Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre - The Condemnation

By Michael Davies

On the same day that Mgr. Mamie wrote to Mgr. Lefebvre, 6 May 1975, the Commission of Cardinals also pronounced their condemnation.

The complete text of this condemnation is as follows:

Your Excellency,

It is in the name of the Commission of Cardinals and by the express mandate of the Holy Father that we write to you.

We remain deeply grateful to you for enabling our recent discussions to take place in such a fraternal atmosphere that on no occasion did our differences of opinion compromise the profound and serene communion which exists among us. But this only increases our sorrow at the apparent intransigence of your views, with the consequences that cannot but derive from them.

Our discussions were concerned principally with your public Declaration published in the review Itinéraires. It could not be otherwise in view of the fact that the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Ecône (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light. He suggested that we clear this up in a discussion with you.

Now such a Declaration appears unacceptable to us on all points. It is impossible to reconcile most of the affirmations contained in this document with authentic fidelity to the Church, to the one who is responsible for Her, and to the Council in which the mind and will of the Church were expressed. It is inadmissible that every individual should be invited to submit papal directives to his own private judgment and decide for himself whether to accept or reject them. This is nothing less than the customary language of those sects which appeal to the popes of yesterday in order to refuse obedience to the Pope of today.

Throughout our conversations, our desire was to lead you, Your Excellency, to recognize the cogency of such objections and to withdraw your own affirmations. You told us that you found this impossible. "If I had to rewrite this text," you said, "I would write the same things."

Under such circumstances the Commission was left with no alternative but to pass on its absolutely unanimous conclusions to the Pope together with the complete dossier of the affair so that he could judge for himself. It is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the following decisions to you:

1) "A letter will be dispatched to Mgr. Mamie according him the right to withdraw the approval which his predecessor gave to the Fraternity and to its statutes." This has been done in a letter from His Excellency Cardinal Tabera, Prefect of the Congregation for Religious.

2) Once it is suppressed, the Society "no longer having a juridical basis, its foundations, and notably the Seminary at Ecône, lose by the same act the right to existence."

3) It is obvious - we are invited to notify it clearly - that no support whatsoever can be given to Mgr. Lefebvre as long as the ideas contained in the Manifesto of 21 November continue to be the basis for his work."

We cannot communicate these decisions to you without profound sadness. We know the generous perseverance with which you have worked and the good which in consequence has been accomplished. We can well imagine what a cruel predicament you will find yourself in. But we are sure that all those who have read or wish to read your Declaration, without gratuitously suspecting any motives other than the Declaration itself for the actions which have been taken, will concede that, in the face of the evidence, matters could not have been resolved differently, given your refusal to withdraw this text. No Church institution, no priestly formation can be built upon such a foundation.

We hope, Your Excellency, that the Lord will give you the light and enable you to find the path that conforms with His will, in the confidence of the one to whom as bishops we owe a sincere and effective obedience.

As for us, we can only assure you of our fraternal attachment and our prayers.

Gabriel-Marie Cardinal Garrone,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education
President of the Commission of Cardinals

John Cardinal Wright,
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Clergy

Arturo Cardinal Tabera,
Prefect for the Sacred Congregation for Religious
and for Secular Institutes

This letter is being sent to Their Excellencies Mgr. Mamie and Mgr. Adam.

 

As an exercise in public relations on behalf of Mgr. Lefebvre's persecutors, the Cardinals' letter is indeed a superb performance. The image it evokes is clear. It is of three very moderate, reasonable, and supremely charitable cardinals doing everything in their power to save a well-intentioned but hopelessly intransigent and unenlightened pre-Vatican II Archbishop from the tragic consequences of his own invincible folly. But he refused to be saved!

The crucial phrase in this letter reads as follows, and its significance could not possibly be overstressed:

...the Declaration stated explicitly what the Visitor to Ecône (Mgr. Descamps) had been unable to bring to light.

The Cardinals admit quite openly that the Apostolic Visitation had been unable to bring to light any excuse for closing the Seminary - and, as was stated earlier, it was clearly to find an excuse that the Visitors were sent in the first place. It will be necessary for the reader to pause for a few moments and consider the precise import of what the Cardinals are actually saying here if its full enormity is to be appreciated. When carefully analyzed the following conclusions are not simply obvious but inescapable.

