THE INFILTRATION OF MODERNISM IN THE CHURCH (Part II)

Clearly we were accused of being members of "Action Française," Nazis and fascists and every other pejorative label because we were anti-revolutionary and anti-liberal.

Thus an inquiry was made. The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (Card. Schuster) was sent to the seminary. He wasn't the least of the Cardinals. He was in fact a Benedictine of great holiness and intelligence. He had been designated by Pope Pius XI to make the inquiry at the French Seminary so as to determine if the accusations of Francisque Gay were true or not. The inquiry took place. The result was: the French Seminary functions perfectly well under the direction of Fr. Le Floch. We have absolutely nothing to reproach the Seminary Rector with. But this did not suffice.

Three months later a new inquiry was begun, this time with the order to do away with Fr. Le Floch. The new inquiry was made by a member of a Roman Congregation. He concluded, in effect, that Fr. Le Floch was a friend of "Action Française," that he was dangerous for the Seminary and that he had to be asked to resign. This is just what happened.

In 1926 the Holy See requested Fr. Le Floch to kindly abandon his post as Rector of the French Seminary. He was overwhelmed with sorrow. Fr. Le Floch had never been a politician. He was traditional, attached to the doctrines of the Church and the Popes. In addition he had been a great friend of Pope St. Pius X, who had had great confidence in him. It was precisely because he was a friend of St. Pius X that he was the enemy of the progressive wing.

It was at the same time that I was at the French Seminary that Cardinal Billot was also attacked. He was a first class theologian at the time and remains today well known and studied in our Seminaries. Monseigneur Billot, Cardinal of the Holy Church, was deposed. The purple was taken away from him and he was sent away in penance to Castelgandolfo, quite close to Albano, where the Jesuits have a house. He was forbidden to leave under pretext of having connections with "Action Française."

In fact Cardinal Billot never belonged to "Action Française." He did, however, hold Maurras in high esteem and had cited him in his theology books. In the second volume concerning the Church (De Ecclesia), for example, Cardinal Billot accomplished a magnificent study of liberalism where he took, in the form of notes, several quotations from Maurras. This was a mortal sin! This was all they could find to depose Cardinal Billot. It is not a minor tragedy, for he was one of the great theologians of his time and yet he was deposed as a Cardinal and reduced to the state of a simple priest, for he was not a Bishop. (At that time there were still some Cardinal deacons.) It was already the persecution.  

OPE PlUS XI UNDERWENT THE INFLUENCE OF THE PROGRESSIVE WING

Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. "Divini Redemptoris," his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend Catholic schools.

If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican Civil War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith.

Already at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church. Slowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite just before the council.

Pope Pius XII was a great pope well in his writing as in his way of governing the Church. During the reign of Pius XII the Faith was firmly maintained. Naturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth.

But then John XXIII came along. He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.

When he decided to hold a Synod Rome they said to him, "But Holy Father, a Synod has to be prepared. At least one year is necessary and perhaps two so as to prepare such a meeting, in order that numerous fruits be gained and that reforms be truly studied and then applied so that your diocese of Rome might draw profit from it. All this cannot be done straight away and in the space of two or three months followed by two weeks of meetings and then all will be fine. It is not possible."

"Oh yes, yes I know, I know, but it going to be a small Synod. We can prepare it in a few months and everything will be just fine."

Thus the Synod was rapidly prepared: a few commissions at Rome, everybody very busy and then two weeks of meetings and all was over with. Pope John XXIII was happy his small Synod had been held, but the results were nil. Nothing had changed in the diocese of Rome. The situation was exactly the same as before.

The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church (Part I)

The following conference was given by Archbishop Lefebvre at Montreal, Canada in 1982. It demonstrates by personal experience the tragic corruption of modernism right from the time of Pope Pius XI. The Archbishop describes the extraordinary influence of Monsignor Annibale Bugnini in the framing of the New Mass and how his unprecedented daring brought about the "approval" of this protestantized liturgy. This account of his personal experiences is the very clear demonstration of why Archbishop Lefebvre had to disobey so as to not participate in the self-destruction of the Church. We present it to our readers to allow them to share a more personal viewpoint of the Archbishop's battle for the Church and for the Faith.

The Infiltration of Modernism in the Church (Part I) 

BRIEF HISTORY

I'm happy to remark that every where in the world, everywhere in the Catholic world, courageous people are uniting together around priests who are faithful to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church, so as to maintain Tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith. If there is a movement as general as this it is because the situation in the Church is truly serious.

