09-03-2024, 08:50 AM
Taken from The Recusant, Issue #62 - Autumn 2024 [slightly adapted]:
This conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at the priory in Sierre, Switzerland, on 27th November 1988, just a few months after the episcopal consecrations. The title (“Le libéralisme, le pire ennemi de l’Église”) and subtitles are from Fideliter in which it first appeared. The remainder of the text is as it was spoken. The translation is our own.
This year has been full of sensational events and serious decisions, both for me and for you, who are suffering the consequences because of your attachment to the Society and to Tradition. Why such decisions? Because the situation is very serious. It is not twenty years old, but it is very old.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION
After the French Revolution, some wanted to come to terms with the principles of the Revolution and compromise with the enemies of the Church; others refused this arrangement because Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us: ‘He who is not with me is against me’. If you are for the reign of Jesus Christ, then, you are against His enemies. To begin with, there were those who claimed that it was possible not to speak of Our Lord while continuing to love Him, so that they could make alliances and pacts. But the popes, right up to the Second Vatican Council, disapproved.
JESUS CHRIST ONLY GOD, ONLY KING
Our Lord is our King, our God. He must therefore reign supreme, not only in private over our persons, but also in our families, our villages and the whole country. In any case, whether we like it or not, one day He will be our Judge: when He comes on the clouds to judge the whole world, all men will be on their knees, Buddhists, Muslims, everyone. For there are not many gods, but only one, as we sing in the Gloria: Tu solus sanctus, Tu solus Altissimus Jesu Christe. He came down from heaven to save us, He reigns in heaven, we will see Him when we die.
DIVISION AMONG CATHOLICS - THE ‘LIBERAL CATHOLICS’
The French Revolution brought about a real division, which had already begun with the Protestants. A whole class of intellectuals rose up against Our Lord, in a veritable diabolical plot against His reign, which they no longer wanted to hear about.
They allowed us to honour Him in our chapels and sacristies, but not outside them. Our Lord was no longer to be spoken of in the courts, or in schools, or in hospitals - in a word, anywhere. They would say, for example: ‘You offend Buddhists with your Lord Jesus Christ. Since they don't believe in it, leave them alone. Why put Jesus Christ everywhere?’ But Our Lord has the right to reign everywhere, and in Catholic countries He is the master. And we must try to make Him reign as much as possible, to convert those who do not yet know and love Him, so that they too become His subjects, and so that in heaven they recognise their Master.
Thus, since the French Revolution, Catholics have been divided between those who accept that Our Lord should be honoured in families and parishes, but not outside them, and those who want Our Lord to reign everywhere. The former, to justify no longer talking about Our Lord in society, relied on the freedom to believe or not to believe. But that's not true, we're not free to believe what we want. Our Lord said it well: ‘He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.’ Of course we can misuse this freedom, but then we are disobeying and moving away from God. So morally we are not free, we must honour Our Lord and follow His teachings.
THE POPES HAVE CONDEMNED THE LIBERALS
These are the people who have been called liberals because they were in favour of freedom, leaving everyone the right to think what they want according to their conscience. But the popes have always condemned this liberalism, stating emphatically that there is no more freedom of conscience than there is freedom to do good or evil. Of course we can disobey. A child can disobey his parents, but does he have the right to do so? Obviously not.
It's the same thing with religion. We must all obey Our Lord, and therefore the only true religion. Of course there are people who disobey, but we must try to convert them and bring them to obey Our Lord, the only true God, who will judge us all. Now this liberal current was developed by Catholics like Lamennais who was a priest, hence a division within the Church itself. But popes such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII have always condemned these liberals as the worst enemies of the Church because they detach people, families and states from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
When Our Lord is no longer present in schools, hospitals, justice systems or governments, when He is absent from the public atmosphere, then we have apostasy and atheism. People get into the habit of no longer thinking about Our Lord because He is nowhere to be seen, and little by little this forgetfulness spreads, even into families.
At the moment, in which restaurants or hotels, for example, do you find the Cross of Our Lord? Personally, I travel a lot, and only in Austria have I found a beautiful crucifix in certain restaurants, or a beautiful image of the Blessed Virgin in the hotel room. Elsewhere it’s all gone, and yet there was a time when there used to be no house without a crucifix. Now even good Catholics are afraid to put one in their homes, for fear of the reaction of those who don't like the Christian religion. That’s where we’re getting to by gently driving Our Lord away.
ENEMIES WITHIN THE CHURCH
Saint Pius X, at the beginning of the century, said that now the enemies of the Church are no longer only outside, but also within. By this he meant those Catholics who no longer want the public reign of Our Lord.
But that was not all. Since there were even modernist professors in the seminaries who wanted to adapt to the modern world, with its rejection of Our Lord and its apostasy, Saint Pius X asked that they be removed from the seminaries so that they would not influence the seminarians who, once they became priests, would in turn spread bad doctrines. And Saint Pius X was right, because that’s what happened. The bishops didn't want to pay any attention and these modern ideas were slowly introduced into the seminaries, then into the clergy and finally everywhere. In the name of freedom they stopped talking about Our Lord and apostasy ensued!
