Home Articles Golden Oldies Speaking Schedule About Christ or Chaos Links Donations Contact Us
October 29, 2013


George Pell Openly Contradicts Paul the Sick

by Thomas A. Droleskey

As has been noted many times on this site, the inherent illogic of the Modernist propositions taught by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has institutionalized contradiction as "vital principle," if you will," of daily pastoral life.

The conciliar revolutionaries contradict many of the articles contained in the Sacred Deposit of Faith while obscuring the true meaning of many others by the use of one Modernist device after another. Each of the conciliar "popes" has been a case study in this contradiction.

For the sake of keeping this commentary very brief as I recover from a bout of the flu that, combined with the arthritis in the area of my spinal fusion, which was performed at the Hospital for Special Surgery, in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, New York, on Wednesday, February 14, 1968, let me refer you to just three articles to point you to the documentation in this regard: Mister Asteroid Is Looking Pretty Good Right About Now, Contradicting God and His Saints At All Times and "Who Today Will Presume To Say She Is Widowed?".

The conciliar revolutionaries also have been quite adept at contradicting and correcting each other on a lot of occasions. See, for example, "Joe" Hasn't Changed, Fellas and Apostates Reprimanding Apostates, to cite just a few.

There are times, however, when some conciliar "bishops" even contradict their conciliar "popes." This happened a lot during the days of the Girondist Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II and the Menshevik Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. The current universal public face of apostasy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis, is, however, coming to the rescue of conciliar "bishops" who did not like the supposedly "conservative" and "moralistic" ways of Wojtyla/John Paul II and/or the supposedly "traditional" ways of Ratzinger/Benedict as he revives the unfettered "joys" that sent many a thrill up their legs during the false "pontificate" of Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick.

Thus it is a very special delight to point out of that one of Bergoglio/Francis's Commissars, Father George Pell, who believes himself to be the conciliar "archbishop" of Sydney, Australia, has managed to contradict Paul The Sick and to reaffirm the Society of Saint Pius X in its essential position about the "Second" Vatican Council even though he mean to neither.

Yes, the "conciliar cardinal archbishop" of Sydney, Australia, George Pell, who was ordained to the priesthood on December 16, 1966, gave an interview recently to Vatican Insider in which he meant to lambaste Bishop Bernard Fellay's recent strong criticism of Bergoglio/Francis (see Bishop Fellay's Hermeneutic of Hubris). What he would up doing, even though he does not realize it, is contradict Montini/Paul The Sick in an incredible display of intellectual gymnastics to seek to defend the indefensible that is the "teaching" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is being articulated the present time by the Argentine lay Jesuit revolutionary:

Q. Bishop Fellay has denounced Pope Francis as “a genuine modernist”, and charged that while the Church was “a disaster” before he was elected, he is making it “10,000 times worse”. What do you say to this?

ATo put it politely, I think that’s absolute rubbish!   Francis said he’s a loyal son of the Church, and his record shows that.  He’s very, very concerned for the day-to-day life of the people, and for those who are suffering, those not well off and those in difficult situations.  He’s a completely faithful exponent of Christ’s teaching and the Church’s tradition.   

Q.  So people like Fellay have completely misread Pope Francis?

AYes, it is a gigantic misreading!  In actual fact, the Lefebvrists – many of them - have misread the situation for decades.  It was to Benedict’s great credit that he tried to reconcile with them, but they didn’t respond. Now the Church today accepts the Second Vatican Council. You don’t have to accept every jot and tittle of it, but it is part of Church’s life now, there’s no way around that. (Pell dismisses traditionalist leader's attack on Argentine Lay Jesuit Revolutionary.)

This is very interesting.

Very interesting indeed.

Why is this very interesting, you might be tempted to ask?