If Catholics and good priests, some of whom have served in parishes for thirty years to the great satisfaction of their parishioners, have been able to beat the insult of being treated as disobedient rebels and dissidents, it could have only have been so as to maintain the Catholic Faith. They do it knowingly, following the spirit of the martyrs.

Whether one is persecuted by one's own brethren or by the enemies of the Church, it is still to suffer martyrdom, provided it be for the maintaining of the Faith. These priests and faithful are witnesses of the Catholic Faith. They prefer to be considered rebels and dissidents rather than lose their Faith.

Throughout the entire world we are in the presence of a tragic and unheard of situation, which seems never to have happened before in the history of the Church. We must at least try to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. How has it come to pass that good faithful and priests are obliged to fight to maintain the Catholic faith in a Catholic world, which is in the process of totally breaking up?

It was Pope Paul VI himself who spoke of self-destruction within the Church. What does this term self-destruction mean, if it is not that the Church is destroying herself by herself, and hence by her own members. This is already what Pope St. Pius X said in his first encyclical when he wrote: “Henceforth the enemy of the church is no longer outside the church, he is now within." And the Pope did not hesitate to designate those places where he was to be found: "The enemy is found in the seminaries." Consequently, the holy Pope St. Pius X already denounced the presence of the enemies of the Church in the seminaries at the beginning of the century.

Obviously the seminarians of the time, who where imbued with modernism, sillonism and progressivism, later became priests. Some of them even became Bishops and among them were even some Cardinals. One could quote the names of those who were seminarians at the beginning of the century and who are now dead but whose spirit was clearly modernist and progressivist.

Thus already Pope St. Pius X denounced this division in the Church, which was to be the beginning of a very real rupture within the Church and within the clergy.

I am no longer young. During my whole life as a seminarian, as a priest and as a Bishop I have seen this division. I saw it already at the French seminary at Rome where by the grace of God I was able to study. I must admit that I was not very keen to do my studies in Rome. I would personally have preferred to study with the seminarians of my diocese in the Lille Seminary and to become an assistant vicar, and finally a parish priest in a small country parish.

I longed simply to maintain the Faith in a parish. I saw myself somewhat as the spiritual father of a population to which I was sent to teach the Catholic Faith and morals. But it happened otherwise. After the First World War my brother was already at Rome, for he had been separated from the family by the circumstances of the war in the north of France. Consequently my parents insisted that I go to be with him. "Since your brother is already at Rome, at the French seminary, go and join him so as to continue your studies with him." Thus I left for Rome. I studied at the Gregorian University from 1923 to 1930. I was ordained in 1929 and I remained as a priest at the seminary during one year.

THE FIRST VICTIMS OF MODERNISM

During my Seminary years tragic events took place, which now remind me of exactly what I lived through during the Council. I am now in practically the same situation as our Seminary Rector at the time. Fr. Le Floch. When I was there he had already been Rector of the French Seminary at Rome for thirty years. From Brittany, he was a very outstanding man and as strong and firm in the Faith as Brittany granite. He taught us the Papal encyclicals and the exact nature of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, the modern errors condemned by Leo XIII and the liberalism condemned by Pius IX. We liked our Fr. Le Floch very much. We were very attached to him.

But his firmness in doctrine and in Tradition obviously displeased the progressive wing. Progressive Catholics already existed at that time. The Popes had to condemn them.

Not only did Fr. Le Floch displease the progressives, but he also displeased the French government. The French government feared that by the intermediary of Fr. Le Floch and by that formation, which was given to the seminarians at the French Seminary in Rome traditional Bishops, would come to France and would give to the Church in France a traditional and clearly anti-liberal direction.

For the French government was Masonic and consequently profoundly liberal and frightened at the thought that non-liberal Bishops could take over the most important posts. Pressure was consequently exerted on the Pope so as to eliminate Fr. Le Floch. It was Francisque Gay, the future leader of the M.R.P., who was in charge of this operation. He came to Rome to exert pressure on Pope Pius XI, denouncing Fr. Le Floch as being, so he said, a member of.’Action Française" and a politician who taught his seminarians to also be members of "Action Française.’

This was all nothing but a lie. For three years I heard Fr. Le Floch in his spiritual conferences. Never did he speak to us of "Action Française." Likewise people now say to me: "You were formerly a member of Action Française.’”  I have never been a member of "Action Française."