In 1926, I was at the seminary in Rome, more than sixty years ago, under Pius XI, who was also fighting and condemning priests who were in favour of secularism. In that year, a ‘Week Against Liberalism’ was held in Rome, during which two small books were published: Libéralisme et Catholicisme by Father Roussel and Le Christ Roi de Nations by Father
Philippe.
Here is the introduction to the first:
The enemy has been named: these liberals who want freedom of thought. If everyone has the right to his own thoughts, no one should offend his neighbour by displaying his own, so we must say nothing more, and we no longer have the right to speak of Our Lord.
HOW CAN WE STILL BE MISSIONARIES?
So how can we be missionaries if we can no longer speak of Our Lord? It’s impossible; and in a nation that is 95% Catholic, we will no longer be allowed to speak of Our Lord because 5% are Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim. It’s unbelievable, and yet that’s how it is. In Catholic schools, because there is one Jew, two or three Muslims or Protestants, the crucifixes are taken down, Our Lord is no longer spoken of, and prayers are no longer said before classes, because this could disturb non-Catholics. So Our Lord no longer has the right to exist because two or three disagree with Him. So what are the origins of this liberalism, its main manifestations, its logical development?
How can it be qualified and refuted? These are the questions to which Father Roussel gives the answers in his very interesting book, which we give to all our seminarians so that they are aware of these modern errors. This liberalism, secularism and lack of public submission to Our Lord have spread despite the Popes, because bishops and priests have not listened to them enough. The second little book published to mark this ‘Week Against Liberalism’ in Rome is the ‘Catechism of Divine Rights in the Social Order’ under the title ‘Christ, the King of Nations’ by Father Philippe, a Redemptorist, whose preface reads as follows:
All this was happening in 1926!
FREEMASONRY
Even then, priests were resisting, by fighting against the invading apostasy and defending Our Lord against the secularisation of all institutions. Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus, wrote that the Freemasons’ aim was to deChristianise everything, especially institutions, and that they wanted to remove Our Lord from everywhere. All this developed in spite of the Popes, and led to the Second Vatican Council.
THE PREPARATION OF THE COUNCIL: THE LIBERAL BISHOPS
Here too there was division, even within the Church. These liberals, who no longer wanted Our Lord to be spoken of in society and who, on the contrary, wanted freedom for all religions and all systems of thought, created opposition between the cardinals right from the preparation of the Council. The Holy See had set up commissions, headed by the ‘Central Preparatory Commission for the Council,’ of which I was a member.
It sat from 1960 to 1962, and was made up of seventy cardinals and around twenty archbishops and bishops, and if I sat on it, it was in my capacity as President of the Assembly of Archbishops and Bishops of French West Africa. Pope John XXIII often presided over our meetings.
But I must say, it was like a battlefield. Who was going to win? The liberals or the true Catholics who were with all the popes in their condemnation of liberalism? On the one hand, some wanted the Church to declare publicly their thesis on freedom, the neutrality of public bodies, and the absence of Our Lord Jesus Christ from public life. On the other hand, there were strong reactions to the contrary. Shouldn't we Catholics have the right to have our own Catholic States, so as not to offend the Muslim, Buddhist and Protestant religions that are expanding? And all this under the pretext of not doing them wrong, when they themselves are busy doing it publicly?
In Protestant states, for example, people are publicly Protestant. The Swiss canton of Vaud has written into its constitution that Protestantism is the state religion. The same is true of Sweden, Norway, England, Holland and Denmark, where Protestantism is the only religion publicly recognised by the State.
THE LIBERALS ABOLISH CATHOLIC STATES
So shouldn't we have the right to have our own Catholic states too? The Swiss canton of Valais was 90% Catholic. Since the Liberals won at the Council, and now dominate in Rome, they asked Monsignor Adam (whom I knew well and who was a good friend), via the nuncio in Berne, to do away with the Catholic canton of Valais. The Valais Constitution stated that the Catholic religion was the only religion publicly recognised by the State; in short, it was an affirmation that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the King of the Valais. And Monsignor Adam, favourable as he was to Tradition, he who had fought during the Council in favour of the social reign of Our Lord, wrote a letter to all his faithful, asking the State of Valais to change its constitution and become officially neutral.
I asked about this and was told that it had come from the Nuncio. So I went to see him in Berne and he confirmed that Bishop Adam had indeed acted on his orders. ‘And you're not ashamed to ask that Our Lord Jesus Christ no longer reign in the Valais?’ ‘Oh, but now it’s no longer possible, you understand, it’s no longer possible.’
And Protestants, are you going to ask them to stop recognising their Protestantism as an official religion in the canton of Vaud or in Denmark?
