june 2008

$4.45

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

state
of the
union
address

From Ridgefield:
The Situation
in the Church
and Relations
with Rome

Know Your Mass

Fr. Demetrius Manousos

A full-color, step-by-step explanation of the Traditional Latin
Mass for children yet informative for adults as well.

Di
remagitally
1950 stere
d
comi’s Cathol
c boo ic
ks

96pp, softcover, full color, STK# 1022✱ $15.00

The Sacraments
Fr. Demetrius Manousos

This book really needs to be seen to be
believed. There is nothing better to explain
the Sacraments to children. All seven
sacraments are covered in full color.

Buy
ALL
FOUR
and
save
$7.95

64pp, softcover, full color,
STK# 8281✱ $13.95

Life of the Virgin Mary
Fr. Demetrius Manousos

Covers the life of Mary in engrossing full color. Starting in
the Garden of Eden when God promised to send a woman
who would battle Satan...a battle “between thy offspring
and hers” through her Assumption into Heaven.

64pp, softcover, full color, STK# 8280✱ $13.95

The Life of Christ

STK# 8282

Fr. Robert E. Southard

$49.95

Presents the life of Our Lord in full color
from the Annunciation to His Ascension in a
manner easily understood by all. Adults will
find the seamless integration of the Gospels
informative as well.

96pp, softcover, full color,
STK# 8224✱ $15.00

Holy Cards: Note Cards & Envelopes in a Slipcase with Drawer

This set includes 15
blank cards (1 each of
15 illustrations of famous
saints with their stories)
and 16 colored envelopes.
Box features gold foil.

Cards are folded
to 3 7/8" x 5 1/8",
box measures
4 5/8" x 6 x 2 1/16"
STK# 8278 $12.95

The Virgin Mary
St. Clare
St. Othilia
St. Gabriel
St. Ursula
St. Mary Magdalen
St. Sofia
St. Joan of Arc
St. Michael
St. Julienne
St. Agnes
St. Catherine
St. Frances of Rome
St. Sebastian

Embroidery:

Techniques & Patterns
Marie-Noëlle Bayard

256pp, Hardcover
with Jacket,
8 1/4" x 10 7/8",
STK# 8279 $24.95

More than 100
stitches, organized by
type and illustrated
in close-up color
photographs, plus a
host of patterns and
techniques, make this
the ultimate reference
for embroiderers.
There’s also
a complete
“Embroiderer’s
ABCs” to start
beginners off.

“Instaurare omnia in Christo—To restore all things in Christ.”
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

The

ngelus
A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

2915 Forest Avenue

“To publish Catholic journals and place them in
the hands of honest men is not enough. It is necessary to
spread them as far as possible that they may be read by
all, and especially by those whom Christian charity
demands we should tear away from the poisonous
sources of evil literature.”
—Pope St. Pius X

June 2008
Volume XXXI, Number 6

• Kansas City, Missouri 64109

English-language Editor and Publisher
for the International Society of Saint Pius X

letter from the editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
Fr. Kenneth Novak

PublisheR

Fr. John Fullerton
Editor

Fr. Kenneth Novak
Assistant Editor

Mr. James Vogel
operations manager

Mr. Michael Sestak
Editorial assistant

Miss Anne Stinnett

state of the union address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
Bishop Bernard Fellay

letter from la reja. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Bishop Richard Williamson

benedictine nuns of marienberg convent . . . . 19
Southern Black Forest, Häusern, Germany

Fr. Harry Marchosky, R.I.P. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  27
Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

Design and Layout

Mr. Simon Townshend
MARKETING

Mr. Christopher McCann
comptroller

Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA
customer service

Mrs. MaryAnne Hall
Mr. John Rydholm
Miss Rebecca Heatwole
information technology
consultant

Mr. Cory Bosley
Shipping and Handling

Mr. Jon Rydholm

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly
under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen
of Angels. Publication office is located at
2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109.
PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
©2008 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts are welcome
and will be used at the discretion of the editors.
Postmaster sends address changes
to the address above.

assembling a music library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  33
Dr. Andrew Childs

letter to friends and benefactors #72 . . . . . . . . .  36
Bishop Bernard Fellay

scouting and the spirit of danger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  38
Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P.

catechism of the crisis
Part 13
in the church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
40
Fr. Matthias Gaudron

Questions and answers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  42
Fr. Peter Scott

april 2008 writing contest winning entry . . . . . . . 43
The Angelus Monthly photo writing contest  .  .  .  . 44

ON OUR COVER: Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of
Saint Pius X, gives a conference at the St. Ignatius Retreat House, Ridgefield,
Connecticut (February 17, 2008), updating traditional Catholics on the state of the
Church and the SSPX. See p.3 of this issue of The Angelus.

The Angelus Subscription Rates
1 year

2 years

3 years

US
$35.00
Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) $55.00

$65.00
$105.00

$100.00
$160.00

All payments must be in US funds only.

Online subscriptions:

$15.00/year (the online edition is available around
the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org.
Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features.

2

Letter
from
the
Editor

I think the diamond to be found in this issue is Fr. de
Chivré’s short article “Scouting and the Spirit of Danger”
(pp.31-32) on which I want to comment. The operative
paragraph is this:
Danger is the commerce between God and the ones made
in His image. It is a perpetual engagement of honor to stand
and deliver every time we are called upon to prove the love
of a dangerous Law–the Law to maintain and preserve the
Catholic Faith.

After all, what is the legacy of our patron, Pope St. Pius
X? What is it of our founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre?
What do you think Bishop Fellay is talking about all
through his “State of the Union Address” except exactly
that Law? What about the life of Fr. Harry Marchosky
(pp.27-32), deceased friend of the Society? Before any of
these men came upon the scene, dollars to donuts each
was a boy knowing danger. Fr. de Chivré is spot on in his
talk to boys and the rest of us.
It would have been appropriate that somewhere in
Fr. de Chivré’s presentation he mention Fortitude. Of the
seven gifts the Holy Ghost offers, it is perhaps today the
one most necessary, presuming we have first a share of
that Wisdom which has given us the mind of Christ. St.
Thomas Aquinas defines Fortitude as
a permanent power which the Holy Ghost communicates to
our will to assist us in overcoming the difficulties which might
deter us in the practice of what is right.

Fortitude is a condition of every virtue, helping us
to act virtuously with strength. It is also itself a virtue
which makes us face down dangers and trials. Two things,
however, deny Fortitude: pursuit of pleasure unhinged
from rightness of reason, and shrinking from what right
reason presents as the path of action because of anticipated
(often imaginary) difficulties of mind or body.
Fear of difficult things weakens the will and causes it
to back off from following right reason. Sometimes we are
called to withstand fear over time in order that we might
overcome it entirely; this is called daring. Therefore,
Fortitude is about curbing fear and moderating daring.
Fortitude overcomes fear yet restrains us from becoming
foolhardy. The principal act of Fortitude is endurance, that
is, to stand immovable amidst dangers.
Fr. de Chivré is critical of “methods” replacing exposure
to danger as the necessary teacher of boys. Father says that
boys especially are responsible
for taking on dangers in honor of Christ, proclaiming him,
studying him, receiving Him on their lips, and offering Him
the space of life contained in any and every danger….

I’m happy to know a few young fellows who are
willing to face fear, take a dare, and think outside the box.
I know more who are not. I blame that on a formation in
technology, avoidance of the elements, 24/7 convenience,
immediate gratification, and bad schooling where a father
is absent from his son’s education. Though he may now be
a nails-clean altar boy, he will grow up weak in purpose

and Fortitude and ill-disposed to the heroism of duty. If Fr.
de Chivré is correct, a too safe, too sanitary, and micromanaged environment will malform him and render him
incapable of sacrifice, the blood of Fortitude.
Such a boy is the product of parents hung up on his
physical integrity but who don’t care a rip about his eternal
soul. Save the young man from second-hand smoke but put
prophylactics in the candy vending machine at his college.
Tell him he can’t play in the snow but let him text message
the planet. Insist on three insurance riders, three waivers,
and three EMTs for a boy to jump a three-foot creek in
a thunderstorm. No wonder extreme sports, rebellion,
and hip-hop gang culture are cool; it’s the backlash from
boys against our failure to harness danger for the common
(Catholic) good. It’s a secular version of Fortitude. Boys
need difficulty and to get scared once in a while.
Here’s a 13-year-old boy who raises and butchers
rabbits so his family can eat. He gets it.
One night not long ago
You, my friend, and I rested
After a day without woe
On a day we were tested.

Never bow your head,
Never bow to the Schism,
Stand upright, upright with me
When you make your decision.

A day full of prayer,
A day full of work,
A day filled with duties
Done without shirk.

Never let your hope be
unmade,
Never go near the Den
Where Faith is betrayed
And pledges all broken,
Where God is unsaid
And trust is unspoken.

And we said to each other,
Though now were young,
Older, we would seek the place
Where men are undone;
Where men become Christs,
Strong and upright,
Where they learn to hold
candles
To light the dark night.
They rebuild and rekindle
The Faith to its height
In the men without guidance
In the men without Light.
We had traced what we’d live
Through thin and through thick,
We had traced that Faith
Which upholds us like a stick.
Though we are sundered,
Though we are apart,
We will always remember
What we said from the heart.
And we’d know that we were
What God wanted us to be,
Waiting till that age
When we were legally free.

The King whom we serve,
The King whom we know,
The King to whose throne only
We always should go.
To the Sacrifice Re-enacted,
To the Sacrifice Real,
And the bells in your hearing
Shall ceaselessly peal.
One day we may meet,
But that doesn’t matter
Just as long as we find
The same in the After.
Being the outcast token,
You shall prove later
The brave and courageous
Are never outspoken.
To the Saint we should cleave.
Stop not, my man, to grieve,
But onwards, onwards to God,
Whom we will never leave.

And then, a close borrowed from Tolkien:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost,
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring,
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The Crownless again shall be King.

Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Kenneth Novak

state of the
union address

3

The Situation in the Church
and Relations with Rome
A transcription of the public conference given by Bishop Bernard Fellay,
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, at the St. Ignatius
Retreat House, Ridgefield, Connecticut (February 17, 2008), updating
traditional Catholics on the state of the Church and the SSPX.
I am sure that you are interested in many questions and topics, and among them the situation of the
Church and our relations with Rome. I will try to address these issues. I say that I will try, because the
situation is not simple. The situation and state of the Church are becoming more complex and diversified.
Before the Motu Proprio, we were fighting to defend a number of principles—and in this respect, the fight
remains the same; nothing has changed. But the Motu Proprio definitely caused a number of people to
think that things are different now. So, let us try to consider what may or may not have changed.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

4

The Background: Vatican II

T

he world hates
Our Lord because He
preaches the hard way
to Heaven while the
world preaches the
broad way of pleasure
and an easy-going life.
After the Council, all of
Christian life was made
very easy.

In order to better understand the value of the Motu
Proprio, we must look back on the past and see in what
circumstances it was released. To put it in a nutshell, the
Second Vatican Council was the occasion for a number of
ideas to be introduced into the lifeblood of the Church.
These ideas, which had been fostered in universities and
seminaries, had been fought against and condemned
by the Magisterium up until the Council. The Council,
however, “legalized” these ideas, and especially the spirit
which accompanied them, and thus they officially entered
into the lifeblood of the Church. This is the most damaging
aspect of the crisis. It is really impressive to see that all the
great names of the Council were the names of priests and
prelates who had been condemned some ten years before
the Council.
In 1950, Pope Pius XII issued an encyclical on modern
errors, Humani Generis. Among these errors was the
confusion between the natural and the supernatural order.
No names were mentioned, but shortly before, a Jesuit
priest had published a book entitled Supernatural in which
these two orders were confused. In 1950, he was forced
to leave his teaching post in Lyons, France, and his book
was condemned. His name was Henri de Lubac. De Lubac
is considered as having been most influential during the
Second Vatican Council. Pope Benedict XVI says he is
someone who has inspired and influenced him. This man,
who was removed from office before the Council, was
made a cardinal after it because of his theology.
In 1952, a Dominican priest, who would later have
a similar influence on the Council, wrote a book called
True and False Reform in the Church. This book was also
condemned, and Fr. Yves Congar had to go into exile and
stop teaching. Fr. Congar was later called by the Pope in
person to be an expert at the Second Vatican Council. He
himself was astonished: “I am condemned, yet they call
upon me?” Even he had a sound reaction at the time.
In 1954, an American priest was asked to write in
defense of the theory which is especially prevalent in
America regarding the separation between Church and
State. Fr. John Courtney Murray was also condemned but
his ideas were to be revived in part at the Council under
the name of “religious liberty.”
Another famous Jesuit, Fr. Karl Rahner, was so
influential at the Council that someone even coined the
phrase Rahner locutus est, causa finita. In the 1960’s, Rahner
was considered suspect by the Holy Office to such an
extent that he was prohibited from publishing anything
without submitting it beforehand to the Holy Office in
Rome. This means that Rome was keeping an eye on
him. It was through the intervention of Adenauer that this
supervision was ended.
We could also mention Dom Lambert Beauduin, OSB,
who is considered as the father of ecumenism. He died
before the Council.
But what is very clear is that these men, who were all
very influential at the Second Vatican Council, had been
condemned or censured by the Church in the days of Pope
Pius XII. The famous Bugnini, a liturgist and the author

5
of the New Mass was, even under Pope John XXIII,
forced to leave his teaching position in Rome because
of his Modernism. He was later called back by Pope
Paul VI to create the New Mass, among other things.
This shows you that something absolutely abnormal
happened in the Church.
I have no real explanation as to how it was
possible for bishops who, for most of them, came to
the Council traditionally minded to make such an
about-face. If you look at the questions sent to Rome
in preparation for the Council, they expressed the
genuine concerns of bishops who desired the salvation
of their flock. Five years later, they were entirely
changed and full of new ideas: ecumenism, religious
liberty, and collegiality.
The attitude towards the world had changed.
Until then, the world was considered as the enemy,
in accordance with the Gospels. The world hates Our
Lord because He preaches the hard way to heaven
while the world preaches the broad way of pleasure
and an easy-going life. After the Council, all of
Christian life was made very easy.
Whether or not you find this strictly in the texts
of the Council, they leave many doors open to this
spirit. The Council is very ambiguous; in other
words, if you put on Catholic glasses, you can have
a Catholic reading of the Council. But if you put on
other glasses, you find an entirely different reading.
This is the problem with ambiguous words. From a
Council, you expect clear and precise texts. Besides
some obvious errors, we find much imprecision and
an ambivalent terminology.

