The SSPX schism was accurately predicted to arrive long before it did.

 Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book in 1968, Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the "wheat and the tares" that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following:

"It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come - very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers."

Pope Pius XII. Catholics as spiritual smites

 At the most solemn moment of the Mass we recite the prayer which contains the expression "sacrifice of Abel, sacrifice of Abraham, sacrifice of Melchisedek" in three strokes, three times, three steps, the entire religious history of mankind—a magnificent passage. Every time we read it we are seized by an irresistible emotion. The sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham. Note that Abraham is called our patriarch, our ancestor. Antisemitism is incompatible with the thought and the sublime reality expressed in this text. It is alien to us, a movement in which we Christians can have no part. The promise was made to Abraham and to his descendants. It is realized in Christ, and through Christ in us who are members of his mystical body. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual descendants of Abraham. No, it is not possible for Christians to take part in antisemitism. We acknowledge for all the right to defend themselves, to adopt measures of protection against what threatens their legitimate interests. But antisemitism is inadmissible. Spiritually, we are Semites.

Pope Pius XII in a 1938 impromptu speech to Belgian Pilgrims

The Remnant; the pro-schism party

 The Remnant and Catholic Family News: The Pro-Schism Party

Kevin Tierney ^ | 03/01/2006 | Kevin Tierney

Posted on 05/11/2006 9:38:01 AM PDT by

The cat is out of the bag! One could say that in a joint statement authored by both magazines, they were unexpectedly candid. Normally they at least attempt to give some token support to Ecclesia Dei and traditional Catholics within the bosom of the Church. However, in a statement officially rejecting any concept of negotiations between the SSPX and the Vatican, these two traditionalist publications have revealed their “true colors.” One does not know where to begin with such candid admissions by the Remnant and CFN.

First this can hardly be called a “joint statement.” With the exception of the fact that they have two different editors, the two magazines share a good majority of their columnists. Rather than showing true diversity within the traditionalist movement, what we rather see is intellectual inbreeding. The same people give each other the same pats on the back as they spout the same talking points. I hereby propose to the big 3 Traditionalist publications (The Remnant, Catholic Family News, and the Fatima Crusader) to officially merge and become The Remnant of Catholic Crusaders, rather than pass off the charade that this is somehow 3 different publications. (Fr. Gruner manages to run two of them, something which is normally not disclosed.)

First the joint statement (from now on known as the statement) says that many people on who talked about a reunion between the SSPX and Rome were being ignorant, not having full possession of the facts. Rest assured they tell us, they have all the facts, and know for certain there will be no rapprochement between Rome and the Society anytime soon. While I tend to think this is an accurate assessment, how can they say this, but offer no concrete “facts”, which they whine everyone else who disagrees with them on this lacks? Then again, for anyone who has followed the Remnant over time, knows very well that it is never concerned with facts, but ideology and advancing the party line. As we now know, that party line is firmly SSPX.

After this little inconsistency, the plot thickens. They, like many other supporters of the Society, breathed a sigh of relief, because afterall “the SSPX is the counterweight to the entire “approved” traditionalist movement.” You hear that loyal traditional Catholics who attend through the Indult yet read these publications thinking they are your friend? Does one hear that Indult centers that distribute copies of these two magazines to parishioners after Mass? You are the enemy. You are not fighting to restore tradition within the Church according to them, you are not to be trusted to act objectively, and hence you need the SSPX to “counterweight” you. It’s never said the SSPX needs Ecclesia Dei, but rather we need them. Don’t think you can succeed on your own Ecclesia Dei traditionalist. You are a “necessary evil” until Rome admits that it didn’t mean what it said about the Society of St. Pius X. 

“No Innovations Outside of Tradition, as we see it”

First the writers of the statement, quoting Bishop Fellay of the SSPX, mandate that in order for them to even consider talking with Rome, “There must be no innovation outside of tradition.” Who decides what is and isn’t Tradition? I am going to call a hostile witness to my case here that this proves all along that the SSPX, and their shills at the Remnant/CFN are in schism, is none other than the sedevacantist Fr. Anthony Cekada. When considering this notion of “tradition” he states:

Mr. Ferrara advocates essentially the same position as the Society of St. Pius X, Fr. Nicholas Gruner, and countless others: You claim to “recognize” Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI as true popes. At the same time YOU decide which papal teachings, laws, sacramental rites, or commands are good, and which you’ll reject, resist or publicly denounce.

Under this system, a pope no longer possesses the supreme authority to “bind and loose” on earth. A New Jersey lawyer, the Superior General of SSPX, the CEO of the Fatima Industry, the editor of Catholic Family News, or, generally, any traditional Catholic whatsoever, does the final review for him.

The New Mass? A sacrilege, intrinsically evil, or the pope didn’t promulgate it correctly anyway. Ecumenism? No thanks, the pope’s wrong. Consecration of Russia to Immaculate Heart? The pope didn’t do it right. Excommunicated or suspended? Invalid, no matter what the pope and his curia say. Consecrate bishops against the pope’s explicit will? Necessity lets me do it. And so on.

