1, Chapter 9
Allocution of Pope Paul VI to the Consistory of Cardinals on 24
parts of the allocution concerning Mgr. Lefebvre and the Tridentine
Mass are reproduced here. The text is that published in the English
edition of L 'Osservatore Romano of 3 June 1976.
one hand there are those who, under the pretext of a greater fidelity
to the Church and the Magisterium, systematically refuse the teaching
of the Council itself, its application and the reforms that stem
from it, its gradual application by the Apostolic See and the
Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ.
In this passage
the Pope fails to make a crucially important distinction between
the teaching of the Council itself and reforms claiming to interpret
that teaching-reforms which in many cases cannot be justified by
reference to so much as a single sentence in a conciliar document.
See again the comment regarding the Seminary at Econe in the light
of the specific teaching of the Council, p. 68-70.
also contains an extremely serious doctrinal error on the part of
the Pope or whoever wrote this speech for him. This error is not
apparent in the English translation and reference must be made to
the official Latin text published in L 'Osservatore Romano (Italian
edition) of 24 May 1976. The phrase "the Episcopal Conferences,
under Our authority, willed by Christ" is rendered in Latin
as follows: "Conferentiarum episcopalium sub Nostra
au ctorita te, quae a Christo originem ducunt. " The use
of the plural ducunt means that the Pope is claiming that
it is not simply his Apostolic Authority but the National Episcopal
Conferences which have their origin in Christ. This is totally untrue.
The authority of the Pope and the worldwide episcopal college have
their origin in Christ-but there is no warrant in Scripture or Tradition
for National Episcopal Conferences to be invested with doctrinal
or disciplinary teaching authority. This is still true in the strictly
legal sense today. National Episcopal Conferences are able to authorize
or even recommend a course of action, but each individual bishop
is at liberty to decide whether or not to implement these decisions
in his diocese. The National Episcopal Conference, having no legal
status, has no authority to impose its decisions. But what happens
in practice is that individual bishops feel unable to oppose the
majority decision and submit to it despite their personal misgivings.
Thus one English bishop whom I reproached for allowing Communion
to be given in the hand in his diocese, following a decision of
the English and Welsh Episcopal Conference to permit this, replied
that, although he personally deplored the practice and had done
all he could to prevent its acceptance, he now had no practical
option but to go along with the majority. This is precisely what
Mgr. Lefebvre had forecast during the collegiality debate, warning
that collegiality would not give the bishops more power but that
the individual bishop would no longer be the ruler in his own diocese.
the subject of the doctrinal error in the Pope’s allocution, the
unorthodoxy of this statement was quickly exposed in traditionalist
journals (e.g., the Courrier de Rome, No.159 of 15 July 1976).
When the allocution was reprinted in the Acts of the Apostolic
See (AAS 68, 1976 (6), p. 375) the error was corrected. The
plural ducunt had been changed to the singular ducit,
referring solely to the Pope’s authority as having its origin in
Christ. This provides another instance of the fact that simply because
the Pope has stated something it does not follow that it is certainly
is cast upon the authority of the Church in the name of a Tradition
to which respect is professed only materially and verbally. The
faithful are drawn away from the bonds of obedience to the See
of Peter and to their rightful Bishops; today's authority is rejected
in the name of yesterday's.
The Pope here
is presupposing that anyone invested with authority.'" must
be obeyed simply because he possesses authority. As Appendix II
will show, it is the traditional Catholic teaching that even legitimate
authority need not be obeyed (and that obedience might be sinful)
if it abuses its power or commands anything contrary to or compromising
the faith. Thus, according to Pope Paul's thinking as expressed
here, when he made the erroneous statement that Episcopal Conferences
had their origin in Christ, the faithful had no right to question
it; Similarly, the Pope had to correct that notorious Article 7
of the General Instruction to the New Mass which he had approved,
and he was also compelled to revise the new rite of Baptism which
he had previously approved. In Britain and the USA the bishops have
ordered priests to give Communion in the hand to anyone demanding
it -in this case it is clear that priests would not sin by refusing
to obey their lawful bishops.
fact is all the more serious in that the opposition of which We
are speaking is not only encouraged by some priests, but is led
by a Prelate, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who, nevertheless, still
has Our respect.
is quite untrue. The opposition to the post-conciliar reforms existed
long before most Catholics, particularly in the English-speaking
world, had ever heard of the name of Archbishop Lefebvre. The only
authority exercised by Mgr. Lefebvre is over the Fraternity of St.