This is very interesting because Giovanni /Paul The Sick explained on the closing day of the final session of the "Second" Vatican Council, December 8, 1965, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that the council's revolutionary documents, which he issued in his own name, were to "religiously observed" by the Catholics worldwide:

APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL - DECEMBER 8, 1965, read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, assembled in the Holy Spirit and under the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom we have declared Mother of the Church, and of St. Joseph, her glorious spouse, and of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul, must be numbered without doubt among the greatest events of the Church. In fact it was the largest in the number of Fathers who came to the seat of Peter from every part of the world, even from those places where the hierarchy has been very recently established. It was the richest because of the questions which for four sessions have been discussed carefully and profoundly. And last of all it was the most opportune, because, bearing in mind the necessities of the present day, above all it sought to meet the pastoral needs and, nourishing the flame of charity, it has made a great effort to reach not only the Christians still separated from communion with the Holy See, but also the whole human family.

At last all which regards the holy ecumenical council has, with the help of God, been accomplished and all the constitutions, decrees, declarations and votes have been approved by the deliberation of the synod and promulgated by us. Therefore we decided to close for all intents and purposes, with our apostolic authority, this same ecumenical council called by our predecessor, Pope John XXIII, which opened October 11, 1962, and which was continued by us after his death.

We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquillity and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.

Given in Rome at St. Peter's, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate. (APOSTOLIC BRIEF - IN SPIRITU SANCTO.)

Which is it?

Is George Pell correct when he said recently that not "every jot and tittle" of the "Second" Vatican Council has to be accepted, a position that is identical to that of the Society of Saint Pius X, whose founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, signed each of the council's documents, including both Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, December 7, 1965, out of "respect" to Montini/Paul The Sick? (The original version of this article indicated that the Archbishop had signed each of the council's documents save for Dignitatis Humanae. Although I had mentioned the documentation indicating that the Archbishop, who voted against both documents at the council, did wind up signing them after they had been approved, I simply forgot about this fact, which had been contained in Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part three three years and over seven hundred articles ago. See the appendix below for the details of the matter.)

Or was Paul The Sick correct when he decreed nearly forty-eight years ago that "all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all for the faithful"?

It can't be both.

George Pell has a problem. It is called logic.

Then again, illogic and contradiction are just part of the Modernist paradigm that was expressed so magnificently at the "Second" Vatican Council and has shaped its interpretation and implementation in the past forty-eight years.

Actually, of course, Paul The Sick was correct insofar as Catholics must adhere to all that a true sovereign pontiff decrees to be binding upon them. As he was an antipope, who was in in death what he was in life, the antithesis of Christ the King, Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick had the power to bind nothing upon anyone. Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick was an apostate from beginning to end.

Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick saw to it that each of the conciliar church's heretical building blocks (the new ecclesiology, episcopal collegiality, false ecumenism, inter-religious "dialogue," religious liberty, separation of Church and State, a "new teaching on the Jews" that was brought to fruition in Nostra Aetate, October 27, 1965, five years after Roncalli/John XXIII "absolved" Jews of any guilt in the Crucifixion of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ) were "religiously observed by all the faithful," which is why he appointed men as bishops, many of whom shared his own lavender proclivities, who were brutal in their treatment of priests and consecrated religious who dared to question, no less reject, the conciliar agenda. Montini/Paul The Sick gave away his tiara, genuflected before the heretical and schismatic Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople and called the United Nations the "last hope of concord and peace" on earth (see Address to the United Nations, October 4, 1965) and, of course, promulgated false rites of episcopal consecration and priestly ordination in preparation for the promulgation of the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service.

Although there are many was to prove, Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick was a figure of Antichrist, there is no need to repeat here what has been done by others (see Paul VI Beatified? Never! ).

To keep with the brevity demanded by the lateness of the hour and this writer's own debilitated physical condition, permit me to illustrate Montini/Paul The Sick's apostasy with one brief passage from the "homily" that he gave at the Ordo Missae (his 1964 revision of the 1961/1962 Missal promulgated by Angelo Roncalli/John XXIII that eliminated the Psalm 42 (Judica me) after "Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meum" and abolished the Last Gospel once and for all) at the original 1923 "House That Ruth Built," Yankee Stadium, Borough of the Bronx, City of New York, New York, Monday, October 4, 1965, the Feast of Saint Francis of Assisi:

We are most happy to greet at the same time, with all reverence and sincerity, those Christian brothers here present, separated from us, yet united with us by baptism and by belief in the Lord Jesus. We keep them all in Our heart and in Our prayers. We also greet those here present who follow other religious beliefs, and who in good conscience intend to seek and honour Almighty God, the Lord of heaven and earth; among whom the descendants of Abraham have Our particular consideration. (Homily of His Apostateness Paul the Sick, Yankee Stadium.)

