A. Dogma Is Defended By Maintaining the Mass of All Time
1. Archbishop Lefebvre and the So-Called "Lefebvrists"
Ten years ago, 83-year-old Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, sensing that he was
approaching the hour of his death, consecrated four bishops without waiting for
the pontifical mandate (promised in exhausting negotiations, but always
postponed or subjected to destabilizing conditions) in order to provide for the
survival of the Society of St. Pius X. The Society had been founded by him in
November 1970 at the request of a group of French seminarians who asked his
assistance to maintain sound Catholic doctrine, to preserve the Catholic
seminaries imbued with that faith, and to celebrate the Holy Mass of the
so-called Tridentine rite. As a consequence of these episcopal consecrations,
Archbishop Lefebvre, already considered "rebellious" for refusing to
do away with the Society as the local Ordinary [Bishop Mamie] had
arbitrarily ordered him to do and suspended a divinis for having ordained
priests, was excommunicated ipso facto and doubly accused of being
disobedient to the pope and schismatic.
By this excommunication, the
Holy See sent Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society founded by him [with Romeís
canonical approval and blessing - Ed.]
into exile. The so-called "Lefebvrists," a label applied to clerics
and laity, were made unpopular. We say "so-called" Lefebvrists because
a "Lefebvrism" does not exist and never existed. A
"doctrine" of Archbishop Lefebvre, in fact, does not exist. His
enemies have tried to write him off as "schismatic" or even
"heretical," but as anyone knows who has studied the facts, these
accusations are false.
Archbishop Lefebvre is not the head of a sect. He never wished to establish
one. He is not to be considered the head of "traditionalists" in
general. His religious thought, which is known from his sermons and various
exegetic and homiletic writings, is absolutely orthodox and permeated with zeal
for Catholic Truth. He has been marginalized and persecuted because he wished to
remain loyal in faith and work to the constant teaching of the Church, without
respect of persons. The so-called "Lefebvrists" are nothing but
Catholics faithful to what the Church has taught for almost 20 centuries up to
the Second Vatican Council. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is not correct to
call them "traditionalists." It is better said that they are faithful
to Catholic Tradition. The Tradition in Catholicism is precisely fidelity to the
dogma consecrated by the Magisterium of the Church.
2. A Corrupt Liturgical Rite
Anyone who wishes to be faithful to dogma must be obedient to the principle
of salvation proclaimed by our risen Lord, "Be you faithful until death and
I will give you the crown of life" (Apoc. 2:10). The novelties which have
emerged from Vatican II are disturbing and cannot be accepted.
Here is a council of the Church held with the express purpose of opening the
Church up to the world [i.e., aggiornamento], an intention unlike
any other in the history of the Church. It declared itself only a pastoral
council and not a dogmatic one, hence a trustee of a spurious magisterium. It is
responsible for disseminating grave ambiguities in doctrine. It gave a new
"ecumenical" definition of the Catholic Church, promoted a
"collegiality" of a democratic or semi-conciliarist sort, and
advertised freedom of conscience of the liberal-Jacobean variety. The
"spirit" of this council conceived the Novus Ordo Missae, that
is, the "Mass of Paul VI," with its idea of a table in order to be
theologically agreeable to the protestant heretics of which six participated in
its very formulation. There is a question whether this Mass is theologically
dubious and necessarily an ambiguous rite since it was supposed to please the
3. The "Celebrating" People
It is true that corrections were made to the scandalous first edition of the
New Mass (1969). These were instigated by the indignant and documented
criticisms of theologians and scholars headed by
Cardinals Bacci and Ottaviani.
But one notes the presence of all the same protestant heretical concepts in the
definitive text of 1970.
The first of these protestant concepts is to equate the ordained priesthood
with the faithful by speaking of the faithfulís participation in the
celebration of the Holy Sacrifice in a new manner. There is ground for a new
mentality believing the Mass is a "concelebration" of priest and
people. This idea was condemned with great clarity by Pope Pius XII in Mediator
Dei. As a consequence of this, the priest is no
longer considered the exclusive minister of the Holy Eucharist, a Catholic
teaching defined by the Magisterium. The minister becomes, on the contrary, the
"people of God," which "has to send the prayers of the whole
human family up to God," as if it exercised a sort of priestly mediation in
behalf of all humanity which is understood to include, therefore, non-believers,
non-Catholics, and atheists.