And don't we Catholics have the right to have states in which the Catholic religion is the only one publicly recognised? - ‘Ah, that's no longer possible!’ - What about the magnificent encyclical Quas Primas, in which Pius XI reminds us that Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign in all states and over all nations? - ‘Oh, the Pope wouldn't write that now!’ Oh, for example! This encyclical was written in 1925 by Pius XI to remind all bishops of the doctrine on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and now some bishops are doing exactly the opposite.
And that, unfortunately, is what has happened: officially, the canton of Valais is no longer a Catholic state. The Church is no longer recognised, in the same way as any other private association, just like other religions, which have the right to organise themselves in the Valais.
CARDINAL BEA, SPOKESMAN FOR THE LIBERALS
How did it happen?
One day Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea brought us two booklets worth their weight in gold. These two booklets represent the two camps in the Church: one is the French Revolution and the other is Catholic Tradition. One is that of Cardinal Bea, a liberal, the other that of Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Commission.
In his document, Cardinal Ottaviani talks about ‘religious tolerance’. In other words, if there are other religions in Catholic states, we tolerate them but we do not give them the same freedoms as the Church, just as we tolerate sins or errors, because we cannot expunge everything.
There has to be a certain tolerance in society, but that doesn't mean we approve of evil. When the time came for Cardinal Ottaviani to present his document to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council, which simply repeated the doctrine still taught by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea stood up and said he was against it. Cardinal Ruffini of Sicily intervened to stop this little scandal of two cardinals violently opposing each other in front of everyone else. He asked that the matter be referred to the higher authority, i.e. the Pope, who was not presiding over the session that day. But Cardinal Bea said no, I want us to vote on who is with me and who is with Cardinal Ottaviani.
So the vote was taken. The seventy cardinals, the bishops and the four superiors of religious orders who were there were divided roughly in half. Virtually all the Latin cardinals, Italians, Spaniards and South Americans, were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani. On the other hand, the American, English, German and French cardinals were for Cardinal Bea. The Church was thus divided on a fundamental theme of its doctrine: the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But that was our last session, and one wondered what the Council itself would be like if half of the seventy cardinals were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani’s religious tolerance, and the other half were already in favour of Cardinal Bea’s religious freedom, which referred to the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Well, at the Council there was also a struggle, and it has to be said that the liberals won. What a scandal! And so came this new religion, descended more from the French Revolution than from Catholic Tradition, this famous ecumenism where all religions are on the same footing. Now you can understand the current situation, it stems from the victory of the liberals at the Council. There was, however, vehement opposition, but since the Pope practically sided with freedom, then it was the liberals who took over the positions in Rome and who still occupy them.
I have always opposed this, along with Monsignor Sigaud, Monsignor de Castro Mayer and many other members of the Council. For we cannot allow Our Lord to be uncrowned. The Church is founded on the principle that Our Lord must reign on earth as He reigns in Heaven. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, yes, may the will of Our Lord be done everywhere and not just in families. But now that liberalism reigns in Rome, the liberalism that our authors in 1926 described as the Church's worst enemy, we are witnessing the demolition of the Church.
There really is a rupture. But we are in communion with all the popes up to the Council, whereas Cardinal Bea gives no reference in his document. He could not refer to any pope, since his doctrine is new and, on the contrary, has always been condemned by them. In Cardinal Ottaviani's brochure, there are more pages of references than text, references to popes, councils and the entire doctrine of the Church. Religious tolerance is very much in line with Tradition.
The Church's faith has always been to preach the truth, and to tolerate error because it cannot do otherwise, while striving to be missionary, to reduce error and bring people back to the truth. But it has never said that you have as much right to be in error as in truth, that you have as much right to be a Buddhist as a Catholic. It’s not possible, or else the Catholic religion is no longer the only true religion. This is a fundamental catastrophe for the Church; we experienced this struggle at the Council and we are still experiencing it today.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEUTRALITY
Because when the Catholic Church is no longer the only one recognised, there are inevitably serious consequences, as can be seen in Valais, for example. Religions have become subservient to the state, whereas before it was the state that was subservient to religion, and governments have become the masters of religions. By affirming that the Catholic religion was the only one publicly recognised, Our Lord reigned, and the State could not do what it wanted. But now, with neutrality, religions are like simple private associations within the state, and the state can abolish them or intervene as a master, just as it prevents certain sects from setting up, for the time being, in Valais. Soon, however, permission will probably be granted to build Buddhist temples or mosques. When the State was Catholic, it refused the public temples of other religions. It tolerated private practice, but avoided the scandal of temples attracting Christians to these false religions. It protected the faith of its citizens.
Then, of course, there is immorality, because all these religions have morals that run counter to those of the Church: polygamy, divorce and other practices that run counter to Christian marriage. Protestantism, Buddhism... these are immoral religions, and their immorality ends up penetrating Catholics too. This is why the Catholic states made it a law to prevent them.
