January 2009 the Real Reason for the Society's Stand the State Of

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Let your speech be “Yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37) January 2009 Reprint #84 THE STATE OF NECEssITY In a letter dated July 8, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre Rome’s extended hand, and, following its founder, the wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger: “The permanent will to Society of St. Pius X always remains ready to respond annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, favorably to the opportunity of these discussions with by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when the authorities of the hierarchy. But these contacts have they make the decisions necessary for the survival of only one goal: to let the pure and integral voice of the Church and the salvation of souls.”1 In his homily Catholic Tradition be heard in Rome so that it might on the day of the episcopal consecrations of June 30, recover its rights in the whole Church. The discussions 1988, the Archbishop returned to this rule, from which will be in vain for as long as Rome maintains in he deduced the legitimacy of his actions. “Thus,” he principle the corrupted teachings of the Second Vatican explained, “we find ourselves in a case of necessity.... Council. This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these Things stand thus because the liturgical and consecrations today, we are obeying...the call of God.”2 doctrinal Tradition reigning prior to Vatican II is not just one form of Catholic expression among others in The Real Reason the Church. It cannot be defended by pleading only the cause of “all those Catholic faithful who feel attached for the Society’s Stand to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of The attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the the Latin tradition.”4 The defense of this Tradition is Society of St. Pius X is not reducible to a certain nothing more nor less than the defense of the integrity personal attachment to the Church’s Tradition. If it of the Catholic Faith, which is the common good of the only involved a personal attachment, we should have Church; by this very fact it entails the fight against the accepted long ago (as ultimately the priests of Campos reforms that issued from Vatican II which challenge did in 2002, and the priests of the Institute of the fundamental truths of faith and thus endanger the Good Shepherd in 2006) the principle of the personal common good of the Church. When this common good apostolic administration or of a personal parish, which of the Catholic Faith is considered by the authorities as are particular, limited legal frameworks within which the object of a simple personal attachment, a state of the expression of a personal attachment to the Tradition necessity exists. of the Church can legitimately prevail, more or less, according to the terms of the agreements. And because The State of Necessity this attachment is merely personal, there is no room for challenging the gains of the Second Vatican Council A state of necessity is an extraordinary situation in to which one must willy-nilly pledge allegiance, even which the necessaries of natural or supernatural life are if it is only by signing the New Profession of Faith of threatened in such a way that to safeguard them one 1989.3 Archbishop Lefebvre never refused in principle finds oneself habitually obliged to break the law. Now, law is essentially intended by legislators to procure 19 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Benedict XVI has set about correcting not only the abuses but also the false principles of the Council, it becomes necessary to cease a resistance that can no these necessaries to their subjects. In the Church, longer be justified; it becomes necessary to accept the whole edifice of ecclesiastical law is by definition the canonical statute proposed by Rome. This is what ordered to the preaching of the doctrine of faith and 5 the priests of Campos and those of the Institute of the the administration of the sacraments. If the application Good Shepherd have done. But if one has kept one’s of the law goes against the end of the law intended by eyes open, one sees that the state of necessity still the legislators, it is no longer legitimate because self- exists, and this is why the resistance must continue. contradictory. The subjects can and must take no notice Just as in June 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre would of it in order to obtain the end of the law despite the have performed “Operation Suicide”8 had he decided authorities who apply the law contrary to the law. against consecrating the four bishops, so also today, It is clear that since the Second Vatican Council obtaining a purely canonical solution for the Society of the Church has found herself in such a situation. The St. Pius X from Rome would be “very imprudent and common good of the Church is the handing down of the hasty,” as Bishop Fellay recently reaffirmed.9 In fact, Catholic Faith, and if the pope has received authority it is possible that circumstances have evolved on this from Christ, it is uniquely to safeguard Tradition. Now, or that point since the Roman authorities have been since the Council, instead of continuing to transmit trying to establish a new equilibrium far removed from the deposit of faith as did all their predecessors for two the shameful abuses that followed the implementation thousand years, the men of the Church have taken it of the Council. But for all that, the circumstances upon themselves to impose on the faithful the principal have not changed fundamentally insofar as the same theses of the new theology condemned by Pius XII in Roman authorities in charge of reforming abuses are Humani Generis and then confirmed by Vatican Council still imbued with the same false principles of Vatican II, II and the reforms that followed, novelties absolutely which are the ultimate source of the abuses. contrary to all that our Lord taught. Since 1965, the This analysis, moreover, has been confirmed authorities of the Church have imposed a new Creed by the events of the last 20 years, which correspond in three articles, with religious liberty, ecumenism, with an aggravation of the crisis. The distance that and collegiality; since 1969, they have also imposed a has opened between the two liturgies amounts to reformed liturgy with a new Mass of Protestant spirit an abyss separating two conceptions of the Church and sacraments renewed in an ecumenical sense. and the Faith.10 The extent of this separation can These popes have imposed the grave errors of neo- be measured by the force with which the national modernism, already condemned by their predecessors. episcopacies oppose the initiative of the Motu Proprio Faced with this generalized protestantization, the Summorum Pontificum. Even if the traditional rite of Church must react. A state of necessity exists that the Church is not supposed to exclude the new rite, legitimates resistance; it is this resistance that explains its extension is viewed badly. The same opposition the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of was to be seen when the Vatican proposed correcting Saint Pius X. the mistranslations of “pro multis,” which is part of the words of consecration in the Mass. These two examples The Enduring Dilemma show that Rome is not followed when it comes to Archbishop Lefebvre perceived the dilemma: either reining in abuses. On the other hand, Rome is pursuing capitulate to tyranny under pretext of obedience, or else ecumenical dialogue more than ever and continues resist tyranny by rejecting false obedience. to preach the principle of the secular State. Another very tangible result of the crisis is the steep decline in If this government [the conciliar Church] abandons its vocations in the last two decades.11 duty and turns against the Faith, what ought we to do? Remain attached to the government, or attached to the Faith? We have a choice. Does the Faith take precedence? A Doubly False Argumentation Or is it the government that takes precedence? We are In a little book published last year by Éditions faced with a dilemma and we are indeed obliged to make Sainte Madeleine of the Monastery of Le Barroux, the a choice.6 Most Reverend Fernando Arêas Rifan reasons exactly The choice was made and the defense of the Faith as if a state of necessity not only no longer exists prevailed over false obedience: more than 20 years after the episcopal consecrations We do not reject the pope’s authority, but rather what at Ecône, but that it never existed. The book, entitled he does. We do indeed recognize the pope’s authority, but Tradition and the Living Magisterium, is a revision of a when he makes use of it to do the opposite of that for which “pastoral orientation” addressed to the priests of the St. it was given him, it is obvious that we cannot follow him.7 John Vianney Apostolic Administration of Campos. It These words were spoken 20 years ago. Today, comprises three chapters. The first claims to recall the everything still hinges on this state of necessity. If one basic givens of traditional theology on the magisterium. believes that it no longer exists, deeming that Pope The following two chapters apply these principles, the second to the question of the Mass, and the third THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org 20 to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The in every age of history, the present teachings of the fundamental flaw of this reflection is twofold: it presents Catholic hierarchy always rest upon those of the past, a warped idea of the magisterium, and it denies the in keeping with the words of St.

Load more