Who needs to visit the Throne of Peter? You give the final thumbs-up or -down from your easy chair.

The pope speaks. You decide… From this standard nugget of spiritual wisdom, Mr. Ferrara, SSPX and countless others have drawn several rather generous practical conclusions about what the Angelic Doctor is supposedly endorsing:

(1) Catholics are free to decide for themselves on a case-by-case which teachings, laws, sacramental rites and commands emanating from the Roman Pontiff they will accept (very few, thank you) and which they will “resist” and publicly denounce (just about everything).

(2) Catholics are free to pursue this “resistance” to the Successor of Peter on a continuous basis — so far, forty years and counting, with no end in sight. (Fr. Anthony Cekada, Sedevacantism and Mr. Ferrara’s Cardboard Pope)

According to what the Remnant defines as “tradition”, this automatically means Vatican II must not be considered. Says who? Why should their opinion be any more valid than what I say as an Ecclesia Dei traditionalist or the average anti-traditionalist demagogue states? This is why we have a Church, to settle such disputes. But the Remnant and CFN state the Churches ruling has no bearing on the matter. One is reminded of what Our Blessed Lord said in Matthew 18, which in my revised Traditionalist version states the following:

But if thy brother, especially if he is a prelate shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between in public in your magazines, even if you are not an expert in the area being covered. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, unless of course the church in your mind is going against tradition, then you are free to disregard what they say. Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven, unless you are able as a layman to determine it contradicts tradition, then you are free to ignore it.

Under the standard presented here, tradition loses any objective meaning, becoming the definition of what everyone else thinks tradition means. So on what basis should anyone accept the idea that tradition means “No Vatican II” over the pope who says tradition means “All of the Churches teachings, from Nicea to Vatican II”? How does one avoid anarchy, and indeed how is this any better than the crisis we are currently in? The authors Michael Matt and John Venarri begin to realize the dead end of this system when they state:

Thus, the question forms on the lips of concerned Catholics: How would a “reconciled” SSPX be able to operate freely under the aegis of the modernist New Theology, when the entire reason for the SSPX’s existence is to publicly oppose this destructive New Theology?

Indeed it is a very telling question. Yet they themselves recognize this, that the answer is if the SSPX is set to reject Vatican II en toto, there can be no reconciliation with the Vatican. This much is understood by all sides. Now the pertinent question is, on what basis do we trust Bishop Fellay’s analysis of tradition over anyone else’s? Have not schismatics always complained about how the Church is “losing her way” hence it justifies what they are doing? Have not schismatics like the Jansenists proclaimed that the Council of Trent contained errors, and hence one had to analyze what of Trent to keep and what to reject? The authors are correct, as long as the SSPX says that they are the ones who define what tradition is, there can be no negotiation. Soon enough they have to resort to authoritarianism to hold everyone in line, since they will rightly recognize that their assessment of tradition is no more valid than anyone else’s. Ironically, soon Luther had to result to similar authoritarianism when he relegated to himself to determine authoritatively what the Scriptures mean.

You ask the Impossible

Next we turn to what the Remnant believes is necessary for the Society to even consider giving Rome the time of day. When one examines these conditions, it becomes firmly evident that there indeed can be no reconciliation, primarily because the statements are ludicrous, and clearly involve that of a schismatic spirit.

Condition One: Every Priest has always had a right to say the Latin Mass without the permission of the Bishop

We now know that even if Benedict were to grant the “universal indult” allowing all priests to say the Latin Mass, for these publications, that wouldn’t be enough, since there has never been permission needed. However, as the evidence demonstrates, this is clearly wishful thinking. The Popes have explicitly stated that it is not for individual priests to choose which liturgy to celebrate. Every Pope since Pius XII has affirmed this principle explicitly. Therefore, it was not within the rights of priest to reject the changes Pius XII made to the Holy week liturgy. (Interestingly enough the SSPX priests have been known to reject even these changes at times, rejecting even the official rules of the Society. Disobedience breeds more disobedience.) Paul VI and John Paul II have also explicitly stated “in virtue of their supreme authority” the only way one may celebrate the Latin Mass is by permission from the local ordinary or indult from Rome. (The conditions upon which the local ordinary may grant usage of the Mass was expanded twice by John Paul II, most recently by Ecclesia Dei Afflictica of 1988.) Yet these words mean nothing to the Remnant, CFN, and the SSPX, who state that no matter what the Pope says, they will do the opposite. They will (in clear violation of the statements of Pius XII in mediator Dei) choose for themselves which liturgy to celebrate, especially when the Supreme Pontiff in the person of Paul VI said that choice is contrary to Catholic law, speaking as the Supreme Legislator of the Church. Agreeing with papal primacy only when it agrees with you is not agreement, its convenience. Accepting papal primacy means even doing so when one might not like that outcome. Unless the Remnant is willing to state the Latin Mass is a matter of Church dogma, the Church is free to regulate how that Mass is celebrated. To reject this is to reject papal authority in regards to the liturgy explicitly affirmed by Pius XII in Mediator Dei:

It follows from this that the Sovereign Pontiff alone enjoys the right to recognize and establish any practice touching the worship of God, to introduce and approve new rites, as also to modify those he judges to require modification.

