SSPX Priest: Archbishop Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration Still Applies to the Crisis in the Church Today

"Yesterday, the Society of St. Pius X published a message on the 50th anniversary of a declaration issued by the group’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre."

From LifeSiteNews

By Maike Hickson, PhD

In an exclusive interview with LifeSiteNews, Father Christian Bouchacourt of the SSPX gives a detailed account of what led up to Archbishop Lefebvre's famous 1974 declaration, and how the message still applies today.

Yesterday, the Society of St. Pius X published a message on the 50th anniversary of a declaration issued by the group’s founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. With it, the Society reaffirmed its original charism which is to preserve Tradition, especially the traditional priesthood and the traditional Latin liturgy and sacraments. LifeSiteNews reached out to the headquarters of the SSPX in Switzerland, asking them some questions regarding the history of the 1974 declaration. Father Christian Bouchacourt, who serves as the 2nd General Assistant of Superior General Father Davide Pagliarani, and who was a co-signer of the new statement, kindly sent us answers (see full interview below).

Giving background to the 1974 declaration, Father Bouchacourt writes that the apostolic visitors who came to inspect Archbishop Lefebvre’s seminary in that year had scandalized the archbishop with their support of the married priesthood as being “inescapable” and their denial of “immutable truth,” including truths about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. “Realizing that there was no longer much to expect for the time being,” Bouchacourt explains that Lefebvre, “in a fit of indignation,” as the archbishop would put it, “wrote in one go, without erasures, a summary of his position, which he read to the community on December 2.”

The seminary had been originally established with the approval of the local bishop of Fribourg. But then, according to Bouchacourt, the tensions had grown “due to Archbishop Lefebvre’s unshakable position on the question of the Mass. The bishop rejected the Novus Ordo, Paul VI’s liturgical reform, which he often referred to as ‘poisoned.’”

We remind our readers here that two cardinals, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and Cardinal Antonio Bacci, wrote in 1969 a letter to Pope Paul VI and sent him a thorough critique of the Novus Ordo Mass. Ottaviani was the prefect emeritus of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, today’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF). In this letter, they write that “the Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” They go on to warn Paul VI of these liturgical changes: “The innovations in the Novus Ordo and the fact that all that is of perennial value finds only a minor place, if it subsists at all, could well turn into a certainty the suspicion, already prevalent, alas, in many circles, that truths which have always been believed by the Christian people, can be changed or ignored without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound for ever.”

To return to Archbishop Lefebvre. Next to the reforms of the liturgy, the Second Vatican Council and its novel teachings were of grave concern to him. In the interview with LifeSite, Father Bouchacourt explains that, though Lefebvre “never said that there was a ‘formal heresy’ in the texts of the Council,” he saw that “some of them were seriously flawed and led to heresy, favouring it.” Archbishop Lefebvre wrote at the time that “we feel that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and orientations” and thus saw the “duty to disobey and keep Tradition.” Furthermore, the French prelate saw that one was suddenly presented with “two religions,” and thus it “is impossible not to make a choice.” And he concluded: “The Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.”

Father Bouchacourt, in his reply to LifeSite, pointed to the “immense responsibility” of Pope Paul VI for the changes of the liturgy in the Novus Ordo Mass. “An avalanche of decrees modified the traditional liturgy: between 1965 and 1969, Latin was replaced, altars were turned upside down, concelebrations were introduced, three Eucharistic canons were composed, communion in the hand became more widespread, and prayers at the foot of the altar, Leonine prayers, the Offertory and the Last Gospel were abolished.” The priest adds that Paul VI closely followed the work of the liturgical reform commission and himself banned the missal of Pius V, the traditional Latin liturgy. “The ‘Paul VI Mass’ is indeed his own,” he concludes. Mirroring  the position of the General Superior of the SSPX, Father Davide Pagliarani, who on November 1 gave an interview to Angelus Press in which he explained the struggle that Archbishop Lefebvre led for the sake of the Church. Pagliarani stated:

Pope Paul VI himself already spoke about the self-destruction of the Church. This is unfortunately caused by the encouragement given by the highest authorities of the Church to the modern errors which, during the Second Vatican Council and in the reforms that resulted from it, have deeply penetrated the whole Church and have led countless multitudes of the faithful to abandon their faith. So that, instead of preserving the deposit of faith for the salvation of souls and the common good of the whole Church, the pope placed his authority at the service of the destruction of the Church. To his everlasting credit, Archbishop Lefebvre rejected this self-destruction and courageously preserved the Tradition of the Church by rejecting the destructive novelties and by continuing to offer to souls the supernatural goods of doctrine, the Mass, and the sacraments. Now this was precisely the reason why the ecclesiastical authorities chose to sanction him, to suppress his work, and thus to deprive him of canonical recognition.

Please see below for the full interview with Father Christian Bouchacourt

1) What was the immediate cause for Archbishop Lefebvre to make his 1974 statement?

On November 11, 1974, Archbishop Lefebvre announced the arrival of two apostolic visitors. Sent by Pope Paul VI, they were mandated by three Roman congregations to inspect the seminary. They were Monsignor Albert Descamps, secretary of the Biblical Commission, and Monsignor Guillaume Onclin, assistant secretary of the Commission for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law.

The visitors spent three days at Ecône interviewing teachers and seminarians. They made aberrant and scandalous theological statements. They found the ordination of married men inescapable. They admitted no immutable truth, and even cast doubt on the physical reality of Christ’s resurrection. They finally withdrew, but without presenting any protocol or report of their visit to the Society superior.

Realizing that there was no longer much to expect for the time being, “in a fit of indignation,” as he [Lefebvre] would put it, he wrote in one go, without erasures, a summary of his position, which he read to the community on December 2.

