Ils l'ont découronné : du libéralisme a l'apostasie, la tragédie conciliaire

by Marcel Lefebvre

Pour tout observateur de l'Église au XXe siècle, les années 1960-1970 représentent un tournant majeur. Les bouleversements se multiplient : catéchismes mis au goût du jour, soutanes jetées aux orties, messes en français… Au-delà de ces variations apparaît un changement plus radical dans la façon d'aborder deux choses : les autres religions , le pouvoir politique. Les autres religions étaient jusqu'alors vues comme des voies égarant, de soi, hors du salut. L'État devait se proclamer catholique, s'associer à l'Église en gardant une juste autonomie, et prohiber - sauf si les circonstances conseillaient une tolérance contraire - l'exercice public de toute religion autre que celle de Jésus-Christ. Tel était l'enseignement de l'Église, depuis sa fondation jusqu'à Pie XII. Telle était la pratique de la royauté française, sous l'ancien Régime. Cependant, influencés par une théologie imprégnée des philosophies idéalistes et existentialistes, les papes, ayant décidé de ne pas faire jouer le privilège de leur infaillibilité, font demi-tour lors du concile Vatican II. Les fausses religions sont désormais vues favorablement. On proclame pour elles un droit à la liberté de culte. Rome presse les chefs d'États chrétiens, éberlués, de laïciser leurs constitutions. Ce qui était dénoncé devient enseigné. Et quiconque reste attaché à la doctrine de toujours se voit condamné.

Partie I : Le libéralisme - Principes et applications

Préface
Introduction
Chapitre 1 – Les origines du libéralisme
Chapitre 2 – L'ordre naturel et le libéralisme
Chapitre 3 – Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ et le libéralisme
Chapitre 4 – La loi opprime-t-elle la liberté ?
Chapitre 5 – Bienfaisantes contraintes
Chapitre 6 – Inégalités nécesssaires
Chapitre 7 – Jésus-Christ, roi des républiques ?
Chapitre 8 – Le libéralisme ou la société sans Dieu
Comment ils ont découronné Jésus-Christ
Jésus-Christ Roi des républiques ?
La liberté de conscience et des cultes
La liberté de presse
La liberté d'enseignement
La liberté religieuse sous la condamnation des papes
Y a-t-il un droit public de l'Eglise ?

Partie II : Le catholicisme libéral

La grande trahison
La mentalité catholique libérale
Le mirage du pluralisme. De Jacques Maritain à Yves Congar
Le mythe de la liberté seule. De Lamennais à Sangnier
Le sens de l'Histoire
Les papes et le catholicisme libéral

Partie III: Le complot libéral de Satan contre l'Eglise et la papauté

La subversion de l'Eglise opérée par un concile
Le complot de la Haute Vente des Carbonari
Les papes dévoilent le complot de la secte

Partie IV: Une révolution en tiare et en chape

La liberté religieuse de Vatican II
Le brigandage de Vatican II
Le remède au libéralisme : « Tout restaurer dans le Christ »
L'esprit du concile
Paul VI, pape libéral
Rebâtir la cité catholique
Recherche et dialogue. Mort de l'esprit missionnaire
Un concile pacifiste
Un libéralisme suicidaire : les réformes post-conciliaires
Vatican II à la lumière de la Tradition
Vatican II, triomphe du libéralisme dit catholique

Annexes

Bibliographie sommaire
Schéma d'une Constitution sur l'Eglise proposée par la Commission théologique

Genres: Catholic, Religion, History, Christianity, Nonfiction, Theology

270 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

Marcel François Marie Joseph Lefebvre (29 November 1905 – 25 March 1991) was a French Roman Catholic archbishop. Following a career as an Apostolic Delegate for West Africa and Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, he took the lead in opposing certain changes within the Church associated with the Second Vatican Council.

In 1970, Lefebvre founded the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX). In 1988, after he consecrated four bishops to continue his work with the SSPX against the expressed prohibition of Pope John Paul II, the Holy See immediately declared that he and the other bishops who had participated in the ceremony had incurred automatic excommunication under Catholic canon law. In 2009, 18 years after Lefebvre's death, Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication of the four surviving bishops.