As we can see, it is not just the “Novus Ordo” Popes they dissent from, but “traditional” Popes as well. Notice this is also the opinion of every “True Catholic.” Therefore, if one grants that one needs permission (as does the FSSP and other loyal Ecclesia Dei Catholics, and presumably the Roman Pontiffs as well) they are not “True Catholics.” Once again, perhaps it is time we Ecclesia Dei traditionalists rethink our allegiance to these publications.

Condition Two: 

The SSPX was never excommunicated.

If the first request is absurd and wishful thinking, this is absurd and wishful thinking squared. The simple fact is, despite their wishful distortions, no canonist accepts the idea that the SSPX is not excommunicated. (Count Neri Capponi comes close, but with the consecration of a Bishop for Campos by SSPX bishops even though Rome had already chosen a Bishop, he views this as schismatic.) The simple fact also is that after 18 years, the Society has not been able to demonstrate that the “state of necessity” can be objectively verified, or that the mind of the Roman Pontiff was unknown on this matter. If the mind of the Pope is known, he directly tells you not to do so; you are required to not do so. Unless Lefebvre was willing to argue that when he was gone so were any Catholic Bishops with authority (and many of his disciples believed this, becoming sedevacantists), then there cannot exist a state of necessity for consecrating Bishops after being specifically told not to. As I have detailed elsewhere, Rome has never come close to saying that the excommunications have never existed. It is once again clear that they care little what Rome says, even if Rome exercises her rightful authority in stating such. As a result, that can qualify for the definition of schism. Those who defend that position is also indicted I would argue it is very possible to qualify that as “formally adhering to the schism” that John Paul II warned about.

Next the statement goes through what they view as bad appointments for Bishops and bad positions that were taken. In this aspect the statement is fully within its rights to criticize these stances. However, no Pope has been perfect, and Popes have made what many consider to be bad solutions. (I.e. many were not particularly thrilled with Pius V’s Quo Primum for example.) Yet nowhere does that justify disobeying them when they do command something lawfully. It’s a nice rhetorical flourish, an attempt to get the readers to sympathize with the SSPX, but it is ultimately meant to obscure the meaning of the debate. They should not be allowed to play this game. They must prove that it isn’t lawful for the Pope to decide who can and who cannot be a Bishop for the SSPX’s argument to even be considered. (This they have never done, nor do they even attempt to, since one could say implicitly they recognize that to reject this is to be a schismatic.) One could deal with the rest of the arguments they cite (The Hawaii Six for example) but suffice to say, others have dealt with these issues time and time again, and they do not help the Society. I also do not care to deal with the fact because the statement acknowledges it is irrelevant in the end, since even those who in the Vatican might rule in favor of the Society, we must not trust them because they will ultimately betray them. 

Having it both ways

The statement’s position in regards to the Society goes from incoherent do downright conspiracy mongering when they discuss Cardinal Hoyos, prefect of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. I believe it is here it is demonstrated that these authors simply make things up as they go along, and would like nothing more than the past of what they have said to be concealed. “We have always been at war with Eurasia…” Giving an enticing lead in they say “Enticing Words but can the Cardinal be trusted.” The Cardinal is Cardinal Hoyos. They question whether or not Hoyos can be trusted in dealing with the Society. In other words, Rome is a bunch of sniveling dishonest crooks, while the Society is squeaky clean. Very objective!

However this sudden dose of skepticism towards Cardinal Hoyos is a rather interesting one. For just a few months ago (3 in regards to the publishing of this paper) the words of Cardinal Hoyos were to be accepted as near infallible, and indeed a case of “Roma locuta est”, Rome has spoken, the case is closed. When outlining why they believe Cardinal Hoyos is worth listening to when he states the “SSPX is not in formal schism” (something he never said, but was a misrepresentation of his words as I demonstrated) we see the following from Michael Matt:

Just like that, a highly contentious issue that’s been dividing Catholics since 1988 was settled. And it’s impossible to believe that a man in the Cardinal’s elevated position, with his closely guarded reputation for discretion, could have acted in this regard without the Pope’s foreknowledge…. End of story! Traditionalists win! We don’t pretend to know why Cardinal Castrillón elected to make these statements which are now part of the permanent record, but, clearly, the debate is over. It is up to us now to try to use them to mend fences with those neo-Catholics whose polemic against traditionalism has just been totally annihilated. Perhaps this startling development will also lead to a ceasefire between traditional Catholics, allowing us to direct our ideological weaponry away from each other and toward the myriad enemies of the old Faith that need so desperately to be driven out of our Church. 

Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos is to be credited and heartily thanked for his refreshingly honest clarifications. (SSPX Not in Schism: Rome Has Spoken, November 2005, The Remnant)

Those sound like words which states that the Cardinal is unassailable on this point. That because of what he said, “the debate is over.” It appears not, because 3 months later, the statement has this to say about how valuable Cardinal Hoyos’ word is:

But there is also serious cause for concern that beneath these enticing words is an intent to embrace the SSPX only in order to suffocate it. Consider the fate of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, which is composed of priests who left SSPX after the consecration of the four bishops by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988. The Vatican assured these ex-SSPX priests that their right to offer the traditional Mass and to pursue a traditional priestly formation in the seminary would be respected. But that is not exactly how it has worked out.

The statement then goes on to cite Protocol 1411, and what they viewed as Cardinal Hoyos acting cruelly to the FSSP. In their assessment, everything leading the FSSP to Rome was really a Machiavellian plot hatched by Hoyos and Rome to entice people with words only to later intentionally go back on them. However, this raises an interesting question. Why should we take what Michael Matt said seriously previously about Hoyos. If indeed Hoyos is known to be a liar and a deceiver according to them, why do his statements have any bearing on this debate? Or is the statement, like the Society it defends, engaging in it’s notorious duplicity.

When attacking “Neo-Catholics”, the words of Cardinal Hoyos mean everything. However when speaking to their base, the words mean nothing. Lefebvre did the exact same thing. When writing to John Paul II he talked about how the Novus Ordo Missae was valid and licit. When writing to his base, he referred to the New Mass as a “bastard Mass”, whose Eucharist “we cannot know if it provides grace.” Other examples are provided in abundance. Could it be that in attempting to defend a Society whose opinion changes based on who they are speaking to, their defenders are adopting the same mentality?

Next with great surprise they state in regards to possible SSPX “criticisms” of Vatican II:

The Cardinal even went so far as to say that “critical contributions of that sort that can come from the [SSPX] can be a treasure for the Church.” One may ask, why didn’t they say so before?

Now we know that the authors are just being dishonest. In the agreement between Archbishop Lefebvre and Cardinal Ratzinger signed in 1988, the SSPX would have been allowed to engage in a respectful discussion on Vatican II, and raise objections where they felt they needed to be raised. This isn’t some new policy Rome has adopted. Cardinal Hoyos doesn’t view this as something new because indeed it has always been Rome’s position! One could again interact with what they said in regards to Cardinal Hoyos, but why? It’s not like they take anything he says seriously anyways. As I noted before, they are simply practicing duplicity. So here’s the question one must ask the statement:

“Based on your assertion that Cardinal Hoyos might be risky to trust, how can we trust his assessment back in November in regards to the SSPX, the assessment which you say “settles the debate?”

The confusions, ambiguities, defenses of schism and outright falsehoods continue again and again throughout this statement, but I think the reader gets the picture. So the question must be asked: Why should faithful Catholics who attend the Indult give one cent to a magazine that views them in such a negative way? The Remnant and Catholic Family News have clearly taken sides on the SSPX issue, this much is certain. They have officially allied themselves with the Society, and oppose loyal Indult Catholics, unless of course they trade recognition by the Remnant for their silence on the Society matters. (Ironically enough the Remnant accuses Ecclesia Dei members of the very same thing!) Let us now call them what they are, the magazines which endorse schism, and view with disdain anyone who follows what Vatican I and the Church Fathers said about the authority of the Roman Pontiff and Bishops.

Lefebvre is another St Athanasius ?

 

"Yeah, well, Lefebvre is just like St Athanasius..."

Um, no. He was not. Mons Lefebvre was not unjustly excommunicated by a Pope who was being held captive and tortured by an Emperor and whose excommunication of Saint Athanasius was, by Saint Athanasius his own self, credited to the Arians, and not to Pope Liberius.

Saint Athanasius considered Pope Liberius a man of Faith whereas Mons. Lefebvre thought Pope John Paul II was not.

And in no way can Pope Blessed John Paul II be thought of as a heretic - although Mons Lefebvre called him an AntiChrist  and in no way can Mons Lefebvre be thought of as a champion of orthodoxy because he rejected an ecumenical council, the normative mass, and refused communion with his local Bishop and the Pope and he started his own petit ecclesia.

It is owing to the historical ignorance of those who succor it that the SSPX can get away with their malign and disingenuous propaganda in defense of their indefensible schism.

On the other hand, as the SSPX is an ideological movement, and as it is the case that an ideology is, like a delusion, not correctable by facts and reason, maybe the SSPX do think the modern Popes are the captives of Masons and are being tortured by them.

Who knows what their real motives really are? 

Who cares?

What is crucial is that their historical claims are without value and their doctrinal beliefs are heretical - as we shall see in upcoming posts.

In any event, attend to the words of the great Saint Athanasius and turn a deaf ear to the lying claims of those who succor the schism who try and sell you the fools gold that Mons Lefebvre is a latter-day Saint Athanasius.