A New Theology
To summarize, a new philosophy, which is
no longer scholastic, entered the Church with the
Second Vatican Council. When we say “scholastic,”
we mean the traditional philosophical formation
given in the Church which is based on Thomism
and Aristotle. You may recall that, as a means of
fighting modernism, St. Pius X ordered that all those
who hold the title of “Doctor” in the Church must
either study philosophy in the scholastic tradition,
i.e., Thomism, or lose their title. If this were to be
enforced today, probably 80 percent of today’s
doctors in theology might lose their title. This speaks
for itself! A new theology means a new way of
thinking, accompanied by a new terminology. Bishop
Henrici, secretary of the Communio movement, gave a
very interesting conference. (Communio was founded
by Cardinals Ratzinger, de Lubac and von Balthasar.
It is essentially a think-tank where many bishops have
been formed over the past decades.) Bishop Henrici
gave a conference on the maturation of the Council in
which he described how, as a Jesuit, he studied before
the Council and how he lived during this period. It
is amazing to hear how clearly he dared to speak. He
even asked good questions, but the way he answered
them was quite surprising. For instance, he explained

that when he was a theologian at the University of
Louvain, a professor recommended to the most gifted
students to read “the most prohibited of all forbidden
books”: Lubac’s Supernatural. Henrici asked: “Why
did we read these books?” He clearly showed that he
recognized this as an act of disobedience. Basically,
his answer was: “We saw the Church and the religious
congregations as an old train which was about to be
discarded and replaced with a new train.” So they
jumped into the new train without giving a thought to
the old one.
It is also very interesting to hear his reasons
for adhering to new theories. He explained how, in
their studies of dogma, they had learned about the
evolution of dogmas; hence, they wanted changes
even in dogma. This is pure modernism! Faith and
dogma do not change. What is true once is true
forever. God is above time and circumstances. The
truths about God–the Faith–do not change.
So all these attitudes, truths and half-truths made
everyone look more positively at the world and
things which were previously considered as opposed,
or at least, foreign to the Church, for instance,
other religions. We used to say: “false religions.”
This expression has simply disappeared from the
vocabulary of the Church. You may try to find this
expression in modern documents from Rome, you
will never find it. It has simply been eliminated. Does
it mean that other religions are less false than before?
Absolutely not. But it shows a shift in attitude. “Let us
focus on what unites us rather than on what divides
us,” they say, as well as many similar sophisms.
Obviously there is some truth in every kind of
error. The elements of truth makes it possible for
error to exist. If the error were pure, no one would
care about it. The good elements, mixed with the
bad, enable error to propagate. If you tell a Protestant
about all the things upon which you agree with him,
you simply confirm him in his error. You point out
what is good; hence, he is pleased with what you
tell him. If you don’t speak about his errors, how
will he ever come to know that there is something
amiss? How can he be driven to convert? If you only
mention the things about which he is correct, you will
never bring about his conversion.
In the end, this friendly attitude towards everyone
is a very false charity. It is, in fact, often called
“charity.” Charity is a notion which has been terribly
falsified in our time. You often hear them say to
followers of false religions: “Be a good Protestant (or
whatever) and you will be saved.” It is as if at the
train station you see someone who wishes to go to
New York. However, you notice that he is boarding
the train to Albany. Would you tell him, “This train is
very nice and comfortable; you will enjoy the ride”? If
you knew he was on the wrong train and going in the
wrong direction, in no way can you call this charity.
You are deceiving him. If the man found out you were
aware of his mistake, he would be mad at you. You
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

6
have to tell him: “I’m sorry; the train may be nice,
but if you want to go to New York, you must take the
other train.”

The Good Friday Prayer
As a side note, the latest change in the Church
concerns the new prayer for the Jews in the Good
Friday liturgy. I know that this prayer is causing some
controversy. We must first notice that this change was
brought about by pressure from a group, the AntiDefamation League, headed by Abe Foxman, which
is a very active pressure group outside the Catholic
Church. The Pope thus felt obliged to make a change.
What did he change? A prayer which belongs to
the oldest prayers in the Catholic Church, the prayers
of Good Friday which date back to the third century
at least. They are more ancient than even the other
texts of the Mass. They are very venerable prayers
because of their antiquity, a veritable treasure of the
Catholic Church. This alone is ground for saying:
“How do they dare touch such a prayer?” This prayer
has never been a problem and has been prayed for
centuries. How can we today claim that this prayer is
bad? This is the first important argument.
Secondly, if you look at the prayer, it has been
deeply changed, though this may not be noticed
at first sight. The new prayer asks that the Jews be
“enlightened” and “accept Our Lord Jesus Christ”
as their Savior. These requests are correct. If you
read only this, it is correct. We do pray that the Jews
acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ as their Savior.
There is no problem so far.
The problem is that it changes the old prayer
which spoke of “obscurity”–the Jews were in
“obscurity” and “darkness.” If you speak of
“enlightenment,” you do not speak of enlightening
someone who already has light. But it is very clear
that Rome wanted to remove anything that could
have been offensive to the Jews. But who among the
Jews ever cared about a prayer recited once a year in
the Church? They need to be great scholars to even
know about this Catholic prayer. All this is a matter of
politics; it has nothing to do with religion.
But there is worse still; the meaning of the prayer
has been changed. The prayer has two parts: a prayer
to God giving the reason for the prayer. We have just
commented upon this part. The second part, however,
has been profoundly changed. The change is very
subtle and clever, it makes allusion to a quote from St.
Paul to the Romans. The apostle tells us what is going
to happen at the end of time, when all the nations
have entered the Church, the Jews will convert. They
will return at the end. Their conversion is one of the
signs of the end of times. So this is what we now find
in the second part of the prayer.
Further, we have a commentary on this prayer
which is very interesting and may enlighten those
who still have doubts about what we should do with
this prayer. This commentary came from the man
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

responsible for ecumenism and for relations with the
Jews in the Catholic Church, Cardinal Kasper. On
February 7, he explained this prayer on the airwaves
of Radio Vatican. He said that the Pope removed
what was offensive to the Jews so that there were
no negative words about the Jews. He could not,
however, renounce the essential fact that Our Lord
Jesus Christ is the Savior. Then he went on to say that
when the prayer speaks of conversion, we must keep
in mind that the quote refers to the end of time and
that the Church does not have a “mission” towards
the Jews as she does towards pagans. He clearly said
that we would not deal with the Jews as we deal with
others. He there and then promised that they were
not going to try to convert the Jews. When you read
such a commentary upon the new prayer, you need
nothing more to understand why we continue to say
the old prayer.
This shows you that you ought not think that the
fight is over.

The Council and the Mass
Let us return to our considerations upon the
Council. One of the main vehicles for introducing
the new ideas into the Catholic Church was the
Mass. They made a new Mass which was the most
direct contact the faithful had with the Council. Who
among the faithful ever reads the texts of the Council?
Perhaps a few might. But how did the average
Catholic come into contact with the Council? How
was his life influenced by the Council? Through the
Mass. It is through the liturgy that the spirit of the
Church is put into practice. And it was through the
new liturgy that the modern ideas, which had come
into the Church through the Council, were brought to
the faithful.
One of the main ideas behind the New Mass is
the ecumenical aspect. Ecumenism, counterfeiting
charity, tells us we must not offend our neighbors;
consequently, let us remove from the expression of
our faith, the liturgy, any offensive reference to our
“separated brethren.” This is what the New Mass
does. As a result, those who continue to attend this
Mass progressively lose their faith. They turn out to
be more Protestant than the Protestants themselves.
Many have thus subtly been brought to think
along the lines of the new theology. At first, many
may have been shocked by communion in the hand;
but “everybody does it.” Then little by little, as you
receive Our Lord in your hands standing, you end up
thinking that He is not your Lord. Because if He were
really God, you would fall on your knees to adore
Him and you would not take Him in your hand. For
when you take something in your hand, you are the
one in control. “I have the matter in hand” means
that you have something under control. The only
one who has the privilege of “holding” Our Lord is
the priest. One of the most astonishing powers of
the priest is this ability to “call” Our Lord and make

7
Him present under the species of bread and wine. God
has given this power to the priest and to no one else. This
is but one instance of the way the Faith was changed by
these attitudes. The old liturgy is full of these little but
meaningful attitudes, gestures, and words.
Sometimes the old liturgy is called “Tridentine.”
Tridentine refers to the Council of Trent. But the Mass
such as we know it can be found in the Sacramentarium of
St. Leo and St. Gregory the Great in the 6th century. The
most recent prayers found in the old Mass were brought
into the Roman liturgy from the Mozarabic rite in the 11th
century. But the prayers of the Offertory date back to the
6th century. So you should be careful about the use of
terms such as “the Mass of St. Pius V” or “the Tridentine
Mass” for the Mass is really much older. You should rather
say: “the Mass of All Time” or “the traditional Mass.” It
is called the Tridentine Mass or the Mass of St. Pius V
because, at that time, some bishops had taken the liberty
of adding things to the Missal. Consequently, the Council
of Trent ordered a new edition of the Missal to purge it
from these accretions. This was the work of St. Pius V,
who, enlightened by a tremendous wisdom, did something
unique in the history of the Church: he gave an indult
which enables any priest to offer the Mass canonized
by himself until the end of time without incurring any
punishment for doing so. You do not find anything like
this anywhere else. We might think he had a vision of the
future to write something which would apply until the end
of time. It is the famous bull Quo Primum.
The crisis nevertheless develops on all levels. If you
compare the Church before the Council with the Church
of today, you realize that nothing has been left untouched..
There was a reaction from a number of priests. Archbishop
Lefebvre is well known, although he was not the only
one to react during the Council. Then we have the whole
history of the fight for Tradition throughout the years.
In 1988, at the time of the consecrations, Rome wanted
to put an end to the opposition to the Council, and I may
say that this is still on their agenda. In all my discussions
with Rome, I have never discerned any hint that they
think Rome did something wrong and that we should
backtrack. Up to now, the general idea is that the Society
should bow down and accept the Council. The audience
I had with Pope Benedict XVI confirmed this. It was one
of the clearest points of the audience; for the Pope, it is
inconceivable to have a Catholic today who is not imbued
with the principles of the Second Vatican Council. He even
talked about the “Church of Vatican II.” I do not know this
church; I only know the Catholic Church.
This is a new manner of speech. You never found at
any time anyone speaking of the “Church of Trent” or the
“Church of Nicaea.” There was only the Catholic Church.
Merely to say “the Church of Vatican II” implies that there
was a new beginning. I suppose we can see why some may
consider it a new beginning, but it is a bad beginning.
I can say that, in all the talks we had with Rome, it was
very clear that although we may not have explicitly talked
about the Council, it always loomed in the background.
Rome will request of us that in some way, somewhere

E

cumenism,
counterfeiting charity,
tells us we must not
offend our neighbors;
consequently, let
us remove from the
expression of our
faith, the liturgy, any
offensive reference
to our “separated
brethren.” This is what
the New Mass does.

8
along the line, we accept Vatican II, maybe “in the
light of Tradition,” maybe with this or that condition.
Nevertheless, they will place it somewhere. They are
very crafty. What does it mean to accept Vatican II?
If you take it as a whole, it is a mixed bag. We do not
want a mixed bag; we want the Catholic Church and
everything that comes from her, namely Tradition:
that which the Church has always taught and believed
everywhere.