There is more than one author with this name

Reviews

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This work presents the most mature, developed, and detailed criticism of the Council by the Archbishop. A number of his other works were more brief and pithy, suitable more as pamphlets than as careful theological arguments. Here the Archbishop primarily addresses Dignitatis Humanae and how it deviates from traditional Catholic dogma. Religious liberty as promulgated by the Council was a flowering of the religion of man whereby the rights of man superseded the rights of God in civil society. He addresses various elements of religious liberty and the Council as they relate to Tradition and each element is broken up into brief chapters. The book is essentially a compilation of a number of talks the Archbishop gave to seminarians at the end of his life.
The Church is still suffering the wounds done to her by the Vatican Council II and the Popes since John XXIII, and the Archbishop was surely a gift from God to preserve Catholicism for those who still desire to know and live it. While Lefebvre was certainly wise and educated, the Archbishop's book doesn't hold a candle to anything by Benedict or the theologians from the Council like De Lubac or Congar in terms of erudition and interaction with a number of interlocuters. One should not seek a thorough, detailed destruction of the problems from the Council here, but this work will certainly provide a helpful start and is an excellent introduction to the mind of the late Archbishop who suffered much at the end of his life for our Lord and our Mother, the Church.

[Peter Nguyen · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to this book through the SSPX’s YouTube channel.

I became interested in reading They Have Uncrowned Him because Gabriel Sanchez, a contributor to The Josias, stated on his blog that:

“[G]iving an account of the history of integralism without mentioning [Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre] or the SSPX is like delivering a history of professional wrestling without mentioning the National Wrestling Alliance... [N]o other established force within the Catholic Church has kept the spirit of integralism more alive than the SSPX... Integralism for the Archbishop, the priests he formed, their heirs, and the countless faithful who are attached to the SSPX is not an abstraction but a way of life. It is a way of life informed by the reality of Christ’s Social Kingship, a way of life which looks for the restoration of Christendom over an endless discussion over theological minutiae which rests on the peripheries of life.”

As someone who subscribes to the integralist/postliberal thesis, especially as it is presented by The Josias, I felt it was worth giving the SSPX a proper hearing on this case.

Without accepting the legitimacy or positions of the SSPX, I have to say that Abp. Lefebvre spends the first half of the book clearly outlining the Magisterial teachings of the preconciliar popes, from Gregory XVI to Pius XII, with regard to the relationship between Church and state, as well as the proper ordering of liberty. He specifically focuses on three encyclicals: Leo XIII’s Immortale Dei and Libertas, and Pius IX’s Cuanta cura. From these teachings, Abp. Lefebvre reiterates that “error has no rights, only truth has rights." This is in accord with the classical understanding that rights are related to objects (rather than our modern understanding of extending rights to subjects, such as persons).

It is Cuanta cura that I find the most important in this discussion, however, as some Magisterial scholars, such as Dr. John Joy, have considered the following condemnation as infallible:

“That liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right to all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained by either ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they be, by voice, by print, or in any other way.”

Now, if Dr. Joy is correct in his assertion, then we cannot say that that previous papal teachings on liberty were simply third-order teachings (e.g. authoritative but non-definitive teachings that require submission of intellect and will, as described by Lumen gentium 25) that were overturned by the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis humanae (DH); we either have to posit that the document can be read in a manner harmonious with prior papal teaching (using the “hermeneutic of continuity”) or assert that an ecumenical council has taught heresy by stating something contrary to an infallible declaration (as the SSPX does).

But to claim that the Magisterium, which was divinely instituted to teach and and guide the faithful, could err to the degree of heresy would run contrary to Christ’s promise to Peter in Matthew 16:18, “[T]he gates of hell shall not prevail…” Regarding the teaching authority of the popes (which can be extended to the Magisterium as a whole), Leo XIII in Sapientiae Christianae states:

“Wherefore it belongs to the Pope to judge authoritatively what things the sacred oracles contain, as well as what doctrines are in harmony, and what in disagreement, with them; and also, for the same reason, to show forth what things are to be accepted as right, and what to be rejected as worthless; what it is necessary to do and what to avoid doing, in order to attain eternal salvation. For, otherwise, there would be no sure interpreter of the commands of God, nor would there be any safe guide showing man the way he should live.”

With that prefaced, the challenge to faithful Catholics is to interpret DH 2-3:

“This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits… This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right.”

in a manner which does not contradict Cuanta cura. Fortunately, there are many contemporary Catholic scholars who have taken it upon themselves to read DH in continuity with preconciliar Magisterial teachings, such as David L. Schindler (who adopts the idea that the Second Vatican Council addresses the rights of subjects, without negating the rights of objects in relation to truth and justice, in light of the personalist philosophy of Karol Wojtyła/Pope St. John Paul II), Dr. Thomas Pink (who argues that the Church has revoked the authority of the state in matters of religion because the body is no longer acting in unity with the soul), as well as others. Unfortunately, following the Second Vatican Council, it seems that there was a widespread “official theology,” to use the words of Dr. Pink, of accepting the interpretation of DH offered by John Courtney Murray, who held that the state was incompetent in matters of religion and that man should not be obstructed from following his conscience, enshrining the American Constitution’s separation of Church and state as the model for DH. This led to historically Catholic countries being encouraged to shed their privileging of the Catholic faith and permit non-Catholics and non-Christians to practice their faith publicly, leading to a decay of Catholic culture and a rise in religious indifferentism. From this, many also believed that the Church had indeed overturned its previous teachings with regard to religious liberty.

