Father, and the announcement of the consecration of the four bishops, which will take place on the 30th of June.
You have, on a sheet which has been distributed to you, the particulars regarding these future bishops.
What does all this mean? Archbishop Lefebvre on excommunication and schism
The Osservatore Romano will probably publish the excommunication, a declaration of schism, naturally. What does all that mean?
Bon. Excommunication by whom?
By a modernist Rome. By a Rome which no longer fully holds the Catholic faith, which no longer thinks in a Catholic way, which no longer acts in a Catholic way.
One cannot say that when there is a gathering such as Assisi, one is still Catholic. It is not possible. One cannot say that, when there is Kyoto, and the declarations which were made to the Jews at the Synagogue, and the ceremony which took place at Santa Maria in Trastevere last year, no? In the heart of Rome! C’est scandaleux, absolumment scandaleux. It is not Catholic any more.
So we are excommunicated, by the modernists: by the people who have been condemned by the previous popes.
Alors, what could that really do to us? We are condemned by people who are themselves condemned, because they are people who should condemned publicly. Alors, it is indifferent to us. It hasn’t, it has no value, obviously.
Declaration of schism. Schism with what? Schism with the Pope, successor of Peter? Non.
Schism with the modernist Pope? Oui.
Schism with the ideas which the Pope spreads everywhere – the ideas of the Revolution, modern ideas, no? Oui. We are in schism with that. We do not accept it, of course.
We personally have no intention whatsoever of a rupture with Rome. We wish to be united to the Rome of all time, and we are convinced that we are united to the Rome of all time, because in our seminaries, in our preaching, in our whole life and the life of the Christians who follow us, we continue the traditional life as it was before the Second Vatican Council and as it was lived for twenty centuries. So I do not see why we should be in rupture with Rome because we do what Rome herself counselled be done for twenty centuries. That is not possible.
That is the present situation. It must be properly understood, so as not to quibble over it.
The judgment of God
One might think: you had a bishop – that is good. You could have had a few more members on the Roman council.
But that is not what concerns us. It is the fundamental problem which is always behind us and which frightens us. We do not wish to be collaborators in the destruction of the Church. I wrote in my book Open Letter to Perplexed Catholics – I concluded with this:
“I do not want, when the good Lord calls me back, that He should say to me: what have you done down there on earth? You contributed to demolishing the Church too?”
It is not true. I have not contributed to demolishing the Church. I have contributed to building it. Those who are demolishing it are those who spread ideas which destroy the Church and which were condemned by my predecessors. That is the heart of these events.
These events which we are about to live through in the coming days will of course cause much talk, and there will be a tremendous crowd at the ceremony of the 30th of June for the consecration of these four young bishops who will be at the service of the Society. Well! These four bishops will be at the service of the Society – there you have it.
The one who will in principle have the responsibility for relations with Rome when I am gone will be the Superior General of the Society, Fr Schmidberger, who still has six years of his generalate to serve. It is he who will eventually have the contacts with Rome henceforth, to continue the colloquia – if they continue, or if contact is maintained – which is unlikely for some time, since in the Osservatore Romano the headline will read: “Schism of Archbishop Lefebvre, excommunication…”
For a number of years – perhaps two years, three years, I do not know – there will be a separation.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Écône, 15 June 1988.3
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
And you can visit The WM Review Shop for our ‘Lovely Mugs’ and more.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Twitter (The WM Review)
As he himself said in 1975, “It is I, the accused, who should be judging you!”
The WM Review: Discussing Gaudium et Spes, Ratzinger said:
If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of counter-syllabus. Harnack, as we know, interpreted the Syllabus of Pius IX as nothing less than a declaration of war against his generation. This is correct insofar as the Syllabus established a line of demarcation against the determining forces of the nineteenth century: against the scientific and political world view of liberalism. In the struggle against modernism this twofold delimitation was ratified and strengthened. Since then many things have changed. […]
[T]he one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789.
In fact, an attitude that was largely prerevolutionary continued to exist in countries with strong Catholic majorities. Hardly anyone today will deny that the Spanish and Italian Concordats strove to preserve too much of a view of the world that no longer corresponded to the facts. […]
Let us be content to say here that the text serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, its ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of this remarkable meeting of Church and world. Basically, the word “world” means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church’s group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation.
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp 381-2, 391. Ignatius Press, San Francisco CA, 1989. On 391, he added:
The task is not, therefore, to suppress the Council but to discover the real Council and to deepen its true intention in the light of present experience. That means that there can be no return to the Syllabus, which may have marked the first stage in the confrontation with liberalism and a newly conceived Marxism but cannot be the last stage. In the long run, neither embrace nor ghetto can solve for Christians the problem of the modern world. The fact is, as Hans Urs von Balthasar pointed out as early as 1952, that the “demolition of the bastions” is a long-overdue task.
A question or two. A latae sententiae excommunication is not decreed by person even if a heretic but occurs by the act itself, correct? Second, I suppose one may argue that since the 1983 Code of Canon Law was formed by heretics that this is indirectly an excommunication by heretics? Third, however, didn't the 1917 Code also have a latae sententiae excommunication for the same act and therefore if still in effect (since the 1983 code applied only to the Conciliar church) wouldn't that excommunication be in effect and not based at all on heretics? Fourth, in the absence of a pope wouldn't other justifications in Canon Law allow episcopal consecrations anyway? Finally, do you understand why Abp. Lefebvre despite saying the hierarchy had succumbed to modernist heresy would not extend his argument to formal sedevanctism?