Marcel Lefebvre. In his own words (2)

 What did Archbishop Lefebvre say about

Attending the New Mass?

1974:

“Is the New Mass really intrinsically bad? If the Mass were intrinsically bad, I would say, well,

I would say you can’t do an intrinsically bad act, that’s always forbidden; but if the Mass is not

intrinsically bad, but only bad due to the circumstances which surround it … well since cir-

cumstances can change, can be changed…if there are seminarians who don’t have any other

Mass, can they go to a Mass like that? I think so, what can you do! … However, I also told

you, I think at least twice, that it is possible that our attitude, our position regarding this prob-

lem might become firmer or somehow harder, so to speak...”

(Écône, 1974)

1975-1981:

“Little by little the Archbishop’s position hardened … In 1975 he admitted that one could

‘assist occasionally at the New Mass when one feared going without Communion for a long

time.’ [...] Soon, Archbishop Lefebvre would no longer tolerate participation at Masses

celebrated in the new rite except passively, for example at funerals. … He considered that it

was bad in itself and not only because of the circumstances in which the rite was performed.”

( “Biography of Marcel Lefebvre,” p465 ff)

1976:

“The [new] rite of the Mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments – we no

longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or which do not give grace.”

(Lille, 1976)

1978:

“What should be our attitude in general towards these New Masses, even if it would be diffi-

cult to be able to assist at a Mass of Saint Pius V? I believe that we must be more and more

severe. little by little … one no longer sees, one becomes blind. This is why I think we must

avoid going to these Masses.”

(Écône, 1978)

1979:

“It must be understood immediately that we do not hold to the absurd idea that if the New

Mass is valid, we are free to assist at it. The Church has always forbidden the faithful to assist

at the Masses of heretics and schismatics even when they are valid. It is clear that no one can

assist at sacrilegious Masses or at Masses which endanger our faith. All these innovations are

authorized. One can fairly say without exaggeration that most of these [new] Masses are sacri-

legious acts which pervert the Faith by diminishing it.”

(November 1979)

1981:

“This Mass is not bad in a merely accidental or extrinsic way. There is something in it that

is truly bad. … Really, in conscience, I cannot advise anyone to attend this Mass, it is not

possible.”

(Abp. Lefebvre, 1981 - cf. David Allen White, ‘The Horn of the Unicorn’, p.224 ff.)

www.TheRecusant.comAbp. Lefebvre Page 9

1985:

“Your perplexity takes perhaps the following form: may I assist at a sacrilegious mass which is

nevertheless valid, in the absence of any other, in order to satisfy my Sunday obligation? The

answer is simple: these masses cannot be the object of an obligation; we must moreover apply

to them the rules of moral theology and canon law as regards the participation or the attend-

ance at an action which endangers the faith or may be sacrilegious.

The new Mass, even when said with piety and respect for the liturgical rules, is subject to the

same reservations since it is impregnated with the spirit of Protestantism. It bears within it a

poison harmful to the faith. That being the case, the French Catholic of today finds himself in

the conditions of religious practice which prevail in missionary countries. There, the inhabit-

ants in some regions are only able to attend Mass three or four times a year. The faithful of our

country should make the effort to attend one each month at the Mass of all time, the true

source of grace and sanctification, in one of those places where it continues to be held in

honour.” (Open Letter to Confused Catholics, 1985)

1990:

“And that’s why I will never celebrate the Mass according to the new rite, even under threat of

ecclesiastical penalties and I will never advise anyone positively to participate actively in such

a Mass. Because people are still asking us those questions: ‘I have not the Mass of St. Pius V

on Sunday, and there is a mass said by a priest that I know well, a holy man, so, wouldn’t it be

better to go to the mass of this priest, even if it is the new mass but said with piety, instead of

abstaining?’ No! This is not true! This is not true, because this rite is bad! Is bad, is bad! And

the reason why this rite is bad in itself, is because it is poisoned. It is a poisoned rite! Mr. Sal-

leron says it very well, here: ‘It is not a choice between two rites that could be good. It is a

choice between a Catholic Rite and a rite that is practically bordering on Protestantism,’ and

thus, which attacks our faith, the Catholic Faith! So, it is out of question to encourage people

to go to Mass in the new rite.

[…]

I’m a little surprised, you know. Sometimes, I receive a lot of requests for consultations from

our priests who are in the priories and some are asking me: ‘What should one reply to a person

who says he cannot have the Mass of St. Pius V and who believes that he is under the obliga-

tion to go to a mass of the new rite, said by a good priest, a serious priest who offers all the

guarantees almost of holiness? etc.’ But, I do not understand how they cannot answer this by

themselves! They don’t find the conclusion by themselves and they feel obliged to ask me such

a thing. It's incredible! So you see, there are still some who hesitate. This is unbelievable!”

(Fideliter, April 1990)

* * * * *

Archbishop Lefebvre on the Indult / Ecclesia Dei Priests

“And we must not waver for one moment either in not being with those who are in the process

of betraying us. Some people [say] ‘After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must

not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as every-

one says’ - but they are betraying us - betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church's

destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas con-

demned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work. Thus those who were with us and

were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, ‘So

long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.’ ”

(Two Years After the Consecrations, Fideliter, 1990)

A Letter from Archbishop Lefebvre

Regarding

The Indult Mass

Saint-Michel en Brenne,

18 March 1989

Dear Father Couture,

I am responding immediately to your kind letter which I received yesterday at Saint-

Michel, to tell you what I think about those priests who have received a “celebret” from the

Roman Commission charged with dividing and destroying us.