Pius X. He and the Fraternity enjoy the support of hundreds of thousands
of faithful Catholics because it is Mgr. Lefebvre and the Fraternity
who uphold both Tradition and the many traditions to which Catholics
are so attached and which, in some cases, could not be abolished
or radically modified without compromising Tradition itself. Thus,
while it is true to state that Mgr. Lefebvre enjoys the support
of the majority of traditionalists, it is not correct to describe
him as their leader - a title which he himself has repudiated on
many occasions as for example his sermon at Lille on 29 August 1976.
so painful to take note of this: but how can We not see in such
an attitude -whatever may be these people's intentions -the placing
of themselves outside obedience and communion with the Successor
of Peter and therefore outside the Church?
Thus it is
now possible to deny any and every fundamental dogma of the faith;
to disobey any and every disciplinary law to the Church, even the
“Conciliar Church”; to be guilty even of sacrilege; and still not
be told that communion with the Successor of Peter has been broken
-but remain true to the traditional faith, and one is considered
"outside the Church."
unfortunately, is the logical consequence, when, that is, it is
held as preferable to disobey with the pretext of preserving one's
faith intact, and of working in one's own way for the preservation
of the Catholic Church, while at the same time refusing to give
her effective obedience. And this is said openly.
The use of
the word "pretext" here is very unjust. A pretext (Latin,
praetextu) is an ostensible reason given to hide the true one;
in other words, it denotes a lack of sincerity, and while it is
legitimate to argue that traditionalists may be mistaken in their
attitude, there is no justification for claiming that they are
insincere. It is also unfair and inaccurate to claim that they are
working for the preservation of the Church in their own way-they
are attempting to preserve the faith in a form which has a tradition
of centuries behind it.
even affirmed that the Second Vatican Council is not binding…..
This is a difficult
statement upon which to comment. Who had affirmed this and in precisely
what terms? And what does the Pope mean by "the Second Vatican
Council"? Presumably he is referring to the doctrinal teaching
of the Council. I have discussed the authority of the Documents
of Vatican II in detail in Chapter XIV of Pope John's Council.
Briefly, the position is that they are not binding in the same way
as the documents of previous General Councils, which were promulgated
with the authority of the Church's extraordinary Magisterium, under
pain of anathema. As the Pope himself has stated specifically on
a number of occasions, the documents of the Council come to us with
the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The teaching
of the Ordinary Magisterium does not at all carry the same authority
.It is explained excellently in the Approaches supplement
by Dom Paul Nau, The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically
Considered. This study shows clearly that the authority of the
Ordinary Magisterium increases even to the point of infallibility
depending upon the frequency with which a particular teaching has
been repeated. On the other hand, Dom Paul explains that a novelty
taught by the Ordinary Magisterium could be erroneous if it conflicted
with previous teaching. This certainly seems to be the case with
certain passages in the Declaration on Religious Libeny, which contradict
previous authoritative (and possibly infallible) teaching (see Appendix
IV). As Mgr. Lefebvre made clear in an interview which he granted
me on 16 November 1976, and in his letter to the Pope dated 3 December
1976 (which will both be found in their correct chronological sequence),
he accepts everything in the teaching of the Council which is in
conformity with Tradition. This is the correct Catholic attitude,
to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, bearing in mind that
the normal presumption must be that the teaching of the Ordinary
Magisterium will be in conformity with Tradition and that instances
where it is not will be rare in the extreme.
the faith would also be in danger because of the reforms and post-conciliar
directives; that one has the duty to disobey in order to preserve
It is quite
clear that any faithful Catholic who understands the nature of certain
post-conciliar directives and the manner in which they have been
implemented must certainly repudiate them not simply to preserve
his faith but to show that he takes his faith seriously.
