|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dear Friends and Benefactors, Thirty years ago on the first of November 1970, Bishop Charrière of Fribourg in Switzerland signed the Decree of Erection of the Society of St. Pius X. What a series of events the Society has seen since then! Starting with the Church's recognition and praise of the Society in its early days, both at diocesan level in the first dioceses where it was set up, and at pontifical level in Rome. Within two years of the Society's erection, the Vatican itself was undertaking the first steps towards granting the Society pontifical status at a time when it was setting up its first priests overseas. After this promising start there soon came years of trial. While the Seminary in Ecône was fast filling, Church authorities on high prepared to cause trouble. In 1974, Bishop Etchegaray told some Catholics, "In six months, Ecône will be dead and buried"?. So our fate was decided in advance. But they had reckoned without the tenacity of our valiant Founder, who in the name of the highest principles would stand up to the steam-roller that was meant to crush from the outset his work of priestly renewal. It began with the scandalous canonical visitation of autumn 1974, scandalous in the sense that the visitors from Rome scandalized Ecône's professors and seminarians by their modernist remarks. The result was the famous Declaration of November 21, 1974, which is always astonishingly up-to-date. Meetings in Rome with a Commission of Cardinals confirmed Archbishop Lefebvre in his anxiety over the line of action being followed by the Roman authorities at that time: they seemed less concerned with saving souls or with nourishing them at the sources of liturgical grace or the integral Faith than with imposing the recent Church reforms, however devastating these might prove to be. "I
do not want to be part of destroying the Church"?, said the Archbishop
more than once, like a heart-rending musical refrain. The
unjust suppression of the Society in 1975 would impel the Archbishop to
carry on courageously with the work he had just begun. The media mockery
and insults would rain down on him, the threats and commands from Rome
and the Pope would make no difference: remaining under fire as calm and
gentle as ever, the Archbishop soon to be suspended from saying the new
mass went ahead regardless. The splendid priestly ordinations of June,
1976, on the occasion of which it became absolutely clear that for him
merely to have celebrated once the New Mass "would have arranged
everything", showed our Founder's determination not to compromise
on principles. From those years of war the Society drew the determination
which has inspired it to this day. Those
same years show also the Archbishop's superior wisdom, foresight and grasp
of events: in those circumstances, to "obey" would have been
quite the opposite of practising the virtue of obedience, it would have
been to render the Church a grave disservice by inflicting one more wound,
by depriving it of a means of salvation it could well one day be in need
of. In the middle of a shipwreck one does not throw away the lifejackets.
If then Rome pretended that the Society's attitude was a problem of Church
discipline, the Society for its part saw in Rome's attitude the tip of
an enormous iceberg, no less than the anti-christian Revolution within
the Church-did not Cardinal Suenens say that Vatican II was the French
revolution of 1789 inside the Church? The
introduction of freemasonic principles, the harmonization with the world,
the way of looking kindly on everybody previously considered by the Church
to be dangerous enemies such as liberals and even communists, together
with the opening to the east, modern philosophy, a new way of dealing
with other religions no longer to be called false, and ecumenism's dropping
of the exclusiveness of the Catholic Church's mission to save souls-all
of this made clear to the Archbishop the gravity of the hour, and would
make him a few years later take further action along the same lines to
save the situation: the consecration of four bishops. When we speak of
emergency in connection with these consecrations, we mean the state of
emergency in which the whole Church is to be found, an unprecedented state
of havoc (which Rome quietly admits), from which suffer above all those
Catholics who no longer know whom to turn to for the spiritual bread which
will nourish and save their souls. At those
consecrations, Rome predicted and counted on a mass departure of souls
from the Society, and, at the Archbishop's death, on the Society falling
to pieces from within. On the contrary, the Society quietly continues
sanctifying souls and forming priests. Over
the same period of time up to today, certain bishops discreetly recognize
what the Society is accomplishing, while others tell us of the Church's
death-agony in several countries of Europe. And Rome? What position does
Rome take towards the Society? Towards the Traditional movement? What
line of thinking lies behind the silence in which it smothers us? Rome's
action towards the Fraternity of St. Peter is a good indication. How can we interpret Rome's recent action against St. Peter's Fraternity except as an over-all determination to continue driving up the blind alley of the new mass? Rome shows a coherence in its line of action matched only by its blindness: at all costs the new mass must be imposed everywhere. Only when souls submit to this condition will some of them be allowed a rare taste now and again of the old rite of the Mass, henceforth ranked as a museum-piece! While on all sides breaches are made in the teaching and transmission of Catholic doctrine, while Catholic morals in numerous countries are reeling under unheard-of blows destroying marriage and normalizing homosexuality, we are given to understand that the only thing prohibited, the only behaviour forbidden is a normal Catholic life, entirely faithful to the teaching and discipline which go back centuries! The fruits are there for all to see: what is Rome waiting for to change direction, and recognize the legitimacy of our refusal to slash to pieces the religion received from our ancestors? In the name of the Holy Ghost, Rome still refuses even to begin discussing our questioning of the Council, its ambiguities, its errors, its application in the post-conciliar reforms, and this at a time when at least one Cardinal recognizes that the Society's fruits are good and that the Holy Ghost is at work in the Society! Why continue to brand us or let us be branded as Enemy Number One? All around, the true destroyers of the Church are at work and the true rebels against papal authority are given free rein as they openly defy the henceforth virtually futile attempts to call them to order.
|
|||