As a consequence of Vatican II, the Holy Mass
prayer of the "people of God" óhas acquired an ecumenical
significance and, therefore, the stamp of heterodoxy. The "people of
God" is identified with humanity, a realization of the unity of the human
race, of which unity the Holy Mass becomes a signal moment.
The new rite expresses a depreciation of the ministry of the priest and an
erroneous concept of the common priesthood of the faithful because the expiatory
sacrifice celebrated by the presider is conceived as celebrated by the people,
which "alone... enjoys a true priestly power, while the priest acts merely
through the office entrusted to him by the community," a thesis condemned
by Pius XII in Mediator Dei (Dz. 2300). This new definition of the
Sacrifice of the Mass appears in the clearest fashion in the notorious Article 7
of the Instruction of the 1970 Novus Ordo Missae, in which it is
dared to be written:
In Missa seu Cena dominica populus Dei in unum convocatur, sacerdote praeside
personamque Christi gerente, ad memoriale Domini seu sacrificium eucharisticum
Translation: In the Mass or the
Lordís Supper the People of God are called together in one place where the
priest presides over them and acts in the person of Christ. They assemble to
celebrate the Memorial of the Lord, which is the sacrifice of the Eucharistic.
Notice three things:
The celebrant, even if representing the
person of Christ, is only the president of the Assembly, as if he were a
It is the assembly that is gathered
together in order to "celebrate" the memorial of the Lord; and
The memorial of the Lord is called a "eucharistic sacrifice," but not
a propitiatory one. This distinction would not have pleased the
The text ineffectively expresses the idea of expiatory
sacrifice required by the Faith. [It should be mentioned that the 1970 version
of the Instruction of the Novus Ordo Missae was a revision under pressure
from more traditional bishops of the 1969 version which is theologically worse
than the 1970! [See
Pope Paulís New Mass, "Revisions to the Instructio
by Michael Davies. - Ed.]
4. An ambiguous "Real Presence"
One would think the rest of Article 7 (1970) would recall the dogma of
transubstantiation. On the contrary, it is never mentioned. Instead, we find it
replaced by an ambiguous "Real Presence," acceptable to protestants
who reject transubstantiation.
The 1970 text continues:
Hence the promise of Christ:
"Wherever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of them" (Mt. 18:20) applies
in a special way to this gathering of the local church.
For in the celebration of the Mass whereby the Sacrifice of the Mass is
perpetuated, Christ is really present in the very community which is gathered in
His name, in the person of His minister and also substantially and continuously
under the eucharistic species.
This definition speaks as if the "Real Presence" is no longer
reserved to the unique presence that results from transubstantiation, but is
extended to the presence (non-sacramental) of Christ in the
"assembly," in the "person of the minister," and in His
Word. This same presence, which is "in a substantial and permanent
manner" under the Eucharistic species, depends, according to the text, not
on transubstantiation, about which it does not speak, but on the assembly being
gathered together "in the name" of Christ.
Doesnít all this recall the consubstantiation of the Lutheran heretics, who
deny, as has been noted, that Holy Mass really renews the expiatory sacrifice of
our Lord on Calvary? The lack of reference to
transubstantiation helps us understand why all the traditional signs of faith [e.g.,
interior gold-plating of the sacred vessels, kneeling for Holy Communion, etc.
have been taken away.
5. A new type of "Faith"
Except for the Creed, mention of the Holy Trinity has disappeared from the
invocations and prayers of Holy Mass. Liberal protestants do not like it; Jews
and Muslims detest it. The Holy Trinity has been replaced by an anonymous
"God of the universe." It is true that the celebrant may bring up such
a subject matter in his homily, but it is so vast it is frequently skipped.
As Archbishop Lefebvre insisted, the new rite is a "corruption" of
the Catholic Mass. How can a rite which pleases heretics and non-Christians be
suitable for Catholics? It represents for the priests that celebrate it the
faith which was taught to them in seminaries drenched with liberalism and
modernism. This is a new type of faith. It is ecumenical, and, even if
preserving vestiges of the old Catholic faith, is syncretistic and poisoned with
heresy. It is the cult of Humanity and dialogue with error placed side by side
with the adoration owed to the Holy Trinity, while not yet taking its place.