Is it for this group, not the Pope, not the College of Bishops,
not the Ecumenical Council, to decide which among the innumerable
traditions must be considered as the norm of faith!
truth is that it became clear in practice that neither Pope Paul
VI nor the Bishops were prepared to take practical steps to uphold
the basic norms of faith, apart from issuing pious exhortations
which they made no effort to implement. Even those many orthodox
Catholics who feel unable to support Mgr. Lefebvre must testify
to the truth of this. Instead of prohibiting publication of that
veritable textbook of Modernism, the Dutch Catechism, Pope Paul
VI, allowed it to be circulated with the addition of an appendix
which no one need read. This is equivalent to the father of a family
allowing his children to drink poison providing an antidote of doubtful
efficacy is ready. Where is there a country in the West in which
priests who have publicly dissented from the Encyclical Humanae
Vitae do not occupy important teaching posts in Catholic education
institutes? What could possibly be a greater cause of a diminution
in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and an occasion of sacrilege,
than the practice of Communion in the hand? It was condemned by
Pope Paul himself in Memoriale Domini. Nonetheless, he authorized
its introduction into almost every country in the West. With all
the respect due to a Vicar of Christ, it must be said that the faithful
could not assume that Pope Paul VI and his Bishops could be relied
upon to uphold those traditions necessary for the preservation of
see, Venerable Brethren, such an attitude sets itself up as judge
of that divine will which placed Peter and his lawful Successors
at the head of the Church to confirm the brethren in the faith,
and to feed the universal flock, and which established him as
the guarantor and custodian of the deposit of faith.
is quite untrue-Mgr. Lefebvre does not challenge the nature of papal
authority (no one has done more to uphold it) or question the fact
that it exists by divine will. What he has done is to question certain
specific acts of a particular Pope, and, equally important, the
failure of this Pope to act in defense of the Faith. In doing this
the Archbishop is acting in accordance with approved theological
principles (cf. Appendix II).
is all the more serious in particular, when division is introduced
precisely where congregavit nos in unum Christi amor,
in the Liturgy and the Eucharistic Sacrifice, by the refusing
of obedience to the norms laid down in the liturgical sphere.
This is perhaps
the most astonishing statement in the entire allocution. It is the
post-conciliar liturgical reform which has totally destroyed the
unity of the Roman rite. We have been presented not so much with
a new form of Mass (however inferior to the old) but with an ongoing
liturgical revolution, in which anything is tolerated but the traditional
Mass. In the face of this liturgical anarchy, traditionalists wish
to adhere to a form of Mass which in all essentials dates back more
than a millennium, for which they are accused of promoting liturgical
in the name of Tradition that We ask all Our sons and daughters,
all the Catholic communities, to celebrate with dignity and fervor
the renewed liturgy.
where the New Mass is celebrated strictly in accordance with what
rubrics there are, it is so oppressively dull and insipid that no
one could possibly participate in it with fervor. This explains
the increase in the so-called Folk Masses, the introduction of dancing
and audio-visual effects, and the liturgical antics of the Pentecostals,
as an effort to infuse some form of life (however depraved) into
what is no more than the corpse of the vibrant, noble, and dignified
liturgy of the Roman Mass. Pope Paul must have realized that the
liturgy in its present form is a source of misery and even revulsion
to countless thousands of the faithful, and that even where they
accept it as an act of obedience to expect them to do so with fervor
is to ask the impossible.
of the new Ordo Missae is certainly not left to the free choice
of priests or faithful. The Instruction of 14 June 1971 has provided,
with the authorization of the Ordinary, for the celebration of
the Mass in the old form only by aged and infirm priests, who
offer the divine Sacrifices sine populo.