History of the Arians, Part V

BY ST. ATHANASIUS

35. Persecution and Lapse of Liberius

35. Now it had been better if from the first Constantius had never become connected with this heresy at all; or being connected with it, if he had not yielded so much to those impious men; or having yielded to them, if he had stood by them only thus far, so that judgment might come upon them all for these atrocities alone. But as it would seem, like madmen, having fixed themselves in the bonds of impiety, they are drawing down upon their own heads a more severe judgment. Thus from the first they spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania ; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to show their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it, these impious men reasoned thus with themselves: 'If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.' Accordingly they accused him falsely before the Emperor; and he, expecting easily to draw over all men to his side by means of Liberius, writes to him, and sends a certain eunuch called Eusebius with letters and offerings, to cajole him with the presents, and to threaten him with the letters. The eunuch accordingly went to Rome, and first proposed to Liberius to subscribe against Athanasius, and to hold communion with the Arians, saying, 'The Emperor wishes it, and commands you to do so.' And then showing him the offerings, he took him by the hand, and again besought him saying, 'Obey the Emperor, and receive these.'

36. The Eunuch Eusebius attempts Liberius in vain

But the Bishop endeavoured to convince him, reasoning with him thus: 'How is it possible for me to do this against Athanasius? How can we condemn a man, whom not one Council only, but a second assembled from all parts of the world, has fairly acquitted, and whom the Church of the Romans dismissed in peace? Who will approve of our conduct, if we reject in his absence one, whose presence among us we gladly welcomed, and admitted him to our communion? This is no Ecclesiastical Canon; nor have we had transmitted to us any such tradition from the Fathers, who in their turn received from the great and blessed Apostle Peter. But if the Emperor is really concerned for the peace of the Church, if he requires our letters respecting Athanasius to be reversed, let their proceedings both against him and against all the others be reversed also; and then let an Ecclesiastical Council be called at a distance from the Court, at which the Emperor shall not be present, nor any Count be admitted, nor magistrate to threaten us, but where only the fear of God and the Apostolical rule shall prevail; that so in the first place, the faith of the Church may be secure, as the Fathers defined it in the Council of Nicæa, and the supporters of the Arian doctrines may be cast out, and their heresy anathematized. And then after that, an enquiry being made into the charges brought against Athanasius, and any other besides, as well as into those things of which the other party is accused, let the culprits be cast out, and the innocent receive encouragement and support. For it is impossible that they who maintain an impious creed can be admitted as members of a Council: nor is it fit that an enquiry into matters of conduct should precede the enquiry concerning the faith ; but all diversity of opinions on points of faith ought first to be eradicated, and then the enquiry made into matters of conduct. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not heal them that were afflicted, until they showed and declared what faith they had in Him. These things we have received from the Fathers; these report to the Emperor; for they are both profitable for him and edifying to the Church. But let not Ursacius and Valens be listened to, for they have retracted their former assertions, and in what they now say they are not to be trusted.'

37. Liberius refuses the Emperor's offering

These were the words of the Bishop Liberius. And the eunuch, who was vexed, not so much because he would not subscribe, as because he found him an enemy to the heresy, forgetting that he was in the presence of a Bishop, after threatening him severely, went away with the offerings; and next commits an offense, which is foreign to a Christian, and too audacious for a eunuch. In imitation of the transgression of Saul, he went to the Martyry of the Apostle Peter, and then presented the offerings. But Liberius having notice of it, was very angry with the person who kept the place, that he had not prevented him, and cast out the offerings as an unlawful sacrifice, which increased the anger of the mutilated creature against him. Consequently he exasperates the Emperor against him, saying, 'The matter that concerns us is no longer the obtaining the subscription of Liberius, but the fact that he is so resolutely opposed to the heresy, that he anathematizes the Arians by name.' He also stirs up the other eunuchs to say the same; for many of those who were about Constantius, or rather the whole number of them, are eunuchs , who engross all the influence with him, and it is impossible to do anything there without them. The Emperor accordingly writes to Rome, and again Palatines, and Notaries, and Counts are sent off with letters to the Prefect, in order that either they may inveigle Liberius by stratagem away from Rome and send him to the Court to him, or else persecute him by violence.