A corrupt liturgical rite is a
grave danger to the souls of those who assist at it. The new Mass has been one
of the most bitter fruits of Vatican II. And all official Catholicism that
somehow has survived the ambiguity and repeated infidelity shows signs of a
seriously diseased body. Once Catholic societies and nations are suffering
declines in birthrate, rebellion, vice and corruption, false religions, a
variety of sects, and invasion without reprieve by Muslims.
6. The merit of Archbishop Lefebvre
Having thought it put Archbishop Lefebvre out in the cold with its arbitrary
excommunication of him, the Vatican might have thought it succeeded dissolving
the bastion of fidelity to dogma represented by the Society of St. Pius X. But
this is not the case. Despite material difficulties of every kind, the Society
today numbers about 400 priests, has 180 seminarians in training, 120 sisters,
65 oblates, and 55 brothers. It maintains five international seminaries. It is
alive and kicking, for which it thanks the Lord. A few years ago, Cardinal Ratzinger admitted his astonishment regarding the extension and apostolate of
Catholics faithful to dogma relish being able to assist at the Mass of All
Times in the churches and chapels of the Society of St. Pius X to the great
and inestimable benefit of their souls. They are not constrained to recognize
- against their conscience - "the legitimacy and the doctrinal correctness" of
the missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI, as happens on the
contrary to whomever frequents the Tridentine Mass conceded by the Indult of
Pope John Paul II, in which Indult, for the record, this condition is found
formulated. It is a matter of a recognition, which, even if implicit, is
dangerous for the salvation of souls, given that the "doctrinal
correctness" of the Mass of Paul VI is, as has been seen, doubtful.
We do not know if the lack of doctrinal correctness is such as to have to
consider the new rite invalid a priori. We donít have the authority to
make a definitive judgment in the matter. We know, however, that if we hold to
the salvation of our soul, we must avoid the new rite at all costs, with its
hyper-politicized priests and the secularized ambience that engulfs it. We are
aware of owing the inestimable benefit of being able to attend the truly
Catholic Mass to the persevering defense of the Faith undertaken in their times
by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer, the only two
Bishops who forthrightly defended it, and by the Priestly Society of St. Pius
X founded by Archbishop Lefebvre. We await with unchangeable faith in the work
of God for the day when the Holy See, having returned to the sound doctrine of
all time, will wipe away the unjust condemnations.
In the meantime, we thank our Lord also for saving us from the seductions
laid by Rome to lead back into the "flock" those of us who persist in
preferring the true Catholic Mass to that of Pope Paul VI. We make reference to
the motu proprio, Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, issued by Pope John Paul II on
the occasion of the invalidly applied excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre. It
is the tenth anniversary of that document, the anniversary that some have made
the object of triumphant declarations in light of the success of the so-called
"Ecclesia Dei Latin Mass communities," established according to
the directives and the promises contained in the papal motu proprio. It is true
that over the last ten years since Ecclesia Dei Adflicta was released,
some 15 priests and 30 seminarians have left the Society of St. Pius X. But it
has held its ground for ten years, please God, even though the competition of
the Ecclesia Dei communities has invariably moved in nearby.
B. The Illusion of Ecclesia Dei
1. The motu proprio,
Ecclesia Dei Adflicta
Why do we say this motu proprio has given life to an illusion?
Consider the facts. Issued on July 2, 1988, as if for a comment on the
excommunication applied against Archbishop Lefebvre, the document warned all
those who until that moment "had been tied in some way to the movement
created by Archbishop Lefebvre" to recognize their duty to not support the
named "movement." At the same time they
held out their hand. How?
In paragraph five of the document, the Pope manifested his will, to which he
asked all the Bishops and those invested with the pastoral ministry of the
Church to associate themselves, that "ecclesial communion" for the
sake of the faithful who are "bound to former liturgical and disciplinary
forms in the Latin tradition," by establishing measures that would
guarantee their "just aspirations." Therefore,
the Pope established the beginnings of a commission [i.e., the Ecclesia
Dei Commission - Ed.] presided over by an appointed cardinal and
composed of members of the Curia charged with collaborating with the competent
organs and interested parties on all sides in order to facilitate "full
ecclesial communion" of priests, seminarians, religious communities and
individuals up till now affiliated with the Society of St. Pius X, who desired
to remain united to the Successor of Peter "preserving their spiritual and
liturgical tradition, in light of the Protocol signed on May 5, 1988 by Cardinal Ratzinger and Archbishop Lefebvre." [For the
text of this Protocol of Accord and the archive of all the documents exchanged
between Rome and Archbishop Lefebvre in the time leading up to and immediately
following his consecration of the four bishops, see
Archbishop Lefebvre and
the Vatican - Ed.]