It is extremely
significant that Pope Paul makes no reference at all to his Apostolic
Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969 which authorizes
the introduction of the New Mass. If the traditional Mass has been
prohibited this is the only document which could have done so. Not
even the most fervent apologists for the New Mass have ever claimed
Missale Romanum contains one word explicitly prohibiting
the old one; the most they dare claim is that it is prohibited implicitly
or that the Old Mass lapsed automatically with the introduction
of the new one. The most useful summary of the legal position of
the traditional Mass is available in Father Bryan Houghton's book
Mitre and Crook. 1
The In struction
of 14 June 1971 was, in reality, a Notificatio originally
published without either date or the author's name and of very dubious
authority .It was examined in detail in ltineraires, No.159
of January 1972 (p. 16 ff.) and in The Remnant. The claim
that a form of Mass which has provided the basis for Catholic spirituality
for a thousand years can now be celebrated only by aged and infirm
priests, and then only if they do it behind closed doors as if they
were celebrating a Black Mass, is a fitting epitomization of the
"Spirit of Vatican II."
Ordo was promulgated to take the place of the old, after mature
deliberation, following upon the requests of the Second Vatican
At no time
did the Fathers of Vatican II ever authorize the composition of
a new order of Mass, Novus Ordo Missae, "to take
the place of the old"! They did no more than authorize minor
modifications to the existing Mass and insisted that no changes
should be made unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly
required them and that all existing rites were to be preserved.
I have demonstrated in Chapters XV and XVI of Pope John's
Council that there is no relationship whatsoever between the
reform which the council authorized and that which has been imposed
upon the faithful in practice.
different way did Our Holy Predecessor Pius V make obligatory
the Missal reformed under his authority, following the Council
to compare the reform undertaken by Saint Pius V and that authorized
by Pope Paul VI is so totally incredible that it could not possibly
be dealt with within the context of this commentary .2
Latin text of Pope Paul's allocution, published in L' Osservatore
Romano of 24-25 May 1976, does not refer to the Missal "reformed
" under the authority of St. Pius V but of the Missal "recognized
" by his authority ("Missale auctoritate sua recognitum
"). The Latin verb recognosco can have a stronger sense
than simply to "recognize." With regard to a written document
it means that it has been examined with respect to its genuineness
and value and is certified or authenticated as genuine.3
This is precisely
the action taken by St. Pius V with respect to the existing Roman
Mass which was examined diligently by the best scholars and then
codified in its existing form
with a few modifications which would not have been noticed by the
translation of this allocution which appeared in the same edition
of L 'Osservatore Romano translated recognitum as
riformato, "reformed" - a mistranslation carried
over into the English edition. Leaving aside the question of this
mistranslation, Pope Paul's claim that what he had done in his reform
was what "in no different way" ("baud dissimili
ratione ") St. Pius V had done, is so at variance with
historical fact that it forfeits all claim to credibility. If something
is untrue the fact that it is stated to be true by the Pope cannot
alter the fact that it is untrue. The Pope is not inerrant, he can
be mistaken on matters of fact. It is probable (though not certain)
that if pressed, the editor of The Wanderer or the President
of Catholics United for the Faith would admit that the Church does
not require us to believe that the Pope is inerrant. On a practical
level, they insist that he is and accuse any Catholic who points
out papal errors of being schismatic.
same supreme authority that comes from Christ Jesus, we call for
the same obedience to all the other liturgical, disciplinary and
pastoral reforms which have matured in these years in the implementation
of the Council decrees. Any initiative which tries to obstruct
them cannot claim the prerogative of rendering a service to the
Church: in fact it causes the Church serious damage.
anyone with experience of the new liturgy in practice will know
that a faithful Catholic who loves the Mass and loves the Church
has no alternative but to try to obstruct a reform which, with all
due respect to Pope Paul VI, does not proceed from mature deliberation.