1) The Visitors were sent to the Seminary to find a pretext for closing it but could not do so.

2) During their Visitation they made statements which outraged the Catholic sensibilities of the seminarians.

3) In order to insure that the scandal caused did not result in any seminarians confusing Rome itself with the persons of the Visitors representing it, Mgr. Lefebvre made his Declaration affirming his faith in the Eternal Rome.

4) This Declaration, provoked by the Visitors, is now to be used as the sole, I repeat, the sole justification for closing the Seminary in place of the evidence the Visitors could not find because it did not exist. This is the "Conciliar Church" with a vengeance!

In order to alienate traditionally-minded Catholics from Mgr. Lefebvre it was necessary to invoke papal authority for the action taken against him. But in their anxiety to involve the Pope the three Cardinals only succeed in contradicting themselves and adding to the confusion and legitimate suspicion surrounding the whole process against the Archbishop. Firstly, they claim that their unanimous conclusions (not decisions) and the complete dossier have been passed to the Pope so that he can "judge for himself."

Secondly, they claim that "it is with the entire approval of His Holiness that we communicate the following decisions to you." This makes it clear that the decisions are not those of the Pope; they are the decisions of an unspecified authority which the Pope is alleged to have approved. The obvious solution would be that the decisions are those of the three Cardinals themselves but this possibility is ruled out by an explicit statement referring to the third decision: "we are invited to notify it clearly.”

It will also be noted that the three decisions are included within quotation marks and so the cardinals are definitely communicating a decision of someone other than themselves who is not the Pope. Thus, the dubious legality of the procedure used against Mgr. Lefebvre is highlighted by the fact that he has been condemned by an anonymous judge.

Another significant point is that when quoting the decision of this anonymous judge within the quotation marks, the Declaration of Mgr. Lefebvre is misrepresented by the use of the term "Manifesto." The Cardinals themselves use the same term as Mgr. Lefebvre - "Declaration." "Manifesto" is also the term used in a contentious report which appeared in L'Osservatore Romano two days later, 8 May 1975, which will be discussed in chronological sequence under that date. As L'Osservatore Romano traditionally reflects the mind of the Secretary of State it is at the very least a reasonable hypothesis that the anonymous judge of Mgr. Lefebvre was none other than Cardinal Villot himself. It is also of very great significance that when the Cardinals' letter appeared in the official French Catholic daily, La Croix, on 5 June 1975, the tell-tale quotation marks had conveniently vanished.

Nor can it be concluded with any certainty that these decisions were approved by the Pope simply on the word of the Cardinals concerned. As the case of Father Coache, cited on pp.108-109 proves, it can no longer be presumed that any statement coming from the Vatican is true. In this case, it will be noted that in the letter they refer to their discussions with Mgr. Lefebvre taking place "in such a fraternal atmosphere that on no occasion did our difference of opinion compromise the profound and serene communion which exists among us." Yet, as Mgr. Lefebvre's account of the discussions revealed, Cardinals Garrone and Tabera treated him with considerable acrimony and even accused him of being a lunatic.

Further, when considering the integrity of these Cardinals it must be noted that in 1976 the transcript of the discussions which had been refused to Mgr. Lefebvre was leaked to the press in what Mgr. Lefebvre claims is definitely a "doctored" version.¹

The first documentary evidence of papal approval of the action taken against Mgr. Lefebvre was the letter from the Pope of 29 June 1975, which will be discussed under that date, and which appears suspiciously like an attempt to impart retroactive legality to a totally illegal process.

One thing is at least certain:

It is obvious that Mgr. Lefebvre and the three Cardinals do not seem to be speaking of the same Church. As the French canonist, Fr. E. des Graviers, said in the 1 July 1975 issue of the Courrier de Rome, with reference to Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration:

What reproach can be made against such a text, against such a declaration of fidelity to the Catholic faith and to the Church? In our view none at all....And yet our three Cardinals find such a declaration unacceptable on all points! They must therefore be opposed to the Tradition of the Church, to Her traditional teaching and to the Councils. It is not Mgr. Lefebvre who should be criticized but rather the letter of the three Cardinals - and if it expresses their innermost convictions, one has a right to ask if they are worthy to wear the purple...."

