Lefebvre’s 1974 Declaration: Tension and Resolution
On the 50th anniversary of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's famous 1974 Declaration, what is the status of the text today? How are the tensions around this document to be resolved?
The context of the Declaration
21 November 2024 marks the 50th anniversary of Archbishop Lefebvre’s famous 1974 Declaration. In his Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre, Michael Davies explained the context:
“On 26 March 1974 a meeting was convened in Rome to discuss the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (which will be referred to hereafter simply as the Society of St. Pius X) and its principal foundation, the Seminary at Ecône. […]
“On 23 June 1974 the Commission of Cardinals met and decided upon a canonical visitation of the Seminary.
“The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary.
However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord’s Resurrection.
“On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. ‘This,’ he said, ‘was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.’
“In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity.”1
The Declaration itself
The Declaration itself is widely known among traditionalists, and its text can be found in numerous sources.
It was applauded by many figures in the traditionalist milieu at the time. Jean Madiran, of Itinéraires, wrote the following:
“The occupiers want us to join occupied Rome. They don’t want us to join eternal Rome.
“There are many other essential remarks to be made about these documents (...). But our main intention, for the moment, is to provide the public with the complete documents themselves. They show quite clearly that this is a religious war. On Archbishop Lefebvre’s side, the Catholic religion. On the other side, the new religion.”2
It was even praised, in a mitigated way, by the erratic Abbé Georges de Nantes. The latter published and commented on this Declaration in his circular The Catholic Counter-Reformation under the title “In Communion with Paul VI”?
“Never before has Archbishop Lefebvre or any other bishop in the world expressed so vigorously – in the name of his very loyalty to Catholic Rome, the eternal Rome – his opposition to that other Rome which is protestant, liberal and modernist, the Rome of the Council and of all the reforms that issued from the Council. It is a rejection that is justified both a posteriori (this conciliar Reformation leads to the demolition of the Church) and a priori (it falls under the hammer of several previous condemnations made by the infallible Magisterium).
“Archbishop Lefebvre states – as a bishop fully conscious of the gravity of his words – that it is not possible for a Catholic to accept this Reformation in any of its parts without abandoning himself to the heresy with which it is wholly poisoned. The sole path to salvation today lies in the categorical rejection of this Reformation. One must continue to live as a Catholic according to tradition, without concerning oneself with the reforming Pope and his Council. One must simply wait in peace for the dark smoke of Satan to disperse in the skies above Rome.”3
However—in a style typical of one whom Lefebvre called “a strange man”, and in keeping with his very flawed ecclesiology—de Nantes criticised Lefebvre for his “deferential attitude” towards Paul VI, even though he condemned him for being insufficiently deferential at a later date.
The status of the Declaration today
The 1974 Declaration has continued to be an inspiration for traditionalists ever since. The Society of St Pius X itself—especially the French district, has been marking this anniversary with a great number of articles on the matter.
To mark this anniversary, SSPX Superior General Fr Davide Pagliarani wrote:
“A true profession of faith with eternal resonance, this declaration expresses the essence of the Society, its raison d’être, its doctrinal and moral identity, and consequently its line of action. The Society cannot deviate one iota from its content and spirit which, fifty years later, remain perfectly appropriate to the present day […]
“This single goal is still ours today, just as it was fifty years ago.”4
Also on the anniversary itself, Abbé Bertrand Labouche wrote on La Porte Latine:
“The November 21, 1974 Declaration by the founder of the Priestly Society of St. Pius X is an impressively relevant testimony to the Catholic faith and love of the Church, an echo of his episcopal motto: We have believed in charity.
“It is in keeping with the situation of a Church occupied by a so-called conciliar church with neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendencies. At the same time, this Declaration constitutes an effective remedy and the course of action to be followed by every Catholic faithful to the Tradition of the Church.”5
The UK website of the SSPX also called it “an admirable statement of his principles.”6 Abbé Jean-Michel Gleize echoed this in the lead-up to the anniversary:
“The year 2024 marks the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of November 21, 1974, in which Archbishop Lefebvre set out in golden letters the profound reasons for the attitude still followed by the Society of Saint Pius X in the post-Vatican II context.”7
Tension about the document
Despite this enthusiasm, Lefebvre himself later stated that he drew it up “in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.”8 When questioned in Rome in March 1975, he stated to Cardinals Garonne, Tabera and Wright:
“I wrote them in a moment of indignation provoked by what the Visitors had said. It gave me pain to see Visitors from Rome say to my seminarians ‘that truth is not something one can put in a box’. I myself heard Msgr. Descamps speak about the ordination of married men. On this matter, he was to declare very spontaneously: ‘Whether you wish it or no, it will have to happen!’ And these men came from Rome. They took no account of the fact that at the Synod the Pope had said the contrary.