Rome in 2008
On the one hand, in Rome, now, they—at least
the Pope and several cardinals—accept that there is a
crisis, even if they occasionally say the contrary and
speak of the good fruits of Vatican II. But, now, such
statements seem to be more a matter of politics than
the expression of their true thought. Usually, when we
can speak seriously with them, they acknowledge that
the situation is bad. Sometimes they try to find a way
out by mentioning young people and their greater
interest in serious things. But they realize that it is not
convincing, so they acknowledge the crisis.
A few days before his election, the Holy Father
compared the Church to a sinking boat. It is a
serious matter to say the Church is sinking because
we know that the Church has received the promise
of indefectibility from Our Lord, and that she will
remain until the end of the world. Hence, Cardinal
Ratzinger meant that the situation was serious. On
the one hand, they acknowledge that the situation
is serious, but on the other hand, it seems almost
impossible for them to go back to the cause.
Once, I tried to explain to Cardinal Mayer how
power was exercised in the Church nowadays. I
told him there was a problem because the chain
of command was totally paralyzed. It is paralyzed
because, wherever a personal power has to be
exercised, it is neutralized by groups, commissions
and councils. This is the case at the level of the Pope,
of bishops, and of parish priests. Parish councils,
presbyteral councils, synods, etc. I told the Cardinal
that the situation was unbearable and that the root
was collegiality. This startled him, and he said: “You
are perfectly right.” It didn’t last very long, however,
because when I pushed a little further and said: “So,
you see, the root of this crisis is to be found in the
Council.” He said, “No, no, you are wrong. There is
a crisis in the Church because the Council has not
been applied.” That was his answer. If, after 40 years
of reforms made in the name of the Council, you say
that there is a crisis because the Council has not been
applied, you admit a failure. We think, however, that
the Council was only too well applied.
On another occasion, I gave my arguments about
the crisis to Cardinal Castrillon and said: “These
errors oblige us to go back to their causes. And we
must look for these causes inside the Church.” He
retorted that the cause of the crisis is the world. The
world is going bad, hence things are going bad in the
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

Church. The argument is not altogether wrong. If you
look around, you can see that there are problems not
only in the Church but in the world also. You find
also in the world the same errors as in the Church.
But here is the problem: relationships between the
Church and the world are such that we know that the
world is bad. The Church is not called militant for no
reason. The Church always fought the errors which
come from the world. And the Church remained
alive because she used to defend herself against these
errors. What happened at the Council is enlightening;
in his opening address, the Pope asked that the
windows of the Church be opened to the world.
Let us suppose that you notice that your carpet is
soaking wet in a room. You look up and notice that
your windows are open and there just was a storm.
You might say that the carpet is wet because of the
storm. But usually you would simply wonder who had
left the windows open.
They opened the windows to the world. The
storm came, entered the Church, and flooded her with
its errors. When they now blame the world for the
crisis, they merely say that it is the fault of the storm.
At least, you would expect them to close the windows
now. But no; the windows are still open, so water
keeps pouring in. No wonder they tell us that the ship
is sinking!
Such is the situation at present, nothing has
changed. We have the impression that they are blind.
Yet, they should see; they are intelligent people.
Perhaps they do not want to see. Even our Pope is
convinced of the necessity of opening up to the world.
The situation is complex.

Rome and Tradition
Rome acknowledges that Tradition is bringing
forth good fruits. Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos,
delegated by the Pope to deal with us, told us: “The
fruits are good, hence the Holy Ghost is there.”
“What then?” I asked him, “And where do these fruits
come from?” He remained silent. They see that the
fruits are good, and consequently they would like
to use us in this crisis which they now acknowledge.
Contrariwise, they see that the fruits are not always
good on the other side of the fence. They would like
us to come in. And I can say that, this has been their
plan since 2000. They want us to come in and help
them get out of the crisis. Of course, it would not
be such a bad idea, if at the same time they did not
oblige us to accept Vatican II. They want us to absorb
what caused the evil, and after that we are supposed
to help. We have tried to explain to them that it would
not work.
At some point, we are no longer on the same
wave length. Rome looks at us as absolutely not in the
way we consider ourselves. Rome considers us as bad
boys; not as heretics, but as stubborn and proud boys
who wanted to have their own way. So, of course,
in their eyes, we must yield, obey and accept the

9
Magisterium. To this we answer: “We push for nothing
of our own invention; we simply do what the Church
has always done.” I once told Cardinal Castrillon,
“Forget about the Society of St. Pius X. Forget about
us. Deal with your problems and then you will see
that the Society is no longer a problem.”

Rome and the Motu Proprio
The Motu Proprio was very important. A number
of more or less conservative cardinals realize that
the situation of the Church is bad, and that Tradition
could be a very serious help in overcoming the crisis.
These cardinals are trying to bring back the Mass.
What is interesting is that these cardinals in Rome
have always been convinced that the Tridentine Mass
had never been abrogated. Twenty or thirty years ago,
the Pope was already convinced of what he wrote in
the Motu Proprio, not only he, but Cardinal Casaroli
and Cardinal Casoria (Prefect of the Liturgy in the
1980’s) as well. They knew it and yet let everybody
believe the traditional Mass was prohibited.
Cardinal Stickler revealed that, in 1986, a
commission of nine cardinals had been set up to
study two questions: Did the New Mass suppress
or abrogate the old? May a bishop forbid a priest
to celebrate the Tridentine Mass? To the first
question, eight out of nine cardinals answered
that the Tridentine Mass had not been abrogated
nor suppressed. To the second question, all nine
unanimously agreed that a bishop may not prevent
his priests from celebrating the Tridentine Mass. This
was in1986, 22 years ago.
These cardinals in Rome always knew that the
traditional Mass was not forbidden. Nevertheless,
they acted as if it were forbidden or as if special
permissions or conditions were needed. You may
remember the Indult. The faithful brought a certain
amount of pressure upon the Holy See; thousands of
letters poured in from the all over the world asking
for the Mass. At the same time, there had been a
certain evolution among the cardinals which made
them realize that something should be done for
Tradition, and for the Church.
Around 1988, Cardinal Ratzinger told the
Fraternity of St. Peter that they must hold fast to the
Tridentine Mass so that they might act as a counterbalance to the New Mass and the progressivists. Later,
once the balance is achieved, he would create a new
New Mass. The Holy Father still has this idea of a
reform of the reform.
Despite the Indult with its restrictions, bishops
made life so hard for the priests and the faithful
attached to the old Mass that Rome understood it
could not continue in such a manner. In May 2003,
the present Pope, then a cardinal, met with some
conservative cardinals in Rome. They decided to
make a gesture in favor of Tradition. One idea was
to make of the Society of St. Pius X, as it were, the
spinal cord of the traditional movement and organize

all the other traditional groups around it. The other
idea was to leave us out, since “they would never
come back,” and do something with the other groups,
establishing a number of jurisdictions throughout the
world. They would be like a diocese or an apostolic
administration, directly under Rome and freed from
the pressures of the bishops.
We know that, from 2003 until his election,
Cardinal Ratzinger worked on this project. The
project was almost implemented in France, but the
French bishops claimed that such a jurisdiction was
unacceptable. They refused to consider it. Hence the
French Bishops’ Conference rejected Rome’s project
for the establishment of such a jurisdiction, perhaps
an apostolic administration, for the Tridentine Mass in
France. If nothing else, this shows that the project did
exist.
A French bishop called one of our priests and
told him about the project. But the French bishops
did not want Rome to meddle with their business. So
they sought to establish something for Tradition in
every diocese so as to make Rome’s project useless.
They were scared to death that Rome would set up
something over which they would have no control.
French bishops are presently implementing their
resolution, but mainly at the expense of the Society
of St. Peter. For about a year before the Motu Proprio
until now, their agenda has been to suppress the
places of worship entrusted to the Society of St. Peter
and ask the priests to join the diocese, say the New
Mass, and take charge of the very same churches
originally entrusted to the Society of St. Peter. This
is how the bishops are regaining control. They have
already done this in several places. The bishop of
Versailles said to the Superior General of the Society
of St. Peter, “We will no longer give you any work.
Your priests will grow bored of having nothing to do,
and will eventually join the diocese.” It is clear that
the bishops wish to remain in control.
When the Motu Proprio was announced, bishops
all around the world raised up a massive opposition.
We have it from someone very close to the Pope that
this latter told close friends that never in his whole
life had he suffered as much as he did with the “Motu
Proprio.” It is a very interesting statement because
it shows that the Pope went forward despite the
difficulties. He chose to suffer rather than give up. He
also said that he had to do it in conscience. He felt
obliged and bound in conscience to do it. This is a
very strong and important statement.
Some think that the Motu Proprio is a trap to
“get us.” This is not true. It might become a trap, but
frankly, I do not think that the pope intended it as a
trap. It does not fit in with reality.
I can give you another proof of the Pope’s
determination. The year before the Motu Proprio, on
November 17, 2006, the Prefect of the Congregation
of the Liturgy sent a letter to all the presidents of
bishops’ conferences concerning a correction in the
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

10

I

f the Mass comes
back, it will bring back
the Faith, and eventually
morals. We see it with
priests who return
to the old Mass. It is
striking. We have had
wonderful experiences
with priests....

translation of the words of consecration in the New Mass.
The letter told the presidents that the translation “for all”
was wrong and that “for many” was the proper translation
of the Latin pro multis. What is most interesting, however,
is what happened before and after the letter.
Before the letter, Rome had inquired from all the
bishops’ conferences whether “for all” should be retained
or whether it should be corrected into “for many”? The
figures show that 35 conferences answered; out of 35,
three were in favor of “for many.” Not even ten percent
were in favor of “multis.” Even in Rome, the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith was unanimously in favor
of the translation “for all.” It means that if the letter was
eventually released, the Pope decided, on his own, to go
ahead. And in this case, he did it “against all,” not “for all.”
It is important to note these things. It is very clear that,
in this instance, he made a courageous and truly papal
act. By this I mean that he is very aware of his duty as
Pope. Hence, if he sees something he is obliged to do in
conscience, we can hope that he will go in this direction
until the end, despite very real pressure.
After this letter obliging the bishops to go back to
“for many,” many bishops’ conferences asked Rome to
be dispensed from changing their translation. They want
to maintain a faulty translation. This was even before
the Motu Proprio; it shows a modernistic attitude in the
Church. Nevertheless the Pope imposed his will.
We heard about the Motu Proprio more than a year
before it appeared. As an aside, I never received an
answer from Rome regarding our spiritual bouquet of 2.5
million rosaries for this intention. The only answer was
perhaps the Motu Proprio itself, of which the pope wrote
that it was the result of many prayers. Cardinal Castrillon
also told me that he was convinced that it was the fruit of
our prayers if the release of the Motu Proprio met with so
little opposition. As a matter of fact, there was an immense
opposition, but they considered it as little.
How should we judge the Motu Proprio? It came in
the midst of much opposition. There were four bishops’
conferences which wrote to the Holy Father to tell him
that they did not want the Motu Proprio: the Germans,
the English, the French, and part of the Americans. The
Germans went to see Cardinal Arinze and told him they
did not want the Motu Proprio. Cardinal Arinze replied
“Neither do I.” He then grabbed the new Missal and said:
“This is our baby.” He is a traitor to the Pope! It shows
what kind of opposition the Pope can meet with just for a
Motu Proprio.
When you look at the situation of the Church as a
whole and at the crisis, and see how many problems the
Pope had for just one thing, you realize that even if he
had the best of intentions and the greatest understanding,
he would still meet with great difficulties to bring about
any improvement. I say “if.” So, now we have the Motu
Proprio, but it is not everything. It is an important step.
What is important about the Motu Proprio is this little
phrase: “The [Tridentine Mass] has never been abrogated.”
This is why we say it is a good thing for the Church,

11
despite the fact that it contains many points with which
we disagree.
This little sentence is the essential point of the
Motu Proprio because it has changed the status of
the Mass from a juridical viewpoint. It affirms that
the Mass is still the universal law of the Church.
If a law has never been abrogated, it means that it
remains what it was. It was the Mass of the Church,
and thus remains the Mass of the Church. Enormous
consequences can be drawn from this apparently trivial
statement. The consequences are not explicit but they
are there nonetheless. And these consequences, which
are at the level of the law, are very important even if, at
the practical level, they may go unnoticed.
To begin with, the Pope states that the New
Mass was promulgated as a universal law of the
Church. Usually when a law of universal character
is promulgated it makes void whatever the former
law may have said on the subject. For instance, Julius
Caesar decided that everyone would drive on the
left-hand side of the road. Napoleon came along and
decided we should drive on the right. You can easily
understand that the new law suspended the old. You
have a law in the Church which said: “Tridentine
Mass.” Then came a new law which said: “New Mass.”
It is as if you had one law which says to drive on one
side of the road, and another law telling you to drive
on the other side. To say that the former law was
abrogated brings about the same mess as if you were
told you may drive on either side of the road.
This is precisely the kind of problem that the
first part of the Motu Proprio attempts to solve. It
is somewhat awkward to claim that there is but one
Mass with two forms: ordinary and extraordinary.
It is like saying ordinarily you drive on the left, but
extraordinarily, you drive on the right. We cannot
agree with this. We do not agree that these two Masses
are really one. It goes against the evidence. Anyone
who has attended both Masses understands that they
are not the same. They are not two expressions of the
same rite.

The Indult vs. the Motu Proprio
Compared with the Indult, the Motu Proprio
radically changes the status of the old Mass. When
you say indult, you imply an exception or a privilege,
a law for a few. Along with this, certain conditions
and necessary permissions are imposed. But when
something is a universal law, there is none of this. It’s
like a green light: even if there is a policeman, you do
not ask him permission to drive on. When the Pope
says that the old Mass was not abrogated, he gives a
green light to the Tridentine Mass. It is a question of
law.
Matters are not as clear when it comes to the
application of the law. How is this law applied? You can
see that the bishops, for the most part, wish to apply
the Motu Proprio as if it were an indult. They want to
be asked permission. This is strictly against the law of

the Motu Proprio. Such is the general attitude of the
bishops, notwithstanding some exceptions. The bishops
put pressure on priests to prevent the free diffusion of
the Tridentine Mass, which is very important.
If, in practice, a real equality of right were given
to the two Masses, it would not take too long for the
New Mass to disappear. In Rome, I spoke with a
high ranking prelate who thought it might take one
generation. Personally, I think it might take a little
longer. Once again, this is on condition that the real
equality of right, as foreseen in the Motu Proprio, be
truly granted in practice. But the bishops do not want
this because, somehow, Modernists know that if such
a freedom was truly granted, it would mean the end of
the New Mass.
Legally speaking, the Motu Proprio is for the death
sentence of the New Mass. But the problem is that too
many people want it to remain alive, and oppose the
Motu Proprio. So, they will keep trying to impose the
hegemony of the New Mass over the old.
Thus we have reached a decisive point in the
history of the Church and of the crisis. On the one
hand, the Pope has given a law; on the other hand,
bishops oppose it. So there is a confrontation. What
is going to happen? If, as it seems to be the case, the
Pope thinks he is obliged to do this in conscience, even
against the bishops, there still remains a new principle
introduced by Vatican II: collegiality. This means
that the bishops have their say, and if the majority
of them agree on something, the Pope must abide by
their decision. So now, if the Pope steadfastly follows
his conscience and his duty as pope, he will strike a
blow to collegiality. And if he does not, and follows
the bishops, he will have given up his power as pope
because the bishops will know that they only have to
pressure the Pope strongly enough and he will yield.
Hence, we are living a decisive time not only for the
Mass, but for the whole crisis.
If the Mass comes back, it will bring back the
Faith, and eventually morals. We see it with priests
who return to the old Mass. It is striking. We have
had wonderful experiences with priests who, after
celebrating the old Mass two, three, or five times,
suddenly realized the two Masses were two different
worlds between which they must choose. Most of them
made the right choice when faced with such a dilemma
of conscience.