Finally, it is necessary to point out that much of Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration is concerned with judgments on the present state of the Church. These are statements of fact and must be accepted or refuted on empirical grounds. The Archbishop alleges that the present reforms "have contributed and continue to contribute to the destruction of the Church, to the ruin of the priesthood, etc. etc." It is ludicrous to claim that such statements cannot be reconciled with "an authentic fidelity to the Church." Pope Paul VI himself admitted that the Church was undergoing a process of "self-destruction" as early as 1968.² Was Pope Paul's assessment accurate or not? Are the reforms which have followed Vatican II contributing to this process or not ? These are not questions of doctrine but questions of fact which the Cardinals and all the other opponents of Archbishop Lefebvre did not dare to answer.

On 8 May 1975 it became clear that the campaign against Ecône was moving to a climax when L'Osservatore Romano intervened with an unsigned article, A proposito di un Manifesto, indicating its origination in the Secretariat of State.³

The Secretary of State in question was Cardinal Villot, who exemplified, and exercised continual pressure on behalf of, episcopal Neo-Modernist influences within France.

In his book, Catholiques et Socialistes (Editeur: Grasset), Georges Hourdin, the doyen of French Neo-Modernism, has publicly boasted:

Paul VI would indeed be astonished, perhaps even shocked, if he were told that he is the Pope of the transition to Socialism. Yet this statement may well prove to be historically true. In any case he is certainly the Pope who recognized the legitimacy of the transition. Many of the texts he has written or signed prove this. These texts can be said to be French in inspiration.

The dishonesty of the L'Osservatore Romano article of 8 May 1975 can be seen from the following facts:

First, the article was tendentiously entitled "Concerning a Manifesto." Thus what had been essentially a declaration of basic principles was subtly presented as though it were something in the nature of a defiant political program.

This impression was reinforced by stating in the text of the article simply that it had been published by the French review Itinéraires, without any indication that its author was Mgr. Lefebvre and that he had signed the Declaration. To still further emphasize this impression, the article appeared on page two, which in the daily Italian edition, is where the editor customarily takes issue with the press or publishes mises au point of this kind directed against publications of one kind or another.

Secondly, although L'Osservatore Romano published most of the Declaration, it omitted the key paragraph at the very end where Mgr. Lefebvre made clear his fidelity "to the Catholic and Roman Church " and "to all of Peter's successors."

Thirdly, although Mgr. Lefebvre had made his attitude to Rome and to the Holy Father clearer still in his further statement of 19 March 1975 (see pp. 49-51) which was published in the 15 April Supplément-Voltigeur of Itinéraires and published once again in the May 1975 issue of Itinéraires, the readers of L'Osservatore Romano were kept in total ignorance of this further clarification of Mgr. Lefebvre's position.

Fourthly, although L'Osservatore Romano admitted that there have been all kinds of abuses and excesses, that "it has been possible to speak of the 'decomposition' of the Church," and that "defensive measures have not been in proportion to the dangers (which is precisely what Mgr. Lefebvre has been saying all along)," the article then proceeded, not to suggest that certain measures should be taken without delay to remedy this catastrophic state of affairs, but to suggest that the (apparently anonymous) author of the Declaration was objectively schismatic and in revolt against the authentic Magisterium of the Church.

Towards the end it asked the following questions (which are numbered here for ease of reference):

1. Under such conditions, is there still any real, and not just verbal communion with the living Church?

2. Whom will they obey, ultimately, those who recognize themselves in this document? Who will be the interpreter of this Tradition to which reference is made, when the interpretation of the living Magisterium is suspected a priori?

3. What are we to think of those who will be formed in this spirit?

4. How is it possible, without an extraordinary presumption, to conceive such a completely negative appreciation of the Episcopate and of all those working in the service of Christ in Seminaries and Universities?

Immediately afterwards there followed the insinuation:

5. One hesitates to speak of a sect, but how can one avoid thinking of it at least?

That such attitudes can develop in the Church today, that they can be publicly expressed and sweep along people in good faith, cannot but make us reflect seriously. The appearances must be grave indeed for people to be able to lose the sense of the Church to such an extent, on the pretext of saving her.

