The Liturgical Movement How the traditional Roman Rite was destroyed

During the first session of the Second Vatican Council, in the debate on the Liturgy Constitution, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani asked: “Are these Fathers planning a revolution?” The Cardinal was old and partly blind. He spoke from the heart without a text about a subject which moved him deeply, and continued:

Are we seeking to stir up wonder, or perhaps scandal among the Christian people, by introducing changes in so venerable a rite, that has been approved for so many centuries and is now so familiar? The rite of Holy Mass should not be treated as if it were a piece of cloth to be refashioned according to the whim of each generation.

So concerned was he at the revolutionary potential of the Constitution, and having no prepared text, the elderly Cardinal exceeded the ten-minute time limit for speeches. At a signal from Cardinal Alfrink, who was presiding at the session, a technician switched off the microphone, and Cardinal Ottaviani stumbled back to his seat in humiliation.^{^[1]}

The Council Fathers clapped with glee, and the journalists to whose dictatorship Father Louis Bouyer claimed the Council had surrendered itself, were even more gleeful when they wrote their reports that night and when they wrote their books at the end of the session. When we laugh, we do not think, and, had they not been laughing, at least some of the bishops might have wondered whether, perhaps, Cardinal Ottaviani had a point.

A liturgical revolution had been planned, one which very few of the 3000 bishops present in St. Peter’s would have endorsed had they suspected its true nature. The revolution had been planned before the Council, and its manifesto was the preparatory schema on the liturgy, the draft document for which the bishops would vote after discussing and amending it. The document can properly be termed the Bugnini Manifesto, as it was primarily the work of Vincentian priest, Father Annibale Bugnini. He managed to secure its approval shortly before being dismissed by Pope John XXIII from his post as secretary of the Liturgical Preparatory Commission and from his chair at the Lateran University.^{^[2]}

Bugnini’s allies on the Conciliar Liturgy Constitution, who had worked with him on preparing the schema, now had the task of securing its acceptance by the bishops without any substantial alterations. They did so with a degree of success that certainly exceeded the hopes of their wildest dreams.^{^[3]} They presumed that the bishops would be a bunch of useful idiots, men who preferred to laugh rather than think. “It was all good fun,” wrote Archbishop R. J. Dwyer, one of the most erudite of the American bishops. “And when the vote came round, like wise Sir Joseph Porter, KCM, ‘We always voted at our parties’ call; we never thought of thinking for ourselves at all.’ That way you can save yourself a whole world of trouble.”^{^[4]}

The late Msgr. Klaus Gamber was described by Cardinal Ratzinger as "the one scholar who, among the army of pseudo-liturgists, truly represents the liturgical thinking of the centre of the Church." As regards the attitude the Council Fathers would have taken to the changes that have been foisted upon us in the name of Vatican II, he informs us in his book The Reform of the Roman Liturgy that: “One statement we can make with certainty is that the new Ordo of the Mass that has now emerged would not have been endorsed by the majority of the Council Fathers.”^{^[5]}

Why then did these bishops endorse the Liturgy Constitution? Archbishop Lefebvre has given us the answer: "There were time bombs in the Council."^{^[6]} These "time bombs" were, of course, the ambiguous passages inserted in the official documents by the liberal periti or experts. The answer to Cardinal Ottaviani’s question as to whether the Council Fathers were planning a revolution is that most of the Fathers, the 3000 bishops, most certainly were not, but that some of the most influential periti, the experts who accompanied the bishops to Rome, were definitely planning a revolution. It is not exaggerating in any way to claim that these liberal periti hijacked Pope John’s Council, a fact which I have documented in great detail in my book on Vatican II.^{^[7]}

Douglas Woodruff, one of England's outstanding Catholic scholars, was editor of The Tablet during the Council. In one of his reports on the Council, he remarks: "For in a sense this Council has been the Council of the periti, silent in the aula but so effective in the commissions and at bishops' ears.”^{^[8]}

This is an exceptionally perceptive comment, and it would be hard to improve on "the Council of the periti" as a one-phrase description of Vatican II. Bishop Lucey of Cork and Ross (Ireland) testified that the periti were more powerful than most bishops, even though they had no vote, "because they had the ear of [a] Cardinal or the head of a national group of bishops, and they were influential in the drafting of Council documents. The expert . . . is the person with power.”^{^[9]}

The manner in which the liberal periti laid the foundations for their revolution during the first session of the Council was spelled out in precise detail by Cardinal John Heenan of Westminster (England):

The subject most fully debated was liturgical reform. It might be more accurate to say that the bishops were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed. In retrospect it is clear that they were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles. Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy. His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pone John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts (my emphasis).

God forbid, warned Cardinal Heenan, that the periti should take control of the commissions established after the Council to interpret it for the world. But this is precisely what happened. The liberals had constructed the Liturgy Constitution as a weapon with which to initiate a revolution, and the Council Fathers had placed this weapon in the hands of the revolutionaries who had forged it. Archbishop R. J. Dwyer observed, with the benefit of hindsight, that the great mistake of the Council Fathers was "to allow the implementation of the Constitution to fall into the hands of men who were either unscrupulous or incompetent. This is the so-called ‘Liturgical Establishment,’ a Sacred Cow which acts more like a white elephant as it tramples the shards of a shattered liturgy with ponderous abandon."^{^[10]}

What the experts had been planning was made clear on 24 October 1967 in the Sistine Chapel, when what was described as the Missa Normativa was celebrated before the Synod of Bishops by Father Annibale Bugnini himself, its chief architect. Incredible as it may seem, he had been appointed secretary of the post-Vatican II Liturgy Commission and thus had the power to orchestrate the composition of the new rite of Mass which he had envisaged in the schema he had prepared before his dismissal by John XXIII, and which had been passed virtually unchanged by the Council Fathers. Why Pope Paul VI appointed the man who had been dismissed by his predecessor to this key position is a mystery which will probably never be answered. Less than half the bishops present voted in favor of the Missa Normative, but they were ignored with the arrogance which was to become the most evident characteristic of the liturgical establishment to which the Council Fathers had been naive enough to entrust the implementation of the Liturgy Constitution. The Missa Normativa was imposed on Catholics of the Roman Rite in 1969 as the Novus Ordo Missae, with a few changes, the most important of which was the restoration of the Roman Canon on the explicit instructions of Pope Paul VI. Readers of The Remnant will be familiar with its format and its deficiencies, which are documented in great detail in my book Pope Paul’s New Mass. It is the fruit of the Bugnini schema, and also the great merit of the book under review, which makes it clear that the Bugnini schema was the fruit of the liturgical movement, the true history of which is now available for us in English for the very first time in the book The Liturgical Movement—Guéranger to Beauduin to Bugnini by Fr. D. Bonneterre.

As most Catholics know very little about the liturgical movement, most of what they read in Father Bonneterre’s book will come as a complete surprise. Those who know anything of its history will be aware that it was endorsed by the pre-Vatican II popes and may be surprised at the strength of Father Bonneterre’s criticism and his insistence that it is the font and origin of the liturgical anarchy which is emptying our churches today. The inescapable conclusion of his book is that the movement, like Vatican II, was hijacked by liberals.

One does not need to be a liturgical scholar to know that Dom Prosper Guéranger was the greatest of all liturgists, and his principles and his work were fully endorsed by St. Pius X. They can be considered the founders of the liturgical movement. Does the linking of their names to that of Archbishop Bugnini via Dom Beauduin in the title of this book imply that they must bear some responsibility for the post-conciliar reform, which Monsignor Gamber has summed up in one devastating sentence: “At this critical juncture, the traditional Roman rite, more than one thousand years old, has been destroyed.”^{^[11]}

Father Bonneterre refutes this suggestion in the introduction to his book and also makes clear his purpose in writing it:

The relationship suggested by such a title may seem rather bold to our reader, but it is not we who see a link between the author of the Institutions Liturgiques (Dom Guéranger) and the "gravedigger of the Mass" (Annibale Bugnini). It is the Roman authorities themselves. In fact, Pope Paul VI wrote to the Abbot of Solesmes on January 20, 1975, "I acknowledge the solidity and influence of the work of Dom Guéranger in whom the Liturgical Movement of today salutes its originator."

Already the Foreword of the Institutio Generalis of the New Missal claimed that contemporary reforms were the continuation of the work of St. Pius X. The conclusion of the Foreword claims that "Vatican II brought to completion all the efforts to bring the faithful closer to the Liturgy, efforts undertaken throughout the last four centuries, and especially in recent times, thanks to the liturgical zeal shown by St. Pius X and his successors." Thus, and we can give an infinite number of examples, the most advanced liturgists and the "Conciliar Church" herself claim that there is continuity, and even a "homogeneous development," in the Liturgical Movement between Dom Guéranger, or even St. Pius X, and Annibale Bugnini.

That is a deception that we cannot accept! That is why we have written this book on the Liturgical Movement. We will endeavour to show the way in which the movement was diverted from its course. Certainly, historically Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X are truly at the origin of the Liturgical Movement, but it is false and pernicious to claim that this movement, at least in its contemporary forms, is derived from their thought; worse still that it is the continuation of their work. To expound this thesis, we must study the history of the Liturgical Movement, acknowledge its magnificent fruits, but also establish from external evidence the early deviations of this grandiose enterprise which could have brought so much to the Church.

It is important to note the fact that the Liturgical Movement did indeed bring forth magnificent fruits, though rarely so in English-speaking countries. Father Bonneterre insists that his book is not intended to be purely negative:

Far from being negative, such a study enables us to discern what we must reject and what we must carefully conserve of the Liturgical Movement. It is vitally important that above all we who work for the maintenance of Catholic Liturgy become the heirs and successors of the work of Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X. We make the wishes of St. Pius X our own.

Father Bonneterre endorses the definition of the Liturgical Movement given by Dom Oliver Rousseau, OSB, as “the renewal of fervour for the liturgy among the clergy and the faithful.” This year marks the 100^th anniversary of the election of St. Pius X. Traditional Catholics everywhere should be preparing appropriate celebrations. Father Bonneterre writes:

In 1903 the person who was to give the movement a definite impetus had just ascended to the See of Peter—St. Pius X. Gifted with an immense pastoral experience, this saintly pope suffered terribly from the decadence of liturgical life. But he knew that a trend for renewal was developing, and he decided to do his utmost to ensure that it bring forth good fruits. That is why on November 22, 1903, he published his famous motu proprio “tra le Sollecitudini” restoring Gregorian chant. In this document he inserted the vital sentence which went on to play a determining role in the evolution of the Liturgical Movement:

Our keen desire being that the true Christian spirit may once more flourish, cost what it may, and be maintained among all the faithful.... We deem it necessary to provide before aught else for the sanctity and dignity of the temple, in which the faithful assemble for no other object than that of acquiring this spirit from its primary and indispensable source, which is the active participation in the most holy mysteries and in the public and solemn prayer of the Church. (Tra le Sollecitudini, November 22,1903.)

For St. Pius X as for Dom Guéranger, writes Father Bonneterre, “the liturgy is essentially theocentric; it is for the worship of God rather than for the teaching of the faithful. Nevertheless, this great pastor underlined an important aspect of the liturgy: it is educative of the true Christian spirit. But let us stress that this function of the liturgy is only secondary.” The tragedy of the liturgical movement was that it would make this secondary aspect of the liturgy the primary aspect, as is made manifest today in any typical parish celebration of the New Mass. Father Bonneterre has nothing but praise for initial stages of the movement: “Born of Dom Guéranger's genius and the indomitable energy of St. Pius X, the movement at this time brought magnificent fruits of spiritual renewal.”

If there is a villain of the book he is Dom Lambert Beauduin, but Father Bonneterre has no hesitation in paying tribute to the great contribution that he made to the movement in its early years:

The merit of having understood all that could be learned from the teaching of St. Pius X falls to Dom Lambert Beauduin (1873-1960). Alas, this monk was unable to maintain throughout his life this hierarchy of the ends of the liturgy, i.e., worship first, teaching second, as we shall see in the course of this study, but let us not anticipate.

Dom Lambert Beauduin at first was a priest of the diocese of Liege, a "workers' missionary" under Pope Leo XIII. In 1906, at the age of thirty-three, he entered the Abbey of Mont Cesar, which had been founded by the monks of Maredsous at Louvain a few years earlier (1899). Because of his previous activity among the secular clergy, his mind had become habitually occupied by the problems of the apostolate and pastoral work, and so he viewed the liturgy in light of his habitual preoccupations. Very speedily he "discovered" in the liturgy, following St. Pius X, a wonderful method for forming the faithful in the Christian life. In 1909 he launched a Liturgical Movement at Mont Cesar which was an immediate success.

It is important to set the Liturgical Movement within the context of the Modernist crisis which is documented in my book Partisans of Error. Father Bonneterre writes:

Crushed by St. Pius X, the Modernists understood that they could not penetrate the Church by theology, that is, by a clear exposé of their doctrines. They had recourse to the Marxist notion of praxis, having understood that the Church could become modernist through action, especially through the sacred action of the liturgy. Revolutions always use the living energies of the organism itself, taking control of them little by little and finally using them to destroy the body under attack. It is the well-known process of the Trojan horse.

The Liturgical Movement of Dom Guéranger, of St. Pius X, and of the Belgian monasteries, in origin at any rate, was a considerable force in the Church, a prodigious means of spiritual rejuvenation which, moreover, brought forth good fruits. The Liturgical Movement was thus the ideal Trojan horse for the modernist revolution. It was easy for all the revolutionaries to hide themselves in the belly of such a large carcass. Before Mediator Dei, who among the Catholic hierarchy was concerned about liturgy? What vigilance was applied to detecting this particularly subtle form of practical Modernism?

It was from the 1920's onward that it became clear that the Liturgical Movement had been diverted from its original admirable aims:

Dom Beauduin first of all favored in an exaggerated way the teaching and preaching aspect of the liturgy, and then conceived the idea of making it serve the "Ecumenical Movement" to which he was devoted body and soul. Dom Parsch tied the movement to Biblical renewal. Dom Casel made it the vehicle of a fanatical antiquarianism and of a completely personal conception of the "Christian mystery." These first revolutionaries were largely overtaken by the generation of the new liturgists of the various preconciliar liturgical commissions.

This new generation is described by Father Bonneterre as the “young wolves.” In any revolution it is almost routine for the first moderate revolutionaries to be replaced or even eradicated by more radical revolutionaries, as was the case with the Russian Revolution when the Mensheviks (majority) were ousted by the Bolsheviks (minority).

Faced by this excessive acceleration of the movement, Dom Beaudin was frightened... We witness here the first phenomena of “permanent excesses,” a feature of all revolutions: yesterday’s managers are overtaken by today’s agitators, the first revolutionaries are overtaken by today’s agitators.

Just as nothing could prevent the rise to power of the Bolsheviks, nothing could prevent the triumph of the young wolves:

After the Second World War, the movement became a force that nothing could stop. Protected from on high by eminent prelates, the new liturgists took control little by little of the Commission for Reform of the Liturgy founded by Pius XII, and influenced the reforms devised by this Commission at the end of the pontificate of Pius XII and at the beginning of that of John XXIII. Already masters, thanks to the Pope, of the preconciliar liturgical commission, the new liturgists got the Fathers of the Council to accept a self-contradictory and ambiguous document, the constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium. Pope Paul VI, Cardinal Lercaro and Fr. Bugnini, themselves very active members of the Italian Liturgical Movement, directed the efforts of the Consilium which culminated in the promulgation of the New Mass.

How could Pope Pius XII, the Pastor Angelicus, the most scholarly Pope of the century, and one whose orthodoxy could not possibly be questioned, have allowed the young wolves of the liturgical movement to consolidate their power during his pontificate? Father Bonneterre makes it clear that this saintly pontiff was well-aware of the subversive elements within the Liturgical Movement. In His Encyclical Mediator Dei, perhaps the most sublime exposition of the true nature of the Mass ever to be written, Pope Pius wrote: “We observe that certain people are too fond of novelty and go astray from the oaths of sound doctrine and prudence.... They sully this sacred cause with errors, errors which affect the Catholic faith and ascetical teaching.” Father Bonneterre insists that, alas:

Pope Pius XII did not know the true position of the Liturgical Movement. Its most dangerous leaders were being supported and protected by the highest dignitaries of the Church. How could the Pope have suspected that the "experts" who were so highly praised by Cardinals Bea and Lercaro were in fact the most dangerous enemies of the Church?

He laments the fact that: “Thus Pius XII gave the most inopportune encouragement to the congress at Assisi:

The Liturgical Movement is like an indication of the plans of divine providence for the present time, like the wind of the Holy Ghost blowing through the Church, bringing men closer to the mysteries of the faith and the treasures of grace, which flow from the active participation of the faithful in the life of the liturgy.”

Father Bonneterre comments: “This declaration could have been true and timely before 1920; in 1956 it was no longer so. In the intervening years, the Liturgical Movement had denied its origins and abandoned the principles laid down by Dom Guéranger and St. Pius X.”

The most influential of the new liturgists, the great architect of the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution, was Father Annibale Bugnini. Father Bonneterre recounts a visit by Father Bugnini to a liturgical convention held at Thieulin near Chartres at which forty religious superiors and seminary rectors were present, making clear the extent of the influence of the liturgical Bolsheviks on the Church establishment in France. He cites a Father Duployé as stating:

Some days before the reunion at Thieulin, I had a visit from an Italian Lazarist, Fr. Bugnini, who had asked me to obtain an invitation for him. The Father listened very attentively, without saying a word, for four days. During our return journey to Paris, as the train was passing along the Swiss Lake at Versailles, he said to me: "I admire what you are doing, but the greatest service I can render you is never to say a word in Rome about all that I have just heard."

This revealing text shows us one of the first appearances of the "gravedigger of the Mass," a revolutionary more clever than the others, he who killed the Catholic liturgy before disappearing from the official scene. So it was at this date that the "Counter-Church" completely pervaded the Liturgical Movement. Until then it had been occupied by the modernist and ecumenical forces: after the war it was rotten enough for Freemasonry to take direct control of the reins: Satan got into the Trojan Horse.

The reference to Freemasonry is based on the fact that in 1975 Pope Paul VI removed Bugnini, an Archbishop by then, from his position as Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, dissolved the entire Congregation, and in 1976 exiled him as Nuncio to Iran. Pope Paul did this because he had been given documentation which convinced him that the Archbishop was a freemason. Bugnini denied that he was a mason, but accepted that he was dismissed because the Pope believed him to be a member of the Brotherhood. All the relevant documentation is contained in Chapter 24 of my book Pope Paul’s New Mass.

Although the reforms of Pius XII had given some satisfaction to the leaders of the Movement, the implacable orthodoxy that the Pope had maintained throughout had not been to their taste. New and more daring reforms were called for, and they needed a pope who understood the problem of ecumenism and who was a wholehearted supporter of the Movement.

He claims that “The news of the death of the Angelic Pastor was received with almost delirious joy by the deviated Liturgical Movement.” The aged Dom Lambert Beauduin had not the least doubt as to the cardinal he hoped would be elected, and confided his hopes to Father Bouyer:

If they elect Roncalli," he said "all will be saved. He will be capable of calling a Council and canonizing ecumenism..." Silence fell; then, with a return of his old mischievousness, he said with flashing eyes, "I believe we have a good chance. Most of the cardinals are not sure what to do. They are capable of voting for him.

To consecrate ecumenism, yes, indeed, but also to consecrate the Liturgical Movement, such would be the task of the long-awaited Council. For more than forty years the new liturgists had been spreading their errors, they had succeeded in influencing a considerable portion of the Catholic hierarchy, and they had won some encouraging reforms from the Holy See. All this patient underground work was about to bear fruit. The liturgical revolutionaries took advantage of the Constitution on the Liturgy to get their ideas accepted. Then, when they were appointed members of the Consilium, they only had to draw the extreme conclusions from the principles of Vatican II.

This new rite carries on in its turn all the errors which have come forth since the beginning of the deviations of the "Movement." This rite is ecumenical, antiquarian, community-based, democratic, and almost totally desacralized; it also echoes the theological deviations of the modernists and the Protestants: toning down the sense of the Real Presence and diminution of the ministerial role of the priesthood, of the sacrificial character of the Mass, and especially of its propitiatory character. The Eucharist becomes much more a communal love feast than the renewal of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

It is thus with the New Mass that the Liturgical Movement which had started so well ended so badly. The 1959 liturgy of the Protestant Taizé community is printed as an appendix to the book, and shows some disturbing similarities to the New Mass. Father Bonneterre does not, however, refer to the alarming correspondence of the changes, principally omissions, made to the Order of Mass in the Missal of St. Pius V in the concoction of the order of Mass in the 1970 Missal and the almost identical omissions from the Sarum Missal made by Thomas Cranmer in concocting his 1549 Communion Service. These are documented in great detail in my book Pope Paul’s New Mass. Nor does he refer to the equally alarming correspondence between the liturgical principles permeating the Mass of Paul VI and those of the pseudo-synod of Pistoia condemned as pernicious by Pope Pius VI in his encyclical Auctorem Fidei of 1794. I would also say that, in places, Father Bonneterre seems to presume that the rite of Mass concocted by Father Bugnini’s Consilium represents what the leading members of the Liturgical Movement were aiming at. This might be true in the case of the “young wolves” who took over the movement, but is certainly not true of priests such as Beauduin, Casel, Parsch, or Bouyer. The principal aim of these men was to use the existing liturgy to achieve their pastoral aims, and not to impose a radical reform which made the liturgy that they knew, loved, and celebrated daily unrecognizable. In fairness to Father Bonneterre he does state that the leading figures of the original movement were frightened by the thinking of the young wolves. I have quoted him to this effect in this review. It would have been useful had he quoted the reaction of a priest such as Father Louis Bouyer, whom he cites quite often, to the actual reform that has been foisted upon us. He stated in 1969 that "We must speak plainly: there is practically no liturgy worthy of the name today in the Catholic Church"^{^[12]}; and "Perhaps in no other area is there a greater distance (and even formal opposition) between what the Council worked out and what we actually have”^{^[13]}; and that, in practice, “those who took it upon themselves to apply [?] the Council’s directives on this point have turned their backs deliberately on what Beauduin, Casel, and Pius Parsch had set out to do, and to which I had tried vainly to add some small contribution of my own.”^{^[14]}

In 1975, Father Bouyer stated: "The Catholic liturgy has been overthrown under the pretext of rendering it more acceptable to the secularised masses, but in reality to conform it with the buffooneries that the religious orders were induced to impose, whether they liked it or not, upon the other clergy. We do not have to wait for the results: a sudden decline in religious practice, varying between twenty and forty per cent among those who were practising Catholics.... Those who were not have not displayed a trace of interest in this pseudo-missionary liturgy, particularly the young whom they had deluded themselves into thinking that they would win over with their clowning.^{^[15]}

The value of Father Bonneterre’s book would have been enhanced considerably had he been asked to adapt and update it by researching the wealth of documentation published since he wrote it in 1980, the most important item in this respect being the posthumous memoirs or Archbishop Bugnini, which provide the most valuable source available for researching the actual concoction of Pope Paul’s New Mass.^{^[16]} There are frequent references in this book to figures included in that of Father Bonneterre, and to many of the experts who are not. One of these, Father Joseph Gelineau, is described by Archbishop Bugnini as one of the "great masters of the international liturgical world".^{^[17]} This “great master tells us, with commendable honesty, but no a trace of regret:

Let those who like myself have known and sung a Latin-Gregorian High Mass remember it if they can. Let them compare it with the Mass that we now have. Not only the words, the melodies, and some of the gestures are different. To tell the truth, it is a different liturgy of the Mass. This needs to be said without ambiguity: the Roman Rite as we knew it no longer exists (le rite romain tel que nous l'avons connu n'existe plus). It has been destroyed (il est détruit).”^{^[18]}

Despite these reservations, The Liturgical Movement—Guéranger to Beauduin to Bugnini is a book which, like Msgr. Gamber’s Reform of the Roman Rite, no Catholic can afford to be without if he wishes to understand the post-Vatican II liturgical revolution. It is profusely illustrated and has an excellent index.

^{^[5]} K. Gamber, The Reform of the Roman Liturgy (RRL), K. Gamber ( Harrison, N.Y.,1993), p. 61.

^{^[12]} L. Bouyer, The Decomposition of Catholicism (London, 1970), p. 99. Referred to as DC in subsequent notes.

^{^[16]} A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948-1975 (Collegeville, Minnesota, 1990).

Amen to "Michael Davies: Requiescat in pace."

Nevertheless, this takes me to "What Davies Leaves Out" in his works: his selectivity!

In an earlier thread "ultima ratio" quoted Ch. 15 from Davies' "Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre." He commented upon a very small portion of Pope Paul VI's letter to Lefebvre. Here follows the complete letter - with the omissions in blue font:

POPE PAUL VI'S LETTER TO ARCHBISHOP MARCEL LEFEBVRE

(This letter was sent to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre one month after he visited the Pope on September 11, 1976. The archbishop had rejected parts of the Vatican II decrees and some of the subsequent post-conciliar enactments of the Holy See and had been the object of widespread publicity as he celebrated Tridentine Masses in various parts of Europe. In June, 1976, the archbishop had defied a direct order from the Pope not to ordain seminarians at the seminary he founded in Econe, Switzerland. In this letter, the Pope told the archbishop that while pluralism in the church is legitimate, it must be a licit pluralism rooted in obedience. The Pope said the archbishop, rather than practicing obedience, had propagated and organized a rebellion. This, he added, "is the essential issue" in the archbishop's regard. In this letter, the Pope outlined his conditions for rectifying matters, including a call for a declaration from the archbishop affirming adherence to Vatican II, a declaration that, among other things, retracts accusations or insinuations leveled against the Pope. The text of the Pope's letter has been taken from Origins, NC Documentary Service, December 16, 1976.)

When We received you in audience on last September 11 at Castelgandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion. After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of September 16, in which you affirm: "A common point unites us; the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under Your authority, so that the church may recover her true countenance." How must these few words to which your response is limited - and which in themselves are positive - be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion - words and gestures that you have never retracted!

You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divines. You do not explicitly express your acceptance if the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See - and this constitutes the basis of the problem - and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate authority has expressly ordered you to suspend. Ambiguity results from the 'duplicity of your language. On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusion of Our reflections.

1. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests "torn apart by what is happening in the church," thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic faith and the essential values of tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the people of God, at least in certain countries. But in your interpretations of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something that misleads the people of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress. [emphasis added].

Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention. Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics, or the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense change in today's world affects believers at the edge of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic concern for those "who are far away."

But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name "Conciliar" those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious. But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reform that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council and that it flows from the Council itself. [emphasis added].

Moreover, you act as if you had a particular role in this regard. But the mission of discerning and remedying the abuses is first of all Ours; it is the mission of all the bishops who work together with Us. Indeed We do not cease to raise Our voice against these excesses: Our discourse to the consistory of last May 21 repeated this in clear terms. More than anyone else We hear the suffering of distressed Christians, and We respond to the cry of the faithful longing for faith and the spiritual life. This is not the place to remind you, brother, of all the acts of Our pontificate that testify to Our constant concern to ensure for the church fidelity to the true tradition, and to enable her with God's grace to face the present and future.

Finally, your behavior is contradictory. You want, so you say, to remedy the abuses that disfigure the church; you regret that authority in the church is not sufficiently respected; you wish to safeguard authentic faith, esteem for the ministerial priesthood and fervor for the Eucharist in its sacrificial and sacramental fullness. Such zeal would, in itself, merit our encouragement, since it is a question of exigencies which, together with evangelization and the unity of Christians, remain at the heart of Our preoccupations and of Our mission.

But how can you at the same time, in order to fulfill this role, claim that you are obliged to act contrary to the recent Council in opposition to your brethren in the episcopate, to distrust the Holy See itself - which you call the "Rome of the neo-modernist and neo-Protestant tendency - and to set yourself up in open disobedience to Us? If you truly want to work "under Our authority," as you affirm in your last private letter, it is immediately necessary to put an end to these ambiguities and contradictions.

Let us come now to the more precise requests which you formulated during the audience of September 11. You would like to see recognized the right to celebrate Mass in various places of worship according to the Tridentine rite. You wish also to continue to train candidates for the priesthood according to your criteria, "as before the Council," in seminaries apart, as at Econe. But behind these questions and other similar ones, which We shall examine later on in detail, it is truly necessary to see the intricacy of the problem: and the problem is theological. For these questions have become concrete ways of expressing an ecclesiology that is warped in essential points.

What is indeed at issue is the question - which must truly be called fundamental - of your clearly proclaimed refusal to recognize in its whole, the authority of the Second Vatican Council and that of the Pope. This refusal is accompanied by an action that is oriented towards propagating and organizing what must indeed, unfortunately, be called a rebellion. This is the essential issue, and it is truly un tenable.

Is it necessary to remind you that you are Our brother in the episcopate and moreover - a fact that obliges you to remain even more closely united to the See of Peter - that you have been named an assistant at the papal throne? Christ has given the supreme authority in his church to Peter and to the apostolic college, that is, to the Pope and to the college of bishops una cum Capite.

In regard to the Pope, every Catholic admits that the words of Jesus to Peter determine also the charge of Peter's legitimate successors: ". . .whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (Mt. 16:19); ". . .feed my sheep" (Jn. 21:17); ". . .confirm your brethren" (Lk. 22:32). And the First Vatican Council specified in these terms the assent due to the sovereign pontiff: "The pastors of every rank and of every rite and the faithful, each separately and all together, are bound by the duty of hierarchical subordination and of true obedience, not only in questions of faith and morals, but also in those that touch upon the discipline and government of the church throughout the entire world. Thus, by preserving the unity of communion and of profession of faith with the Roman pontiff, the church is a single flock under one pastor. Such is the doctrine of Catholic truth, from which no one can separate himself without danger for his faith and his salvation" (Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3, DZ 3060).

Concerning bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, their power with regard to the universal church is solemnly exercised in the ecumenical councils, according to the words of Jesus to the body of the apostles: ". . .whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). And now in your conduct you refuse to recognize, as must be done, these two ways in which supreme authority is exercised.

Each bishop is indeed an authentic teacher for preaching to the people entrusted to him that faith which must guide their thoughts and conduct and dispel the errors that menace the flock. But, by their nature, "the charges of teaching and governing . . . cannot be exercised except in hierarchical communion with the head of the college and with its members" (Constitution Lumen Gentium, 21; cf. also 25). A fortiori, a single bishop without a canonical mission does not have in actu expedite ad agendum, the faculty of deciding in general what the rule of faith is or of determining what tradition is. In practice you are claiming that you alone are the judge of what tradition embraces.

You say that you are subject to the church and faithful to tradition by the sole fact that you obey certain norms of the past that were decreed by the predecessor of him to whom God has today conferred the powers given to Peter. That is to say, on this point also, the concept of "tradition" that you invoke is distorted. [emphasis added].

Tradition is not a rigid and dead notion, a fact of a certain static sort which at a given moment of history blocks the life of this active organism which is the church, that is, the mystical body of Christ. It is up to the Pope and to councils to exercise judgment in order to discern in the traditions of the church that which cannot be renounced without infidelity to the Lord and to the Holy Spirit - the deposit of faith - and that which, on the contrary, can and must be adapted to facilitate the prayer and the mission of the church throughout a variety of times and places, in order better to translate the divine message into the language of today and better to communicate it, without an unwarranted surrender of principles.

Hence tradition is inseparable from the living magisterium of the church, just as it is inseparable from sacred scripture. "Sacred tradition, sacred scripture and the magisterium of the church . . . are so linked and joined together that one of these realities cannot exist without the others, and that all of them together, each in its own way, effectively contribute under the action of the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls" (Constitution Dei Verbum, 10).

With the special assistance of the Holy Spirit, the popes and the ecumenical councils have acted in this common way. And it is precisely this that the Second Vatican Council did. Nothing that was decreed in this Council, or in the reforms that we enacted in order to put the Council into effect, is opposed to what the 2,000-year-old tradition of the church considers as fundamental and immutable. We are the guarantor of this, not in virtue of Our personal qualities but in virtue of the charge which the Lord has conferred upon Us as legitimate successor of Peter, and in virtue of the special assistance that He has promised to Us as well as to Peter: "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail" (Lk. 22:32). The universal episcopate is guarantor with us of this.

Again, you cannot appeal to the distinction between what is dogmatic and what is pastoral to accept certain texts of this Council and to refuse others. [emphasis added]. Indeed, not everything in the Council requires an assent of the same nature: only what is affirmed by definitive acts as an object of faith or as a truth related to faith requires an assent of faith. But the rest also forms part of the solemn magisterium of the church to which each member of the faithful owes a confident acceptance and a sincere application.

You say moreover that you do not always see how to reconcile certain texts of the Council, or certain dispositions which We have enacted in order to put the Council into practice, with the wholesome tradition of the church and in particular with the Council of Trent of the affirmations of Our predecessors. These are for example: the responsibility of the college of bishops united with the sovereign pontiff, the new Ordo Missae, ecumenism, religious freedom, the attitude of dialogue, evangelization in the modem world. . . . It is not the place, in this letter, to deal with each of these problems. The precise tenor of the documents, with the totality of it nuances and its context, the authorized explanations, the detailed and objective commentaries which have been made, are of such a nature to enable you to overcome these personal difficulties. Absolutely secure counsellors, theologians and spiritual directors would be able to help you even more, with God's enlightenment, and We are ready to facilitate this fraternal assistance for you.

But how can an interior personal difficulty - a spiritual drama which We respect - permit you to set yourself up publicly as a judge of what has been legitimately adopted, practically with unanimity, and knowingly to lead a portion of the faithful into your refusal? If justifications are useful in order to facilitate intellectual acceptance - and We hope that the troubled or reticent faithful will have the wisdom, honesty and humanity to accept those justifications that are widely placed at their disposal - they are not in themselves necessary for the assent of obedience that is due to the Ecumenical Council and to the decisions of the Pope. It is the ecclesial sense that is at issue.

In effect you and those who are following you are endeavoring to come to a standstill at a given moment in the life of the church. By the same token you refuse to accept the living church, which is the church that has always been: you break with the church's legitimate pastors and scorn the legitimate exercise of their charge. And so you claim not even to be affected by the orders of the Pope, or by the suspension a divines, as you lament "subversion" in the church.

Is it not in this state of mind that you have ordained priests without dimissorial letters and against Our explicit command, thus creating a group of priests who are in an irregular situation in the Church and who are under grave ecclesiastical penalties? Moreover, you hold that the suspension that you have incurred applies only to the celebration of the sacraments according to the new rite, as if they were something improperly introduced into the church, which you go so far as to call schismatic, and you think that you evade this sanction when you administer the sacraments according to the formulas of the past and against the established norms (cf. I Cor. 14:40).

From the same erroneous conception springs your abuse of celebrating the Mass called that of St. Pius V. You know full well that this rite had itself been the result of successive changes, and that the Roman Canon remains the first of the eucharistic prayers authorized today.

The present reform derived its raison d'être and its guidelines from the Council and from the historical sources of the liturgy. It enables the laity to draw greater nourishment from the word of God. Their more active participation leaves intact the unique role of the priest acting in the person of Christ. We have sanctioned this reform by Our authority, requiring that it be adopted by all Catholics.

If, in general, We have not judged it good to permit any further delays or exceptions to this adoption, it is with a view to the spiritual good and the unity of the entire ecclesial community, because, for Catholics of the Roman rite, the Ordo Missae is a privileged sign of their unity. It is also because, in your case, the old rite is in fact the expression of a warped ecclesiology, and a ground for dispute with the Council and its reforms under the pretext that in the old rite alone are preserved, without their meaning being obscured, the true sacrifice of the Mass and the ministerial priesthood.

We cannot accept this erroneous judgment, this unjustified accusation, nor can We tolerate that the Lord's Eucharist, the sacrament of unity, should be the object of such divisions (cf. I Cor. 11:18), and that it should even be used as an instrument and sign of rebellion.

Of course there is room in the church for a certain pluralism, but in licit matters and in obedience. This is not understood by those who refuse the sum total of the liturgical reform; nor indeed on the other hand by those who imperil the holiness of the real presence of the Lord and of his sacrifice. In the same way there can be no question of a priestly formation which ignores the Council.

We cannot therefore take your requests into consideration, because it is a question of acts which have already been committed in rebellion against the one true church of God. Be assured that this severity is not dictated by a refusal to make a concession on such and such a point of discipline or liturgy, but, given the meaning and the extent of your acts in the present context, to act thus would be on Our part to accept the introduction of a seriously erroneous concept of the church and of tradition. This is why, with the full consciousness of Our duties, We say to you, brother, that you are in error. [emphasis added]. And with the full ardor of Our fraternal love, as also with all the weight of Our authority as the successor of Peter, We invite you to retract, to correct yourself and to cease from inflicting wounds upon the church of Christ. [emphasis added]

3. Specifically, what do We ask of you?
A. - First and foremost, a declaration that will rectify matters for Ourself and also for the people of God who have a right to clarity and who can no longer bear without damage such equivocations.

This declaration will therefore have to affirm that you sincerely adhere to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and to all its documents - sensu obvio - which were adopted by the Council fathers and approved and promulgated by Our authority. For such an adherence has always been the rule, in the church, since the beginning, in the matter of ecumenical councils.

It must be clear that you equally accept the decisions that We have made since the Council in order to put it into effect, with the help of the departments of the Holy See; among other things, you must explicitly recognize the legitimacy of the reformed liturgy, notably of the Ordo Missae, and our right to require its adoption by the entirety of the Christian people.

You must also admit the binding character of the rules of canon law now in force which, for the greater part, still correspond with the content of the Code of Canon Law of Benedict XV, without excepting the part which deals with canonical penalties.

As far as concerns Our person, you will make a point of desisting from and retracting the grave accusations or insinuations which you have publicly levelled against Us, against the orthodoxy of Our faith and Our fidelity to Our charge as the successor of Peter, and against Our immediate collaborators.

With regard to the bishops, you must recognize their authority in their respective dioceses by abstaining from preaching in those dioceses and administering the sacraments there: the eucharist, confirmation, holy orders, etc., when these bishops expressly object to your doing so.

Finally, you must undertake to abstain from all activities (such as conferences, publications, etc.) contrary to this declaration, and formally to reprove all those initiatives which may make use of your name in the face of this declaration.

It is a question here of the minimum to which every Catholic bishop must subscribe: this adherence can tolerate no compromise. As soon as you show Us that you accept its principle. We will propose the practical manner of presenting this declaration. This is the first condition in order that the suspension a divines be lifted.

B. - It will then remain to solve the problem of your activity, of your works, and notably of your seminaries. You will appreciate, brother, that in view of the past and present irregularities and ambiguities affecting these works, We cannot go back on the juridical suppression of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X. This has inculcated a spirit of opposition to the Council and to its implementation such as the Vicar of Christ was endeavoring to promote.

Your declaration of November 21, 1974, bears witness to this spirit; and upon such a foundation, as Our commission of cardinals rightly judged, on May 6, 1975, one cannot build an institution or a priestly formation in conformity with the requirements of the church of Christ. This in no way invalidates the good element in your seminaries, but one must also take into consideration the ecclesiological deficiencies of which We have spoken and the capacity of exercising a pastoral ministry in the church of today. Faced with these unfortunately mixed realities, We shall take care not to destroy but to correct and to save as far as possible.

This is why, as supreme guarantor of the faith and of the formation of the clergy, We require you first of all to hand over to Us the responsibility of your work, and particularly for your seminaries. This is undoubtedly a heavy sacrifice for you, but it is also a test of your trust, of your obedience and it is a necessary condition in order that these seminaries, which have no canonical existence in the church, may in the future take their place therein.

It is only after you have accepted the principle that We shall be able to provide in the best possible way for the good of all the persons involved, with the concern for promoting authentic priestly vocations and with respect for the doctrinal, disciplinary and pastoral requirements of the church. At that stage. We shall be in a position to listen with benevolence to your requests and your wishes and, together with Our departments, to take in conscience the right and opportune measures.

As for the illicitly ordained seminarians, the sanctions which they have incurred in conformity with Canon 985,7 and 2374 can be lifted, if they give proof of a return to a better frame of mind, notably by accepting to subscribe to the declaration which We have asked of you. We count upon your sense of the church in order to make this step easy for them.

As regards the foundations, houses of formation, "priories" and various other institutions set up on your initiative or with your encouragement, We likewise ask you to hand them over to the Holy See, which will study their position, in its various aspects, with the local episcopate. Their survival, organization and apostolate will be subordinated, as is normal throughout the Catholic Church, to an agreement which will have to be reached, in each case, with the local bishop - nihil sine Episcopo - and in a spirit which respects the declaration mentioned above.

All the points which figure in this letter and to which We have given mature consideration, in consultation with the heads of the departments concerned, have been adopted by Us only out of regard for the greater good of the church. You said to Us during our conversation of September 11: "I am ready for anything, for the good of the church." The response now lies in your hands.

If you refuse - quod Deus avertat - to make the declaration which is asked of you, you will remain suspended a divines. On the other hand, Our pardon and the lifting of the suspension will be assured you to the extent to which you sincerely and without ambiguity undertake to fulfill the conditions of this letter and to repair the scandal caused. The obedience and the trust of which you will give proof will also make it possible for Us to study serenely with you your personal problems.

May the Holy Spirit enlighten you and guide you towards the only solution that would enable you on the one hand to rediscover the peace of your momentarily misguided conscience but also to ensure the good of souls, to contribute to the unity of the church which the Lord has entrusted to Our charge and to avoid the danger of a schism.

In the psychological state in which you find yourself, We realize that it is difficult for you to see clearly and very hard for you humbly to change your line of conduct: is it not therefore urgent, as in all such cases, for you to arrange a time and a place of recollection which will enable you to consider the matter with the necessary objectivity?

Fraternally, We put you on your guard against the pressures to which you could be exposed from those who wish to keep you in an untenable position, while We Ourself, all your brothers in the episcopate and the vast majority of the faithful await finally from you that ecclesial attitude which would be to your honor.

In order to root out the abuses which we all deplore and to guarantee a true spiritual renewal, as well as the courageous evangelization to which the Holy Spirit bids us, there is needed more than ever the help and commitment of the entire ecclesial community around the Pope and the bishops. Now the revolt of one side finally reaches and risks accentuating the insubordination of what you have called the "subversion" of the other side; while, without your own insubordination, you would have been able, brother, as you expressed the wish in your last letter, to help Us, in fidelity and under Our authority, to work for the advancement of the church.

Therefore, dear brother, do not delay any longer in considering before God, with the keenest religious attention, this solemn adjuration of the humble but legitimate successor of Peter. May you measure the gravity of the Hour and take the only decision that befits a son of the church. This is Our hope, this is Our prayer.

From the Vatican, October 11,1976

PAULUS PP. VI

Source: http://www.conglomination.com/cg/lefebvre.htm

In his day, Professor Julius Sumner Miller might have put the question on the omissions: "Why is it so."

Here is Michael Davies again: The excerpt is from Chapter 15 of Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies, including comments on the Letter from Paul VI to the Archbishop.
___________________________

[Pope Paul:]"When We received you in audience on 11 September last at Castelgandolfo, We let you freely express your position and your desires, even though the various aspects of your case were already well known to Us personally. The memory that We still have of your zeal for the faith and the apostolate, as well as of the good you have accomplished in the past at the service of the Church, made Us and still makes Us hope that you will once again become an edifying subject in full ecclesial communion. After the particularly serious actions that you have performed, We have once more asked you to reflect before God concerning your duty.

"We have waited a month. The attitude to which your words and acts publicly testify does not seem to have changed. It is true that We have before Us your letter of 16 September in which you affirm: 'A common point unites us: the ardent desire to see the cessation of all the abuses that disfigure the Church. How I wish to collaborate in this salutary work, with Your Holiness and under your authority, so that the Church recover Her True countenance.' How must these few words to which your response is limited – and which in themselves are positive – be interpreted? You speak as if you have forgotten your scandalous words and gestures against ecclesial communion – words and gestures that you have never retracted."

As these "scandalous words and gestures" are not specified it is hard to decide to what the Holy Father can be referring. Is it scandalous to reiterate the traditional teaching of the Church; to protest against abuses; to demand that Catholic children should be taught their faith; to celebrate Mass in the manner utilized by so many popes and holy priests for five centuries-and in all essentials for 1,000 years? No, if we are to look for scandal we should look to those bishops who cooperate in the devastation of the Lord 's vineyard or, if they do not actively cooperate, make not the least effort to intervene in the interests of orthodoxy. Dietrich von Hildebrand writes:

"One of the most horrifying and widespread diseases of the Church today is the lethargy of the guardians of the Faith of the Church. I am not thinking here of those bishops who are members of the 'fifth column,' who wish to destroy the Church from within, or to transform it into something completely different. I am thinking of the far more numerous bishops who have no such intentions, but who make no use whatever of their authority when it comes to intervening against heretical theologians or priests, or against blasphemous performances of public worship. They either close their eyes and try, ostrich-style, to ignore the grievous abuses as well as appeals to their duty to intervene, or they fear to be attacked by the press or the mass media and defamed as reactionary, narrow-minded, or medieval. They fear men more than God. The words of St. John Bosco apply to them: 'The power of evil men lives on the cowardice of the good.' One is forced to think of the hireling who abandons his flocks to the wolves when one reflects on the lethargy of so many bishops and superiors who, though still orthodox themselves, do not have the courage to intervene against the most flagrant heresies and abuses in their dioceses or in their orders.But it is most especially infuriating when certain bishops, who themselves show this lethargy towards heretics, assume a rigorously authoritarian attitude toward those believers who are fighting for orthodoxy, and who are thus doing what the bishops ought to be doing themselves! The drivel of heretics, both priests and laymen, is tolerated; the bishops tacitly acquiesce in the poisoning of the faithful. But they want to silence the faithful believers who take up the cause of orthodoxy the very people who should by rights be the joy of the bishops’ hearts, their consolation, a source of strength for overcoming their own lethargy. Instead, these people are regarded as disturbers of the peace... The failure to protect the holy Faith leads necessarily to the disintegration of the Church."2

If we are looking for scandal we need only look as far as the campaign to destroy the Society of St. Pius X. It is in perfect conformity with the spirit of the “Conciliar Church” that legitimate resistance to an abuse of power should be termed scandalous, and not the abuse of power itself.

[Pope Paul]: "You do not manifest repentance, even for the cause of your suspension a divinis."

It is precisely the Archbishop’s refusal to submit to an abuse of power that caused his suspension. It is those guilty of the abuse of power who should repent.

[Pope Paul]: "You do not explicitly express your acceptance of the authority of the Second Vatican Council and of the Holy See – and this constitutes the basis of your problem – and you continue in those personal works of yours which the legitimate Authority has expressly ordered you to suspend."

The Acts of the Second Vatican Council are only Acts of the Ordinary Magisterium. The Council Fathers deliberately chose not to invest even one conciliar document with that infallible status which demands immediate and total acceptance. Mgr. Lefebvre's attitude is the correct attitude of a Catholic towards documents of the Ordinary Magisterium- to receive them with respect and to accept them where they conform with Tradition but to exercise a prudent reserve where they do not -for in such cases the possibility of error does exist.3 What Pope Paul demanded was that the Archbishop must accept the fallible Acts of Vatican II as if they were infallible. Not only was the Archbishop required to accept all the Acts of the Council itself -as has been shown in this book on several occasions, he was required to accept the post-conciliar orientations. Where the Acts of the Council themselves are concerned, there is no bishop in the world who, comes closer to implementing them than Mgr. Lefebvre. The only documents he refused to sign were those on The Church in the Modern World and Religious Liberty. His reasons for doing so are set out in Appendix IV:

[Pope Paul:]"Ambiguity results from the duplicity of your language."

Yes, it is quite true. Pope Paul VI is accusing Mgr. Lefebvre of ambiguity and duplicity after approving in forma specifica all the devious actions taken against the Archbishop -and this must include an invitation to a discussion which turned out to be a trial [which was illicit and which denied him due counsel or any means of self-defense as guaranteed by Canon Law.--ultima ratio.]

[Pope Paul:]"On Our part, as We promised you, We are herewith sending you the conclusions of Our reflections. In practice you put yourself forward as the defender and spokesman of the faithful and of priests 'torn apart by what is happening in the Church,' thus giving the sad impression that the Catholic Faith and the essential values of Tradition are not sufficiently respected and lived in a portion of the People of God, at least in certain countries."

As Mgr. Lefebvre made clear during his sermon at Lille, he has never put himself forward as the leader of the traditionalists (Chapter XIII). The Vatican thus invests him with a title to which he has never laid claim, and then attacks him for laying claim to it! Another example of the “Conciliar Church” in action!

If Mgr. Lefebvre has given the impression that the essential values of Tradition are not respected in certain countries, he is doing no more than stating a fact which has been so obvious for so long that it is something which truly faithful Catholics now take for granted. The fact that there is not a single hierarchy in the West prepared to uphold and teach the truths and traditions of our faith is now accepted as quite normal rather than a cause of scandal. Organizations such as Pro Fide in Great Britain of Catholic United for the Faith in the U.S.A.., which have never been connected with Mgr. Lefebvre, have produced thousands of pages of ducumented evidence detailing liturgical, doctrinal, and catechetical abuses which almost invariably remain uncorrected. This is a charge which I would not have the least difficulty in proving where Great Britain is concerned. When they are presented with irrefutable proof that their catechetical directors are preventing Catholic children from learning their faith, the reaction of British bishops is to ignore the interests of the children and leap to the defense of their “experts.” I repeat, this is something I can prove if challenged.

In a message to the People of God issued on 11 October 1977, the Synod of Bishops included the following:

"…the vitality and strength of the entire catechetical activity of the Church is clearly felt almost everywhere. This has produced excellent results for the renewal of the entire community of the Church. ...Despite some areas which cause concern, the number of present initiatives in this field, visible almost everywhere, is striking. Over the past ten years, in all parts of the world, catechesis has become a primary source of vitality leading to a fruitful renewal of the entire community of the Church."

There is only one possible comment regarding this statement-it is quite untrue. As a result of the initiatives taken over the past ten years the results are indeed striking -the accelerating decomposition of the Church throughout the West. To paraphrase once more a statement by Tacitus with which I concluded my book Pope John's Council: "When they create a wilderness they call it a renewal."

[Pope Paul:]"But in your interpretation of the facts and in the particular role that you assign yourself, as well as in the way in which you accomplish this role, there is something which misleads the People of God and deceives souls of good will who are justly desirous of fidelity and of spiritual and apostolic progress."

When the Synod of Bishops met to vote upon the document just cited it was approved almost unanimously. If the Pope had wished to accuse bishops of misleading the People of God and of deceiving souls of good will, there was clearly no lack of suitable candidates for such a reproach-the fact that he reserved it for one of the very few bishops to whom it is not applicable is another example of the Conciliar Church in action.

[Pope Paul:]"Deviations in the faith or in sacramental practice are certainly very grave, wherever they occur. For a long period of time they have been the object of Our full doctrinal and pastoral attention."

What exactly did Pope Paul mean by his "full doctrinal and pastoral attention"? The manner in which he exercised his authority was well described by Hamish Fraser in the July 1977 issue of Approaches. He comments:

"Having promulgated the New Mass, which was intended by its authors to initiate a permanent liturgical revolution, Pope Paul undoubtedly bears a terrifying responsibility for the consequent liturgical (as well as doctrinal) chaos. Similarly, he bears grave responsibility for the subversion of catholic education. On the one hand, although details concerning catechetical subversion have been reported to the Holy See time and again, nothing has been done to discipline the bishops guilty of imposing heretical catechisms on the schools under their control. On the other hand, by sanctioning the continued use of the New (Dutch) Catechism (subject only to its carrying an Appendix adverting to its most egregious error, which Appendix is simply ignored by those who use this compendium of Neo-Modemist heresies), he gave great comfort to the New Catechists responsible for catechetical subversion… Pope Paul must bear responsibility for the breakdown of Law within the Church and the consequent abuse of power at all levels. His pontificate, probably the most disastrous in history , has been characterized less by 'a suspense of the functions of the ecclesia docens' (teaching Church - Cardinal Newman's description of the state of affairs in the fourth century), than by a suspense of the ecclesia sanctificans (the sanctifying Church) and of the ecclesia gubernans (the governing Church) It is undoubtedly true that, but for this partial suspense of the functions of the ecclesia docens, and the near total chaos concerning the functions of the ecclesia sanctificans and the ecclesia gubernans there would have been no need for Mgr. Lefebvre to found the Econe seminary and there would certainly have been no danger whatsoever of his coming into conflict with the Holy See."

Mr. Fraser's allegations concerning the total inactivity of the Holy See in the face of liturgical, doctrinal, and catechetical abuses are fully corroborated by the letter sent to Pope Paul by twenty-eight French priests on 27 August 1976 and included in this book under that date.

[Pope Paul:]"Certainly one must not forget the positive signs of spiritual renewal or of increased responsibility in a good number of Catholics..."

With all due respect to the late Holy Father, there is not one indication of renewal anywhere in the Church which can be ascribed to Vatican II. There are, it is true, fruitful and inspiring apostolates such as that of Mother Teresa of Calcutta; however, this was not inspired by Vatican II but pre-dated it. An indication of the true nature of the fruits of Vatican II is provided in Appendix VIII to my book Pope John's Council:

[Pope Paul:]"...or the complexity of the cause of the crisis: the immense change: in today's world affects believers at the depth of their being, and renders ever more necessary apostolic concern for those 'who are far away.' But it remains true that some priests and members of the faithful mask with the name 'conciliar' those personal interpretations and erroneous practices that are injurious, even scandalous, and at times sacrilegious."

Take careful note: sacrilege is being committed; the Council is used to justify sacrilege; and it is the Pope himself who testifies to this fact. It is quite clear that any fault Mgr. Lefebvre might be guilty of would pale into insignificance beside a single act of sacrilege-but it was against Mgr. Lefebvre alone that the Pope took positive action.

[Pope Paul:]"But these abuses cannot be attributed either to the Council itself or to the reforms that have legitimately issued therefrom, but rather to a lack of authentic fidelity in their regard. You want to convince the faithful that the proximate cause of the crisis is more than a wrong interpretation of the Council, and that it flows from the Council itself."

Pope Paul was correct in stating that Archbishop Lefebvre claims that the Council is the cause of the crisis but the Pope contradicted all the available evidence in claiming that neither the Council nor the official reforms could, in fact, be blamed for the erroneous, scandalous, and indeed, sacrilegious practices which exist. It must be clearly understood that in making such a statement the Pope was expressing his opinion on a question of fact-i.e.: Have or have not the official reforms helped to create the atmosphere which engendered the abuses? Pope Paul said "No"; Mgr. Lefebvre said "Yes.” In a dispute concerning a matter of fact we must base our decision upon the available evidence and not upon the status of the parties concerned. In his diary giving the background to the encyclical Apostolicae Curae, Cardinal Gasquet relates how, in January 1895, Pope Leo XIII explained to Cardinal Vaughan that a small concession on the part of the Holy See would bring the majority of Englishmen into communion with Rome. He asked for the Cardinal's help in achieving this objective. The Cardinal felt bound to tell the Pope bluntly that his opinion had no "foundation in fact." Subsequent events proved the Cardinal to be right and the Pope to have been completely mistaken -he had put too much faith in the opinions of ecumenically-minded French priests who were totally ignorant of the situation in England. No one in authority likes to admit making an error of judgment and there is a natural tendency among subordinates never to suggest that their superiors have erred. A prelate of lesser character than Cardinal Vaughan would not have spoken so bluntly; the same can be said of St. Paul, Bishop Grosseteste, and St. Catherine of Siena -to name but three of those who have rightly rebuked the Pope of their day for pursuing policies which harmed the Church (See Appendix II). Pope Paul's personal prestige had become inextricably linked with the Council and the post-conciliar reforms and orientations to which he was committed. It is an incontestable fact that never in the history of the Church had there been so sudden and so widespread a decomposition of Catholicism. Historians will certainly record that the Pontificate of Pope Paul VI proved to be the most disastrous during the history of the Church. There is, however, considerable scope for a difference of opinion on the reason for this collapse.

One version, and it is a version which deserves consideration, is that a series of sincere but misguided pontiffs failed to keep pace with an unprecedented advance in human progress, that they failed to adapt the Gospel to the profound developments manifest in every other branch of society and contented themselves with repeating archaic and stereotyped formulae that were meaningless to a mankind which had "come of age." The capital fault of these pontiffs had been to fail to "read the signs of the times." These particular signs were, through the intervention of the Holy Ghost, made manifest to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council, who at last undertook the urgently needed task of adaptation. It is argued that due to the short-sighted policies of pontiffs prior to Pope John XXIII, the Church was totally unprepared for this process of adaptation and that, to a large extent, it had come too late. Thus, this school of thought argues, the decomposition of the Church would have come anyway; Pope Paul and his policies are in no way to blame (except where he tried to uphold the traditional positions as in the case of Humanae Vitae); and if it had not been for the post-conciliar orientations the disaster would have been even greater.

Archbishop Lefebvre's view is that it is precisely the post-conciliar reforms and orientations to which Pope Paul himself was committed, and the virtual carte blanche which this Pope had given to Modernists to undermine the faith in any way that suited them (rarely opposing them with anything more than pious exhortations), to which the present crisis is due. Humanly speaking, it would have been almost impossible for Pope Paul VI to admit this -even to himself. He would have thus admitted not simply that his pontificate had been the most disastrous in the history of the Church but that his policies had been responsible for the disaster. When someone in authority initiates a policy which does not succeed, the almost invariable reaction is to find some explanation other than that the policy itself was wrong. When an education official introduces a new system of teaching reading which results in illiterate children, he will blame the teachers, their methods, lack of parental cooperation -anything and anyone but his own judgment. The history of the papacy makes it clear that the popes themselves are only too human. We should not be surprised that Pope Paul attempted to justify the orientations to which he was committed -it would have been a miracle of grace if he had not. If we read the history of the papacy we shall find many occasions when we could wish miracles of grace had occurred but didn't!

This has been a long comment on a short passage in the Pope's letter -but it involves what is perhaps the most crucial issue for faithful Catholics in the whole controversy between the Archbishop and Pope Paul VI. The faithful Catholic tends to presume that anyone who disagrees with the Pope on any topic whatsoever must certainly be wrong -and he cannot be condemned for this attitude as it has been one that has been inculcated for centuries, particularly in Protestant countries. “Keep the faith " has been equated with "Give uncritical support to every papal act and opinion." Now that it has come to the point that there can be a contradiction between keeping the faith and supporting the Pope, few orthodox Catholics are able to make the necessary distinction. I am not arguing here that the Pope's interpretation of the reasons for the crisis is incorrect and that of Archbishop Lefebvre correct, simply that the Pope could be mistaken. I will leave readers to examine the evidence presented in my book Pope John's Council and decide for themselves whether or not it establishes that the Council and the official reforms and orientations are responsible for the present crisis.

I will content myself here with citing just one specific example. I am sure that every orthodox Catholic, whatever his views about Mgr. Lefebvre, would agree that there has been a great decline in reverence towards the Blessed Sacrament, particularly among children. Pope Paul VI insisted that this has nothing to do with the official reform, Mgr. Lefebvre insists that it does. Before the reform children knelt to receive Holy Communion on the tongue from the consecrated hands of a priest. Now it is quite common for them to receive it standing, in the hand, from one of their teachers or even from a fellow pupil. How can it be argued that these revolutionary changes have not contributed to the decline in reverence? Yet these revolutionary changes were official orientations to which the Pope himself was committed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.