The Road Ahead
With time, they will come back to the Mass, and
not only to the Mass. There is a whole world that
comes with the Mass. They need a complete formation.
The work ahead of us is colossal. These poor priests
arrive with nothing, and they discover a new world.
Their transformation does not happen in one day.
They need help, not only to celebrate correctly, but
to understand the Catholic theology that goes with
the Mass. We have many testimonies from priests who
tell us, “By celebrating the Tridentine Mass, I have
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

12
discovered what a priest is!” They had an idea, of
course, of what the priesthood entailed, but with this
Mass, they suddenly realized that they stand between
God and man to offer a sacrifice and work for the
salvation of souls. It is so different from the “carnival
Masses” prevalent in Switzerland, for instance.
Someone who understands what the Mass is can no
longer accept such Masses.
In northern Italy, a society of about 300 priests
recently joined Tradition as a group, and with them
also is a group of over 300 contemplative nuns. This
is certainly good news. Also in a diocese of northern
Italy, since the Motu Proprio, three parish priests have
decided to celebrate only the Tridentine Mass. It is
interesting to know that their evolution began some
two or three years ago. They were in such a conflict
with their bishop that the affair went even to Rome.
In the largest parish, which numbers upward of 1,000
souls, 800 parishioners wrote to Rome asking for the
Tridentine Mass. In a few months, these parish priests
had made such progress that they carried their faithful
along with them.
This shows that we do not believe in a utopia! In
a number of years from now, the Church can really go
back to the old Mass. It will require much energy and
fighting, but it is truly possible. The Motu Proprio is
a great help towards this, and this is why we sincerely
thank the Pope. We must be grateful, for it was a very
important act, even if all is not perfect; and there is
much we do not accept, for instance, the holiness of
the New Mass. Fundamentally, however, the face of the
modern Church could be changed if the Motu Proprio
were really applied.
A top-ranking official in Rome told me that the
New Mass could not be suppressed all at once, and that
“we” would have to go through several steps. He did
not say “I”; he said “we.” Now, is the Pope included
in this “we”? I do not know. At any rate, we have the
Motu Proprio and we are told that the final objective
is the suppression of the New Mass. This is interesting,
of course. Yet, it came from one official, whereas a
great majority of priests and bishops still oppose the
old Mass. We must be aware of this twofold reality. I
wish I could make matters less complex. To put it in
a nutshell: good and bad things happen at the same
time. Matters become even worse when the Pope is
self-contradictory. As I said concerning the new prayer
for the Jews, Benedict XVI feels obliged to constantly
do favors to the Jews which are difficult to understand.
We have a mystery there, but that is not the worst. The
worst is his theology.
And yet, he is bringing something new in theology,
and it is important that we realize it. It concerns the
Council and the reforms. Until now, the common
understanding in the Church was that Vatican II was
something new, which had caused a radical change in
the Church. In several seminaries, teaching about the
Church is based only on sources dating back to Vatican
II and later. In many seminaries, everything before
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

Vatican II is ignored. It is obvious that, for many,
everything began with Vatican II.

Tradition and the Council
Now the present pope tells us: “No, this cannot be.
There must be a link. There can be no rupture between
what was before and what came after the Council. And
the link must be Tradition.” During our audience, he
told me that the only acceptable interpretation of the
Council was according to the criteria of Tradition. A
little anecdote illustrates the problem. Around 1982,
Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to the Pope:
You said that the Council must be considered in the light
of Tradition. We accept the Council in the light of Tradition.
This means that we accept what is in harmony with Tradition
in the Council. What is doubtful in the Council, we interpret
according to Tradition. What is opposed to Tradition, we
simply reject.

Cardinal Ratzinger answered the letter and said,
“Your proposal about the Council, although very short,
could be acceptable. But what you say afterwards is
unacceptable.” So, Rome finds it unacceptable that
we say: “We reject what is opposed to Tradition in the
Council.”
They no longer use the phrase “in the light of
Tradition,” but “in the light of living Tradition.” The
word “living” is ever present. In fact, when we say
“Tradition,” we do not mean the same as they. In
1988, when Archbishop Lefebvre was condemned and
excommunicated, the very text Ecclesia Dei Adflicta
explained that Archbishop Lefebvre had a wrong and
incomplete understanding of Tradition. So, you see, we
use the same word but give it a different meaning.
When we say “Tradition,” we refer to its definition
given by a Father of the Church, St. Vincent of Lerins:
Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus–What has
been believed by all, everywhere, at all times. What
has been believed? It is an object. When we say
“Tradition,” we mean the doctrine and discipline of
the Church, something specific entrusted by Our
Lord to the Apostles and transmitted from generation
to generation. “Transmit” in Latin is tradere; traditio
means transmission: Tradition is what was transmitted,
the object handed down. For the modern, Tradition
is an act, the act of transmitting. This is one way of
understanding Tradition. It is possible to use the
word “Tradition” in this sense, although it is not its
usual meaning. But when you speak of the act of
transmitting, you look at the person who transmits,
and no longer at what is being transmitted. Those who
transmit are the Pope and the teaching Church.
The problem comes in with the word “living.”
Living implies movement, and movement means
change. Some changes are legitimate, others are not.
Let us suppose that you have a tree. If you say that the
tree is living, it does not mean that your tree moves
from one side of your yard to the other. Neither does it
mean that your tree gives apples one year and oranges
the next. If your tree is alive, it means that it always

13
grows in the same place and produces the same fruit.
Modernists use the word “living” to denote a change
where there cannot be any change.
On the one hand, the present pope condemns
those who say that Vatican II is a rupture with the
past. He thus condemns the extremists, the superModernists who want a new Church. Benedict XVI’s
thinking is more subtle. He sees that it must be the
same Church, and the same Faith because the Faith
cannot change. Yet at the same time he accepts the
changes and says: “These changes are traditional.”
One of the most important texts of his pontificate
is his address to the Curia on December 22, 2005. [See
The Interpretation of the Second Vatican Council in the
March 2006 issue of The Angelus–Ed.]
If you wish to understand his vision of the Church,
you only have to read this address. It is fairly clear
and simple. He explained why the Council had to
introduce novelties, which, he claimed, were not new.
He said that these novelties concerned the relationship
of the Church with the world. In the 19th century,
the world was very evil and mean, and hence the
Church had to defend herself and speak negatively
and meanly of the world. He used the word “radical”,
saying that the Church was “radical” in its opposition
to the world. And he went on to explain that, in the
20th century, the world had become much better
and therefore, at Vatican II, the Church had to adjust
to the new position of the world. The world being
better, the Church had to be kinder. Four times in his
address he repeated, “It was necessary for the Church
to give a new definition of the relation between...”:
the Church and the modern State, the Church and
the other religions, the Church and Judaism, and the
Catholic Faith and modern science. In each case, a
new definition was needed. But how can he speak of a
new relation?

Church and State
Benedict XVI explicitly expanded on the
relationship between the Church and the modern
State. He explained that the modern State wants
to have the same type of relation with all religions,
wishing to deal with all of them impartially. He said:
The Second Vatican Council, recognizing and making its
own an essential principle of the modern State with the
Decree on Religious Freedom, has recovered the deepest
patrimony of the Church. By so doing she can be conscious
of being in full harmony with the teaching of Jesus himself.

Now, is this in harmony with the teaching of Jesus
Christ? If you reflect on this, it means that, for almost
2,000 years, the Church had lost her patrimony and
was not in harmony with the teaching of Our Lord.
This is unbelievable; and yet the Pope said this. You
must realize that we have a serious problem here.
When we deal with the relationship between the
Church and the State, we are dealing with truths very
close to the Faith. Why do we say that there must be

relationships between Church and State? Because
every member of the Church also belongs to a State,
and as citizen of one State or another, he must work
out his salvation in this world. If the State recognizes
the laws of God, it will legislate in harmony with the
commandments of God, and thus help its citizens to
lead a life in harmony with God’s commandments,
thus making it easier for them to save their souls.
But if the State treats every religion in the same
way, the State does not feel bound by any of God’s
commandments and makes its own laws. Such a State
does not help its citizens to save their souls. We know
that the civil society in which we live puts pressure on
its members because it is a laicized society. For those
who go along with the flow, there is no pressure. But
pressure is made to bear upon those who swim against
the tide. Now if this pressure is for the good, it’s fine.
But if this pressure is for evil, it is very serious. And
in the modern State, with all the new laws against the
natural law, they are turning earthly society into hell.
This life on earth is becoming ever more like hell
because States do not care about God’s law.
This is why it is so important to insist that the State
must also recognize God as Creator, Provider, and
Lawgiver. This is obvious and has always been the
Church’s teaching. Yet now that the Pope tells us that
by going against this traditional teaching, the Church
is in harmony with the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is
terrible.

A New Vision
We are now confronted with a new vision and a
new way of explaining the changes of the Council.
Until now, justification was given; we were merely
told: “This is new; let us go forward.” But our present
pope is more careful about the past. He thinks that
we must not break with the past. In this, he is quite
right, but the trouble is that he nevertheless wants
to implement the new theories. But, as we say, it is
impossible to have both; it is either/or. Yet Benedict
XVI wants to bless and baptize novelties under the
name of tradition. We say: this is against Tradition, and
he says: it is traditional. Such is the new problem that
we are facing, and it makes our situation very delicate.
Before it was clear—it was a “Yes” or a “No.” Now, it is
a...“Yo.”
One week after the Motu Proprio, another
document was released by Rome; this time it was
issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith. It was a note entitled “Responses to Some
Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine
on the Church.” This document tells us that, at the
time of the Council, the definition of the Church was
changed.
Now, I like Cardinal Kasper because he always
speaks his mind clearly. In one of his conferences on
the foundations of ecumenism, he explained that the
normal definition of the Church throughout history
was: “the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.”
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

14

M

any Catholics belonging to Una
Voce and Ecclesia Dei
groups rejoice, saying:
“The Pope wants to
come back to Tradition!
He says we must look
at things in the light of
Tradition!” I wish this
were true. The Pope
does say this, but he
means something else.

The verb “to be” signifies an identity; it binds together the
subject and the object of the proposition. You can say: “the
Church of Christ is the Catholic Church” or reverse the
terms and the proposition remains just as valid. “To be” is
the only verb with which it works. Any other verb links the
subject and the object, but both remain distinct.
Cardinal Kasper explained that until Pius XII inclusive
and his encyclical on the Church, Mystici Corporis, the
Church used the verb “is.” But the Council changed
that into: “The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic
Church.” This is different from the previous definition.
When something subsists in another thing, they are two
separate things. Kasper argued that the word “subsists” is
the foundation of ecumenism for the Catholic Church. He
went so far as to say that this change made the ecumenical
movement possible in the Catholic Church. It is clear. As
long as the Church used the former definition, ecumenism
was impossible. And this cardinal is the Roman official in
charge of ecumenism; he is not just any prelate.
This note “Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine
on the Church” first argues that the term “subsists” received
many interpretations, some of which are erroneous. The
document’s purpose is to address these errors. It goes on to
say that, at Vatican II, the Church did not intend to change
the Faith. The Church believes and continues to believe
what has always been believed. So why was the formula
changed? Because “subsists” expresses identity more
perfectly than “is.” Next, it explains the real reason for the
new formula. It was changed in order to mean that there
are elements of the Church of Christ outside the Catholic
Church. That is the problem.
So this note tells us that the verb “subsists” is better
than “is.” If we are logical, we must follow through this
reasoning and see its consequences on salvation. A dogma
tells us that outside the Church there is no salvation. If
you say that the Church of Christ is the Catholic Church,
you clearly state that there is no salvation outside of the
Catholic Church. But what about the rest of mankind those
who have left the Church, or belong to churches which
retain certain sacraments? Modern theology maintains that
these elements of the Church continue to be efficacious
outside of the Church . In plain words, it means that people
are saved by these elements. And consequently, there
is salvation outside the Church, and this is contrary to
Catholic dogma.
In order to “reconcile” this contradiction the note
affirms both at the same time. It further argues that where
there are true bishops and a valid Mass, the Church
of Christ is present. It says that the Eastern Orthodox
Church and the other Oriental churches, which are not in
communion with Rome, are true and authentic particular
Churches. In the context, “particular “is to be understood
in opposition to “universal,” and could refer to a diocese,
for instance. But if you affirm that people outside the
Church are also genuine particular Churches, then what is
the difference between a diocese inside the Church, and
people outside of it? The note even says that the Church
of Christ is edified and brought to perfection in these

15
particular Churches outside of the Church. This is a
total contradiction.