But in all the states that recognised only the Catholic Church - Colombia, Brazil, Chile, etc. - Rome intervened to allow all religions freedom. The result was the invasion of sects from North America with lots of dollars and money. Previously, in order to protect the faith of their fellow citizens, states prevented the entry of all these sects. But once the state no longer has a religion, and the Church demands that all religions be admitted, the doors are open. And we are witnessing an incredible invasion, Moonies, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, so much so that the bishops themselves met in South America to discuss the seriousness of the situation.
Some say forty million, others sixty million South American Catholics have joined sects since 1968, i.e. since the Council! This is the terrible consequence of Cardinal Bea’s position: the apostasy of millions and millions of Catholics. And we're seeing the same thing everywhere else, like in France where we’re seeing more and more Catholics switching to Islam, sects or Masonic lodges.
This is general apostasy, which is why we are resisting, but the Roman authorities would like us to accept it. When I spoke to them in Rome, they wanted me to recognise religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I can't do that. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani, faithful to all the popes, and not this new and still-condemned doctrine.
That’s our opposition, and that’s why we can't agree. It’s not so much the question of the Mass, because the Mass is precisely one of the consequences of the fact that they wanted to move closer to Protestantism and therefore transform worship, the sacraments, the catechism, etc…
THE BASIS OF OUR POSITION
The real fundamental opposition is the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
‘Opportet Illum regnare’, Saint Paul tells us, Our Lord came to reign. They say no, and we say yes, along with all the popes. Our Lord did not come to be hidden inside houses without coming out. Why missionaries, so many of whom were massacred? To preach that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. So the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they didn't hesitate to give their lives to continue preaching Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now we’re meant to do the opposite, telling the pagans: ‘Your religion is good, keep it as long as you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans!’ That’s why we can't get along with them, because we are obeying Our Lord who said to the apostles: ‘Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth’.
That's why we shouldn't be surprised that we can't get along with Rome. This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of the Catholic faith, just as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani clashed over it, and as all the popes clashed with liberalism. It’s the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church.
But before the Council, the popes and Rome supported Tradition against liberalism, whereas now the liberals have taken their place. Obviously they are against traditionalists, so we are persecuted. But we are at peace because we are in communion with all the popes since Our Lord and the Apostles. We are keeping their faith, and we're not going to switch now to the revolutionary faith in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We do not want to be sons of 1789, but sons of Our Lord, sons of the Gospel.
The representatives of the Catholic Church say that everyone is free and that we can bring all religions together to pray, like in Assisi? This is an abomination, and the day when Our Lord gets angry it will be no laughing matter. For if Our Lord punished the Jews as He did, it was because they had refused to believe in Him. He had announced that Jerusalem would be razed to the ground, and Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the temple has never been rebuilt since. He could well say the same thing now that all His pastors are against Him, they no longer want to believe in His universal reign.
We must remain attached to the doctrine of the Church. Remain attached to Our Lord who is everything to us. He is the Master, he is the one who will judge us as he will judge everyone else. So we must pray for His kingdom to come, even if we are persecuted.
Extraordinary as it may seem, that’s the situation today. I didn't invent it. Why do I find myself almost alone in opposing this liberalism when the vast majority of bishops, even in Rome, are in favour of it? It’s a great mystery. In remaining faithful, as before, to everything the popes have said, one finds oneself almost alone.
If you're with Our Lord, that's the main thing, even if you have to be alone. If you are with all the teaching of the Church over more than twenty centuries, you have nothing to fear. There's nothing to worry about, is there! Thanks be to God! The Good Lord, who knows the future, will set things right one day, because the Church cannot remain in this situation indefinitely.
So let’s put our trust in the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord, and let’s not be discouraged or worried, because we are carrying on the
Church. Let us remain in peace.
May the Good Lord bless you!
+ Marcel Lefebvre
This conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at the priory in Sierre, Switzerland, on 27th November 1988, just a few months after the episcopal consecrations. The title (“Le libéralisme, le pire ennemi de l’Église”) and subtitles are from Fideliter in which it first appeared. The remainder of the text is as it was spoken. The translation is our own.
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
“Liberalism, the Church’s Worst Enemy!”
This year has been full of sensational events and serious decisions, both for me and for you, who are suffering the consequences because of your attachment to the Society and to Tradition. Why such decisions? Because the situation is very serious. It is not twenty years old, but it is very old.
THE SUPPORTERS OF THE ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION
After the French Revolution, some wanted to come to terms with the principles of the Revolution and compromise with the enemies of the Church; others refused this arrangement because Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us: ‘He who is not with me is against me’. If you are for the reign of Jesus Christ, then, you are against His enemies. To begin with, there were those who claimed that it was possible not to speak of Our Lord while continuing to love Him, so that they could make alliances and pacts. But the popes, right up to the Second Vatican Council, disapproved.