Here is how Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick contradicted Catholic teaching in this one passage:

Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free." As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

It [the Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the law of the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that time, after our Lord's coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; and that whoever, even after the passion, placed hope in these matters of the law and submitted himself to them as necessary for salvation, as if faith in Christ could not save without them, sinned mortally. Yet it does not deny that after the passion of Christ up to the promulgation of the Gospel they could have been observed until they were believed to be in no way necessary for salvation; but after the promulgation of the Gospel it asserts that they cannot be observed without the loss of eternal salvation. All, therefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal salvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. Therefore, it commands all who glory in the name of Christian, at whatever time, before or after baptism, to cease entirely from circumcision, since, whether or not one places hope in it, it cannot be observed at all without the loss of eternal salvation. Regarding children, indeed, because of danger of death, which can often take place, when no help can be brought to them by another remedy than through the sacrament of baptism, through which they are snatched from the domination of the Devil and adopted among the sons of God, it advises that holy baptism ought not to be deferred for forty or eighty days, or any time according to the observance of certain people, but it should be conferred as soon as it can be done conveniently, but so ,that, when danger of death is imminent, they be baptized in the form of the Church, early without delay, even by a layman or woman, if a priest should be lacking, just as is contained more fully in the decree of the Armenians. . . .

It firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church. (Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino, Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.)

29.And first of all, by the death of our Redeemer, the New Testament took the place of the Old Law which had been abolished; then the Law of Christ together with its mysteries, enactments, institutions, and sacred rites was ratified for the whole world in the blood of Jesus Christ. For, while our Divine Savior was preaching in a restricted area -- He was not sent but to the sheep that were lost of the house of Israel [30] -the Law and the Gospel were together in force; [31] but on the gibbet of his death Jesus made void the Law with its decrees, [32] fastened the handwriting of the Old Testament to the Cross, [33] establishing the New Testament in His blood shed for the whole human race. [34] "To such an extent, then," says St. Leo the Great, speaking of the Cross of our Lord, "was there effected a transfer from the Law to the Gospel, from the Synagogue to the Church, from many sacrifices to one Victim, that, as our Lord expired, that mystical veil which shut off the innermost part of the temple and its sacred secret was rent violently from top to bottom." [35]

30. On the Cross then the Old Law died, soon to be buried and to be a bearer of death, [36] in order to give way to the New Testament of which Christ had chosen the Apostles as qualified ministers; [37] and although He had been constituted the Head of the whole human family in the womb of the Blessed Virgin, it is by the power of the Cross that our Savior exercises fully the office itself of Head in His Church. "For it was through His triumph on the Cross," according to the teaching of the Angelic and Common Doctor, "that He won power and dominion over the gentiles"; [38] by that same victory He increased the immense treasure of graces, which, as He reigns in glory in heaven, He lavishes continually on His mortal members it was by His blood shed on the Cross that God's anger was averted and that all the heavenly gifts, especially the spiritual graces of the New and Eternal Testament, could then flow from the fountains of our Savior for the salvation of men, of the faithful above all; it was on the tree of the Cross, finally, that He entered into possession of His Church, that is, of all the members of His Mystical Body; for they would not have been united to this Mystical Body. (Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943.)

Can the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost, have been wrong at the Council of Florence? Could He have mislead Pope Pius XII into misunderstanding Catholic teaching about the Jews, for whose conversion we must pray?

Could God the Holy Ghost have failed Pope Pius IX when he issued Iam Vos Omnes on September 14, 1868, to specifically exhort Protestants to do that which both Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis reject out-of-hand as necessary, their unconditional conversion to the Catholic Faith?

"It is for this reason that so many who do not share 'the communion and the truth of the Catholic Church' must make use of the occasion of the Council, by the means of the Catholic Church, which received in Her bosom their ancestors, proposes [further] demonstration of profound unity and of firm vital force; hear the requirements [demands] of her heart, they must engage themselves to leave this state that does not guarantee for them the security of salvation. She does not hesitate to raise to the Lord of mercy most fervent prayers to tear down of the walls of division, to dissipate the haze of errors, and lead them back within holy Mother Church, where their Ancestors found salutary pastures of life; where, in an exclusive way, is conserved and transmitted whole the doctrine of Jesus Christ and wherein is dispensed the mysteries of heavenly grace.

"It is therefore by force of the right of Our supreme Apostolic ministry, entrusted to us by the same Christ the Lord, which, having to carry out with [supreme] participation all the duties of the good Shepherd and to follow and embrace with paternal love all the men of the world, we send this Letter of Ours to all the Christians from whom We are separated, with which we exhort them warmly and beseech them with insistence to hasten to return to the one fold of Christ; we desire in fact from the depths of the heart their salvation in Christ Jesus, and we fear having to render an account one day to Him, Our Judge, if, through some possibility, we have not pointed out and prepared the way for them to attain eternal salvation. In all Our prayers and supplications, with thankfulness, day and night we never omit to ask for them, with humble insistence, from the eternal Shepherd of souls the abundance of goods and heavenly graces. And since, if also, we fulfill in the earth the office of vicar, with all our heart we await with open arms the return of the wayward sons to the Catholic Church, in order to receive them with infinite fondness into the house of the Heavenly Father and to enrich them with its inexhaustible treasures. By our greatest wish for the return to the truth and the communion with the Catholic Church, upon which depends not only the salvation of all of them, but above all also of the whole Christian society: the entire world in fact cannot enjoy true peace if it is not of one fold and one shepherd." (Pope Pius IX, Iam Vos Omnes, September 13, 1868.)

Could God the Holy Ghost have failed Pope Leo XIII when he issued Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae on June 29, 1894, and exhorted the Orthodox to return the bosom of Holy Mother Church?

Weigh carefully in your minds and before God the nature of Our request.  It is not for any human motive, but impelled by Divine Charity and a desire for the salvation of all, that We advise the reconciliation and union with the Church of Rome; and We mean a perfect and complete union, such as could not subsist in any way if nothing else was brought about but a certain kind of agreement in the Tenets of Belief and an intercourse of Fraternal love.  The True Union between Christians is that which Jesus Christ, the Author of the Church, instituted and desired, and which consists in a Unity of Faith and Unity of Government. (Pope Leo XIII, referring to the Orthodox in Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae, June 20, 1884.)

Could God the Holy Ghost have failed Pope Pius XI when he wrote the following in Mortalium Animos, which was issued on January 6, 1928?

Let, therefore, the separated children draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, the Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to that See, We repeat, which is "the root and womb whence the Church of God springs," not with the intention and the hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" will cast aside the integrity of the faith and tolerate their errors, but, on the contrary, that they themselves submit to its teaching and government. Would that it were Our happy lot to do that which so many of Our predecessors could not, to embrace with fatherly affection those children, whose unhappy separation from Us We now bewail. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth,"[29] would hear us when We humbly beg that He would deign to recall all who stray to the unity of the Church! In this most important undertaking We ask and wish that others should ask the prayers of Blessed Mary the Virgin, Mother of divine grace, victorious over all heresies and Help of Christians, that She may implore for Us the speedy coming of the much hoped-for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace." (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.)

It is impossible for the Catholic Church to contradict herself.

It is impossible for the spotless, virginal mystical spouse of her Divine Founder, Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to give us error or ambiguity in her doctrines, no less to contradict them outright, whether formally or by papal pronouncements.

This precise point was made by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas, December 11, 1925, which was quoted extensively in We Must Live and Die For Christ the King, two days ago now:

Not least among the blessings which have resulted from the public and legitimate honor paid to the Blessed Virgin and the saints is the perfect and perpetual immunity of the Church from error and heresy. We may well admire in this the admirable wisdom of the Providence of God, who, ever bringing good out of evil, has from time to time suffered the faith and piety of men to grow weak, and allowed Catholic truth to be attacked by false doctrines, but always with the result that truth has afterwards shone out with greater splendor, and that men's faith, aroused from its lethargy, has shown itself more vigorous than before. ( Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas, December 11, 1925.)

For George "Cardinal" Pell to be correct about criticism of Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis as a Modernist and to say almost in the same breath that one does not have to accept "every jot and tittle" of the "Second" Vatican Council is to say that the Catholic Church taught both error and heresy prior to the "Second" Vatican Council and the "magisterium" of the conciliar "popes.

What was that I was saying about illogic and contradiction?

Say goodnight, Father Pell. Say goodnight.

Before saying goodnight to you, the increasingly larger audience of this website, something that has not in the slightest increased financial support for it (yeah, a little hint, huh?), let me quote from one other answer given to a question posed to "Cardinal" Pell by Vatican Insider:

Q. An Argentinean theologian, Father Carlos Galli, recently told me that he sees “the elder brother syndrome” emerging in the Church as Pope Francis goes out more and more to meet the prodigal sons.  What do you say to that?

AWell I think it is up to us elder-brothers, unlike the elder-brother in the parable, to get behind the father as he goes to meet the prodigal son.   It’s our task to help him in that, to defend him. (Pell dismisses traditionalist leader's attack on Argentine Lay Jesuit Revolutionary.)

The Prodigal Son had repented of his sins and wanted to do penance for them. Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis seeks to reaffirm sinners "where they are" as he welcomes them with "open arms," refusing to discharge the Spiritual Works of Mercy to instruct the ignorant and to admonish the sinner as he believes the only people who are "ignorant" are "restorationists" such as us.

More attention will be turned to the Argentine lay Jesuit revolutionary tomorrow.

For now, however, I must bid you farewell.

To Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart belongs the triumph that will vanquish the lords of Modernism once and for all.

Pray your Rosaries!

Indeed, isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Viva Cristo Rey! Vivat Christus Rex!


Our Lady of the Snow, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior and Balthasar, pray for us.


Archbishop Lefebvre Did Sign Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae

A reader, who did not provided me with his real name, said that I "continue to get it wrong" about the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's having refrained from signing Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes. As noted in the text of this article, I had mentioned the fact that the Archbishop did sign each of the "Second" Vatican Council's documents, including Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes, in an article published forty months ago now, Chastisements Under Which We Must Save Our Souls, part three.

The original text of this current commentary relied upon the account an a meeting that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre had with Giovanni Montini/Paul The Sick on September 11, 1976, as found in Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais's Biography of Marcel of Lefebvre. Montini/Paul The Sick came close to slapping the late Archbishop, the founder of the Society of Saint Pius X, when the two discussed the "Second" Vatican Council and the Protestant and Masonic Novus Ordo liturgical service in the Apostolic Palace on September 11, 1976, following the Archbishop's "suspension" following his ordination of men to the Holy Priesthood in Econe, Switzerland, on June 29, 1976:

Montini: "Why do you not accept the Council? You signed the decrees."

Lefebvre: "There were two that I did not sign."

Montini: "Yes, two, religious liberty and Gaudium et Spes."

(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought at the time: 'I signed the others out of respect for the Holy Father. He [Montini] went on.")

Montini: "And why not religious liberty?"

Lefebvre: "It contains passages that are word for word contrary to what was taught by Gregory XVI and Pius IX."

Montini: "Let's leave that aside! We are not here to discuss theology."

(Archbishop Lefebvre's mental note: "I thought to myself: 'This is unbelievable.'") (Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, The Biography of Marcel Lefebvre, Kansas City, Missouri, Angelus Press, pp. 491-492.)

According to this account, you see, it was Montini/Paul The Sick himself who said that Archbishop Lefebvre had not signed Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes.

The Reverend Brian Harrison, who is an ardent defender of the "orthodoxy" of Dignitatis Humanae, provided a different account of the matter. It appears that Reverend Harrison has the better of the case here as, no matter his defense of Dignitatis Humanae, he did research the matter thoroughly and provided the documentation for those who are dispassionate seekers of truth to accept or to reject (see Marcel Lefebvre: Signatory to Dignitatis Humanae):

In light of the fact that for over 20 years the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre constantly denounced the Vatican II Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae, as irreconcilable with orthodox Catholic doctrine, it is curious, to say the least, to discover that he himself, along with Pope Paul VI and most of the other fathers of Vatican II, was actually one of the signatories to the document. It has been demonstrated from the original Vatican II archives that his name (as well as that of fellow-traditionalist Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer of Campos, Brazil) appears on the list of signatures to this and the other three documents promulgated on the final day of Vatican Council II, December 7, 1965.

In a sense, this is not exactly news which is hot off the press. In fact, the list of signatures was made public for the first time 16 years ago, when the Vatican Press finally finished its laborious publication of the complete council documents: dozens of huge Latin tomes known as the Acta Synodalia, which contain all the debates, written interventions, earlier drafts of the Conciliar documents, and so on. They include the complete lists of the names of the fathers who signed each document after the pope.

However, since only large Catholic libraries possess the Acta Synodalia (which cost over $2,000 per set), and since in any case the thousands of names are not in alphabetical order, the chance of anyone happening to notice the names of the two traditionalist prelates appended to Dignitatis Humanae was, shall we say, limited. No doubt there are those who find page after page of Latin episcopal names and titles a matter of the most absorbing interest; just as there are, no doubt, those who choose the local telephone directory for bedside reading -- perhaps as a cure for insomnia. In any case nobody, as far as is known, ever spotted these two very unlikely promoters of religious freedom on the official lists for well over a decade after their publication in 1978.

When they were discovered in 1990 by some Frenchmen researching the Vatican II archives, a tempest in a teapot erupted in European traditionalist circles. However, up 'til now, most English-speaking Catholics have never had an opportunity to learn the facts. Mainstream journals apparently did not consider the matter important enough to be worth investigating and reporting. However, the Society of St. Pius X, which evidently did consider the report an important one, vehemently denied its truth in The Angelus, the society's American publication, and in its Australian cousin, a monthly newspaper entitled just Catholic. The result has been that the relatively few English-speaking Catholics who were aware of the news about these signatures remained in uncertainty as to whether there was any substance in the report.

In itself, of course, the question is scarcely of earth-shaking importance. Nevertheless, an article in English on these signatures is worthwhile publishing for several reasons. First, just to set the record straight on a point of history. Secondly, because Marcel Lefebvre -- whatever one thinks of him -- has been a figure of considerable importance in post Conciliar Catholicism, and details like this will help to build up a more accurate overall picture of his character for future historians and biographers. (To a lesser extent the same is true of Bishop de Castro Meyer.) Finally, because the controversy which exploded when the signatures were discovered shows us something about prevailing attitudes within the SSPX and its supporters.

What follows, then, is my attempt to set the record straight, partly by quoting material of my own which a Lefebvrist newspaper refused to publish.

There is now doubt -- or even controversy -- about the fact that Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre voted against the religious liberty schema with a decisive non placet right through all of its five successive drafts during Vatican Council II. During some of the voting sessions it was possible to give a vote in between "yes" and "no" namely, placet iuxta modum, which signified approval on the condition requested amendments, but Lefebvre never availed himself of that option. Thus, during the final vote on the morning of December 7 (when the fathers had to choose between a simple approval or disapproval of the last draft), he was one of the 70 -- about 3 percent of the total -- who voted against the schema.

Nevertheless, when the supreme pontiff himself put his signature to the controversial declaration an hour or so later, the French traditionalist prelate followed suit, presumably as an act of submission of his private judgment to that of the Vicar of Christ. So did his Brazilian colleague. (Oddly enough, there were some other fathers present -- none of them as publicly associated with criticism of the document as he was -- who did not sign it.)

Subsequent history shows that Lefebvre's attitude at that moment did not last long. He came to speak out more and more decisively against the alleged unorthodoxy of Dignitatis Humanae, and it seems that as the years rolled by his memory of the events of that day in 1965 became somewhat blurred. The result was that when the discovery of his signature on the document was reported to the 85-year-old prelate in November 1990, a full quarter-century after the event, he vigorously denied the truth of the report. . . . .

Below, Arrows Indicate Lefebvre's And De Castro Mayer's Signatures. 






© Copyright 2013, Thomas A. Droleskey. All rights reserved.