Communion in the hand is now part of this official reform in dozens
of countries where it has been sanctioned by Pope Paul himself,
even though it began not as a result of mature deliberation but
as an act of calculated rebellion against papal authority. The Pope
consulted the Bishops of the world, who voted overwhelmingly against
the innovation; it is still prohibited in Italy. The Pope insisted
upon the retention of the traditional method but has none the less
given way before the fait accompli technique of the Liberals.
Yet where it has been made official, Catholics who oppose the abuse
are classed among those who "cause the Church serious damage."
By asking us not to oppose innovations which our personal experience
has proved to be harmful, the Pope is asking us to dehumanize ourselves,
to become robots. It is not a case of opposing something simply
because it conflicts with personal taste or established habits.
In this instance it is the honor and reverence due to the Blessed
Sacrament, the avoidance of sacrilege which is at stake. Our objections
to the innovation, and our adherence to the traditional practice,
are based on the very reasons put forward by Pope Paul VI himself
in Memoriale Domini. With all due respect, it must be said
that as Christ's Vicar upon earth it was his duty to safeguard the
Blessed Sacrament from the sacrilege to which this practice inevitably
leads. He failed to do so and, not for the first time in the history
of the Church, the faithful found that their Catholic duty was not
to follow the example of the Pope.
times, directly and through Our collaborators and other friendly
persons, We have called the attention of Archbishop Lefebvre to
the seriousness of his behavior, the irregularity of his principal
present initiatives, the inconsistency and often falsity of the
doctrinal positions on which he bases this behavior and these
initiatives, and the damage that accrues to the entire Church
because of them.
If such admonitions
have been made they have not been public. The first admonition of
a genuinely doctrinal nature given by the Pope to Mgr. Lefebvre
was that he should accept the totally false proposition that Vatican
II has as much authority as Nicea, and more importance in some respects
(the letter of 29 June 1975).
with profound sadness but with paternal hope that We once more
turn to this confrere of Ours, to his collaborators and to those
who have let themselves be carried away by them. Oh, certainly,
We believe that many of these faithful -at least in the beginning
-were in good faith: We also understand their sentimental attachment
to forms of worship or of discipline that for a long time had
been for them a spiritual support and in which they had found
spiritual sustenance. But We are confident that they will reflect
with serenity, without closed minds, and they will admit that
they can find today the support and sustenance that they are seeking
in the renewed forms that the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council
and We Ourself have decreed as being necessary for the good of
the Church, Her progress in the modern world, and Her unity.
this imply that traditionalists are no longer in good faith? Secondly,
while traditionalists naturally look to the traditional liturgy
and devotional practices with a nostalgia which is both right and
fitting, their opposition to the "Conciliar Church " and
to the liturgical reform in general is based not upon sentiment
but on a determination to uphold the faith which these reforms compromise.
Examine the prayers which Cranmer removed from the traditional Mass
(set out in detail in Cranmer's Godly Order) and compare
these with the prayers removed from the Mass with the authority
of Pope Paul VI. By what possible stretch of the imagination can
it be clain1ed that it was absolutely essential to remove these
prayers "for the good of the Church, Her progress in the world,
and Her unity"? And can it truly be possible that Pope Paul
VI really believed that the Church is making progress in the modern
world -the devastation which has followed in the wake of the conciliar
reform must surely have been evident even from the windows of the
Vatican? And as for the unity of the Church, what has done more
to destroy that unity than the post-conciliar liturgical reform?
exhort yet once again all these brethren and sons and daughters
of Ours; We beseech them to become aware of the profound wounds
that they otherwise cause to the Church, and We invite them again
to reflect on Christ's serious warnings about the unity of the
Church and on the obedience that is due to the lawful Pastor placed
by Him over the universal flock, as a sign of the obedience due
to the Father and the Son.
On the contrary
, the wounds in the Church and the damage to her unity have not
been caused by the stand made by the traditionalists. The traditionalists
have taken their stand as a reaction to these wounds and this disunity.
them with an open heart, with arms ready to embrace them: may
they know how to rediscover in humility and edification, to the
joy of the whole People of God, the way of unity and of love.