True and False Solutions
Here is their problem: in order to save the
novelties, which are opposed to Tradition, they
maintain that novelties are not opposed to Tradition,
though they are new. Such a reasoning destroys the
principle of non-contradiction. This is presently the
situation at the theological level. It is very dangerous.
Many Catholics belonging to Una Voce and Ecclesia
Dei groups rejoice, saying: “The Pope wants to come
back to Tradition! He says we must look at things in
the light of Tradition!” I wish this were true. The Pope
does say this, but he means something else. It is very
subtle and hence very dangerous. Consequently, our
position remains the same. We continue to say “No”
and plead for the next steps: first, the lifting of the
excommunications, and then doctrinal discussions.
We desire traditional doctrine to be brought back
into the Church. We are not playing the “holier than
thou” and taking the place of the Pope. But if, thanks
to discussions, these doctrines can be brought back
into large areas of the Church, then this may lead
sincere souls back to the truth. And many souls are
sincere; they are not all completely crooked and evil.
Many people are in good faith, but they are confused.
If we can bring right ideas back, such people will
return. It is a long-term fight, but it is in God’s hands.
He could make it shorter, but whether He wants to
intervene, it is His decision. We can pray and ask Him
for this. If you consider the Motu Proprio, you can see
that your prayers are heard. So I invite you to pray
for the lifting of the excommunications.
When will this happen? I do not have the least
idea. Someone once asked me and I answered that
it could be tomorrow just as it could be in ten years.
But I know that in 2005, after I had given Cardinal
Hoyos all of our objections against the novelties—it
was quite a list–the Cardinal told me that though on
certain points he did not agree with us, Rome did
not consider us as being outside of the Church. So he
suggested I write a letter to the Pope asking him to lift
the excommunications. If Rome tells us to write such
a letter, it means they are ready to grant our request.
So I wrote the letter.
However, they are using the excommunications,
on the one hand, as a means of pressuring us to
accept things we do not want to accept. And on the
other hand, on the political level, they use it with the
bishops. If the pressure from the bishops is too great,
I doubt they will lift the decree of excommunication.
Whether they will lift it tomorrow or years from now,
I really do not know. The only thing I can observe
is that they have no reasonable argument against the
lifting of the excommunications. It is all a matter of
politics on Rome’s part.
When I last visited Rome, in November, I was
told that the Pope said to those around him that he

did not want to hear the word “schismatic” applied
to us. In the Motu Proprio, when he explained why it
was released and mentioned us, he wrote that it was
an internal matter of reconciliation within the Church.
“Internal” and “within” do not mean “outside.” This
shows you the state of the Church. We must look at
the whole picture. For instance, when we consider
the Motu Proprio, we must look both at the Pope’s
thoughts and at the bishops’ reactions.
On January 13, Cardinal Hoyos granted an
interview to Zenit in which he clearly stated that the
bishops alone were excommunicated in 1988. No
priests and no faithful were excommunicated. That
very same day, in Poland, the Archbishop of Gdansk
had a circular letter read in all the churches of his
diocese in which he claimed that any faithful who
attended one SSPX Mass was excommunicated. That
very same day! It is ridiculous. But it shows you what
happens in the chaotic situation of the Church.
Good things happen, like the Motu Proprio and a
number of priests are returning to the old Mass. Some
are sincere, but not all of them. Hence, you need
much prudence. Do not get involved in uncertain
things. Do not simply ask the closest parish priest if he
could say the old Mass for you. By all means, incite
him to do so, but do not put yourself in impossible
situations. At the same time, the fight goes on. It is not
finished. You must be prepared for a long fight.
Of course, in this fight, we must always remember
that what is most important is what we do not
see. The salvation or loss of souls is what is most
important. In this respect, God is using all that is
happening to save souls. But there are trials, and
we are free to accept or reject these trials. Hence
the necessity of prayer for fidelity. Members of the
Church are called “faithful” – what a beautiful title.
We must pray for this grace, for daily fidelity in little
things. Our Lord Himself promised that the faithful
accomplishment of our duty of state in little things is a
pledge of the help of His grace for great things .
We must not forget this. Our Lord has promised
that He will be with us and give us His grace. We
can be absolutely certain that if a soul really wants to
be saved, it will be saved. Of course, if a soul really
wants to be saved, it will keep the commandments,
frequent the sacraments, and so on. If a soul wants
God, God will not abandon the soul. To think
otherwise would be blasphemous. We must then
strengthen our hearts with courage. God is almighty.
Let us stay on the side of the Blessed Virgin Mary,
and everything will work out for our good.
Transcribed by James Vogel, assistant editor, and approved and edited by Bishop
Bernard Fellay. With special thanks to Fr. Gerard Zendejas and Bishop Fellay
for their assistance and help. Photos provided by St. Ignatius Retreat House.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

16

Letter from La Reja
By invitation of Fr. Kenneth Novak, Editor of The Angelus, I may
be writing for The Angelus once a month (see p.18), but let me admit
straightaway that as far as I am concerned, it is for a very practical
reason: the South American seminary of the Society of St. Pius X is in
need of help.
So from Fr. John Fullerton, SSPX District Superior for the USA, I
have permission to address myself for this purpose through the pages
of The Angelus to a number of old friends in the English-speaking
world, especially in the United States, and possibly to some new
friends as well.
Have no fear! Not every month’s article will consist of a direct
appeal for funds–far from it. But underneath each article, starting with
this one, should be posted a note explaining how to help the seminary
in Argentina.

We are in need.

It stands then to reason that readers
of The Angelus might like to know
something of the seminary in La Reja,
some 40 miles outside of Argentina’s
capital city, Buenos Aires. The foundation
stone was laid in August of 1981 by
Archbishop Lefebvre on one of his early
visits to Argentina as Superior of the
SSPX. It was as Superior General of the
Holy Ghost Fathers between 1962 and
1968 that his missionary visits to the
South American continent gave him to
see that Argentina might be the most
suitable country in Latin America from
which to launch the Society’s mission of
forming priests for this once huge part
of the Catholic world.
“Once huge part” because who
has not heard of the ravages wrought
amongst Catholics in Latin America

17
by the Protestant sects, following Vatican II? On Archbishop
Lefebvre’s first post-conciliar visit to Argentina in 1977, he
met with a number of distressed Catholics, eager to defend
Tradition against its destruction by the neo-modernists. These
Catholics benefited from Argentina’s high level of Catholic
culture, especially in the main cities of Buenos Aires, Cordova
and Mendoza. In the following year I can remember the good
impression made by three Argentinian seminarians when they
arrived at Ecône in order to become priests with the SSPX.
One of the three is now a bishop–His Excellency Alfonso de
Galarreta.
Over the next few years several more Argentinian
seminarians followed in their footsteps, so that it was natural
for the Archbishop to think of founding for South Americans a
seminary of their own. Another memory of mine is his laying
of the foundation stone in the middle of a property recently
purchased for the Society from Europe, about 50 minutes by
car west-northwest of Buenos Aires. I remember the unspoken
determination of the Archbishop as he dug his spade into the
grassy mud of a wide open field, with no buildings for hundreds
of yards around. He was re-building the Church out of a handful
of local Catholics’ convictions, and thin air!
Today you find there handsome colonial-style seminary
buildings, and a beautiful church, completed and consecrated
in 1999, both paid for largely by contributions from outside of
Latin America.
It is one of those things that the Church in Latin America
needs so much support from abroad. Argentina is a country
rich in resources, and its wealthy upper class used to support
the Church as part of its Catholic duty. But what 150 years
of Freemasonic “independence” had not yet succeeded in
corrupting of that Catholic elite was virtually finished off by the
next 50-odd years of Vatican II and Opus Dei. As for the middle

class, it was hard hit by the economic crisis
of a few years ago, while the working class in
Argentina is neither necessarily lazy nor without
brains, but it simply has no means of supporting
the Church.
Notwithstanding, over the quarter-century of
its existence, the Society’s Argentinian seminary
has succeeded in forming a small but tenacious
network of traditional priests, serving souls and
helping to keep the Faith from Mexico down to
Chile. And while vocations slowed down for a
while, in Argentina in particular, numbers over
the last few years have been picking up again,
so that if we count in the preliminary year of
Humanities, there is now hardly a cell available
in the Archbishop’s original building. If this trend
continues, we shall need to add the extra wing
which he planned for, but which was never
needed in his own time.
Dear friends, the financial and economic
crisis now rolling in the USA has possibly made
the assets on paper of a number of you lose
seriously in value. For this reason it may not
seem a good moment to ask you for help. But
think back to last summer, of 2007, before this
crisis declared itself. Might you not now wish
that you had then, as Our Lord says, stored up
treasure in Heaven where neither inflation steals,
nor banks threaten to collapse? (Mt. 6:19,20.)
Assets that could really have served the Church
then have simply vanished since. If this financial
crisis continues, or gets worse as it may well do,
might it not make sense to make an investment
in the security of your heavenly bank account,
safe from all politicians and bankers?
The Argentinian seminary’s present
shortfall (having to be made up by SSPX HQ
in Switzerland) is of the order of $10,000
(USD) a month. What would really help us
would be a bank order sending to us a regular
monthly donation. In return you will have each
month news and views from your former
correspondent in Ridgefield, Connecticut, and
Winona, Minnesota. Many thanks in advance,
from all our priests and seminarians.

Bishop Richard Williamson
Note: To ensure that a check sent to help the seminary in La
Reja will be tax-deductible in the US, make it out to “Society of
St. Pius X,” accompanied by the request that it benefit the South
American seminary and send it to:

US District Headquarters, SSPX, 11485 North Farley Rd.,
Platte City, MO 64079-8201

Beware of
Roman Snakes

18

Bishop Richard Williamson

It is not gracious to speak ill of the dead. “De
mortuis nil nisi bonum,” said the Latins. But where the
Faith is at stake, and where a man, apparently until
his death, took a stand on the Faith which can gravely
mislead the faithful, it is not exactly speaking ill of
him to remind the faithful of his mistake. If his soul
is now in Purgatory or Heaven, he cannot mind the
faithful being told the truth on the occasion of his
death. Certainly I will not mind if over my grave a
wiser man than I re-directs souls towards the Truth.
Therefore Dom Gérard’s peace should hardly be
disturbed if, in a Society of St. Pius X publication like
The Angelus, we go back on why he and Archbishop
Lefebvre parted company in 1988 on the occasion of
the episcopal consecrations. With those consecrations
Dom Gérard frankly disagreed, and a few weeks later
he came to a separate agreement of his own with
Rome. On at least one occasion soon afterwards the
Archbishop was observed to be weeping over Dom
Gérard’s decision.
Dom Gerard Calvet, OSB, died February 28, 2008.

They were not sentimental tears. Up till that point
Dom Gérard’s monastery had been a power-house
of Traditional resistance to the Conciliar Revolution.
How much stronger that resistance would have been
if Dom Gérard had not defected! But from that point
on his monastery slowly turned into a defender of
that Revolution. One thinks, for instance, of the
huge several-volume defence of Vatican II’s deadly
doctrine on Religious Liberty, published several years
ago by a monk of Le Barroux.

In fact Dom Gérard had already in 1984 sought
to come to an agreement with Conciliar Rome, but
he was persuaded to back off, perhaps, amongst other
things, by words written to him at that time by the
Archbishop: “Beware of Roman snakes!” However
Dom Gérard believed that Cardinal (then) Ratzinger
was a man one could deal with, so he cut his own
deal, and most of his monks slid into the embrace
of Conciliar Rome, where they have remained ever
since...
How had it happened? A priest friend of the
SSPX and former monk of Dom Gérard, who
knew him well, has an interesting and convincing
explanation. Here is the heart of it—
As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out, when Dom
Gérard quit his monastery in Tournay, which was
turning Conciliar, in order to found the Traditional
monastery of St. Mary Magdalene, his motivation was
mainly to maintain monastic and liturgical tradition. He
did not sufficiently grasp the most important theological
aspects of the crisis of the Church.
In addition, his intuitive rather than scholastic way of
thinking was liable to make him change position suddenly
in a way that betrayed his lack of a thorough doctrinal
formation. In fact Dom Gérard had never received, or
else never assimilated, a formation of the kind called for
by Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. St. Thomas Aquinas
and scholastic thinking were far from occupying their due
place in Dom Gérard’s formation. (End of our friend’s
quote)

As a French priest used to say who collaborated
closely with the Archbishop at the time of the
Council, “One may not care for the rigors of Catholic
doctrine, but in the Catholic Church very little can be
achieved without it.” Many a seminarian will testify
to how arduous the study of St. Thomas can be, but
the ruins of the Catholic Church all around us testify
to the wisdom of St. Pius X’s insistence in Pascendi
on the study of St. Thomas Aquinas as the very first
remedy to the mental sickness of modernism.
Soon after Dom Gérard decided to go over to
Conciliar Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote:
The consequences are from now on unavoidable. The
SSPX will have no further relations with Le Barroux, and
we will be warning all our faithful to give no more support
to a Congregation which is henceforth in the hands of
our enemies, the enemies of Our Lord and His Universal
Kingship.

Strong clear words. May Dom Gérard have
understood their truth before he died, so that now his
soul may be resting in peace.

Southern Black Forest
Häusern, Germany

Traditional
Religious
Orders

Benedictine Nuns of
Marienberg Convent

Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive
and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return
to Him from whom by the sloth of disobedience thou hast gone away. (From the Prologue to The Rule of
St. Benedict )1
Such are the words of St. Benedict, founder of the first Western monastic order, that have
for many years governed the lives and deeds of a small congregation of nuns living in the
convent of Marienberg. To this very day, they serve the Lord in accordance with the rules set
down by their patron, for their sole desire as they arise each day is to hear the Word of the
Lord, to seek nothing but Him, to serve Him loyally, to honor and to love Him with all their
hearts. Through His mercy they exercise virtue as they strive to reform their lives in order
to become loyal and obedient servants to the Lord, such that they may one day enter their
heavenly home as true brides of Christ.