38. The evil influence of Eunuchs at Court

Such being the tenor of the letters, there also fear and treachery immediately became rife throughout the whole city. How many were the families against which threats were held out! How many received great promises on condition of their acting against Liberius! How many Bishops hid themselves when they saw these things! How many noble women retired to country places in consequence of the calumnies of the enemies of Christ! How many ascetics were made the objects of their plots! How many who were sojourning there, and had made that place their home, did they cause to be persecuted! How often and how strictly did they guard the harbour and the approaches to the gates, lest any orthodox person should enter and visit Liberius! Rome also had trial of the enemies of Christ, and now experienced what before she would not believe, when she heard how the other Churches in every city were ravaged by them. It was the eunuchs who instigated these proceedings against all. And the most remarkable circumstance in the matter is this; that the Arian heresy which denies the Son of God, receives its support from eunuchs, who, as both their bodies are fruitless, and their souls barren of virtue, cannot bear even to hear the name of son. The Eunuch of Ethiopia indeed, though he understood not what he read Acts 8:27, believed the words of Philip, when he taught him concerning the Saviour; but the eunuchs of Constantius cannot endure the confession of Peter , nay, they turn away when the Father manifests the Son, and madly rage against those who say, that the Son of God is His genuine Son, thus claiming as a heresy of eunuchs, that there is no genuine and true offspring of the Father. On these grounds it is that the law forbids such persons to be admitted into any ecclesiastical Council ; notwithstanding which they have now regarded these as competent judges of ecclesiastical causes, and whatever seems good to them, that Constantius decrees, while men with the name of Bishops dissemble with them. Oh! Who shall be their historian? Who shall transmit the record of these things to another generation? Who indeed would believe it, were he to hear it, that eunuchs who are scarcely entrusted with household services (for theirs is a pleasure-loving race, that has no serious concern but that of hindering in others what nature has taken from them); that these, I say, now exercise authority in ecclesiastical matters, and that Constantius in submission to their will treacherously conspired against all, and banished Liberius!

39. Liberius's speech to Constantius

For after the Emperor had frequently written to Rome, had threatened, sent commissioners, devised schemes, on the persecution subsequently breaking out at Alexandria, Liberius is dragged before him, and uses great boldness of speech towards him. 'Cease,' he said, 'to persecute the Christians; attempt not by my means to introduce impiety into the Church. We are ready to suffer anything rather than to be called Arian madmen. We are Christians; compel us not to become enemies of Christ. We also give you this counsel: fight not against Him who gave you this empire, nor show impiety towards Him instead of thankfulness ;' persecute not them that believe in Him, lest you also hear the words, 'It is hard for you to kick against the pricks Acts 9:5.' Nay, I would that you might hear them, that you might obey, as the holy Paul did. Behold, here we are; we have come, before they fabricate charges. For this cause we hastened hither, knowing that banishment awaits us at your hands, that we might suffer before a charge encounters us, and that all may clearly see that all the others too have suffered as we shall suffer, and that the charges brought against them were fabrications of their enemies, and all their proceedings were mere calumny and falsehood.'

40. Banishment of Liberius and others

These were the words of Liberius at that time, and he was admired by all men for them. But the Emperor instead of answering , only gave orders for their banishment, separating each of them from the rest, as he had done in the former cases. For he had himself devised this plan in the banishments which he inflicted, that so the severity of his punishments might be greater than that of former tyrants and persecutors. In the former persecution Maximian, who was then Emperor, commanded a number of Confessors to be banished together , and thus lightened their punishment by the consolation which he gave them in each other's society. But this man was more savage than he; he separated those who had spoken boldly and confessed together, he put asunder those who were united by the bond of faith, that when they came to die they might not see one another; thinking that bodily separation can disunite also the affections of the mind, and that being severed from each other, they would forget the concord and unanimity which existed among them. He knew not that however each one may remain apart from the rest, he has nevertheless with him that Lord, whom they confessed in one body together, who will also provide (as he did in the case of the Prophet Elisha 2 Kings 6:16) that more shall be with each of them, than there are soldiers with Constantius. Of a truth iniquity is blind; for in that they thought to afflict the Confessors, by separating them from one another, they rather brought thereby a great injury upon themselves. For had they continued in each other's company, and abode together, the pollutions of those impious men would have been proclaimed from one place only; but now by putting them asunder, they have made their impious heresy and wickedness to spread abroad and become known in every place. 

41. Lapse of Liberius

Who that shall hear what they did in the course of these proceedings will not think them to be anything rather than Christians? When Liberius sent Eutropius, a Presbyter, and Hilarius, a Deacon, with letters to the Emperor, at the time that Lucifer and his fellows made their confession, they banished the Presbyter on the spot, and after stripping Hilarius the Deacon and scourging him on the back, they banished him too, clamouring at him, 'Why did you not resist Liberius instead of being the bearer of letters from him.' Ursacius and Valens, with the eunuchs who sided with them, were the authors of this outrage. The Deacon, while he was being scourged, praised the Lord, remembering His words, 'I gave My back to the smiters Isaiah 50:6;' but they while they scourged him laughed and mocked him, feeling no shame that they were insulting a Levite. Indeed they acted but consistently in laughing while he continued to praise God; for it is the part of Christians to endure stripes, but to scourge Christians is the outrage of a Pilate or a Caiaphas. Thus they endeavoured at the first to corrupt the Church of the Romans, wishing to introduce impiety into it as well as others. But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learned, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent.

Pope Paul VI letter to Lefebvre who was in opposition to Pope and Council and Christ

 

Letter from Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

October 11, 1976

When We received you in audience on last September 11 at Castel Gandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally.  The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion.  After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

We have waited a month.  The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed.  It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: “A common point unites us: the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church.  How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance.”