This famous Protocol of
Accord, though not taking effect at the time,
constituted the juridical base for organizing those structures which have since
been called "Ecclesia Dei communities." These are generally
societies of apostolic life composed initially of refugees from the
Society of St. Pius X to whom the privilege of celebrating the aforesaid Mass
of St. Pius V and of maintaining "the previous liturgical and disciplinary
forms" is granted. Among the first and more notable of these communities
are the Benedictine Abbey of St. Madeleine of Le Barroux, France, and the
Fraternity of St. Peter.
In various aspects the autonomy accorded to these institutions, however, is
rather limited11. An important point must be recalled
here. In the Protocol of Accord of May 5, 1988, the Holy See acknowledged:
practical and psychological reasons, the consecration of a member of the Society
as a bishop appears useful. This is why, in the framework of the doctrinal and
canonical solution of reconciliation, we suggest to the Holy Father that he name
a bishop chosen from within the Society, presented by Archbishop Lefebvre... (Protocol
of Accord, II, 5.2)
This means that Rome had in principle accepted the consecration of a bishop
faithful to Tradition. Upon reflection, Archbishop Lefebvre doubted Romeís
sincerity. In any case, having maintained the Protocol of Accord as the basis
for the recognition of the "Ecclesia Dei communities," the
official promise of a future bishop was understood. By now, such a consecration
for these communities is long overdue. But, up to now there has not been even a
hint. In other words, the promise has not been kept.
2. An Indult Gravely Conditioned and Without a Reason for Being
We turn now to the text of the motu proprio. In concluding his
instruction, the Pope affirmed that there was a need to respect the
"spiritual desire" of the faithful:
who feel attached to the Latin
liturgy, by applying in a broad and generous way the directives adopted some
time ago by the Apostolic See for the use of the Roman Missal according to the
typical edition of 1962.
To what was the Pope referring?
Answer: To his indult Quattuor Abhinc Annos, issued on March 10,
1984 and already cited by us, which established, for priests and faithful who
had applied to their bishop for it, the possibility of receiving the privilege
of celebrating and assisting at the so-called Tridentine Mass. Naturally, the
granting of the privilege was subject to some conditions among which were that
the petitioners would accept "the legitimacy and the doctrinal correctness
of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by the Roman Pontiff, Paul VI" and
that such a celebration would take place "only for the use of whoever asked
for it" and in the places of worship and under the conditions established
by the local ordinary. Parish churches were excluded from concession of the
privilege, save extraordinary cases. The exercise
of the privilege was subjected to notable limitations and the bishops showed
themselves quite deaf to the requests of the faithful for it.
The faithful bound in conscience to Tradition continued to assist in great
number at the Masses celebrated by the priests of the Society of St. Pius X.
In 1986, the Pope established a commission of eight cardinals of the Curia
with the task of examining the situation and of preparing norms which would
establish a new regulatory form for the Indult, valid for the whole Church.
These norms, however, were never promulgated.
Perhaps the most important work of this commission
[which included Alfonse Cardinal Stickler - Ed.] concerned the question of the suppression or
non-suppression on the part of Pope Paul VI of the so-called Tridentine Mass.
According to these cardinals Pope Paul VI never formally suppressed this Mass on
which account "no bishop has the right to prohibit a Catholic priest from
saying the Tridentine Mass."
Though it wasnít its express purpose to do so, the conclusion of this
commission, which holds up under canonical scrutiny, deprives the Indult of any
significant necessity. If the Tridentine Mass has never been formally suppressed
and continues therefore to exist as a perfectly valid liturgy of Holy Church,
celebrating it and assisting at it is a right, not a privilege,
and the Indult of Pope John Paul II, which concedes the privilege for it is
3. The Passive Resistance of Bishops and the Interpretation of the Holy See
However it may be, the invitation extended to the bishops by the Pope to be
"generous" in conceding the permission to celebrate the Tridentine
Mass has not been welcomed. The evidence is extremely clear. The bishops turn a
deaf ear. At the same time, the demand for that Mass seems to increase, perhaps
because the faithful are fed up with the "liturgical anarchy" which,
thanks to the Mass of Pope Paul VI, reigns in almost all the parishes
universally, though degree and intensity may vary, especially in France.