The significance of these questions and insinuations can be properly appreciated only when one asks what "Living Church," what "Living Magisterium" is under suspicion? For whereas one must indeed be uncompromisingly respectful towards the authentic Magisterium of the living Church, this certainly does not mean that one must accept heresy simply because it has been proposed for acceptance by false shepherds of episcopal rank.

And this is precisely what is being done by the French Hierarchy (not that it is alone by any means), with the connivance of the Secretariat of State, which acts in the name of the Pope but in effect is an instrument of French Neo-Modernism.

How indeed could anyone not suspect the orthodoxy of the French Hierarchy when, in addition to having been a party to the falsification of Scripture in its catechetical texts and also in its Lectionary for Sunday Masses, it has gone so far as to define the Mass in the very terms anathematized by Trent (stating in the Sunday Missal that "at Mass it is simply a question of commemorating the unique sacrifice already accomplished"), and even to encourage Sunday assemblies without a priest, justifying this (in the words of Mgr. Derouet, Bishop of Sées) on the pretext that "the Christian Sunday is not primarily a gathering around a priest. It is the meeting of Christians who wish to celebrate together the Resurrection of their Lord, to nourish themselves with His word and His body."⁴

There are two points concerning this stage of the anti-Ecône campaign which are particularly worthy of attention.

Firstly, the 8 May 1975 article in L'Osservatore Romano was simply the opening salvo of a press barrage which had been carefully prepared and directed by the Secretariat of State.⁵

Secondly, the basic theme of the campaign was that Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration and Ecône's existence represented "a considered and explicit rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and of the authority of Pope Paul VI."

This was made particularly obvious when on 9 May 1975, the day after the publication of the L'Osservatore Romano article, Mgr. Mamie announced that he had withdrawn episcopal approval from the Priestly Society of St. Pius X with the agreement of the three Roman Congregations (Clergy, Religious and Secular Institutes, and Catholic Education).⁶ Mgr. Mamie explained:

Behind the very pronounced attachment of this fraternity (and in particular of the Seminary at Ecône) to the traditional liturgy and the Latin language, and its determination to defend tenets of faith and discipline which are essential to the Church against certain current fashions of thought and action, lay in actual fact a considered and explicit rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council and of the authority of Pope Paul VI. This became evident soon enough. A declaration by Mgr. Lefebvre dated 21 November 1974, and widely circulated since, provided clear expression of this rejection and gave us the painful evidence that it was henceforth impossible to approve this institution and its orientations.

It was subsequently revealed that on 6 May 1975 a commission composed of Cardinals Garrone, Wright, and Tabera had informed Mgr. Lefebvre "by express mandate of the Holy Father" that it had authorized Mgr. Mamie to withdraw the approval granted by his predecessor to the Society of St. Pius X, and that its various establishments, in particular the Ecône Seminary, had no longer any right to exist.

There were two significant omissions in Mgr. Mamie's statement.

Although the Old Mass could almost be said to be Ecône's raison d’ être, there was no reference by Mgr. Mamie to Ecône's refusal to use the New Order of the Mass. This would seem to have been an implicit admission that fidelity to the Old Mass cannot be called in question canonically, or be cited to justify disciplinary action.

It was no less significant that the Report of the Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary by two representatives of the Holy See in November 1974 was not mentioned. This, however, was scarcely surprising, for as Mgr. Lefebvre had stated on 16 April 1975:

In the midst of the trials which the Church is undergoing today, our modest initiative pursues its course with the blessing of God and even with a flattering report from the Visitors sent by Rome last November.

The fact that the only evidence that Mgr. Mamie could adduce was Mgr. Lefebvre's Declaration demonstrated that there was in fact no case whatsoever against Ecône. For Mgr. Mamie's statement distorts Mgr. Lefebvre's 21 November 1974 Declaration and also entirely ignores his supplementary statement of 19 March 1975 in the same way as did the L' Osservatore Romano of 8 May 1975.

 

Who is Rejecting Vatican II?

The injustice of the attack against Mgr. Lefebvre and Ecône is made very clear when some examination is made of precisely what is meant by a "rejection of the decisions of the Second Vatican Council." I have provided considerable documentation in my book Pope John's Council to prove that what are often passed off as decisions of the Council are, in fact, aberrations emanating from the post-conciliar commissions invested with the power to implement the conciliar documents. Only too often it will be found that not a single word can be quoted from any Council document authorizing these aberrations, which are justified by the commissions either on the grounds that the Council did not actually forbid them or by a very liberal interpretation of one of the ambiguous phrases which had been inserted in the documents precisely to justify such aberrations after the Council. In the Constitution on the Liturgy, for example, there is not a single word ordering the use of the vernacular. The celebration of Mass facing the people is not even mentioned. Nor does it anywhere recommend Communion in the hand, Lay Ministers of Communion, or the composition of new Canons. But the Constitution does specifically state that "there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them."

However, there were some specific instructions in the Constitution. For example, it was insisted that Gregorian chant should be "given pride of place in liturgical services. "

This instruction is obeyed in Ecône. But how many other seminaries obey it?

The same Constitution ordered that "in accordance with centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in reciting the Divine Office".

This instruction is obeyed in Ecône. But how many other seminaries obey it?

The Council also ordered members of religious orders to wear their habit; it also recommended a year of spirituality at the commencement of seminary studies; it demanded that a key place should be given to the teaching of St. Thomas during seminary training.

Ecône obeys the Council faithfully in all these respects. But how many other seminaries do?

It is indeed no exaggeration to claim that the Holy See's Basic Norms for Priestly Training, issued in 1970 along the lines suggested by Vatican II, are observed more faithfully at Ecône than at almost any other seminary in the West.

The fact of the matter is that there is not one hierarchy in the West which is making any attempt to enforce the teaching of Vatican II, even where this teaching is quite unequivocal and explicit.

As for the sudden concern on the part of the Secretariat of State for "the authority of Pope Paul VI" - where was this concern at the time of Humanae Vitae? It is worthwhile examining the statements of the Western Hierarchies and seeing just how many have honestly attempted to insist upon the clear and uncompromising condemnation of contraception demanded by the Pope. There were a few which did so in words (e.g., India, Ireland, and Scotland), but they were very few. And even in Ireland there has been a notorious refusal by Authority to discipline rebellious theologians and academic clerics who have continued to defy the Church's authoritative teaching on marriage and the family with impunity.

It may also be asked how many hierarchies have attempted to enforce the Eucharistic teaching given by Pope Paul VI in Mysterium Fidei, or to insure that catechetics in Catholic schools are based on Pope Paul's Credo of the People of God?

How many hierarchies take any action to discipline priests and institutions which do not simply ignore but even ridicule the authoritative teaching of the Holy Father? To ask such questions is also to answer them. It can thus be seen that the alleged respect for the decisions of Vatican II and for the authority of the Holy Father professed by Mgr. Mamie, the Commission of Cardinals, and the Secretariat of State is hypocrisy of the most blatant variety.

The true significance of the action taken against Ecône was given in an article by Edith Delamare in the French daily L'Aurore on 14 May 1975, in which she said:

The action taken by Rome against a flourishing Seminary, which is flourishing because it is traditional, is an historic act in the already two-centuries-old struggle between Liberal and conservative Catholicism.

In his Encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, Saint Pius X, the Patron of Archbishop Lefebvre's Society and Seminary, pointed out that the conserving force in the Church is Tradition and that Tradition is represented by religious authority. But the appalling seriousness of the present crisis can be gauged from the fact that religious authority is being used to suppress those who uphold Tradition, not those who have contempt for Tradition.

Saint Pius X wrote;

There is little reason to wonder that the Modernists vent all their bitterness and hatred on Catholics who zealously fight the battles of the Church. There is no species of insult which they do not heap upon them, but the usual course is to charge them with ignorance or obduracy.

That, alas, is what was being done by the Vatican secretariat of State in the name of Pope Paul VI.

 

Reaction to the Condemnation

Following the withdrawal of canonical recognition from the Society of Saint Pius X (and from its establishments, which include Ecône) there was much sympathy expressed for the Seminary and for Archbishop Lefebvre in both Switzerland and France.

In Switzerland, the news of the action taken by Mgr. Mamie with the support of Cardinals Wright, Garrone, and Tabera was reported in the press of 10 May. On the following day, 11 May, the Sunday after the Ascension, the number of layfolk at the principal Mass at the Seminary rose from 150 to 300, despite Mgr. Mamie's insistence that no faithful Catholic could continue to support the Seminary.