2) In 1970, he founded a new seminary in Econe, Switzerland, with the local bishop’s approval and support. Four years later came this visitation and statement. What happened between 1970 and 1974?

From 1973 onwards, the situation became tense due to Archbishop Lefebvre’s unshakeable position on the question of the Mass. The bishop rejected the Novus Ordo, Paul VI’s liturgical reform, which he often referred to as “poisoned.”

The attacks came first from France, where the bishops were furious about the “wild seminary” that would soon provide a traditional clergy called upon to exercise an apostolate on French territory. While they were agitating backstage, the situation was also tense in Switzerland. The new Bishop of Fribourg, Monsignor Pierre Mamie, was now opposed to the Society. Bishop Nestor Adam of Sion, discouraged by the crisis in the Church, no longer supported the foundation and distanced himself from it, even though he had accepted the opening of Ecône in his diocese. It was in these circumstances that the visit described in question 1) was announced to Archbishop Lefebvre.

3) How would you sum up the situation in the Church under Pope Paul VI at that time and Archbishop Lefebvre’s response to it?

The immense enthusiasm aroused by the Council and the conciliar reforms soon died down, to be replaced by a most bitter assessment. Paul VI lamented the self-demolition of the Church (Discourse of December 7, 1968, DC n°1531 (1969), p 12) and the fumes of Satan (June 29, 1972).

Pope Paul VI’s immense responsibility in bringing about liturgical reform must also be mentioned. An avalanche of decrees modified the traditional liturgy: between 1965 and 1969, Latin was replaced, altars were turned upside down, concelebrations were introduced, three Eucharistic canons were composed, communion in the hand became more widespread, and prayers at the foot of the altar, Leonine prayers, the Offertory and the Last Gospel were abolished.

Paul VI followed the work of the Consilium closely, giving his opinions, annotating drafts and expressing his preferences. He willingly promulgated all liturgical decrees, and on May 24, 1976, at the height of the “battle of the Mass” (Jean Madiran), the Pope banned the missal of St. Pius V in favor of the new liturgy. The “Paul VI Mass” is indeed his own.

4) You quote in your statement of November 21 Archbishop Lefebvre’s words about the Vatican II reform which derives “from Liberalism and Modernism,” and which “is entirely corrupted; it derives from heresy and results in heresy, even if all its acts are not formally heretical.”

Could you say that there is one essential heresy that can be found in the Second Vatican Council that is at the root of all the disorder that came from it? Or are there several?

Archbishop Lefebvre never said that there was a “formal heresy” in the texts of the Council, but that some of them were seriously flawed and led to heresy, favoring it, including the post-conciliar reforms: “It is because we feel that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms and orientations, that we have the duty to disobey and keep Tradition.”

Lefebvre added: “Two religions are confronting each other; we find ourselves in a dramatic situation, it’s impossible not to make a choice, but that choice is not between obedience and disobedience. What we are offered, what we are expressly invited to do, what we are persecuted for, is to choose a semblance of obedience. The Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.”

And further on: “It is clear that in cases such as religious freedom, Eucharistic hospitality authorized by the new canon law, or collegiality conceived as the affirmation of two supreme powers in the Church, it is the duty of every Catholic cleric and faithful to resist and refuse obedience.” (Letter to Perplexed Catholics, Ch XVIII)

Among the errors regularly denounced by the founder of the Society of St. Pius X should be added ecumenism and liturgical reform.

5) Even though the visitation of the seminary in Écône at the time was positive, Archbishop Lefebvre’s seminary was shut down not even a year later in 1975. How would you describe the significance of the 1974 statement of His Grace in the context of the increasing conflict with Rome at the time?

Archbishop Lefebvre himself gave this meaning: “It was never my intention to break in any way with the unity of the Catholic Church and its legitimate head, Pope Paul VI. (…) However, to deny the modernist and liberal influence exerted in the Church, especially since the Second Vatican Council, in reforms which claim to be inspired by the Council, would be tantamount to denying the evidence which is becoming more pressing and painful every day in the hearts of the faithful.” (May 18, 1975)

Archbishop Lefebvre had already made another comment on December 2, 1974, in a conference addressed to seminarians at Écône, shortly after the event. He explained that he was thus taking “a position of principle,” and insisted that his declaration was that of the Society “from the beginning” and therefore did not need “to be conditioned by events.”

6) Since you mention the Second Vatican Council and the Synod on Synodality in your text, what do these two events have in common, how would you explain your thesis that Synodality is a continuation of the Council’s reforms?

Here’s what the Synod’s Final Document on Synodality says: “In the context of the conciliar ecclesiology of the People of God, the concept of communion expresses the profound substance of the mystery and mission of the Church, which finds its source and its culmination in the celebration of the Eucharist, that is, the union with God the Trinity and the unity between human persons which is realized in Christ through the Holy Spirit. In this context, synodality indicates the specific way of living and working of the Church, the People of God, which manifests and concretely realizes its being of communion by ‘walking together,’ gathering in assembly and in the active participation of all its members in its evangelizing mission (CTI, n. 6)” (no. 31).

The document of the International Theological Commission, Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church, (2018), abundantly quoted in the Final Document, and its doctrinal reference, says in ch. II, with the subtitle: 3. Synodality, expression of the ecclesiology of communion: “The dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium offers the essential principles for an adequate understanding of synodality in the perspective of the ecclesiology of communion.(n° 54) ”

The link between the texts of Vatican II and synodality is thus expressed and underlined by the documents of the Holy See itself.

Fr. Christian Bouchacourt.