This declaration is even more relevant today than ever!

November 21, 1974–2024

On the 50th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre's Declaration to give the profound reasons of the attitude of the Society of Saint Pius X in the Catholic Church, after Vatican II. This declaration is even more relevant today than ever!

The year 2024 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of November 21, 1974, in which Archbishop Lefebvre inscribed in gold letters the profound reasons for the attitude always followed by the Society of Saint Pius X, in the context of the post-Vatican II era. These reasons are the following: obedience to the teachings of the Magisterium; rejection of errors contrary to these teachings, as they came to light at Vatican II and since; and resistance to the acts of the representatives of authority in the Church, when they impose these errors.

2. The most profound reason of all, the fundamental reason which is at the beginning of all the others, is the obedience which the teachings and directives of the ecclesiastical Magisterium demand of every Catholic, a Magisterium entrusted by Our Lord to the Apostle Saint Peter and, through him, to all those who succeed him in the See of Rome. "We adhere," thus declares Archbishop Lefebvre, "with all our heart, with all our soul to Catholic Rome, guardian of the Catholic faith and of the traditions necessary for the maintenance of this faith; to eternal Rome, mistress of wisdom and truth." This obedience is in fact the absolutely necessary condition for the profession of the saving faith. For if faith is a gift from God, a supernatural virtue infused and received with the grace of baptism, its exercise depends on its object and it is the Magisterium instituted by Christ which must indicate it to us, in the name of God, by declaring to us with authority what are the truths which are imposed on the act of our faith. As Pius XII recalled again in 1950, "this Magisterium, in matters of faith and morals, must be for every theologian the immediate and universal rule of truth, since the Lord Christ has en-trusted to him the deposit of faith - the Holy Scriptures and divine Tradition - to preserve it, defend it and interpret it" [1] .

3. The second reason is the inevitable consequence of the first. The consequence of submission to the truth is the rejection of contrary error, and therefore, obedience to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church has as its consequence the rejection of everything that would contradict these teachings. And the facts are there: error contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium has crept into the preaching of men of the Church, at Vatican II and since. "We refuse, on the other hand," continues Archbishop Lefebvre, "and we have always refused, to follow the Rome of neo-modernist, neo-Protestant tendency that clearly manifested itself in the Second Vatican Council, and after the Council in all the reforms that came from it." Refusal is here the necessary consequence of obedience. The proven fact is that a neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency "has clearly manifested itself". The opposition between the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and those of the previous Magisterium is clear [2] , if only in the practical directives which ow from it, and, a fortiori, in the key passages of the Council relating to religious freedom [3] ecumenism[4] and collegiality [5] .

4. The third reason follows from the first two. If obedience to the ecclesiastical Magisterium commands us to reject errors contrary to the truths taught so far with authority, the same obedience commands us to resist the acts of men of the Church who would like to impose these errors in the name of a false obedience. "No authority," says Archbishop Lefebvre again, "even the highest in the hierarchy, can force us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, clearly expressed and professed by the Magisterium of the Church for 19 centuries! This is why, without any rebellion, bitterness or resentment, we continue our work of priestly formation under the star of the Magisterium of all time, convinced that we cannot render a greater service to the Holy Catholic Church, to the Supreme Ponti and to future generations." 

5. And it is here that Archbishop Lefebvre supports his words on the precept given by the Apostle Saint Paul. “If it should happen, says Saint Paul in his epistle to the Galatians, that we ourselves"; it is not only if an angel comes from heaven, but we sometimes forget this little word: "if we ourselves or an angel from heaven" - si nos aut angelus de cælo – if we ourselves or an angel from heaven teach you anything other than what I have taught you, let him be anathema." Saint Paul makes himself anathema if he teaches new things, if he teaches something that he did not teach before. Is this not what the Holy Father repeats to us or must repeat to us today? And if therefore there is apparently a certain contradiction which would manifest itself in his words or in his acts, as well as in the acts of the dicasteries, then we choose what has always been taught and we turn a deaf ear to the destructive novelties of the Church!"

6. In his Commentary on this passage from the Epistle to the Galatians, St. Thomas Aquinas gives the following clarifications: "There are three kinds of teaching: that of the philosophers who follow natural reason; the Revelation of the Old Testament communicated by the angels (Gal, III, 19); and  the Revelation of the New Testament given immediately by God (Jn, I, 18; Heb, 1,2). The teaching of man can be changed and revoked by another man who has better knowledge; the teaching of the Old Law revealed by the angel can be completed by God; but the teaching revealed directly by God cannot be modified, neither by man nor by angel. Wherefore if it happen that a man or an angel should say the contrary of what God has revealed, it is not his word which is against the revealed doctrine, but rather it is the revealed doctrine which is against his word, for he who has uttered such a word must be excluded and cast out of the communion based on that doctrine. The Apostle says here that the doctrine of the Gospel, immediately revealed by God, is of so great dignity that, if a man or an angel preaches anything other than what has been set forth in this Gospel, he is anathema, that is, he must be cut off and cast out." [6]