Whereas previous papal teachings tolerated the public practice of other cults and the separation of Church and state in places where Catholics would not otherwise be able to publicly practice their faith, it was never meant to be taken as an ideal. In reality, the role of the government is to instill virtue, promote the common good, and lead men toward the Truth, and to curb whatever prevents these ends; the government is not to serve as a bystander, promoting “free inquiry” and leaving men to their own devices. Nevertheless, the prominence of this “official theology” led Abp. Lefebvre to sever “temporal Rome” from “Eternal Rome,” declaring that the interpretation of the Council isn’t the issue, but rather, the texts of the conciliar documents themselves.

This is truly a shame, as it is through the interventions of Abp. Lefebvre and Coetus Internationalis Patrum that the following line was added into DH:

“Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

In the second half of the book, you can see the pain that the fallout after the Second Vatican Council causes Abp. Lefebvre, who genuinely wants to proclaim and restore the Social Kingship of Christ. I honestly believe that, if the various orthodox interpretations of DH provided today were given to Abp. Lefebvre back then through official Vatican sources, then we could have avoided the schism caused by the SSPX.

In conclusion, I would caution readers from accepting everything that Abp. Lefebvre says at face value and I want to clarify that the SSPX’s position is not doctrinally acceptable, but I’d say that at the very least, the first 14 chapters seem to articulate the traditional teaching on religious liberty very well. The second half of the book is where Abp. Lefebvre attacks the Council directly and I can only recommend critically listening if one has read up on the controversy surrounding DH. I think it’s incumbent upon faithful Catholics to read DH using the “hermeneutic of continuity” and combat erroneous and heterodox interpretations. This is especially difficult to do as Americans, as it’s very easy to read religious liberty in light of our Constitutional separation of Church and state. But it’s important to recognize that this position is only acceptable when any other alternative would be detrimental to the public worship of Catholics; there is no such thing as a “neutral state,” and we ought to work toward a state which orders man toward Christ, the Truth, and restore the Social Kingship of Christ (the very work of integralism today).

[Michel Grlt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Le livre le plus important pour bien comprendre la crise de l’église

[Rory Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bishop Lefebvre is known for leading a breakaway version of Catholicism, the SSPX (Society of St Pius X), as a result of what he perceived as the heresies and errors of the Second Vatican Council (1965). Dying in 1991, this 1988 book is one of his most thorough presentations of his views, so it is an important historical document, as well as a statement of his argument.

Essentially Vatican II is heretical because it proclaimed a teaching which denies the dogma of the “Social Kingship of Christ.” That dogma rejected the separation between Church and State. It was ‘taught in perfect continuity by four successive popes from 1832 to 1906 and from the solemn declaration that St Piux X made on this at the consistory of February 21 1906 (it has) a maximum authority, and beyond a doubt even the guarantee of infallibility’ (Chp XIV).

The author is right that Vatican II essentially called for a separation of Church and State that had been condemned previously. Whether the previous teaching was an infallible dogma is less clear that the author claims. But even if it were, is Vatican II a change of teaching? Claiming p and then claiming -p certainly looks like a (contradictory) change of teaching. But if it were p in circumstances X and -p in circumstances Y then it is not a contradiction, and it is not necessarily even a change of Church teaching. So, just because Vatican II has said -p now, it does not mean that it has repudiated p in different contexts. Is the author jumping to conclusions?

Later in the book the author admits that there are explanations of Vatican II’s position which would not be heretical. He says that if Vatican II had said that it was reluctantly agreeing to a separation of Church and State “because the situation in our country has completely changed through the malice of men….(etc) But we are not in agreement with the principle of laicization of the state… that would be perfectly legitimate to say…’ (Chp. XXXII).

So the heresy that Vatican II seems to be guilty of seems to be more the fact that it didn’t give the right reason for what it said (?). Even the most ardent supporters of Vatican II recognise that there is unfinished business in the incomplete nature of the arguments given by Vatican II. So, perhaps the very reasoning which the author says would be ‘legitimate’ (or a similar argument) will be given in the future…? If there is the possibility of further reasoning clarifying matters, then how the author can be so convinced that a heresy has occurred?