It is evident that by putting themselves in the hands of the current conciliar authorities,

they are implicitly accepting the Council and the ensuing reforms, even if they have

received some privileges which remain exceptional and provisory.

Their speech is paralyzed because of this acceptance. The bishops are watching them! It

is very regrettable that these priests are not aware of this reality. But we cannot fool the

faithful.

The same may be said regarding these “Traditional Masses” organised by the dioceses.

They are celebrated between two Conciliar Masses. The celebrating priest says the New as

well as the Old. How, and by whom is Holy Communion distributed? What will the sermon

be? etc

.

These Masses are scams which lead the faithful to compromise their principles! Many

have already abandoned them.

What must change is their Liberal and Modernist Doctrine. We must arm ourselves with

patience and pray. God’s hour will come.

God’s blessings to you on this holy feast of Easter. Best regards to you in Christ and

Mary.

+ Marcel Lefebvre

Marcel Lefebvre. In his own words - Why the SSPXers are never coming home, thereby abandoning their Saint

 

“Not only can these New Masses not be the object of an obligation for the Sunday precept, but the canonical regulations which the Church is accustomed to apply to the communicatio

in sacris with schismatic Orthodox cults, and with Protestant cults, must be applied to them” (Abp. Lefebvre writing in Cor Unum, November 1979). 

“It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church

and of the Catholic Faith.” (Abp. Lefebvre, Spiritual Journey, p. 13).

“While the faithful wonder whether they should attend these Masses, which are now author-

ized by the bishops, for us the message remains the same: we believe that one should not attend these Masses because it is dangerous to affirm that the New Mass is as valid as the traditional one. Little by little, these priests who accept these conditions will have the same tendencies as those who say the New Mass, and one day, perhaps they themselves will say it and lead our traditionalists to the New Mass.” The priests of the ‘Indult’, “are obliged to accept that the New Mass is as valid as that of St. Pius V: this is what we have always refused, what we have always opposed because we consider the New Mass to be dangerous and therefore evil,  because it was made in the ecumenical spirit, diminishes the faith of the faithful and ends up giving them a Protestant spirit.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, interview with Father Jacques Emily, Communicantes, August 1985, Canada).

Said by an Apb who spent most of his life assisting at the putative Trad Mass before creating a schism; no, he did not appear to be self-aware.

“Now, I sincerely believe that we are dealing with a counterfeit Church and not the Catholic

Church. They no longer teach the Catholic Faith. They no longer have the same Faith, the

same doctrine, or the same morals as their predecessors. So it is no longer possi-

ble.” (Spiritual conference, Écône, 21 June 1978).

“This Council represents, in our view and in the view of the Roman authorities, a new Church

which they call the Conciliar Church.” (Le Figaro, August 4, 1976)

“That Conciliar Church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church

that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new

worship… The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This

Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or the

faithful adhere to this new church, they separate themselves from the Catholic

Church.” (Archbishop Lefebvre, Reflections on his suspension ‘a divinis’, July 29, 1976).

“Obviously, we are against the Conciliar Church which is virtually schismatic, even if they

deny it. In practice, it is a Church virtually excommunicated because it is a Modernist

Church.” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

“Rome has lost the faith, my dear friends. Rome is in apostasy. These are not just words, these

are not empty words that I am saying to you. It is the truth. Rome is in apostasy. We can no

longer trust these people; they have left the Church. They have left the Church. They are leav-

ing the Church. That is certain, certain, certain!” (Conference to priests, Écône, 4 Sept. 1987).

 incredible that one can speak of a visible Church for the conciliar Church as opposed to the

Catholic Church that we are trying to represent and continue.” (Interview with Fideliter, July-

August 1989).

“Such things are easy to say. To stay inside the Church, or to put oneself inside the Church -

what does that mean? Firstly, what Church are we talking about? If you mean the Conciliar

Church, then we who have struggled against the Council for twenty years because we want the

Catholic Church, we would have to re-enter this Conciliar Church in order, supposedly, to

make it Catholic. That is a complete illusion! It is not the subjects that make the superiors, but

the superiors who make the subjects. Amongst the whole Roman Curia, amongst all the world's

bishops who are progressives, I would have been completely swamped. I would have been able

to do nothing...” (One Year After the Consecrations, July-August, 1989)

“Then there are some who would be ready to sacrifice the fight for the Faith, by saying: ‘Let

us first re-enter the Church! Let us do everything to re-enter in the official public structure of

the Church. Let us be silent about our dogmatic problem. Let us be silent about our fight. Let

us not speak about the malice of the New Mass anymore. Let us close our mouths and say

nothing anymore. Let’s not be opposed to them. Let’s not say anything anymore about the

issues of Religious Liberty, of Human Rights and of Ecumenism. Let’s be silent. Let’s be silent

and then we will be able to re-enter into the structure of the Church. We will please those who

are in the Church. We are going to be able to re-enter into the Church, and once we will be

inside the Church, you will see, we will be able to fight, we will be able to do this, we will be

able to do that…’ This is absolutely false! You don’t enter into a structure and under superi-

ors, saying that you will overthrow everything as soon as you are inside, whereas they have all

the means to suppress us! They have all the authority.” (Conference, December 21, 1984)