Liberalism has penetrated the Church (Part II)

Excerpts from a conference, Angers, France, 23 November 1980 — Part II (Finish)

I try to explain that we must return to Tradition, that there has been an error, that they are mistaken, that it is necessary to return to a solid foundation, to the things of faith, to the catechism of old, to the sacraments of old, to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass of old. There must be a return, even if they do not abandon all that they have done since the Council immediately. A tree is judged by its fruits. Let them at least leave us freedom (i.e., which rite of Mass to use). I do not agree with those who say there is no pope. very grave thing to say that there is no pope. Because the Pope is Liberal, that does not mean that he has ceased to be the Pope.

I do not think that Pope John Paul II is as infected with Liberalism as was Pope Paul VI; but, unfortunately, in view of the fact that he himself professes to be the spiritual son of Pope Paul VI, that he follows the line of Pope Paul VI, that he is there to defend and continue the work of Paul VI, that he feels it his duty to continue all that John and Paul did, whose names he took, we are troubled and we wonder where it will all end? Must we wait yet again for a new pontificate [to initiate a return to Tradition]? Yet, despite all that, the Pope is nonetheless keen to return to Tradition insofar as seminaries, clergy, Church discipline, and religious discipline are concerned. When the Pope speaks of these things, he speaks well. We are pleased to hear him. If only the Pope wished to return in this way in all respects!

I tell you that, quite simply, because you could ask yourselves many questions, as I ask myself, wishing with all my heart, praying morning and evening, night and day, that Tradition might return to the Church. The Pope himself would be more satisfied and happy than anyone if it did. We can only live in Our Lord, and by Our Lord with the reign of Our Lord. Everywhere! Everywhere! In the Liturgy, in social, political, family life, we can do nothing without Our Savior Jesus Christ. Do you see what I am trying to tell you? We must keep a firm line and we must not deviate during these difficult times in which we live. One could be tempted, justifiably, to extreme solutions and say: “No, no. The Pope is not only Liberal, the Pope is heretical! The Pope may well be more than heretical, so there is no pope!”  

That is not so. To be a Liberal is not necessarily to be a heretic, and as a necessary consequence, outside the Church. We must know how to make the necessary distinctions. This is very important if we are to stay on the right path, to stay in the Church. Besides, where would this thinking lead us? If there is no longer a pope, there are no longer any cardinals because, if the Pope isn't pope, when he nominates cardinals these cardinals can no longer elect a pope, because they are not really cardinals. Well then, would an angel from heaven provide us with a pope? The idea is absurd, and not only absurd,but dangerous because then we would be guided perhaps to solutions which are truly schismatic. One might go to find the "pope" of Palmar de Troya who has been excommunicated. He has excommunicated me, he has excommunicated the Pope and everybody ! There are others. One could go to the church of Toulouse, to the church of Rouen, who knows ? To the Mormons, to the Pentecostals, to the Adventists, or everywhere. Souls are lost, and I do not wish to have such a responsibility.

There are those who find me severe perhaps, for insisting that those young priests who do not agree with us, do not agree with that line which I have always followed, leave us. But I cannot allow the wolf into the sheepfold. If today I say there is a Pope, this Pope, we are not obliged to follow him in everything. It is possible to have shepherds who are not always good shepherds in the full sense of the word, and we are not obliged to follow them in everything. But to go from this, to say that we do not have a pope, no! And so they introduce divisions among traditionalists. They introduce division into the Church, and I want nothing to do with this. I can have nothing to do with this, while regretting it profoundly.

(One day there will be a Pope) a pope truly like a St. Pius X, and there will be no more problems. Holy Church will find herself once more in the Truth, and we shall be in communion one hundred percent with the pope who will have found Tradition again. Oh, certainly, I shall probably not be alive when that happens, but we hope that an arrangement can be made with Pope John Paul II. I do not in any way despair of an arrangement being made with him. We ask simply perhaps not to get into too much discussion over theoretical problems, to lay aside the questions which separate us, such as that of religious liberty. We are not obliged to settle all these problems now. Time will clarify them and bring a solution.

On a practical level, I ask as I have done so many times, that we be allowed to experiment with Tradition (qu’on nous laisse faire l'expérience de la Tradition!). I might be told: “You can do it!"

Yes, but imagine that the Pope himself said: “Leave them in peace". If he would just say one little word to the bishops: "Let them do it! They are not doing anything bad. They are doing what we did ourselves for half or two-thirds of our lives. Let them do it, and we shall see what happens." That is the only thing that we ask of him.

At that moment I am certain that Truth would regain its rights, that Tradition would regain its rights, and that the Church would find a new youth.