19

20

A Short History
of Marienberg Convent
Following the Episcopal Consecrations of 1988
performed by Archbishop Lefebvre at Ecône, a
number of Sisters left the convent of Schellenberg
(Liechtenstein) because they wished to continue their
close ties with the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX).
This group now heads the Benedictine convent
of Marienberg. Below is a short overview of the
developments that preceded this event:
Schellenberg Convent gained autonomy in 1930,
though its roots go back to a congregation initiated by
Fr. Salesius Brunner (of Benedictine origins) and by
his deeply pious mother in the year 1859. It is now at
its strongest amongst the Missionaries of the Precious
Blood in North America.
The convent is devoted to adoration, as is the
entire congregation. Until the year 1930, Schellenberg
also functioned as a gathering point for all Germanspeaking aspirants, who would then emigrate to
the United States for further monastic instruction.
Moreover, it was responsible for seeking funds to
support the North American mission.
The code of conduct issued by Fr. Brunner was
written entirely in the Benedictine spirit, which is
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

evidenced by numerous citations therein from the
Rule of St. Benedict. In the aftermath of the Council,
a new constitution was adopted in 1967, and from
1975 onwards the convent began collaborating with
the Society of Saint Pius X, which resulted in a steady
flow of novices. As time went by, however, the
new constitution was found to be somewhat flawed,
whereupon permission was sought from the district
abbot to revert to the constitution of 1930 and to
abide by it for the time being pending the provision
of a revised code. It was in this context that the
congregation began reviewing its Benedictine roots,
and at the time of the above-mentioned secession
(1988) this process of re-assessment constituted a core
concern for the nuns at Marienberg as they set about
making the necessary changes to their stipulations of
governance. These revisions were gradually put into
practice over a number of years.
Those who had had to leave Schellenberg initially
found refuge in the Priory of St. Charles Borromeo at
Oberriet (SSPX, Switzerland). However, it was their
ardent desire to resume their monastic calling, and
they eventually managed to acquire a suitable place
in the southern reaches of the Black Forest. A humble
edifice set at some distance from the nearest village,

21
it had formerly been a children’s
home, but now it was to serve as
abode and workplace to the order.
As might be expected, the
Congregation initially had it tough.
Their first act was to devise a
platform for the “Töchter Mariens
vom Kostbaren Blut e.V.,” i.e.
the Society of the Daughters of
Mary of the Precious Blood, but
at the same time they had to
endure many trials at the hands
of the authorities and government
departments. Moreover, the entire
convent had to be extensively
renovated and refurbished, though
the premises were still made
available on an interim basis to the
SSPX for retreats.
As already mentioned, the
Marienberg Congregation was in
need of a new constitution. Given
the general direction in which their
spiritual debate had been heading,
they eventually concluded that it
would make sense to live by the
Rule of St. Benedict in emulation
of the Beuronese constitution,
a suitably adapted version of
which was then implemented.
Simultaneously it was stipulated
that adoration of the Precious
Blood should be retained.
At this point in time
observance of the canonical hours
had been fully achieved, and the
nuns henceforth made it their duty
to embrace a life in the Benedictine
spirit, to live and to act by its
traditions. This objective requires
any amount of stamina and good
will, but the Sisters will not be
discouraged on their march toward
a glorious goal, and, like a loyal
family, they help each other along
as best they can, each according to
the faculties with which God has
blessed her.
Personal and spatial
requirements permitting, the
convent currently caters only to
such guests who have need of
spiritual and bodily recreation.
However, its doors shall always be
open to those who seek peace and
harmony (Chapter 53, The Rule of
St. Benedict).
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

22

The Long Road
Towards Perpetual Vows
The very constitution of this Congregation aims
to ensure that entry into the order is not taken lightly.
Potential entrants are examined for excellent physical
and spiritual health. Moreover, aspirants should
ideally possess full training in a suitable profession
prior to joining the Sisterhood, while proficiency in
German is desirable. Candidates who do not have
German should at least be willing–and manifestly
able– to acquire the language in time. Once they have
been accepted as postulants, they must spend at least
six months in the convent before their superiors will
permit them to wear the Benedictine habit, subject to
their passing the relevant canonical examinations.
The novitiate lasts for two years, and those who
then wish to take vows must undergo a process that
is very similar to the above before they are allowed
to do so. Prior to taking perpetual vows, each Sister
will initially commit herself for three years at a time,
which they may renew up to three times. According
to the Rule of St. Benedict these vows comprise

THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

obedience, chastity, and stabilitas loci (that is stability
in their respective convent).
Before taking perpetual vows, the nuns must
have spent a considerable length of time in the
order. In this way they can (and should) examine
their conscience on a regular basis; indeed the entire
congregation will assess the intensity of their devotion
and whether they are truly seeking God, since a nun
that has not got the true calling for the noble role
of serving God not only endangers the order as a
whole but also seriously undermines her own hope
of salvation. However, the truly devoted will not
shy away from perpetual vows and will accept them
joyously.

Building the Church
Apart from the benefits of a new constitution in
terms of forming body and soul, the very architecture
of the house itself was meant to edify, both literally
and metaphorically speaking. Thus the tabernacle
was soon moved from its lowly and humble home
in the refectory to the splendid surroundings of a
newly built church. Only five years ago there would

23

have been little hope of building a new chapel on this
site, but God hears His own and He will answer their
prayers if they correspond to His wishes. Thanks to the
ultimate flexibility of the planning authorities and to the
sponsors, the construction of an extension housing the
convent’s very own chapel went ahead in the summer
of 2005. The last tiles had just gone on the roof when
the great snowfalls set in, which were extremely heavy
even by local standards. From that point forth the
church rapidly took shape, such that the first holy Mass
could be read from its altar on that year’s Kirchweih
(kermis) Sunday (October 15, 2006) following a solemn
consecration ceremony at which the newly installed bells
were rung for the very first time. However, the interior
decorations and especially the painting of murals will
have to be left to the next generation. Both the interior
and the exterior are to be done in the Beuronese
style, and the church will one day be dedicated to the
Assumption of Mary.

A Typical Day in
the Life of a Convent
If one of our nuns were asked to describe a typical
day at the convent, she would probably answer as
follows:
The average working day begins just after 5:00am
with a hearty, “In nomine Domini Jesu Christi crucifixi
surgo…,” for Lauds commences in the chapel at precisely

5:30, followed by meditation. At 6:30 we recite Prime,
the Pretiosa, and the Angelus, and shortly thereafter
comes the highlight of the day, namely the holy Mass.
Having given thanks, we must partake of some food in
order to fortify ourselves for our daily duties. Before
Terce at 8:30, there is just enough time for us to tidy up
our cells and to put on our work habits.
The period between Terce and Sext is scheduled
for physical work. One of us usually does the kitchen
while others might be occupied with either the laundry,
ironing, sewing, cleaning, painting, baking hosts,
gardening, or accomplishing office work–in other
words, all the routine chores that need doing in a
convent. Work is to be accompanied by prayer, for it
is all done to serve–and thereby to glorify–the Lord.
Once a week we attend a talk on spiritual issues, while
both the postulants and the novices must take other
lessons besides. Silence is observed throughout the
day, for speech is restricted to the humble necessities of
communication.
Under normal circumstances, each nun is allocated
at least one hour before noon to spend in contemplation
at the feet of our Savior, such that she may pray to Him
and immerse herself in the mysteries of His existence.
This time of solitary worship is accorded each nun to
allow her love for the Holy Trinity to grow by focusing
on her divine husband and the great love He showed
towards us when He shed His blood for mankind.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

24
After Sext, we take time
to examine our conscience,
and dinner is served right after
the Angelus. While we eat, we
also listen to a reading in order
to ensure that body and soul
are fed in equal measure. The
same applies to supper. When
the dishes have been done,
we engage in about an hour of
recreation. This not only helps us
relax but also furthers and forms
the communal spirit within our
monastic family. This might range
from storytelling, music, song and
laughter, readings, recitals and
discussions right down to folding
and sewing garments or preparing
fruit and vegetables. On nice days
we might go on long walks across
the fields and over the mountains,
often gathering herbs for use
in certain teas and elixirs. We
are allowed many activities and
liberties, but loitering in idleness
is definitely not one of them!
On special occasions, we
use the recreational break to put
on theater plays and sketches
ranging from serious pieces to
light entertainment (for the nuns
like to laugh!), and in some cases
we give musical recitals and other
surprise performances. Creativity
ranks highly on our schedule.
At around 2:00pm, None
is said and then we resume
our work. When allocating
tasks, great care is taken that
each member of the order is
employed in a manner befitting
her individual skills and
qualifications, though sacrifices
are still part and parcel of the
program. The hungriest among
the Sisters may have a snack
in the afternoon, whereupon
two strokes of the bell will
announce Vespers, which are
said at 5:00pm. Then we have
supper followed by another short
recreational break to allow for
personal necessities, etc. From
6:45 to 7:00pm, the Blessed
Sacrament is put on display and
worshipped in silence until the
rosary is said. After Benediction
comes Compline, and thenceforth
all nuns must maintain complete
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

silence until after Prime. Certain small tasks may be accomplished before
retiring to bed, providing permission has been sought. Before going to
sleep, we send one last “Gloria Patri” towards heaven, accompanied by a
greeting to our Holy Mother Mary and our guardian angel, until we finally
cross ourselves with the solemn request for a peaceful night, such that we
may praise the Lord even as we sleep.
It is during daylight hours that each nun is given a chance to engage
with spiritual literature.
On Sundays and other holy days the nuns are to work as little as
possible. Each Sister therefore goes beyond the call of duty and helps
wherever she can in order to ensure that these days are unburdened for
all who wish to spend the extra time praising God. Thus the afternoon can
be given over to worshipping the Blessed Sacrament, which is exposed
for this purpose. Naturally, our convent also observes days of fasting and

daily Schedule
25

5:10 AM Rise
5:30 AM		Lauds and Meditation
6:35 AM		Prime, Angelus
7:00 AM Holy Mass
8:00 AM Breakfast
8:30 AM Terce, Work
11:30 AM		Sext, Angelus
11:50 AM		Lunch, Kitchen work
1:00 pM Recreation
2:00 pM None, Work
5:00 pM Vespers
5:30 pM Supper
6:15 pM Recreation
6:45 pM Chapter
7:00 pM Rosary with Exposition
8:00 pM

of the Blessed Sacrament
Compline

used to say that it was of the
utmost important to make
novices understand that we are
in God and that He is in us.

Outlook

penance as well as a number of other monastic customs whereby we honor God
by making sacrifices and doing penance as we strive to become more like Him.
In so doing, we again seek to emulate the teachings of our charismatic founder,
who preached discretion and moderation in all things.
Thus our day-to-day existence is defined by the holy sacrifice of Mass,
prayer, and dedicated work.
We strive to live entirely for God and to be at all times in His presence,
such that He may gradually take shape in us. Like tiny lanterns burning in
the palace of our Lord, we are privileged to come before His throne on earth,
which is the tabernacle, there to prostrate ourselves before Him and to sing His
praises. Archabbot Maurus Wolter, founder of the Beuronese Congregation,

In view of all the changes
and improvements recently
effected, the Sisters may utter
a heartfelt “Deo gratias,” for
none of this would have been
possible without help from
God.
Whatever the future may
hold is in the hands of Divine
Providence. In a sense, the
framework for a monastic
lifestyle has been created and
the nest is built; it is now up to
others to fill in this frame, to
make the congregation grow
and prosper, to draw many
towards their divine calling,
and to set chicks in that nest to
chirp their songs of praise from
the depths of their little hearts.
Meanwhile the Sisters will
strive to advance upon the path
of virtue and monastic faith, for
“we shall run the way of God’s
commandments with expanded
hearts and unspeakable
sweetness of love” (From the
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

26

Prologue to the Rules). In the words of Saint Benedict,
the Benedictine calling may be summarized as follows:2
As there is a harsh and evil zeal which separateth from God
and leadeth to hell, so there is a virtuous zeal which separateth
from vice and leadeth to God and life everlasting.
Let the monks, therefore, practise this zeal with most
ardent love; namely, that in honor they forerun one another
(cf. Rom. 12:10). Let them bear their infirmities, whether of
body or mind, with the utmost patience; let them vie with
one another in obedience. Let no one follow what he thinketh
useful to himself, but rather to another. Let them practise
fraternal charity with a chaste love.
Let them fear God and love their Abbot with sincere and
humble affection; let them prefer nothing whatever to Christ,
and may He lead us all together to life everlasting. (The Rule
of St. Benedict, Chapter 72. This chapter is often called “St.
Benedict’s Testament.”)3

Ut in omnibus glorificetur Deus (U.I.O.G.D.)
(That God be glorified in all things.)

THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

For information:
Reverend Mother Prioress
Kloster Marienberg
D-79837 Häusern
Germany
Telephone: [49] 767-2328

1

Obsculta, o fili, praecepta magistri et inclina aurem cordis tui et admonitionem
pii patris libenter excipe et efficaciter comple, ut ad eum per oboedientiae
laborem redeas, a quo per inobedientiae desidiam recesseras.
2
Translators Note: Please note that the translations from The Rule of St.
Benedict contained in this text have been culled from The Holy Rule of St.
Benedict (the 1949 edition, translated by Rev. Boniface Verheyen, O.S.B.,
of St. Benedict’s Abbey, Atchison, Kansas).
3
Sicut est zelus amaritudinis malus qui separat a Deo et ducit ad infernum,
ita est zelus bonus qui separat a vitiis et ducit ad Deum et ad vitam aeternam. Hunc ergo zelum ferventissimo amore exerceant monachi, id est, ut
honore se invicem praeveniant. Infirmitates suas sive corporum sive morum
patientissime tolerent; oboedientiam sibi certatim inendant; nullus quod sibi
utile iuducat sequatur, sed quod magis alio; caritatem fraternitatis caste
impendant; amore Deum timeant; abbatem suum sincera et humili caritate
diligant; Christo omnio nihil praeponant, qui nos pariter ad vitam aeternam
perducat.

27
F r .

H u g h

B a r b o u r ,

O . P r a e m .

A Grateful Priest’s Memoir

Fr. Harry Hassan Marchosky

1923-2007

The great, and therefore insufficiently appreciated, Midwestern
Catholic fiction writer J. F. Powers once said:
I write about priests for reasons of irony and comedy and philosophy. They
officially are committed to both worlds in a way that most people officially are not.
This makes for stronger beer….So I just start with a priest, with a man with one
foot in each world.

A literary critic also said of the clerical world of which Powers wrote from
the 40’s to the 80’s of the last century: “Vatican II undid that world.”
Well, the vicissitudes of Church history may have undone the
storyteller’s world, but they did not prevail over the firm rock and robust
foundation of the Catholic faith and formation of the late Fr. Harry Hassan
Marchosky (born Panama City, December 8, 1923–died Veneta, Oregon,
December 11, 2007). So too, he never lost his sense of “irony and comedy
and philosophy” as a priest worthy of any of the efforts of the literati.
The present priestly writer hopes that in these few short paragraphs the
reader will lay hold of something of this dear and unforgettable servant of
the Catholic altar, and so be moved to pray for his soul marked forever
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

28
with the character of the Great High Priest, and to thank the
Good God for having given the Church Militant so accessible a
mediator and so valiant a soldier.
I knew of Fr. Marchosky from my teenage years as one of
the priests in the Los Angeles area who celebrated the traditional
Mass. I did not come to know him personally until I myself had
been ordained a priest of St. Michael’s Abbey of the Norbertine
Fathers in Orange County. Father lived less than a mile down the
road from us at his brother Reuben’s little ranch with its hacienda
and citrus groves. Father in fact lived in a “trailer” (actually a
converted container car) on the property down the hill from
the big house. Every morning he came to say Holy Mass at the
abbey; often enough he walked the distance. Little by little I came
to know him with his wide and enthusiastic desires for everything
that was true and good and beautiful in the realms of nature and
of grace.
Father was born in a Jewish family which had settled in
Panama. His mother was born in Jerusalem when it was still part
of the Ottoman Empire, his father was from Russian Poland.
He thus had that style of expressing himself which was intense,
dramatic, heartfelt, at once sunny and brooding, Levantine and
Osteuropäisch, with a strong dose of Hispanidad and francophilia
in the mix. Only the best possessions of the heart were good
enough for Harry. Off he went to Chicago as a young man to
study business and accounting. There he ran into the newly
burgeoning “Great Books” movement out of the University of
Chicago. This led to a conversion to philosophy, and especially
to the philosophy of Aristotle, and most consequentially to his
conversion to the Catholic Faith. This led him to set his business
plans aside. He went off, having first mastered Latin and French
in addition to his native Spanish and English, to the Université
Laval in Quebec City to study Aristotle’s philosophy as best
interpreted, that is, by the disciples of St. Thomas Aquinas, and
in particular by Charles de Konninck, the greatest exponent
of classical Thomistic natural and social philosophy of the last
century, and the great logician Monsignor Dionne. It was this
intellectual patrimony which gained Father a place on several
philosophical faculties throughout his life, including Thomas
Aquinas College, and my own abbey. With his Ph.L. under his
belt, he entered the major seminary of Quebec, a splendid edifice
on the St. Lawrence River right by the Chateau Frontenac, with
a chapel appointed with what must be the largest assemblage
of holy relics in the world. In 1952 he was ordained priest
along with about 70 others, in what were truly the glory days of
Catholic Quebec, then noted for its fruitful families and numerous
vocations.
Amazingly, he said his own mother never knew he had
become a priest, always marveling that with all his education
he should end up a taxi-driver in the US! He had told her that
he “did a lot of driving” and wore a uniform, so this was her
conclusion. How he would laugh recounting this, and then he
would tell you with tears how she accepted baptism on her death
bed and woke up in heaven surprised to find out that she had
a priest son just like the Queen of Heaven, the gloria Jerusalem,
the laetitia Israel. Her other son Reuben became a doctor and
also later a Catholic. “What more could a Jewish mother want?”
Father would exclaim.
Father had a Thomistic formation with a decidedly French
traditionalist flavor and so he began to read, even in the 50’s
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

Fr. Marchosky’s parents.

Fr. Marchosky (left) shortly
after his ordination in 1952.

Madiran’s Itinéraires, and he became
acquainted with the works of Cardinal Pie,
Louis Veuillot, the Olivetan Père Emmanuel,
the Charlier brothers and with Dom de
Monleon’s lovely scriptural exegesis.
Thus the ferment around the time of the
Second Vatican Council found him with a
perspective which was truly unusual for a
North American priest. He was one of the
few traditionalists ante litteram who from
the beginning shared the anxieties of those
the ever-sanguine Blessed John XXIII had
called the “prophets of doom,” not realizing
that he was himself prophesying in part the
fulfillment of their fears. Father knew all
the intellectual élite of those the left calls les
intégristes: Madiran, Salleron, Père Calmel,
Jacques A’rnoux, l’Abbé Raymond Dulac,
Gustave Thibon, Archbishop Lefebvre’s
peritus at the Council l’Abbé Berto, Dom
Gérard Calvet, and of course, on the pastoral

W

29

s.
Fr. Marchosky with then
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

ly
2.

With fellow ordinands on the 45th anniversary of their ordination.

rather than the intellectual side, Archbishop Lefebvre himself and his work at
Ecône.
All of this gave to Father a forma mentis [mind set–Ed.] which enriched the
anglophone traditionalists he knew and served in the States and in the United
Kingdom. His complete set of Itinéraires went back to the first issue, and one
could find all of the works of these thinkers on his wildly disorganized, but
fascinating to browse, bookshelves. He would willingly lend them out with
a detachment most rare for a clerical bibliophile. Let’s be honest, he would
say and admit that the Francophone traditionalist world is the brains of the
loyal opposition to the postconciliar Zeitgeist. As far as Father was concerned,
English language writers, even the ones he knew, loved, and encouraged, like
the elder Matt and Michael Davies, could never hold a candle to the writers

Priest, Where
Is Thy Mass?

Fr. Marchosky was one of the
seventeen Roman Catholic priests
interviewed (none of whom are members
of the Society of Saint Pius X) who
explained why they celebrate the old
rite of the Latin Mass instead of the New
Mass. In question and answer format,
these priests tell their trials and triumphs
over the Novus Ordo establishment.
Inspiring and often heroic examples of
fidelity to their priestly vocation.

232pp, softcover, 15 photographs,
stK# 8024✱ $14.00

www.angeluspress.org

The ANgelus • June 2008

30
of what he called “the other sacred language.” He
made an exception for the great John Senior whose
friend he was, but liked to point out that he had the
rare distinction of being translated into French by
those same very exigent French traditionalists. He
named the French “the Jews of the Gentiles,” that
is the Catholic tradition with “most favored nation
status,” whose defection is the most disastrous and
whose return would be the most advantageous for
the Church Universal. About these things good men
may disagree, but the well-traveled Father knew it was
good for Americans to be taken down a notch once in
a while.
This was the Fr. Marchosky whom I knew and
from whom I received a great many things that
were good for my mind and heart. Father loved to
entertain other priests. He would make his specialty
coq au vin or Petrali sole meunière (“It was on sale!” he
would exclaim) preceded by a lox, onion and caper
appetizer (“The way my father used to make it,” he
would point out), offering his own special martini
made with gin and vodka (in tumblers on which were
written in apothecary font “hemlock,” “strychnine,”
“arsenic,” and “belladonna.” “Pick your poison,” he
would say with a mischievous grin), and we might sit
down to eat, if we were lucky, by 10pm. The attentive
reader will note how even in the preparation of this
Franco-Judaeo-Anglo-Polish meal served up at an
Hispanic hour everything told of the unique blend of
Father’s life and character. Of course the conversation
at table was dizzyingly mobile, with laughter and
tears, jokes and oratory, accounts of clerical and lay
absurdity and heroism, and, of course, song, usually
snippets of opera, even of Porgy and Bess, but most
of all prayer and love, love for all that was best in
heaven and on earth.
It was this conviction about what was best which
led Fr. Marchosky to hold fast to the classical Roman
Mass and Office. He never used the new books, yet

for him such a resolution was not based on a dramatic
crisis or moment of decision or confrontation; he
simply continued to do as he had been ordained
to do. It is true that he was most firm in this, and
it cost him a great deal in worldly terms, but he
never was surly or quick to judge his fellow priests
who did not share his insight. He just held fast to
the traditions he had received, to use the words of
St. Paul to the Thessalonians. He was happy to die
after the world had heard from the Vicar of Christ
himself that this sacred patrimony of worship had
never been abrogated. He had stood foursquare on
that conviction his whole priestly life. And he was
vindicated.
Father stood on his right to celebrate only the
ancient rite. “We live in terrible times,” he would
say with the simplicity of the perplexed faithful.
“It’s hard to know just what to do. Our Lady will
help get us through this mess.” He led by humble
example, not the wordy boorishness and, in the end,
very modern journalistic media bombast of some
partisans of Tradition (but not, one is grateful to say,
of The Angelus). In this the SSPX, whose hospitality
Fr. Marchosky enjoyed at the end of his life, and in
whose parish cemetery he awaits the resurrection,
gives a like example, by not turning away any
Catholic priest who inquires about the missal of St.
Pius V, and indeed reaching out to them without
treating them as though they were not legitimate
ministers of the Church. Father did not claim ordinary
jurisdiction or magisterial discretion. He was a
Catholic priest who worshipped God in a way he
knew was pleasing to Him.
As for that, when Bishop McFarland of Orange
in California interviewed Father before giving him
the assignment to celebrate the traditional Mass
each Sunday at San Juan Capistrano Mission, he was
amazed to hear that Father had never celebrated the
New Mass or attended it even in the vernacular. The

Authors who influenced Fr. Marchosky
Louis Veuillot

The Liberal Illusion

Shows the crisis in the Church is due
not to Vatican II, but to a centurieslong struggle between Revelation
and Revolution. Vatican II was
a decisive moment when power
within the Church passed from the
servants of Revelation to the victims
of the Revolution. Includes a graphic
overview and fold-out outline to
provide you with a thread to connect
together the 38 chapters. The
Schema exposes the chapter numbers, giving the reader the
Main Parts, Subdivisions, Tickets for Chapters, and one-line
Summaries–a horizontal breakdown of the book. The Game
Plan is on the reverse side–a vertical breakdown of the main
principles and their consequential sub-principles.
146pp, softcover, stK# 8147✱ $14.00

Dr. John Senior

The Death of Christian Culture

An in-depth study of literature, culture, history, and religion alerts men of
what they stand to lose, especially as education ceases to be about the
truth, and becomes merely an exercise in “ticket-punching.” Ultimately,
Senior warns that the treasures of classical and Christian civilization
must be preserved and lived, lest they be lost forever.
191pp, softcover with dust jacket, stK# 8252✱ $17.95

Restoration of Christian Culture

Senior warns of the extinction of the cultural patrimony of Greece
and Rome and medieval Europe, owing to the bureaucratization,
mechanization, and standardization of life today. He offers ideas for
recapturing and living the cultural traditions of Christian civilization by
bringing the wisdom of Aristotle, Avugustine, and Aquinas into touch
with the social, political, and personal life of “modern man.”
142pp, softcover with dust jacket, stK# 8256✱ $21.95

n of
he
y,

(Below) Fr. Marchosky with the author of this article, Fr. Hugh
Barbour, O.Praem.
(Bottom left) With Frs. Lawrence Novak and Hervé de la Tour.

bishop, who was noted for his careful financial administration
(on his silver jubilee a letter from the Holy Father praised
his peritia in rebus financiariis administrandis–expertise in his
administration of financial matters, something of which Father
could never be accused–so much for Semitic stereotypes) and
for his undiplomatic directness, exclaimed “You’ve never
said the New Mass? How do you survive?” Father shot back,
“Handouts, Excellency, handouts.” Needless to say he got
the job and loved to relate this exchange, and always enjoyed
the respect of the bishop. Father was poor, poorer than a
Capuchin. He had nothing but his books and a few clothes, and
he never had more than that.
He was rich in right doctrine. I recall a conference he gave
the confreres of my abbey for a day of recollection back in
the 90’s. It was an exposé of St. Thomas’s commendation of

31

the epistles of St. Paul under the text from
Acts, Chapter 9, on the words of Our Lord
to Ananias concerning the newly converted
apostle: “This man is to me a vessel of
election, to carry my name before the
Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel.”
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