7. Let us remember this idea, which is of great importance: "If it happens that a man or an angel says the opposite of what God has revealed, it is not his word that is against the revealed doctrine but rather it is the revealed doctrine that is against his word." It is the revealed doctrine, already communicated to men by the divinely instituted organ of the Magisterium, which judges this word to be contrary. This explanation of the Angelic Doctor exactly matches the criterion stated by Archbishop Lefebvre, in a Homily delivered at Ecône on August 22, 1976: And when we are told: "You judge the pope, you judge the bishops," we respond that it is not we who judge the bishops, it is our faith, it is Tradition. It is our little catechism of always. A ve-year-old child can show his bishop a lesson. If a bishop comes and says to a child: “What you are told about the Holy Trinity, that there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity, is not true.” The child takes his catechism and says: “My catechism teaches me that there are three Persons in the Holy Trinity. You are the one who is wrong. I am the one who is right.” This child is right. He is right because he has all of Tradition with him, because he has all of faith with him. Well, that is what we do. We are nothing else. We say: Tradition condemns you. Tradition condemns what you are doing at present .[7]

8. It is true, we have said, recalling the teaching of Pius XII, that the Magisterium of the Church, in matters of faith and morals, must be for every theologian the immediate and universal rule of truth. This rule is that of the proposition of the Magisterium, from which theologians, and with them all the faithful, receive the Word revealed by God, the deposit of faith. And in normal times, this is the current proposition, insofar as this proposition remains in perfect homogeneity with the proposition accomplished up to now by the Magisterium, throughout the past[8]. The Magisterium could thus be described under the image of an uninterrupted echo. It is called "living" indistinction from Revelation which is called "completed" or "closed" and the Magisterium is living taken as such, that is to say not as being the current Magisterium of the Pope of the present time, but as being what it is, from the time of the Apostles until the end of the world. It is this living Magisterium which is the rule of truth in matters of faith and morals. It is ordinarily so in its current preaching, insofar as this echoes unaltered all past preaching.

9. We are forced to note that today the current preaching of men of the Church, since Vatican II, far from echoing that of the living Magisterium of the Church, contradicts it. There is therefore a deficiency that must lead us to rely on all the past preaching of the living Magisterium of the Church, on the Tradition of twenty centuries, to continue to keep the faith by protecting ourselves against errors. And this is the criterion stated by Saint Paul, as Saint Thomas explains it: it is the doctrine revealed by God and already proposed by the living Magisterium of the Church that is against the word of men of the Church today, which judges and condemns the new word of Vatican II.

10. Archbishop Lefebvre continues by insisting on the seriousness of these errors, which a affect the faithful particularly through the implementation of the liturgical reform. "One cannot profoundly modify the lex orandi, that is to say the liturgy, without modifying the lex credendi. A new Mass corresponds to a new catechism, a new priesthood, new seminaries, new universities, a charismatic, Pentecostal Church, all things which are opposed to orthodoxy and to the Magisterium of all time. This reform being the product of liberalism, of modernism, is entirely poisoned, it comes from heresy and ends in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical."

11. Resistance is necessary, in the name of obedience to the living Magisterium of the Church, in the name of this uninterrupted echo of the preaching of Christ and the Apostles. "It is therefore impossible for any conscious and faithful Catholic to adopt this reform and to submit to it in any way whatsoever. The only attitude of salvation and fidelity to Catholic doctrine is the categorical refusal to accept this reform; this is why we hold firmly to all that was believed, practiced in the faith, morals, worship, the teaching of the catechism, the formation of priests, the institution of the Church until 1962, before the harmful influence of the Second Vatican Council. In doing so, with the grace of God, the help of the Virgin Mary, of Saint Joseph, of Saint Pius X, we are convinced that we remain faithful to the Catholic and Roman Church, to all the successors of Peter and to be the faithful dispensers of the mysteries of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Spiritu Sancto."

12. In doing so, would Archbishop Lefebvre and his Society not be calling into question the indefectibility of the Church? Would not the famous observation constantly formulated by the former Archbishop of Dakar ("We are obliged to note") be that of the forfeiture of the institution established by Jesus Christ and the denial of his divine nature? If we have understood what exactly the indefectibility of the Church consists of [9] , the objection vanishes of its own accord. Everything here rests on the fundamental distinction between, on the one hand, the very institution of the Church, which is a divine and therefore indefectible institution, and, on the other hand, the acts of the men of the Church who represent this institution. The failure, if there is one, concerns not the Church as such, considered in its Magisterium, but some of the acts carried out by some of the members of its hierarchy who have broken with Tradition and who unfortunately occupy positions of authority in the Church. But the Church remains steadfast, through the courageous resistance of all those who oppose the reforms resulting from the Council and hold firmly "to all that was believed [...] until 1962, before the harmful influence of the Second Vatican Council."

13. Archbishop Lefebvre speaks precisely not of another Rome, of a heretical or schismatic Rome, of a neo-modernist or neo-Protestant Rome, but of a Rome "of a neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency". This expression is intended to designate not the Church as such but those who, in the Church, push souls towards errors formerly condemned.

(Source: Courrier de Rome n° 678 – September 2024)