JESUS CHRIST ONLY GOD, ONLY KING
Our Lord is our King, our God. He must therefore reign supreme, not only in private over our persons, but also in our families, our villages and the whole country. In any case, whether we like it or not, one day He will be our Judge: when He comes on the clouds to judge the whole world, all men will be on their knees, Buddhists, Muslims, everyone. For there are not many gods, but only one, as we sing in the Gloria: Tu solus sanctus, Tu solus Altissimus Jesu Christe. He came down from heaven to save us, He reigns in heaven, we will see Him when we die.
DIVISION AMONG CATHOLICS - THE ‘LIBERAL CATHOLICS’
The French Revolution brought about a real division, which had already begun with the Protestants. A whole class of intellectuals rose up against Our Lord, in a veritable diabolical plot against His reign, which they no longer wanted to hear about.
They allowed us to honour Him in our chapels and sacristies, but not outside them. Our Lord was no longer to be spoken of in the courts, or in schools, or in hospitals - in a word, anywhere. They would say, for example: ‘You offend Buddhists with your Lord Jesus Christ. Since they don't believe in it, leave them alone. Why put Jesus Christ everywhere?’ But Our Lord has the right to reign everywhere, and in Catholic countries He is the master. And we must try to make Him reign as much as possible, to convert those who do not yet know and love Him, so that they too become His subjects, and so that in heaven they recognise their Master.
Thus, since the French Revolution, Catholics have been divided between those who accept that Our Lord should be honoured in families and parishes, but not outside them, and those who want Our Lord to reign everywhere. The former, to justify no longer talking about Our Lord in society, relied on the freedom to believe or not to believe. But that's not true, we're not free to believe what we want. Our Lord said it well: ‘He who believes will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.’ Of course we can misuse this freedom, but then we are disobeying and moving away from God. So morally we are not free, we must honour Our Lord and follow His teachings.
THE POPES HAVE CONDEMNED THE LIBERALS
These are the people who have been called liberals because they were in favour of freedom, leaving everyone the right to think what they want according to their conscience. But the popes have always condemned this liberalism, stating emphatically that there is no more freedom of conscience than there is freedom to do good or evil. Of course we can disobey. A child can disobey his parents, but does he have the right to do so? Obviously not.
It's the same thing with religion. We must all obey Our Lord, and therefore the only true religion. Of course there are people who disobey, but we must try to convert them and bring them to obey Our Lord, the only true God, who will judge us all. Now this liberal current was developed by Catholics like Lamennais who was a priest, hence a division within the Church itself. But popes such as Pius IX, Leo XIII, Saint Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII have always condemned these liberals as the worst enemies of the Church because they detach people, families and states from Our Lord Jesus Christ.
When Our Lord is no longer present in schools, hospitals, justice systems or governments, when He is absent from the public atmosphere, then we have apostasy and atheism. People get into the habit of no longer thinking about Our Lord because He is nowhere to be seen, and little by little this forgetfulness spreads, even into families.
At the moment, in which restaurants or hotels, for example, do you find the Cross of Our Lord? Personally, I travel a lot, and only in Austria have I found a beautiful crucifix in certain restaurants, or a beautiful image of the Blessed Virgin in the hotel room. Elsewhere it’s all gone, and yet there was a time when there used to be no house without a crucifix. Now even good Catholics are afraid to put one in their homes, for fear of the reaction of those who don't like the Christian religion. That’s where we’re getting to by gently driving Our Lord away.
ENEMIES WITHIN THE CHURCH
Saint Pius X, at the beginning of the century, said that now the enemies of the Church are no longer only outside, but also within. By this he meant those Catholics who no longer want the public reign of Our Lord.
But that was not all. Since there were even modernist professors in the seminaries who wanted to adapt to the modern world, with its rejection of Our Lord and its apostasy, Saint Pius X asked that they be removed from the seminaries so that they would not influence the seminarians who, once they became priests, would in turn spread bad doctrines. And Saint Pius X was right, because that’s what happened. The bishops didn't want to pay any attention and these modern ideas were slowly introduced into the seminaries, then into the clergy and finally everywhere. In the name of freedom they stopped talking about Our Lord and apostasy ensued!
In 1926, I was at the seminary in Rome, more than sixty years ago, under Pius XI, who was also fighting and condemning priests who were in favour of secularism. In that year, a ‘Week Against Liberalism’ was held in Rome, during which two small books were published: Libéralisme et Catholicisme by Father Roussel and Le Christ Roi de Nations by Father
Philippe.
Here is the introduction to the first:
Quote:‘We want Jesus Christ, Son of God and Redeemer of mankind, to reign not only over the individual, but over families large and small, over nations and the entire social order; this is the great thought that unites us especially this week.’ - this was in 1926 - ‘From this social reign of Jesus the King, a reign legitimate in itself and necessary for us, there is no more formidable adversary by its cunning, its tenacity, its influence, than modern Liberalism’.