The attitude of the bishops,
however, contradicts that of the Holy See only in appearance. This is the point.
The Holy See has made promises, for example, the appointment of a "traditional"
bishop, which it has not kept. It established the aforementioned commission of
cardinals but its norms, valid for the whole Church and which contain a new
regulatory form, have never been promulgated. We give here the first three of
the six norms cited in the commissionís summary:
In the offices of the Roman Rite, there ought to be accorded to
the Latin language the honor due to it. The bishops must try to have at least
one Mass in the Latin language in every important locality of their diocese on
Sundays and Holy Days. Nevertheless, the readings of the Mass will be able to be
done in the vernacular.
All priests are able to say, at any time, their private Masses in
For every Mass
said in Latin - be the faithful present or not - the celebrant has the right
of freely choosing between the Missal of Pope Paul VI (1970) and that
of Pope John XXIII (1962).
Norm No. 3 makes it possible to celebrate the Mass named from Pope
St. Pius V,
overstepping the limits of the Indult! It is obvious why a norm of this kind has
never been promulgated. It would have demonstrated plainly the failure of the
liturgical reform by officially putting the "spirit of the Council" in
On October 13, 1993, the then President of
Una Voce, Dr. Eric de Saventhem,
asked the Pope to command the authorization of the Mass and the Sacraments
according to the ancient rite to be freely accessible throughout the whole
Church and thereby bypass the passive resistance of the bishops. He was answered
January 17, 1994 by the deputy in charge of general affairs for the Secretary of
State, Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re, who wrote that the Ecclesia Dei
Commission had conceded the use of the Roman Missal...
...under certain conditions. The diverse dispositions taken after 1984
aim at facilitating the ecclesial life of a certain number of faithful,
without however rendering perpetual the previous liturgical forms [i.e.,
the Tridentine rite and the traditional Sacraments - Ed.]. The
general law is that of using the rite revised after the Council, on account
of which the use of the previous rite must be understood as being in the
order of a privilege which has an exceptional character.
This is the writing on the wall. The purpose of the Ecclesia Dei
Commission was only that of "facilitating ecclesial life" for the
faithful attracted to the Tradition, but it was not allowed to "render (the
ancient rite) perpetual." This phrase means that the ancient rite was being
temporarily tolerated so as not to offend the sensibilities of certain faithful,
but it was not to be considered a rite destined to remain. The conclusion of the
letter was extremely clear in its intention. After having paid formal homage to
the "safeguarding of the values which constitute a precious patrimony for the
liturgical tradition of the Church," Archbishop Giovanni Battista Re
continued by declaring with forceful clarity that...
...the first duty of all the faithful is that of welcoming and probing
the wealth of the meanings which are found in the liturgy in force, and of
doing it in the spirit of faith and obedience to the Magisterium, by
avoiding all opposition harmful to ecclesial communion.
The letter concludes by reminding Dr. de Saventhem that the Holy Father hopes
Una Voce [whose current (i.e., in 1999) international president is Mr. Michael Davies
will contribute to this end.
By the way, Dr. de Saventhem replied to
Archbishop Re with two follow-up letters,
which remained however without an answer. In the first of these letters he
That at which the faithful assist is nothing other than the innumerable
different forms of eucharistic embellishments which have multiplied in the
Church for 25 years, appealing to the legitimacy more or less well-grounded of
the different editions of the Roman Missal of Paul VI and to the multiple
options provided there... In the majority of parishes these celebrations have
been simply imposed. Thatís why the faithful, discouraged, had no other way of
avoiding them except the silent exodus.... Finally, it is shown by the polls of
the last 25 years that a progressive erosion of the faith, even among those who
still frequent churches, must be taken into account. Since lex credendi
follows lex orandi [i.e., the law of belief follows on the law of
prayer - Ed.] , is there no need to conclude, then, that the Faith is no
longer nourished by the reformed liturgy or even that this latter has
accelerated the loss of faith?
4. A "Parenthesis of Tolerance"
The text of Archbishop Re should be taken as an authentic interpretation of the
motu proprio Ecclesia Dei. The commission born of this document has not
in the least intended to genuinely restore the ancient rite or to even put it on
a level of parity with the new rite. It was only a case of being a
"pastoral gesture" of Pope John Paul II when faced with the
sensibilities of certain faithful "anchored to the past." It is a
"parenthesis of tolerance" which does
not aim at "rendering perpetual" the ancient rite within the official
liturgy of the Church. On the contrary, the clear mandate from Rome is that all
the faithful fulfill their duty to follow uncritically the new rite since this
is and remains the will of the pope.
The importance of this letter, of this official interpretation of the motu
proprio, is confirmed by the fact that the bishops often cite it in refusing
to concede the Mass by means of the Indult. The
overwhelming mentality of the present hierarchy is that the Indult to celebrate
the Tridentine Mass is nothing other than a parenthesis destined to be closed
one day. On account of this we say Ecclesia Dei itself is an illusory
carrot which many have bitten, hoping that the present Pontiff would effectively
command the full restoration of the ancient rite of Holy Mass with equal dignity
in respect to the new.
But the day of a rude awakening is drawing nigh. The recent demands sent to
the "Ecclesia Dei communities" by the Secretary of the Ecclesia
Dei Commission, Msgr. Camille Perl, demonstrate this. In a document he
issued in the summer of 1998 (perhaps in anticipation of celebrations
commemorating the Commissionís tenth anniversary), Msgr. Perl mandated that:
In the Tridentine Masses celebrated by reason of the Indult, the
celebrant from now on be seated during the reading of the Epistle;
That the Prologue of St. Johnís Gospel read at the end of Mass [i.e.,
the Last Gospel - Ed.] be abolished; and
That the so-called "universal prayer" begin to be recited
during the Mass.
We judge this an attempt to mutilate the Tridentine Rite and to contaminate
it with the new rite of Pope Paul VI. For what reason would the priest have to
sit while the Epistle is read? Where else is this type of thing generally seen?
It is the priest-presider of the protestant Novus Ordo Mass who remains
seated while laity of various sort read the passages of the Old and New
Testament inserted into the so-called "Liturgy of the Word." To demand
the celebrant to sit during readings that he has traditionally stood to read
himself is to make necessary the presence of someone else other than the
celebrant to do the reading. A nun? A layperson? You see the groundwork being
Why is the cutting out of the Last Gospel wanted? Whatís the problem? It is
very clear. On five counts, the Last Gospel is radically un-ecumenical and not
politically correct because:
It reaffirms the divine nature of Christ;
It recalls that the world and those of
namely the Jews, "received Him not";
It reminds us that the world is inimical to Christ and must be
It is a bitter yet pitiful reminder to the Jews of their sin
against the Holy Ghost; and
It proclaims Christians superior to the sons of Abraham because,
thanks to faith in Christ, they have become the chosen "sons of God."
The so-called "universal prayer," finally, is a prayer worded
according to various formulas, in accordance with which the
"ecumenical" spirit is introduced explicitly into the Mass, as the
"Conciliar Church" born from Vatican II understands it.
This letter of Msgr. Perl shows that the Holy See has decided to pick up the
pace. The "restoration" is done for. Unless they appease the
authorities by further compromises, hard times are around the corner for the
"Ecclesia Dei communities." Their superiors will perhaps
attempt to resist and defend the Mass of All Time from the excisions and the
corruptions. But will they succeed? For how long? They will learn that, in
retrospect, they should not have let themselves be seduced in 1988. They should
have taken exception to the manifest invalidity of the condemnation of
Archbishop Lefebvre. This has been officially proposed by the American priest,
Fr. Gerald Murray, in his "thesis for a licentiate" in Canon Law,
argued and approved with the highest mark (July 1995) at the Pontifical
Gregorian University. We will discuss this thesis in the next installment of
this canonical study of the 1988 Episcopal Consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre.
Our work hopes to make a contribution to the truth by doing our part, God
willing, in dispelling the cloud of lies and false interpretations which
surround the person and work of Archbishop Lefebvre.