Posted on 08/08/2025 9:50:19 AM PDT by ebb tide
In his August 2, 1975 letter to Libre Belgique, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre sought to defend himself against certain criticisms related to his adherence to what the Catholic Church taught and practiced prior to Vatican II:
“The repeated attacks in your columns on the Priestly Society of St. Pius X, of which I am the founder and Superior General, force me to make certain clarifications. There is a sustained attempt to cast discredit on my person and my work, alleging deviations ‘which go far beyond trends and are hardening to the point where Christian faith and loyalty are no longer safe,’ accusations which it is a very serious matter to level without definite proof.’” (A Bishop Speaks: Writings and Addresses, p. 209)
As we can see from the substance of Archbishop Lefebvre’s letter (discussed below), the liberal arguments against Traditional Catholicism have not changed much over the past fifty years. What has changed, though, is that every passing year of the crisis in the Catholic Church makes it more and more obvious that the liberal arguments against Traditional Catholicism are so wrong that they can only be maintained through ignorance, insanity, or malice.
It is evident to those who have studied the situation that the fruits of Traditional Catholicism are healthy while those of the Novus Ordo communities are generally putrid.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s first substantive argument in his letter noted the way in which his liberal opponents had intentionally omitted key facts that would make his case more sympathetic to other Catholics:
“The article from the Osservatore Romano which you published in your issue of May 13 reproduces almost the whole text (omitting the line in which I expressly declare my loyalty ‘to all the successors of Peter’) of my Declaration of November 21, 1974. . . Without bothering to attempt a refutation of the terms of my Declaration, journalists contented themselves with echoing the Osservatore Romano’s insinuations and amplifying them with further distortions. For example, the Osservatore Romano writes: ‘One hesitates to speak of a ‘sect,’ but how can one avoid thinking of it?’ Your religious correspondent does not end with the question, but goes on to a whole commentary which he entitles squarely: ‘How Sects Are Born’ in which, amid other courtesies, I am compared to the heretical Old Catholics (whereas every well-informed person knows my defense of the primacy of Rome as against episcopal collegiality).” (p. 209)
It seems evident that both Osservatore Romano and Libre Belgique sought to manipulate the emotions of their readers rather than engage honestly with the realities in question. To a large extent this dynamic continues today, which helps explain why so many “Novus Ordo Catholics” are comfortable denouncing Traditional Catholics even though the Vatican II revolution they follow tells them that they must respect all Christians. When such Novus Ordo Catholics actually learn more about Traditional Catholicism, many eagerly embrace it and realize that they had been deceived about it by the false shepherds who malign Traditional Catholics.
As Archbishop Lefebvre observed, this injustice is magnified by the fact that Traditional Catholicism has flourished while there is almost universal disaster throughout the rest of the Church:
“What runs counter to good sense and natural justice no less than to the ‘instinct of faith’ is that in the midst of almost universal disaster which authority does nothing to remedy . . . only one seminary is attacked, that same seminary which a Belgian paper described as ‘the most flourishing seminary in Western Europe.’ Please believe that I am not writing this in pride. I am far too conscious of being the unworthy instrument of Providence.” (p. 210)
Elsewhere in his letter, Archbishop Lefebvre quantified the disparity between the fruits of Traditional Catholicism and those of the Vatican II revolution:
“Besides Ecône and Fribourg the Society has five houses: one in Albano (near Rome, for I am anxious to give my seminarians the spirit of Rome), in France, in England, and two in the United States. It must consider further foundations. By comparison, the total number of seminarians in France fell between 1963 and 1971 from 21,713 to 8,391, ordinations from 573 to 237 and the number of entrants from 470 in 1969 to 151 in 1973. A tree, says the Gospel, is known by its fruits.” (p. 211)
These trends have continued over the past decades such that it is evident to those who have studied the situation that the fruits of Traditional Catholicism are healthy while those of the Novus Ordo communities are generally putrid.
This is not to say that one cannot find holy and sincere laity, priests, and bishops outside of Traditional Catholicism, but the overall picture is clear: if we use the test Our Lord gave us, we can easily recognize that Traditional Catholicism is correct. Those who say otherwise are attempting to gaslight us.
Beyond judging by fruits, Archbishop Lefebvre saw the hypocrisy of those who condemned him:
“Some reproach me with faithfulness to the Catholic Mass of immemorial tradition codified by St. Pius V as a bulwark again the Protestant heresy and never forbidden by Paul VI . . . Why, though, is there no criticism of bishops who have given their imprimatur to Eucharistic prayers not approved by Rome, who refuse to keep Gregorian chant despite the directions of Vatican II, who do not send out the pamphlet Jubilate Deo dispatched last year by the Pope to all bishops, urging them to teach the faithful the Latin chants, and who teach the heresy (anathematized by the Council of Trent) that the Mass is ‘simply a memorial of the unique sacrifice already accomplished’ or who allow the singing of the International in their presence?” (p. 211)
Of course we see this hypocrisy even more clearly today, as the crisis has grown far worse. For instance, so many putative leaders of the Catholic Church have no problems with the Synod on Synodality, Fiducia Supplicans, or widespread cafeteria-Catholicism but are wholly supportive of Rome’s persecution of Traditional Catholics through Traditionis Custodes and other measures. This, of itself, tells us that many influential figures promoting the Vatican II revolution are gaslighting us.
Even though Archbishop Lefebvre could not see all of the evils of the Vatican II revolution that we see today, his unwavering Faith anchored him as one of the greatest defenders of Traditional Catholicism. As so, as his enemies sought to gaslight him and the world into thinking he had formed a schismatic sect, he tirelessly fought for the Catholic Church:
“The attacks on Ecône are a clear manifestation of what His Holiness Paul VI has denounced as a ‘self-destruction’ of the Church. In that case, though all unworthy, it is our bounden duty to fight for the honor of God, the Catholic Faith, and a priestly renewal as integral as vital for Holy Church.” (p. 214)
It seems evident that this is the same resolve that we must have today, regardless of our duty of state. Perhaps many of us would not have been able to see it fifty years ago, even if Archbishop Lefebvre had explained it to us; but today it is obvious that those who promote the Vatican II revolution against Traditional Catholicism are either ignorant, insane, or malicious. As such, we have a duty to reject their gaslighting and fight for the honor of God and the Catholic Faith.
Finally, as Archbishop Lefebvre showed, this rejection of the anti-Traditional Catholic gaslighting can be accompanied by a charitable invitation to those who might be sincerely interested in pursuing truth:
“When [the author], who persists in decanonizing St. Pius V and St. Pius X and for whom modernism exists only between inverted commas, speaks of fanaticism in connection with my seminarians, I invite him, if he wants to give an honest judgment based on real knowledge of the facts, to come to Ecône and join in the life of prayer and its healthy and well-balanced young men, many of whom have university degrees.” (p. 212)
If, as we hope and pray, Pope Leo XIV truly has a desire to defend the Catholic Faith, then he can find it where the Traditional Latin Mass has been preserved in the face of persecution from Rome. May God grant him the grace to overcome the gaslighting about Traditional Catholicism and to prayerfully seek the religion of Saints Pius V and Pius X. Until he or one of his successors does this, our duty is to remain faithful to the unadulterated Catholic Faith, especially when they try to gaslight us into following the failed Vatican II revolution. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
Ping
Liberals are doing the same with Protestants too, and have the ability with increasing control of their Sunday School and church music sources.
The best example is in the Baptist world, Mercer University is now a one-stop resource. First they offered a hymnal for CBF churches. Then, they bought the huge evangelical choral music firm Brentwood-Benson from Universal Music, which shut it down as UMG pushed churches towards rock bands singing songs they owned rights. And most recently, they purchased Smith & Helwys, which they noted was “one of the earliest moderate Baptist enterprises arising from the late-20th-century schism in the Southern Baptist Convention” and a direct competitor to the Southern Baptist Convention’s own Sunday School Board resources.
This increasing power of the CBF is going unchecked in churches, and people are now aware of it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.