The enemy has been named: these liberals who want freedom of thought. If everyone has the right to his own thoughts, no one should offend his neighbour by displaying his own, so we must say nothing more, and we no longer have the right to speak of Our Lord.
HOW CAN WE STILL BE MISSIONARIES?
So how can we be missionaries if we can no longer speak of Our Lord? It’s impossible; and in a nation that is 95% Catholic, we will no longer be allowed to speak of Our Lord because 5% are Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim. It’s unbelievable, and yet that’s how it is. In Catholic schools, because there is one Jew, two or three Muslims or Protestants, the crucifixes are taken down, Our Lord is no longer spoken of, and prayers are no longer said before classes, because this could disturb non-Catholics. So Our Lord no longer has the right to exist because two or three disagree with Him. So what are the origins of this liberalism, its main manifestations, its logical development?
How can it be qualified and refuted? These are the questions to which Father Roussel gives the answers in his very interesting book, which we give to all our seminarians so that they are aware of these modern errors. This liberalism, secularism and lack of public submission to Our Lord have spread despite the Popes, because bishops and priests have not listened to them enough. The second little book published to mark this ‘Week Against Liberalism’ in Rome is the ‘Catechism of Divine Rights in the Social Order’ under the title ‘Christ, the King of Nations’ by Father Philippe, a Redemptorist, whose preface reads as follows:
Quote:‘The Catholic Week at the beginning of 1926, organised by the Apostolic League, entrusted us with a desire, that of possessing a catechism setting out the fact and nature of the kingship of Jesus Christ; it is in response to this desire that these pages are being published. Under the pretext of following the lights of conscience alone, we have got into the habit of leaving the fulfilment of all duties to the free disposition of conscience: the rights of truth and especially those of the Supreme Truth are trampled underfoot.
Our catechism calls for a great act of faith, the act of faith in God and in Jesus Christ intervened by authority. People must know that in all relations between man and man, between society and society, between country and country, in everything that constitutes the innermost being of a nation, they depend on God and on Jesus Christ. On this point, as on the very existence of God, we must all bow our heads and repeat the Creed with all our soul. God has blessed our work, and in less than six months we were able to sell out our first edition, thanks to the self-imposed propaganda of our zealots’.
All this was happening in 1926!
FREEMASONRY
Even then, priests were resisting, by fighting against the invading apostasy and defending Our Lord against the secularisation of all institutions. Leo XIII, in his encyclical Humanum Genus, wrote that the Freemasons’ aim was to deChristianise everything, especially institutions, and that they wanted to remove Our Lord from everywhere. All this developed in spite of the Popes, and led to the Second Vatican Council.
THE PREPARATION OF THE COUNCIL: THE LIBERAL BISHOPS
Here too there was division, even within the Church. These liberals, who no longer wanted Our Lord to be spoken of in society and who, on the contrary, wanted freedom for all religions and all systems of thought, created opposition between the cardinals right from the preparation of the Council. The Holy See had set up commissions, headed by the ‘Central Preparatory Commission for the Council,’ of which I was a member.
It sat from 1960 to 1962, and was made up of seventy cardinals and around twenty archbishops and bishops, and if I sat on it, it was in my capacity as President of the Assembly of Archbishops and Bishops of French West Africa. Pope John XXIII often presided over our meetings.
But I must say, it was like a battlefield. Who was going to win? The liberals or the true Catholics who were with all the popes in their condemnation of liberalism? On the one hand, some wanted the Church to declare publicly their thesis on freedom, the neutrality of public bodies, and the absence of Our Lord Jesus Christ from public life. On the other hand, there were strong reactions to the contrary. Shouldn't we Catholics have the right to have our own Catholic States, so as not to offend the Muslim, Buddhist and Protestant religions that are expanding? And all this under the pretext of not doing them wrong, when they themselves are busy doing it publicly?
In Protestant states, for example, people are publicly Protestant. The Swiss canton of Vaud has written into its constitution that Protestantism is the state religion. The same is true of Sweden, Norway, England, Holland and Denmark, where Protestantism is the only religion publicly recognised by the State.
THE LIBERALS ABOLISH CATHOLIC STATES
So shouldn't we have the right to have our own Catholic states too? The Swiss canton of Valais was 90% Catholic. Since the Liberals won at the Council, and now dominate in Rome, they asked Monsignor Adam (whom I knew well and who was a good friend), via the nuncio in Berne, to do away with the Catholic canton of Valais. The Valais Constitution stated that the Catholic religion was the only religion publicly recognised by the State; in short, it was an affirmation that Our Lord Jesus Christ was the King of the Valais. And Monsignor Adam, favourable as he was to Tradition, he who had fought during the Council in favour of the social reign of Our Lord, wrote a letter to all his faithful, asking the State of Valais to change its constitution and become officially neutral.