The book provides a thorough referencing of its historical sources, but its argumentation in places makes assumptions that it does not defend. For example, it states that it is a scientific fact that there is a natural order of things and no scholar would doubt it (Chp IV). In point of fact, the concepts of nature and essence are doubted by many scientists. Stating the opposite is at risk of becoming a fideistic faith claim, without argumentation. And this is a similar problem with the author’s assertions about the right way to read Church history and interpret what is dogma.

Overall, this is a thought provoking book which will be mainly of interest to readers pursuing the issues around Vatican II and Traditionalism. It is a little repetitive in places but that may be because its chapters began as discrete talks.

[Fabrício · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dom Marcel Lefebvre ganhou notoriedade pela sua posição firme em defesa da tradição da Igreja Católica em um período conturbado: o do Concílio Vaticano II. Muitos o criticam duramente pela resistência que ele manifestou diante das novas abordagens lançadas pelo Vaticano II, mas independente da polêmica da situação, é justo ao menos conhecer a argumentação que ele tinha a expor.
"Do Liberalismo à Apostasia" é um conjunto de ensaios concisos que apresentam muito claramente certos pontos de conflito entre a abordagem tradicional católica e a abordagem do Vaticano II. Em linha geral, a contestação de Lefebvre é com relação aos ares de liberalismo que permeiam as constribuições do Vaticano II e como elas ameaçam a própria vida da Igreja.
A Igreja naturalmente deve ser capaz de absorver em sínteses sucessivas as contribuições do gênio humano ao longo do tempo, tal qual foi feito com a filosofia grega na Patrística e com o aristotelismo na Escolástica - em especial com São Tomás. Porém a Igreja sempre absorve as produções corretas, excluindo, durante o processo de absorção, as constribuições marcadas pelo erro. Eis o problema do Vaticano II. Como apontado por Bento XVI, o concílio buscou absorver 200 anos de desenvolvimento de ideias; mas como sustenta Lefebvre, o Vaticano II absorve sem ser capaz de discernir claramente entre as boas e as más contribuições.
Como nas palavras de Paulo VI, a Igreja esperava um florescer primaveril após o Concílio Vaticano II, mas o que se observou foi uma aridez invernal. Apesar de Lefebvre muitas vezes tomar posições inquietantes do ponto de vista da autoridade eclesiástica, a sua obra é muito clara e suas análises dificilmente podem ser classificadas como falsas ou movidas sem verdadeira devoção ao Cristo e à Santa Igreja milenar.

[Joel Everett · Rating 5 out of 5]

A hard book for an American Catholic to read, but invaluable to understanding the teaching of the Church prior to Vatican II as well as the criticisms of Vatican II from one of the participants at the Council itself. Bishop Lefebvre's views are - with time - being shown to have been quite prophetic and correct.

This book is recommended for all that would like understand - from a philosophical, theological, and ecclesiastical basis, why Bishop Lefebvre did what I thought he had to do. i.e. found the seminary in Switzerland and SSPX. Very informative and thought - as will as spirit - provoking.

[Rose · Rating 5 out of 5]

When you read this book, you have the realization that one day this will be considered a historic and classic Catholic text. It's a solemn thought.

[Marcus Mills · Rating 5 out of 5]

His Grace Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre gives a detailed and well cited account of the problems with liberalism and how it has crept into the Catholic Church, having its triumph at Vatican II.

[Pzyqer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Important book

[Cyriane · Rating 5 out of 5]

Une explication extensive sur les problématiques apporter par Vatican II.
Un exposé clair et précis.

[ShepherdsDelight · Rating 5 out of 5]

92/100 (= 5.5/6) ≈ 5 Stars

-----------------------------------------
Superb! Liberalism of the world vs. Restore all things in Christ. Probably one of the best books in his favour to show his detractors what he actually thought, so as to convince them. Fantastic, but perhaps a bit difficult if no prior knowledge of the subject matter. I found Fr. Iscara's "Church, Christendom, and Revolution" conferences to be an incredible lead-in to this book.

[iteadpetrum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Zdecydowanie ciekawa pozycja, lecz FSSPX w wyniku działań Arcybiskupa znajduje się na granicy schizmy, jeśli w niej nie jest. O ile część dotycząca zagrożeń liberalizmu i protestantyzmu jest według mnie bardzo dobra, o tyle krytyka soboru i sprzeciwianie się papieżowi jest działaniem anty-katolickim.

[Mikhail Belyaev · Rating 5 out of 5]

Яркое публицистическое сочинение, четко и ясно выстраивающее линию аргументации традиционализма.