How must these few words to which your response is limited—and which in themselves are positive—be interpreted?  You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion—words and gestures that you have never retracted!  You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divinis.  You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See—and this constitutes the basis of the problem—and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend.  Ambiguity results from the duplicity of your language.  On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.

1.  In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests “torn apart by what is happening in the church,” thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries.  But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress.

Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur.  For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention.  Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics, or the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense change in today’s world affects believers at the edge of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic concern for those “who are far away.”

But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name “conciliar” those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious.  But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reforms that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard.  You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself.

Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard.  But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us.  Indeed We do not cease to raise our Voice against these excesses:  Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms.  More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life.  This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God’s grace to face the present and future.

Finally, your behavior is contradictory.  You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness.  Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.

But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself—which you call the “Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency”—and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us?  If you truly want to work “under Our authority,” as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.

2.  Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11.  You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite.  You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, “as before the Council,” in seminaries apart, as at Ecône.  But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological.  For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points.

What is indeed at issue is the question—which must truly be called fundamental—of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the pope.  This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion.  This is the essential issue, and it is truly untenable.

Is it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in the episcopate and moreover—a fact that obliges you to remain even more closely united to the See of Peter—that you have been named an assistant at the papal throne?  Christ has given the supreme authority in his Church to Peter and to the apostolic college, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops una cum Capite.

In regard to the pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter’s legitimate successors: “…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Mt 16:19); “…feed my sheep” (Jn 21:17); “…confirm your brethren” (Lk 22:32).  And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: “The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty or hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the Church throughout the entire world.  Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor.  Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).

Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: “…whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Mt 18:18).  And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised.

Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock.  But, by their nature, “the charges of teaching and governing…cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members” (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25).  A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedito ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is.  In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.

You say that you are subject to the Church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of “tradition” that you invoke is distorted.

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the Church, that is, the mystical body of Christ.  It is up to the pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the Church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit—the deposit of faith—and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the Church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the Church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture.  “Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church. . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls” (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way.  And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did.  Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000 year-old tradition of the Church considers as fundamental and immutable.  We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter:  “I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail” (Lk 22:32).  The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others.  Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith.  But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the Church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the Church and in particular with the Council of Trent or the affirmations of Our predecessors.  These are for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modern world…

It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems.  The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of its nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties.  Absolutely secure counselors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God’s enlightenment, and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.

But how can an interior personal difficulty—a spiritual drama which We respect—permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal?  If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance—and We hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal—they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the pope.  It is the ecclesial sense that is at issue.

In effect you and those who are following you are endeavoring to come to a standstill at a given moment in the life of the Church.  By the same token you refuse to accept the living Church, which is the Church that has always been: you break with the Church’s legitimate pastors and scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge.  And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the pope, or by the suspension a divinis, as you lament “subversion” in the Church.

Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties?  Moreover, you hold that the suspension that you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly introduced into the Church, which you go so far as to call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction when you administer the sacraments according to the formulas of the past and against the established norms (cf. 1 Cor 14:40).

From the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating Mass called that of Saint Pius V.  You know full well that this rite had itself been the result of successive changes, and that the Roman Canon remains the first of the eucharistic prayers authorized today.

The present reform derived its raison d’être and its guidelines from the Council and from the historical sources of the liturgy.  It enables the laity to draw greater nourishment from the word of God.  Their more active participation leaves intact the unique role of the priest acting in the person of Christ.  We have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring that it be adopted by all Catholics.

If, in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesiastical community, because, for Catholics of the Roman Rite, the Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity.  It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a warped ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood.

We cannot accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord’s Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.

Of course there is room in the church for a certain pluralism, but in licit matters and in obedience.  This is not understood by those who refuse the sum total of the liturgical reform; nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of his sacrifice.  In the same way there can be no question of a priestly formation which ignores the Council.

We cannot therefore take your requests into consideration, because it is a question of acts which have already been committed in rebellion against the one true Church of God.  Be assured that this severity is not dictated by a refusal to make a concession on such and such a point of discipline or liturgy, but, given the meaning and the extent of your acts in the present context, to act thus would be on Our part to accept the introduction of a seriously erroneous concept of the church and of tradition.  This is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We say to you, brother, that you are in error.  And with the full ardor of Our fraternal love, as also with all the weight of Our authority as the successor of Peter, We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the Church of Christ.

3.  Specifically, what do We ask of you?

A.—First and foremost, a declaration that will rectify matters for Ourself and also for the people of God who have a right to clarity and who can no longer bear without damage such equivocations.

This declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and to all its documents—sensu obvio—which were adopted by the Council fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority.  For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the Church, since the beginning, in the matter of ecumenical councils.

It must be clear that you equally accept the decisions that We have made since the Council in order to put it into effect, with the help of the departments of the Holy See; among other things, you must explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo Missae, and our right to require its adoption by the entirety of the Christian people.

You must also admit the binding character of the rules of canon law now in force which, for the greater part, still correspond with the content of the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, without excepting the part which deals with canonical penalties.