“I cannot accept these things, for they are wholly contrary to what the Pope said two years ago. For these reasons I indicated my displeasure and stated that I did not accept a Rome of this kind – a Rome that told me things that were contrary to doctrine... That is why I took up my pen and wrote : ‘I do not accept the modernist Rome that brings me such things.’ I do not accept things of this kind… It is true that I expressed myself a little sharply, but I was still suffering from the shock of this impression.”9
However, even while conceding that this Declaration was an “exaggeration,” he stood by its principles:
“I recognise that my “declaration” is an exaggeration, but I believe that it is no less of an exaggeration to wish at all costs to give the impression that no crisis exists, that there is nothing to reform, that all the difficulties can be explained away through the general situation of the world and our materialist society, and that one does not know exactly where the current crisis of the Church originates from.”10
It also does not seem fair to say that Lefebvre retracted his Declaration. In 1983, he said:
“[N]ine years ago on the 21st of November, I drew up a manifesto which also brought down on me the persecution of Rome, in which I said I can't accept Modernist Rome. I accept the Rome of all time with its doctrine and with its Faith. That is the Rome we are following, but the Modernist Rome which is changing religion? I refuse it and I reject it. And that is the Rome which was introduced into the Council and which is in the process of destroying the Church. I refuse that Church. Well, today, I am continuing quite simply, so it's not a testament, it's the Truth.”11
However, at points in his 1970s interrogations, it does appear that Lefebvre was on the backfoot. Based on transcripts of the interrogations, Abbé de Nantes and others noted that while the document presents an admirable statement of principles, there was a tension when it came to explaining or justifying them.
This tension arises naturally because, while the statements in Lefebvre’s Declaration are true in themselves and as far as they go, what he alleges appears to be contrary to the infallibility and indefectibility of the Church.
Other examples of such tensions
This tension appears again during the 1979 interrogation in Rome, in which we find the following question and answer:
QUESTION: “Do you hold that a faithful Catholic can think and say that a sacramental rite, in particular that of the Mass, approved and promulgated by the Sovereign Pontiff, can be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or ‘favoring heresy?’”
ANSWER: “That rite in itself does not profess the Catholic faith in as clear a manner as did the old Ordo Missae, and consequently it can favor heresy. But I do not know to whom to attribute it, nor if the Pope is responsible for it.
“What is astounding is that an Ordo Missae savoring of Protestantism and therefore “favoring heresy” should be spread abroad by the Roman Curia.”12
It seems clear that the Archbishop—unlike some of his admirers today—was aware that conceding the premises of the question (that a papally-promulgated rite could “be out of conformity with the Catholic faith or “favoring heresy”) was impossible.
At other points in his “career” he made similar attempts to avoid directly laying responsibility for these aberrations at the feet of the alleged popes—attributing it instead to the Curia and churchmen:
“In the case where the Roman Curia sends out documents or performs acts inspired by a Liberal and Modernist spirit, it is the duty of the bishops to protest publicly and to object.”13 (1979)
“[T]hey wanted to fashion for us a liturgy in this spirit – in this spirit of liberty , of pluralism, in short, this spirit of desacralization […]
“And all this is promoted by the Roman Curia. Perhaps not everyone in the Curia, but certainly by those in charge of worship, of the bishops, and of religious.”14 (1981)
This idea has continued within the Society of St Pius X after his death. Among such examples, we could consider the official study The Problem of the Liturgical Reform:
“Equally, one cannot say that the rite of Mass resulting from the reform of 1969 is that of the Church, even if it was conceived by churchmen.”15
Criticism of Lefebvre’s reticence
De Nantes’ acolyte, Frère François de Marie des Anges, offered the following unflattering analysis of Lefebvre’s “defence” of the 1974 Declaration, unfairly characterising his refraining from robustly defending it as a retraction:
“In the course of this conversation, Archbishop Lefebvre had not ceased to draw back, to take flight, to beat a retreat. Finally, he even retracted his ‘profession of faith’ of November 21, 1974. In listening to his successive replies and observing the way he wriggled and manoeuvred, always with an eye to reconciliation, it appears that the traditionalist prelate was guided and governed, not by dogmatic requirements, but by the concern to preserve and to save his work at all costs.
“Cardinal Garrone, the reader will have noticed, reproaches Archbishop Lefebvre vehemently for refusing to submit to the Rome of today in the name of the Rome of all times. He attacks and contests the claim of the unhappy bishop to discern by himself which teachings of the Pope conform to the Tradition of the Church and which are contrary to it.”16
Whilst declining to adopt Frère François’ analysis, the presence of a tension and reticence is clear.
How is this tension to be resolved?
What are the consequences of leaving it unresolved… or of resolving it in the wrong way?
This is a members-only post for those who support us with monthly or annual subscriptions.
Our work takes a lot of time and energy. Please consider subscribing if you like it.
Here’s why you should take out a membership of The WM Review today:
Help us continue building the case for a restrained, theological approach to the crisis in the Church
Eclectic and sometimes eccentric variety of content
Provide FREE membership to clergy/seminarians (subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
A small monthly membership really helps us keep The WM Review going. Can you chip in today?
In the meantime, you might enjoy this:
