Jesus - Mary! Joseph!

Monseigneur,

I am certain that if the Abbé de Nantes could express himself, he would write to you as he did in the past “to Brother Yves Congar” in order to ask him: « What can we do for our Church and for the unity of her communion, which we all, you and I, love, brother? » Your recent speeches show the same concern, Monseigneur, and this is why I dare to pick up the pen that has fallen from the hand of our ill Father, in order to address a petition to you in the form of an open letter.

In an interview given to Le Point, you observe that « the lifting of the excommunication of the Lefebvrist bishops is a unilateral decision of goodness on the part of Pope Benedict XVI. It now needs to become reciprocal. It is up to the Fraternity of Saint Pius X to seize the hand held out by the Holy See. The ball is in their court. The next steps might be to recognise the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, that is to say Paul VI’s Missal of 1970, but also religious freedom and ecumenism. These are in particular the points that the Lefebvrists contest and that are an integral part of the Second Vatican Council of 1965. The successors of Mgr Lefebvre must at least accept that. »

Or else? Ségolaine de Larquier did not think to ask you what the consequences of a refusal would be. She continued:

« Nevertheless, certain Catholics do not conceal their lack of understanding. Does Benedict XVI’s decision indicate the death of the Second Vatican Council of 1965? »

You answer: « No. To speak about the death of Vatican II is a mental absurdity. One cannot answer a mental absurdity with another mental absurdity. And I am weighing my words. »

I admit that I do not understand to whom you are addressing your indignation, nor do I understand what « mental absurdity » replies to what contrary « mental absurdity ». What do you mean?

But here is something that is clearer:

« It cannot be said that Vatican II is dead when this Council has been part of the substance of the Church for forty years! »

This is true. But the crux of the matter is to know whether the Second Vatican Council is making this « substance of the Church » live or making it die.

The Abbé de Nantes’ thesis is that the Church is dying from it. And he accuses those who poured a lethal poison, « three milligrams of arsenic » into « Vatican II’s well-sweetened cup of tea ». Take note that he does not judge, he does not irrevocably condemn the Council or the Pope, as it has been given to believe, and as you yourself perhaps believe, but he refuses what appears to him to contradict the Catholic Faith, for example “the religious freedom” that you pertinently hold up as an example. You in fact affirm that « the Council is part of the great Catholic tradition! » The Abbé de Nantes formally denies it, precisely on the matter that you evoke when you say:

« Let us take the example of religious freedom: even if it was sometimes, and for too long, unfortunately, eclipsed in the course of history, it is written in the Bible. »

When confronted with this affirmation of an archbishop, who would dare to deny it? Because you say so, the innocent readers of Le Point will take your word for it.

But this will not prevent us from proclaiming with the Church of every age, in conformity with divine Revelation and the constant and universal teaching of the infallible Magisterium: Anathema be he who professes such a Right of Man, contrary to natural reason and the Revelation of Christ, trampling on the rights of God!

The only outcome for peace and for the safeguarding of unity is for us to go to Rome, to go before Pope Benedict XVI, whose legitimacy we both recognise and whom we know to be infallible by virtue of the First Vatican Council. The purpose of our going there will be to settle this debate and to obtain a sovereign decision, beyond which there is no further recourse of appeal and no further contestation. Is that not what you and I believe? Our only recourse then is to Rome and nowhere else. The quickest and simplest way to repair unity is to present the conflicting propositions to the Pope to obtain from him an ex cathedra definition and a corresponding anathema. The cause will be heard, the matter judged and division will be proscribed.

We, the members of the Counter-Reformation, submit in advance to the Church, who will once more speak through the mouth of Peter in virtue of Papal Infallibility, which we recognise.

Et erit tranquillitas magna… And there will be a great calm. Do you agree?

From a purely human point of view, you have every chance of obtaining such an ex cathedra definition from the Pope, thereby consecrating your conciliar position and putting an end to our combat and to the whole of this great division in the Church. It will be the death of Integrism, the disappearance of traditionalism, the condemnation of what you rightly call Counter-Reformation theology and spirituality, which you do not like.

You should not be content with just the half success you managed with difficulty to gain from Vatican II, certainly with no excess of candour, by means of the publication of the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ.

« This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. » (n° 2)

I learned in catechism, Monseigneur, that God created us to adore Him, pray to Him, serve Him and love Him, in order thus to win Eternal Life. God thus makes it a duty for each man to adhere freely to this Covenant, without coercion or impediment.

As for the other religions and irreligions, how could this infinitely holy God not detest them as Satan’s snares, and not forbid their very existence, whether public or private, as a major insult to His glory and an obstacle harmful to the salvation of all men?

Of course, the Church forces no one to work out his salvation against his erroneous, deceived conscience, but it is her duty to fight and forbid in the public domain all the manifestations of these diabolical errors, and to impose all that is consonant with Catholic Faith and morality, on all the subjects of a Catholic State. Nevertheless, particular circumstances can make a certain tolerance legitimate. It can be recognised in legislation with the consent of the episcopate. This tolerance, however, never creates an imprescriptible right.

Conclusion: the Council thus « declares » something that is totally insulting to its God and Saviour, and entirely contrary to its own mission of universal salvation.

I am under no illusion: if I keep a tally of your chances of winning your case before the Pope, I must fully admit that you have ninety-nine chances out of a hundred of succeeding. I shall go to Rome with you, counting only on the last hundredth of our human chances; but that last hundredth chance appears to me to enclose the totality, the hundred per cent, of the Divine chance. I am certain that the Pope will refuse to define any such thing, or that he will drop dead on the eve of making a definition such as you have in mind. Or else he will define the opposite of his own human opinions, like Balaam, who was sent by the King of Moab to curse the tents of Israel, and who blessed them. He will anathematise his own former declarations and define what his Predecessors have stated many a time, in line with a continuous and harmonious development of doctrine, which was suddenly turned back and broken by your impious innovation.

In fact, it is impossible to hold that the Declaration Dignitatis humanæ is consonant with Tradition. You yourself are conscious of it, but you appeal to Scripture: « Even if [religious freedom] was sometimes, and for too long, unfortunately, eclipsed in the course of history, it is written in the Bible. » The truth is that it was invariably condemned throughout history because it is contrary to Revelation.

But I do not seek to convince you, Monseigneur, about a truth that even Mgr Lefebvre denied during the final vote of the Fathers of the Council, which proclaimed the right to religious freedom in the social order as well as in private life, an inviolable and imprescriptible right based on the dignity of the human person, as Catholic truth.

I only want to make you hear the Abbé de Nantes’ appeal to the Pope, which everyone feigns to ignore, but which is the only means to bring to an end the current din which, as you yourself rightly pointed out, does great harm to the Holy Father.

Is not appealing to his sovereign Magisterium the best homage that we can pay him? In advance we bow to his Solomonic judgement. Ah! May the desired day come when we will be able to exclaim, as did St. Augustine after the excommunication of Pelagius by St. Innocent I in 417, « Roma locuta est, causa finita… Rome has spoken, the cause is judged, please God the error finish likewise! »

The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century
www.crc-internet.org