The congregation could not but feel that the Gospel for the day was particularly appropriate, especially the passage (St. John 16: 1-2):

I have told you this so that your faith may not be taken unawares. They will forbid you the synagogue; nay, the time is coming when anyone who puts you to death will claim that he is performing an act of worship to God.

A number of Swiss papers published a statement by leading personalities in Valais, the Canton in which Ecône is located. This statement, which had been issued earlier with a view to preventing the action since taken, was the reproduction of a letter to Pope Paul in which these leading public figures affirmed their total support for the work for the renewal of the priesthood being accomplished at Ecône. They insisted that the Seminary had brought honor to their country and they deplored the campaign of denigration against it by all kinds of subversive elements.

They stated:

We admire this Seminary because of its fidelity to the doctrine of the Church, to the Chair of Peter, and to the totality of Catholic Tradition to which you so often draw our attention, most Holy Father.

The signatories included a recent President of Switzerland.

On 15 May 1975, Mgr. Mamie wrote to the priests of his diocese. His aim was obviously to reconcile his failure to discipline his own refractory clergy (concerning whom he complained at some length) with his suppression of Ecône, which exemplified obedience to Tradition.

It was a singularly unconvincing exercise. Its most bizarre feature was the contrast between his call for unbounded charity, his recognition of the difficulties felt by those who preferred the Old Mass and his response - an absolute prohibition of the public celebration of the Old Mass in his diocese!

21 May 1975 - Letter to Cardinal Staffa from Archbishop Lefebvre

Eminence,

Please find herewith the documents which support, or which are the cause of, my appeal to your Department.

I am drawing up an appeal:

1. Against the form in which the decisions were taken expressed in the letter of the 6 May 1975 as well by His Excellency Monseigneur Mamie, Bishop of Fribourg, as by the three Cardinals who signed the letter addressed to me from Rome.

This form of procedure is contrary to Canon 493 of the Codex Juris Canonici.⁷

2. Against the competence of the Commission of Cardinals which condemns me on a matter of faith, because of my Declaration which appeared in the review Itinéraires and which I wrote on 21 November 1974. I demand to be judged by the only Tribunal competent in these matters, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

3. Against the sentence pronounced by Monseigneur Mamie and approved by the Cardinals of the Commission: in fact, my Declaration, if it deserves condemnation, should condemn me personally and not destroy the Fraternity, nor the Seminary, nor the houses that have been erected, the more so as the Cardinals assured me that the Apostolic Visitation had passed a favorable judgment on the work of the Seminary, the Visitation which took place on 11, 12, 13 November 1974.

In virtue of this appeal, and in virtue of the law (this appeal being suspensive), I consider that, until proof to the contrary, my Fraternity and and that depends on it keep their canonical existence.

I remain at the disposal of your Eminence for further information, and I beg you to accept the expression of my respect in Our Lord and Our Lady.

†Marcel Lefebvre

 

Footnotes

1. Hanu, p.214 (183).

2. "La chiesa si trova in un momento...si potrebbe dire di autodistruzione." L'Osservatore Romano, 8 December 1968.

3. This article was reproduced under the title Concerning a Manifesto in the 12 June issue of the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano.

4. In the absence of the priest, there can of course be no Sacrifice of the Mass, no Real Presence and consequently no Body (of Christ) with which the faithful can nourish themselves. This can be seen to be particularly ominous when it is borne in mind that the original Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis defined the Mass as "a sacred meeting or assembly of the People of God, met together under the presidency of the priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." For with the function of the priest thus presented by the authors of the New Mass as being essentially presidential, his role as priest was already implicitly dispensable.

5. Consider for example the Report from Rome dated 11 May 1975, obviously based on briefing by a spokesman of the Secretariat of State, which appeared in the Milan newspaper Corriere Della Sera under the headline, CONSERVATIVE BISHOP NEAR TO EXCOMMUNICATION.

6. Since the Society had been established canonically outside Mgr. Mamie's diocese it could not be suppressed without the approval of Rome.

7. Canon 493 stipulates that canonical authorization given by a bishop for a foundation cannot be withdrawn except by the Holy See (and not by that bishop or his successors).