I asked about this and was told that it had come from the Nuncio. So I went to see him in Berne and he confirmed that Bishop Adam had indeed acted on his orders. ‘And you're not ashamed to ask that Our Lord Jesus Christ no longer reign in the Valais?’ ‘Oh, but now it’s no longer possible, you understand, it’s no longer possible.’
And Protestants, are you going to ask them to stop recognising their Protestantism as an official religion in the canton of Vaud or in Denmark?
And don't we Catholics have the right to have states in which the Catholic religion is the only one publicly recognised? - ‘Ah, that's no longer possible!’ - What about the magnificent encyclical Quas Primas, in which Pius XI reminds us that Our Lord Jesus Christ must reign in all states and over all nations? - ‘Oh, the Pope wouldn't write that now!’ Oh, for example! This encyclical was written in 1925 by Pius XI to remind all bishops of the doctrine on the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and now some bishops are doing exactly the opposite.
And that, unfortunately, is what has happened: officially, the canton of Valais is no longer a Catholic state. The Church is no longer recognised, in the same way as any other private association, just like other religions, which have the right to organise themselves in the Valais.
CARDINAL BEA, SPOKESMAN FOR THE LIBERALS
How did it happen?
One day Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bea brought us two booklets worth their weight in gold. These two booklets represent the two camps in the Church: one is the French Revolution and the other is Catholic Tradition. One is that of Cardinal Bea, a liberal, the other that of Cardinal Ottaviani, prefect of the Commission.
In his document, Cardinal Ottaviani talks about ‘religious tolerance’. In other words, if there are other religions in Catholic states, we tolerate them but we do not give them the same freedoms as the Church, just as we tolerate sins or errors, because we cannot expunge everything.
There has to be a certain tolerance in society, but that doesn't mean we approve of evil. When the time came for Cardinal Ottaviani to present his document to the Central Preparatory Commission for the Council, which simply repeated the doctrine still taught by the Catholic Church, Cardinal Bea stood up and said he was against it. Cardinal Ruffini of Sicily intervened to stop this little scandal of two cardinals violently opposing each other in front of everyone else. He asked that the matter be referred to the higher authority, i.e. the Pope, who was not presiding over the session that day. But Cardinal Bea said no, I want us to vote on who is with me and who is with Cardinal Ottaviani.
So the vote was taken. The seventy cardinals, the bishops and the four superiors of religious orders who were there were divided roughly in half. Virtually all the Latin cardinals, Italians, Spaniards and South Americans, were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani. On the other hand, the American, English, German and French cardinals were for Cardinal Bea. The Church was thus divided on a fundamental theme of its doctrine: the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
But that was our last session, and one wondered what the Council itself would be like if half of the seventy cardinals were in favour of Cardinal Ottaviani’s religious tolerance, and the other half were already in favour of Cardinal Bea’s religious freedom, which referred to the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Well, at the Council there was also a struggle, and it has to be said that the liberals won. What a scandal! And so came this new religion, descended more from the French Revolution than from Catholic Tradition, this famous ecumenism where all religions are on the same footing. Now you can understand the current situation, it stems from the victory of the liberals at the Council. There was, however, vehement opposition, but since the Pope practically sided with freedom, then it was the liberals who took over the positions in Rome and who still occupy them.
I have always opposed this, along with Monsignor Sigaud, Monsignor de Castro Mayer and many other members of the Council. For we cannot allow Our Lord to be uncrowned. The Church is founded on the principle that Our Lord must reign on earth as He reigns in Heaven. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven, yes, may the will of Our Lord be done everywhere and not just in families. But now that liberalism reigns in Rome, the liberalism that our authors in 1926 described as the Church's worst enemy, we are witnessing the demolition of the Church.
There really is a rupture. But we are in communion with all the popes up to the Council, whereas Cardinal Bea gives no reference in his document. He could not refer to any pope, since his doctrine is new and, on the contrary, has always been condemned by them. In Cardinal Ottaviani's brochure, there are more pages of references than text, references to popes, councils and the entire doctrine of the Church. Religious tolerance is very much in line with Tradition.
The Church's faith has always been to preach the truth, and to tolerate error because it cannot do otherwise, while striving to be missionary, to reduce error and bring people back to the truth. But it has never said that you have as much right to be in error as in truth, that you have as much right to be a Buddhist as a Catholic. It’s not possible, or else the Catholic religion is no longer the only true religion. This is a fundamental catastrophe for the Church; we experienced this struggle at the Council and we are still experiencing it today.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEUTRALITY
Because when the Catholic Church is no longer the only one recognised, there are inevitably serious consequences, as can be seen in Valais, for example. Religions have become subservient to the state, whereas before it was the state that was subservient to religion, and governments have become the masters of religions. By affirming that the Catholic religion was the only one publicly recognised, Our Lord reigned, and the State could not do what it wanted. But now, with neutrality, religions are like simple private associations within the state, and the state can abolish them or intervene as a master, just as it prevents certain sects from setting up, for the time being, in Valais. Soon, however, permission will probably be granted to build Buddhist temples or mosques. When the State was Catholic, it refused the public temples of other religions. It tolerated private practice, but avoided the scandal of temples attracting Christians to these false religions. It protected the faith of its citizens.