In other words,
traditionalists will only become acceptable if they abandon all
that they most love and revere and believe to be essential to the
well-being of the Church and accept the entire post-conciliar revolution
without reservation. The price is unacceptable.
The Pope then
goes through the motions of what has become a standard procedure
whenever traditionalists are attacked, and delivers generalized
admonitions to those at the opposite end of the spectrum who are
guilty of doctrinal and liturgical error. These individuals are
never named nor are these admonitions ever reinforced with action.
Referring to these Liberal Catholics, the Pope makes yet another
are not very numerous, it is true, but they make much noise, believing
too easily that they are in a position to interpret the needs
of the entire Christian people or the irreversible direction of
position of importance in the entire Catholic establishment throughout
the West is in the hands of these Liberals; they control all the
official commissions, catechetical, liturgical, and ecumenical;
all too frequently Conferences serve only to act as their mouthpieces,
and yet Pope Paul himself claimed that they are few in number but
make much noise.
of Which Church?
As a reaction
to the papal allocution of 24 May 1976, Jean Madiran wrote the
following article which first appeared in the Supplément-Voltigeur
of Itinéraires of 15 June 1976. The following translation
was made by Father Urban Synder and appeared in The Remnant of
21 July 1976.
allocution to the Consistory of 24 May 1976, where he mentions Archbishop
Lefebvre several times by name, Paul VI seems to cut him off and
yet he doesn't. He accuses the Archbishop of 'putting himself outside
the Church.' But which Church? There are two. And Paul VI has not
renounced being the Pope of these two Churches sirnultaneously.
Under such conditions, 'outside the Church' is equivocal and does
not cut off anything.
are now two Churches, with one and the same Paul VI at the head
of both, is not our doing, we are not making it up, but simply stating
the way things are.
which declare themselves to be in communion with the Pope, and whom
the Pope does not reject from his communion, are objectively outside
the Catholic communion.
of Holland, in an official document, has explicitly called into
doubt the virginal conception of Our Lord, but they have not been
summoned by the Pope to retract or to resign. On the contrary-they
have spread through-out the whole world their 'Dutch Catechism'
which doesn't contain the things necessary to know for salvation,
and which inspires all the new catechisms.
episcopate since 1969 subjects the faithful, 'as a reminder of faith',
to the false teaching that in the Mass 'there is question simply
of a memorial.' None of our protestations or supplications has succeeded
in bringing them to deny or even explain this. It is in the name
of the Council, of the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with
him that now, for ten years or more, and without any efficacious
denial, there is imposed on us all the discourses and, decisions
which install the immanent apostasy, the permanent auto-demolition,
the capitulation before the world, the cult of man, the opening
to Communism. There is no question here of some handful of marginal
dissidents, as the Pope insinuates in his allocution. There is question
of the greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession.
Legitimate holders? Yes, but prevaricators, deserters, impostors.
Paul VI remains at their head without either disavowing or correcting
them. He keeps them in his communion, he presides over their Church
Lefebvre is not in his present situation through any fault of his
own. He didn't innovate anything, he didn't invent anything, he
didn't overturn anything; he has simply preserved and transmitted
the deposit which he received. He has kept the promises of his baptism,
the doctrine of his catechism, the Mass of his ordination, the dogmas
defined by Popes and Councils, the theology and the traditional
ecclesiology of the Church of Rome. Just by his existence, by his
very being, and without having willed it, he is thus the witness
of a crisis which is not of his making, but that of an uncertain
Pope at the head of two Churches at the same time.
declared in 1969: 'We could draw up an impressive list of theses,
taught in Rome yesterday and before yesterday as sole truths (seules
valables), and which were eliminated by the Council Fathers.’
A formidable doctrinal revolution! Cardinal Suenens is happy about
it. The greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession
think and speak on this point like Cardinal Suenens. Neither he
nor they are disavowed. Paul VI remains at their head and keeps
them in his communion; a communion where they profess that the Church,
yesterday and before yesterday, was mistaken. But on all these points
where they teach that the Church was mistaken, who or what can guarantee
to us that it is not they themselves who, today, are mistaken and
are misleading us?
help at all to reassure us that the Council is badly interpreted
and the Pope badly understood. If the Council has been constantly
interpreted the way it has, it is with the active or passive consent
of the bishops in communion with the Pope. Thus there is established
a Conciliar Church, different from the Catholic Church. And no bishop,
however scandalous his post-conciliar excesses, has received from
Paul VI the severe public rebukes which he has reserved for Archbishop
Lefebvre alone, and for the sole reason that the Archbishop remains
unshakeably faithful to the Catholic religion such as it was until
If the Catholic
religion, such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII, contained
some things optional, variable, which (let us suppose) have become
anachronistic in 1976, to remain attached to them does not, all
the same, constitute a crime. Anachronism is not necessarily in
itself something which puts you 'outside the Church.' If we are
going to talk about anachronisms, pure, simple, and unlimited, they
are in the new catechisms from which the things necessary for salvation
have been excised; they are in the vernacular Masses, accompanied
by Marxist chants and erotic dances; they are in the falsification
of Scripture imposed by the episcopate, such as where a (French)
liturgical reading proclaims that 'to live holily it is necessary
to marry'; they are in all the other infamous things of like kind
of which none, for the past ten years, has been either retracted
by those guilty , or condemned by higher authority. There are indeed
crimes really going on in the Church, those just mentioned, but
they are considered less criminal than preserving the Catholic religion
such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII.
All this presupposes
a new religion, another ecclesial community, which nevertheless
is installed in the posts of command of Church administration, and
boasts of communion with Pope Paul, having at the same time, to
put it mildly, the consent of Pope Paul.
Lefebvre 'outside the Church'? Out of the one just mentioned, certainly.
But it surpasses belief that a person 'puts himself outside' the
Catholic Church, without budging, or by simply remaining in the
Catholic religion such as it was at the death of Pius XII in 1958.
There are two
Churches under Paul VI. Not to see that there are two, or not to
see that they are strangers the one to the other, or not to see
that Paul VI thus far is presiding over both, partakes of blindness
and in some cases perhaps of invincible blindness. But when one
has once seen it, not to say it would be to add complicity by silence
to an enormous monstrosity.
in the review ltineraires for November, 1975, and then Father
Bruckberger in L' Aurore for 18 March 1976, remarked in print:
The religious crisis is not like that in the 14th century, when
you had, for one single Church, two or three Popes simultaneously;
today, rather, there is question of one single Pope for two Churches,
the Catholic and the post-conciliar.
But to belong
simultaneously to two such contrary Churches is impossible. It is
impossible even for a Pope, by the very definition of his office.
If Paul VI doesn't disengage himself, there is going to be an inevitable
blow-up (choc en retour) as a result."
in 1978 by Airlington House (USA), also available from The Angelus
Press. Available in Britain from Augustine Publishing Co. this is
certainly one of the most important books written on the liturgical
revolution and, although in the form of a novel, contains much factual
information. A summary of all the legislation relative to the traditional
Mass is available on pages 87-101.
useful articles by the French canonist, Father Raymond Dulac, does
the Novus Ordo Have the Strict Force of Law? and The Legal Status
of Quo Primum are available from the Remnant Press in the USA and
Augustine Publishing Co. in great Britain. See also footnote to
I must refer
readers to my pamphlet The Tridentine Mass, which describes the
reform of Pope Saint Pius V, and my pamphlets The New Mass and The
Roman Rite Destroyed, which describe the reform of Pope Paul VI,
and suggest that they decide for themselves whether there is any
difference in the nature of the reforms enacted by the two pontiffs.
This will be dealt with in greater detail in my book Pope Paul's
New Mass. Available from the Augustine Publishing Co. in Great Britain
and from the Angelus Press in the USA.
omnia summa cura et diligentia recognita. " Cicero.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House
2918 Tracy Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109