As far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations which you have publicly leveled against Us, against the orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge as the successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.

With regard to the bishops, you must recognize their authority in their respective dioceses by abstaining from preaching in those dioceses and administering the sacraments there: the Eucharist, Confirmation, Holy Orders, etc., when these bishops expressly object to your doing so.

Finally, you must undertake to abstain from all activities (such as conferences, publications, etc.) contrary to this declaration, and formally to reprove all those initiatives which may make use of your name in the face of this declaration.

It is a question here of the minimum to which every Catholic bishop must subscribe: this adherence can tolerate no compromise.  As soon as you show Us that you accept its principle, We will propose the practical manner of presenting this declaration.  This is the first condition in order that the suspension a divinis be lifted.

B.—It will then remain to solve the problem of your activity, of your works, and notably of your seminaries.  You will appreciate, brother, that in view of the past and present irregularities and ambiguities affecting these works, We cannot go back on the juridical suppression of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X.  This has inculcated a spirit of opposition to the Council and to its implementation such as the Vicar of Christ was endeavoring to promote.

Your declaration of November 21, 1974, bears witness to this spirit; and upon such a foundation, as Our commission of cardinals rightly judged, on May 6, 1975, one cannot build an institution or a priestly formation in conformity with the requirements of the Church of Christ.  This in no way invalidates the good element in your seminaries, but one must also take into consideration the ecclesiological deficiencies of which We have spoken and the capacity of exercising a pastoral ministry in the Church of today.  Faced with these unfortunately mixed realities, We shall take care not to destroy but to correct and to save as far as possible.

This is why, as supreme guarantor of the faith and of the formation of the clergy, We require you first of all to hand over to Us the responsibility of your work, and particularly for your seminaries.  This is undoubtedly a heavy sacrifice for you, but it is also a test of your trust, of your obedience and it is a necessary condition in order that these seminaries, which have no canonical existence in the Church, may in the future take their place therein.

It is only after you have accepted the principle that We shall be able to provide in the best possible way for the good of all the persons involved, with the concern for promoting authentic priestly vocations and with respect for the doctrinal, disciplinary and pastoral requirements of the church.  At that stage, We shall be in a position to listen with benevolence to your requests and your wishes and, together with Our departments, to take in conscience the right and opportune measures.

As for the illicitly ordained seminarians, the sanctions which they have incurred in conformity with Canon 985, 7 and 2374 can be lifted, if they give proof of a return to a better frame of mind, notably by accepting to subscribe to the declaration which We have asked of you.  We count upon your sense of the Church in order to make this step easy for them.

As regards the foundations, houses of formation, “priories” and various other institutions set up on your initiative or with your encouragement, We likewise ask you to hand them over to the Holy See, which will study their position, in its various aspects, with the local episcopate.  Their survival, organization and apostolate will be subordinated, as is normal throughout the Catholic Church, to an agreement which will have to be reached, in each case, with the local bishop—nihil sine Episcopo—and in a spirit which respects the declaration mentioned above.

All the points which figure in this letter and to which We have given mature consideration, in consultation with the heads of the departments concerned, have been adopted by Us only out of regard for the greater good of the church.  You said to Us during our conversation of September 11: “I am ready for anything, for the good of the church.”  The response now lies in your hands.

If you refuse—quod Deus avertat—to make the declaration which is asked of you, you will remain suspended a divinis.  On the other hand, Our pardon and the lifting of the suspension will be assured you to the extent to which you sincerely and without ambiguity undertake to fulfill the conditions of this letter and to repair the scandal caused.  The obedience and the trust of which you will give proof will also make it possible for Us to study serenely with you your personal problems.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and guide you towards the only solution that would enable you on the one hand to rediscover the peace of your momentarily misguided conscience but also to ensure the good of souls, to contribute to the unity of the Church which the Lord has entrusted to Our charge and to avoid the danger of a schism.

In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct:  is it not therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange a time and a place of recollection which will enable you to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?

Fraternally, We put you on your guard against the pressures to which you could be exposed from those who wish to keep you in an untenable position, while We Ourself, all your brothers in the episcopate and the vast majority of the faithful await finally from you that ecclesial attitude which would be to your honor.

In order to root out the abuses which we all deplore and to guarantee a true spiritual renewal, as well as the courageous evangelization to which the Holy Spirit bids us, there is needed more than ever the help and commitment to the entire ecclesial community around the pope and the bishops.  Now the revolt of one side finally reaches and risks accentuating the insubordination of what you have called the “subversion” of the other side; while, without your own insubordination, you would have been able, brother, as you expressed the wish in your last letter, to help Us, in fidelity and under Our authority, to work for the advancement of the Church.

Therefore, dear brother, do not delay any longer in considering before God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn adjuration of the humble but legitimate successor of Peter.  May you measure the gravity of the hour and take the only decision that befits a son of the Church.  This is Our hope, this is Our prayer.

From the Vatican, October 11, 1976.

PAULUS PP. VI