Liberalism has penetrated the Church (Part I)

The Teaching of Archbishop Lefebvre

Note: As the confusion is clearly growing in the Church today, a new temptation is now appearing which can be summarized like this: “Before Pope Francis, things were much better in the Church”. This would be the same as to say: although this tree is producing bad apples, the tree is still good!  Thus by reading various texts of Archbishop Lefebvre written between 1965 and 1991, one can see that the rot is primarily in the tree itself, that is in the text and spirit of Vatican II Council.  A good tree cannot give bad fruits.   Pope Francis is merely a fruit of the Council. ~ Fr. Daniel Couture

Liberalism has penetrated the Church

Excerpts from a conference, Angers, France, 23 November 1980 — Part I

The spirit of Liberalism has penetrated the Church. How can such a thing have happened? Do I really believe that Pope Paul VI had a Liberal mentality? It is not I who say it, but his great friend, Cardinal Daniélou. It can be found in his book, The Memoirs of Cardinal Daniélou, told by His Sister, where it is explicitly stated: “The Cardinal says of Pope Paul VI that he was one of his best friends, that he knew him well and that he had a Liberal outlook.” That is sufficient ! That explains everything that has happened during his pontificate, because the Liberal mentality is one which is tempted by the world, by all those liberties, as if by some sort of enchantment.

The Liberals were enchanted by the French Revolution. When, fifty years later, France found itself confronted with revolution it was also faced with a choice: must the consequences of the revolution be perpetuated or should they be opposed? There were evidently those who were quite opposed to the principles of the revolution, and others who simply said that one should simply oppose the excesses, the abuses, the violence of the revolution. Yes, but it was enough to Christianize the principles of the revolution a little, and one could come to terms with them quite well. Well, that was France’s loss. Pope Leo XIII did not realize that it was really the Masonic leaders that were controlling France at this time, and believed that terms could be agreed. The result was the Combe Ministry and all the monks and nuns expelled from France. The churches plundered, all the wealth of the Church seized. That is what Liberalism is. 

Well, the position with the Council is much the same. There are those who say that the principles could be accepted, but not the excesses. But the Liberal worm is in the fruit. It is a mistake to try to limit the excesses. If the disease is in the fruit it always comes back again. In fact, the worm which is in the fruit must be removed, as must the errors which are at the interior of Liberal thought. One day there will have to be a return to Tradition. We will be forced by events or by disasters which God will perhaps send as a punishment for not accepting the social reign of Our Savior, Jesus Christ. But they will be forced because there will no longer be anything, all will be destroyed, all will be demolished. There will no longer be seminaries, there will no longer be real priests, there will no longer be the Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything will have vanished.

So what is to be done? We are surely obliged to return to Tradition if the Church is to have a true renewal. That is why even without wanting to win, even without wanting to say that it is we who have won, deriving a kind of satisfaction at seeing that we are right - that is not what matters. What matters is the salvation of souls, the continuation of the Church, the duty which we have towards Our Savior Jesus Christ Who should reign. It is that which we uphold, as it is that which makes us steadfast. In any case, we are inevitably the winners from the outset. Were we have to die, were an atomic bomb to kill us all, what we have done, what we have taught, what we have said conforms with the truth, since it conforms with what has been taught, as St. Paul says, in the early Church. This truth cannot perish. It is not possible. So, quite simply, we must continue, as did our parents and our grandparents, to preserve our religion as it always was.  

We shed tears of blood to see the Church deteriorating to this extent, to see the wretched state of our churches, of our priests, of our seminaries, or of those religious orders which sell all their goods. Take, for example, the Sisters of the Order of the Visitation, founded by St. Francis de Sales. The Sisters of the seventy-five convents which remain in France met last year and decided to sell half of them, and use the others for homes for the old sisters. That is what is happening to the convents in France, nearly forty Visitation convents for sale!

Obviously, people write to me from everywhere. They write to me from Quimper: "Monseigneur, the minor seminary at Quimper is for sale. Don't you wish to buy it?"

“Monseigneur, the seminary at Legé is for sale. Couldn’t you buy it?”

This very morning someone said to me: "Monseigneur, the major seminary at Nantes is for sale. Won't you buy it?"

Incredible! And it is like that everywhere. Every week I am told of the sale of a major seminary, or a convent, or an abbey.

We must know how to draw distinctions. As you can well imagine, it was a profound sorrow for me to see some of my priests leave the Society because they do not agree with a line of conduct which I have followed since the foundation of the Society. I have always recognized the Pope. I went to see Pope Paul VI, and I have been to see Pope John Paul II. I am ready to see Pope John Paul II tomorrow, if he asks me, but I am ready to speak the truth.

(Continued next week)