Then, of course, there is immorality, because all these religions have morals that run counter to those of the Church: polygamy, divorce and other practices that run counter to Christian marriage. Protestantism, Buddhism... these are immoral religions, and their immorality ends up penetrating Catholics too. This is why the Catholic states made it a law to prevent them.
But in all the states that recognised only the Catholic Church - Colombia, Brazil, Chile, etc. - Rome intervened to allow all religions freedom. The result was the invasion of sects from North America with lots of dollars and money. Previously, in order to protect the faith of their fellow citizens, states prevented the entry of all these sects. But once the state no longer has a religion, and the Church demands that all religions be admitted, the doors are open. And we are witnessing an incredible invasion, Moonies, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, so much so that the bishops themselves met in South America to discuss the seriousness of the situation.
Some say forty million, others sixty million South American Catholics have joined sects since 1968, i.e. since the Council! This is the terrible consequence of Cardinal Bea’s position: the apostasy of millions and millions of Catholics. And we're seeing the same thing everywhere else, like in France where we’re seeing more and more Catholics switching to Islam, sects or Masonic lodges.
This is general apostasy, which is why we are resisting, but the Roman authorities would like us to accept it. When I spoke to them in Rome, they wanted me to recognise religious freedom like Cardinal Bea. But I said no, I can't do that. My faith is that of Cardinal Ottaviani, faithful to all the popes, and not this new and still-condemned doctrine.
That’s our opposition, and that’s why we can't agree. It’s not so much the question of the Mass, because the Mass is precisely one of the consequences of the fact that they wanted to move closer to Protestantism and therefore transform worship, the sacraments, the catechism, etc…
THE BASIS OF OUR POSITION
The real fundamental opposition is the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
‘Opportet Illum regnare’, Saint Paul tells us, Our Lord came to reign. They say no, and we say yes, along with all the popes. Our Lord did not come to be hidden inside houses without coming out. Why missionaries, so many of whom were massacred? To preach that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God, to tell the pagans to convert. So the pagans wanted to make them disappear, but they didn't hesitate to give their lives to continue preaching Our Lord Jesus Christ. But now we’re meant to do the opposite, telling the pagans: ‘Your religion is good, keep it as long as you are good Buddhists, good Muslims or good pagans!’ That’s why we can't get along with them, because we are obeying Our Lord who said to the apostles: ‘Go and teach the Gospel to the ends of the earth’.
That's why we shouldn't be surprised that we can't get along with Rome. This will not be possible as long as Rome does not return to faith in the reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as it gives the impression that all religions are good. We clash on a point of the Catholic faith, just as Cardinal Bea and Cardinal Ottaviani clashed over it, and as all the popes clashed with liberalism. It’s the same thing, the same current, the same ideas and the same divisions within the Church.
But before the Council, the popes and Rome supported Tradition against liberalism, whereas now the liberals have taken their place. Obviously they are against traditionalists, so we are persecuted. But we are at peace because we are in communion with all the popes since Our Lord and the Apostles. We are keeping their faith, and we're not going to switch now to the revolutionary faith in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. We do not want to be sons of 1789, but sons of Our Lord, sons of the Gospel.
The representatives of the Catholic Church say that everyone is free and that we can bring all religions together to pray, like in Assisi? This is an abomination, and the day when Our Lord gets angry it will be no laughing matter. For if Our Lord punished the Jews as He did, it was because they had refused to believe in Him. He had announced that Jerusalem would be razed to the ground, and Jerusalem was razed to the ground, and the temple has never been rebuilt since. He could well say the same thing now that all His pastors are against Him, they no longer want to believe in His universal reign.
We must remain attached to the doctrine of the Church. Remain attached to Our Lord who is everything to us. He is the Master, he is the one who will judge us as he will judge everyone else. So we must pray for His kingdom to come, even if we are persecuted.
Extraordinary as it may seem, that’s the situation today. I didn't invent it. Why do I find myself almost alone in opposing this liberalism when the vast majority of bishops, even in Rome, are in favour of it? It’s a great mystery. In remaining faithful, as before, to everything the popes have said, one finds oneself almost alone.
If you're with Our Lord, that's the main thing, even if you have to be alone. If you are with all the teaching of the Church over more than twenty centuries, you have nothing to fear. There's nothing to worry about, is there! Thanks be to God! The Good Lord, who knows the future, will set things right one day, because the Church cannot remain in this situation indefinitely.
So let’s put our trust in the Blessed Virgin and Our Lord, and let’s not be discouraged or worried, because we are carrying on the
Church. Let us remain in peace.
May the Good Lord bless you!
+ Marcel Lefebvre
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre