|
Archbishop LEFEBVRE and the VATICAN August 18, 1988 Declaration of Dom Gérard
I deny, first of all, as absolutely unfounded, the rumor that was spread that I would have been chosen to be consecrated bishop.127 Why have I accepted the Protocol which Archbishop Lefebvre rejected just after he signed it? This is a long story, for which I ask a few minutes of attention. For the past 15 years we asked to be relieved from our suspension, and to be re-integrated into the Confederation of the Benedictine Monasteries; but since the conditions were unacceptable (renouncement of the traditional Rite) we refused, resigned to remain in the illegality rather than to lack the Truth. Then, a long time after these efforts, on Friday, June 17 of this year, a phone call from the Vatican asked for the Prior. Cardinal Mayer asked to pay us a visit. He would arrive on Monday, June 20, at 6:30pm with Msgr. Perl in order to propose on behalf of the Holy Father, the Protocol signed [by Archbishop Lefebvre] on May 5, and rejected [by His Grace] on the night of May 5-6. The next day, we gathered ten fathers around the Cardinal to study the proposal of the Pope; thus there were morning and afternoon meetings of intense discussion where no aspect of the question was ignored. The adaptation of the Protocol that was offered to us represented the total of our requests submitted to the Holy See since 1983. What we asked from the beginning (Mass of St. Pius V, catechism, sacraments, all in conformity to the centuries-old Tradition of the Church), were granted to us, without doctrinal counter-part, without concession, without denial.128 The Holy Father was thus offering us to be integrated into the Benedictine Confederation as we are. Our Reasons After having weighed everything, after several meetings of the council of the fathers, I have thus accepted the proposal and explained to our faithful at the Sunday Mass the reasons which, in our case, support our acceptance:
Lastly the reason, perhaps the determining one, which inclined us to accept that the suspens a divinis be lifted from our priests, is a missionary reason: should not the maximum number of faithful be enabled to assist at our Masses and liturgical celebrations without being hindered by their local priests or bishop? I think, especially, of some young college students, scouts and seminarians who have never seen a traditional Mass. It seems that we would be guilty if, because of our refusal to take the occasion, thousands of young people would be forever deprived of the Latin Gregorian Mass, of the Mass facing God, where the Canon is surrounded by silence, where the Holy Host, Center of adoration for the faithful, is received on the tongue, kneeling. The stakes are not small, as one can see. Our Conditions We have placed two conditions on the signing of this agreement.
The Reactions Many of our uninformed correspondents had fears and suspicions. We hoped to have appeased their worries. We regret, here or there, certain bitter reactions, which come more from a partisan spirit than from the sense of the Church. They summoned the faithful to choose their camp, disregarding the respect due to the souls, which is the first condition of any apostolate. It would be a grave error to constitute within the Church a sort of great unified party, choosing at its head a leader who maneuvers his troops at will. Forced by the events, the faithful attached to Tradition were placed in a posture of resistance. We, ourselves, remain strongly attached to the requirements of an integral Faith and to the immutable Tradition of the Church, but our legitimate resistance should not become resistentialism, where suspicion and purges are the law: the holy liberty of the children of God would be the first victim of this, and many other precious virtues would suffer too—charity, in the first place. Our Three Wishes I would like to finish with three wishes which I hold dear to my heart.
Dom Gérard, O.S.B. Fr.
Schmidberger’s Remarks
It seems rather contrary to the plan of Divine Providence that the Catholic Tradition of the Church be re-integrated into the pluralism of the Conciliar Church, as long as the latter dishonors the Catholic Church and scandalizes its unity and visibility. “Jesus…suffered without the gate” of Jerusalem, says St. Paul, “let us go forth therefore to Him without the camp, bearing His reproach” (Heb. 13:12-13).
On the contrary, it is an honor for Le Barroux to have been rejected by the other Benedictines for its integral fidelity to the Mass of All Times, and thus to have become a wonderful sign of contradiction.
On the contrary, when the laws of the Church are abused everywhere, in such a way as to desiccate the living sources of Faith and grace, it is better not to succumb to this scheme.
If the priests of Le Barroux considered that they were validly suspended, they have been living for 15 years in mortal sin. If they think that the so-called suspens a divinis merely damages their apostolic influence, they are wrong. The hard way of the Cross is more fruitful than the easy way. Moreover, they should have placed the missionary influence of the whole of Tradition in its necessary cohesion above the influence of their own monastery alone. The common good should be given pride of place over the individual good.
The truly Catholic faithful have acknowledged in Archbishop Lefebvre the good shepherd that the Good Lord provided to them when they were scattered by the modernists. Neither on May 6 nor on June 30 has the grace of his mission left this good shepherd. Much to the contrary! The fidelity of the sheep to the shepherd is a grace for the sheep. The infidelity is first of all an ingratitude and, in the end, a great tragedy.
It is not “suspicion,” it is a fact. It is the height of the battle; friends are struck by the enemy. Is it the opportune moment to negotiate private peace with the enemy? There is only one name for such an attitude.
For 15 years [i.e., since the early 1970’s], there had been a wonderful covenant of charity between all the traditional communities. All that was needed was to continue it through June 30 in doctrinal and prudential unanimity. This was needed to continue the fight for Christ the King. The one who had broken this covenant now was calling for a new covenant! Fr. Franz
Schmidberger
127.
On the question of bishops, it must be noted that a very
important point of the May 5 Protocol was the granting of a bishop
from those attached to Tradition. Cardinal Mayer, President of the
new Commission, himself admits that. “The question of a spe¬cific
bishop is no longer being posed”—much less solved! (See
30 Days, October 1988). Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109 |