32
With what unction and simple fervor he parsed out
his beloved St. Thomas’s interpretation of these
words! When he spoke of the words “my name” and
of the power and frequency with which St. Paul made
use of the Holy Name of Jesus, his eyes filled with
tears and his voice broke, a sight and sound more
instructive than a hundred lectures.
He was confident of the power of the Church’s
prayer. I recall that when, in the early 90’s we were
having record rains and disastrous mud slides in
Southern California, he was really menaced in his
little shack of a container car, surrounded only by
earth and threatened by a hill. He added the votive
orations for good weather to his Mass, and I can
hear him practically shouting so the Lord could hear
him in the postcommunion “ut inundantiam coerceas
imbrium et hilaritatem vultus tui nobis impertiri digneris”
which is “that Thou wouldest restrain the inundation
of the rains and deign to grant us the cheer of Thy
face.” When the rains ceased he would point out
the hilaritas of his situation, and the power of those
prayers.
Blindness caused by macular degeneration was his
great cross, borne for almost ten years. I obtained for
him an altar missal for blind priests, with the Masses
of Our Lady and of the Dead in giant print, a Missale
Caecutientium, which a Catholic bookseller sent for
free. Little by little though, it became impossible for
him to celebrate Holy Mass; this was his life’s greatest
cross. He was prepared for it, though, by his inability
to read the breviary. This frustrated him, since it
could truly be said that the nocturns of Matins were
his only and preferred spiritual reading. He began
to pray the rosary constantly in place of his Office.
He told me that this was the effect of God’s loving
providence, bringing him closer to Our Lady. In those
years he would say decade upon decade day in and
day out. We would bring him to Blessed Junipero
Serra’s mission, and he would assist and preach
and distribute Holy Communion while one of us
celebrated the Mass.
His love for Our Lady and the priestly duty of
praying the Church’s prayer each day are a good
place to bring my little, but heartfelt memoir to a
close. Father was born on the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception and died during its now suppressed
liturgical octave. He always lamented the suppression
of this octave, which took effect already in 1955
during the reign of Pope Pius XII, and the consequent
loss to priestly piety of the patristic lessons proper
to it. So he read them anyway, as an act of devotion.
One rainy day in December he called me on the
telephone and said, “I have something I just have to
read to you. Listen to this.” He then began to read out
in full in Latin, with expression and great attention to
the nuances of phrase, the homily of St. Tharasius of
Constantinople on the third nocturn gospel reading at
Matins on the 12th of December, the fifth day within
the octave of the Immaculate Conception, the day
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

which would be within a little more than a decade
his first full day in the world to come. I think that his
guardian angel brought his unforgettably edifying
telephone call forward in his defense before the
accusations of the evil one at the Particular Judgment,
and that he was able to offer Our Lady right there the
words of the great iconodule patriarch. I offer them
to my reader now, alas, only in my partial translation,
albeit the first in English, our less-than-sacred tongue!
I do so in the hope that I may gain your gratitude and
also similar treatment by all concerned at the hour of
my death:
What praises will we heap upon thee, O Mary?...O thou
the expiation of accursed Adam, thou the payment of the
debt of Eve, thou the most pure offering, the choice first
fruits, the spotless sacrifice of Abel, O thou the source of
Enoch’s grace and passing into safety, thou ark of Noe…thou
shining splendor of the kingly priesthood of Melchisedek, O
thou the firm confidence and devout faith in future offspring
of Abraham, O thou the new sacrifice and rational holocaust
of Isaac, thou the cause of Jacob’s ascent by the ladder and
the most noble expression of his enduring fecundity among
the twelve tribes. Thou hast appeared to Juda, thou art the
purity of Joseph, thou art the divinely composed book of
Moses…the flowering rod of Aaron, the daughter of David
adorned with gilded fringes and costly vesture. Thou art
the mirror of the prophets, and the outcome of the things
foretold by them.…Hail, delight of the Father....Hail, home
of the Son.…Hail, ineffable dwelling of the Holy Spirit;
Hail, holier than the cherubim; Hail, more glorious than
the seraphim; Hail, more spacious than the heavens; Hail,
more brilliant than the sun; Hail, shinier than the moon;
Hail, manifold brightness of the stars; Hail, blithe cloud
sprinkling heavenly rain; Hail, sacred breeze who drive
off the spirit of malice; Hail, noble chant of the prophets;
Hail, sound of the apostles heard throughout the whole
earth; Hail, excellent confession of the martyrs; Hail, finest
preaching of the patriarchs; Hail, supreme ornament of all
the saints; Hail, cause of salvation for all who are doomed
to die; Hail, Queen, the maker of peace; Hail, spotless
splendor of mothers; Hail, mediatrix of all who dwell under
the sun; Hail, restoration of the whole world; Hail, full of
grace, the Lord is with thee Who was before thee and is
from thee, and dwells with us. To Him be praise with the
Father and the most holy and life-giving Spirit, now and
forever for endless ages of ages. Amen.

Well, so there it is. Unlike the priests in the
stories of J. F. Powers, Fr. Harry Marchosky was not
a fictional character; he was a priest who was as real
and earnest as life itself. Yet he was a priest who was
full of that “stronger beer” of “irony, comedy, and
philosophy” and–what is infinitely more–of the strong
drink of divine charity and zeal for the truth, and so
too of the chalice of suffering. May our Masses and
works of mercy obtain for him the new wine of the
Kingdom of Heaven.
Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem, is Prior of St. Michael’s Abbey of the Norbertine
Fathers, Orange County, California.

33
D r .

A n d r e w

C h i l d s

Assembling
A Music
Library
Throughout my teaching career, I have encountered little resistance to the
theoretical concept of music’s importance. Parents—most of whom emerged
from the same flawed educational system that I did—realize that they lack
foundational knowledge of music, and recognize the significance of establishing
an appreciation for music in their children through exposure at home and in
the concert hall. Children understand innately—though they may not appreciate
intellectually—the deficiencies of the vernacular music of the folk, country, pop
and rock traditions: much like junk food, they naturally suspect that something
so accessible and pleasing to their palate must not be “good for them,” though
they remain content with its accessibility, and in no particular hurry to take
on the sophistication of their palates voluntarily. As fallen creatures we
lack a natural sense of self-regulation—especially when it comes to desirable
experiences—and families establish a sort of uneasy compromise with music:
parents dutifully forbid children to listen to music seemingly universally agreed
upon as bad, and in turn children dutifully consent not to point out a) that
their parents have neglected to specify the nature of the badness or its distinct
boundaries, b) that the bad has much in common with the not-so-bad, and c)
that their parents often fail to offer any concrete suggestions for good other
than that which has much in common with the not-so-bad. Parents often find
themselves at a loss to face questions the answers to which require experience
and knowledge they simply don’t have.
The enormity of substantive music as a genre—just as that of art or
literature—can easily intimidate and overwhelm any one of us. For parents
and fellow pilgrims who know enough to know what they don’t have in terms
of knowledge relating to music and recordings, my next two articles to be
published in The Angelus will offer response to comments heard on numerous
occasions and in various forms: “We’ve thrown out TV and Rock; now what?”
Such statements and the decisions that motivate them represent heroic effort
for parents in many cases, both in terms of breaking addictions of convenience,
and in taking the tremendous risk of exposing themselves as lacking intellectual
authority. Parents often reasonably choose a compromise position relative
to areas beyond their expertise in order to retain the credibility necessary to
maintain family order. In the case of music, however—where this most certainly
happens—the stakes may be too high to allow for uninformed concessions
or unmonitored latitude. Understand, however, that taste will not change
overnight: people of all ages will often avoid listening to music that doesn’t
immediately appeal to them. At the outset, establishing good listening habits
relates more to will and discipline than it does taste and as yet undeveloped
inclination.
The positive effects of good listening are irrefutable. As it often does,
modern science takes great pride in its considered observation and extensive
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

34
commentary on the intuitively obvious, as well as
its inevitably Frankensteinian attempts to reverseengineer common sense. Recall “Mozart Makes You
Smarter,” “Bach for Baby,” and the like—in the case
of music, herald trumpets accompanied the nearNewtonian discovery that music not only civilizes,
but aids in the development of cognitive function.1
Your grandmother knew that, but at a time when
the pace of life and the distractions of living it seem
designed to overwhelm, people naturally assume that
they have less and less time to engage in frivolities
such as establishing clarity of thought and the
atmospheric enhancement of brain function. Having
mustered enough lucidity to realize the importance
of establishing an edifying soundtrack to Catholic
homes, however, we find the cupboard bare: beyond
the Lord of the Rings soundtracks and the recordings of
Seamus O’Kelly and His Band of Feisty Fiddlers, behind
the sonic stones of our youth still so maddeningly
appealing to us…lies a silent void.

Assembling a Music Library
A library serves many functions: a storehouse
of reference and entertainment; a reminder to us
of our intellectual development; an indication to
others of the scope and focus of our interests as well
as the extent of our education, formal and selfmotivated. Our library tells others where we have
been, our priorities, our imaginative tendencies; it
serves physically as a focal point and as a personal
introduction—who doesn’t feel he knows a man after
having perused his library? A listening library serves
the same purposes. In many cases, however—having
far too long avoided the putting away of childish
things for adult ears—people find themselves faced
with an empty shelf, a genuine interest in filling it,
and the potentially very expensive prospect of buying
an entire music library at once. As a response to that
particular panic, recall that just as book collections
grow by gradual accumulation over time, so can
collections of recordings. In upcoming installments I
will suggest 100 ways to start that collection, but first,
some discussion on the nature of recording, and some
tips to assist you in safely branching out.
As a matter of my occupation—and also the
result of a fortuitous choice to work in a music store
throughout my time in graduate school—my own
collection includes closer to 1000 recordings than
100. Unlike a literature library, a library of recordings
consists not only of works, but also—perhaps even
more importantly in certain cases—performances, and
established collections include multiple versions
of favorite pieces for comparison or as examples
of contrasting but equally valid interpretations.2
That said, I would argue strongly for quality over
quantity in library building, and would prefer that
someone own 20 definitive recorded performances
of masterworks rather than 200 cheaply produced
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

two-dimensional readings incapable of inspiring any
further interest in an epoch or genre. Beyond knowing
what pieces to buy, a listener needs to know how to
buy recordings.
Recording substantive cultivated (“classical”)
music is a very expensive process. Recording an
opera, for example, requires hiring a legitimate
acoustic venue, an entire symphony orchestra
(comprised of 100 musicians making union scale),
a professional opera chorus (of perhaps 48-60,
also unionized), plus established soloists, all of
who negotiate recording and royalty fees through
professional agents. Reputable labels spend extensive
amounts of time and money to ensure that the
recordings they produce have the broadest possible
appeal, and that the performers they choose and their
interpretations will have both lasting artistic value
and prolonged commercial viability. Producers play
many roles: beyond finding and nurturing artistic
talent, they must find ways profitably to promote and
distribute their decidedly un-“popular” music, all the
while serving as de facto educators and stewards of
culture. Not to put an overly idealistic veneer on an
often mercenary industry, but producers of classical
music do understand the importance of preserving
cultural heritage by adding to the recorded catalog.
Many large label consortia absorb losses producing
and distributing this music, but easily compensate
for the deficits with profits gained by selling more
popular music. Certain other labels exist only to
produce exceptionally high quality recordings
of specific genres or eras of classical music, and
frequently survive as the result of cultural (mostly
European) State sponsorship.
Perhaps most fascinating of all, artists and
producers must balance the opportunity to achieve
technical perfection through numerous takes and
splices, and the potential transcendent immediacy
of artistic spontaneity in performance. Ultimately,
and I believe rightly, most opt for the predictability
of the studio. Too many variables exist in live
performance—a unique event in time—the success
of which lives on only in the memory of those
in attendance. The specific conditions of a live
performance converge only once, and many of these
conditions require actual physical presence. The
“electricity” in the audience anticipating an important
debut or farewell leaves no sonic trace and yet defines
the recollection of the event for many people.

Reading the Label
The recording industry survives as the result of
balancing the production and marketing of types
of music with wildly variable profitability. Certain
labels sustain their production of classical product
based on proven back-catalog performances (often
re-released at lower prices), while others specialize in
specific genres or time periods. In general, recordings

35
should feature artists not only remarkably talented,
but specifically familiar with stylistic nuances and
authentic performance practices. The majority of
the music in the proposed collection falls either
under the loose heading “early” music—composed
generally before the 18th century—or is music of
“standard” repertoire that has benefited from the
attempt to recreate the musical conditions known to
the composer, rather than trying to impose a modern
reading, often stylistically inappropriate. Scholarship
of the last half-century has succeeded in revitalizing
(and often rediscovering) much early music. Beyond
this, music of well-known composers of the 18th and
19th centuries has benefited from studies in pitch (a
half-step lower than modern pitch even as late the
mid-19th century, a tremendous benefit for singers
now frequently asked to sing difficult repertoire—Bach,
Handel, Mozart, Beethoven—effectively transposed
upwards), instruments (string instruments strung
with natural fiber produce a completely different
sound than those strung with metal wire, the
modern practice. Wooden and metal flutes create
remarkably distinct sensations. Brass instruments
without valves require an entirely different playing
approach and produce much less sound), and style.
The effect resembles that of the Sistine Chapel
cleaning: masterworks long accepted as venerable and
important take on brightness and vitality previously
unthought-of.
Reading recording labels is like reading wine
labels. The presence of a few key phrases insures
quality and content. The information “On Period
Instruments,” “Authentic Performance,” “Recorded at
Original Pitch,” and others similar to them indicate
that the performers have adopted historically
informed approaches to recording. I would suggest
buying these recordings almost exclusively.
On the practical level, recordings vary widely in
terms of price. Though the most expensive recordings
do not necessarily contain the finest performances,
this often holds true due to the fact that quality
control in terms of production relates directly to
cost charged to the consumer. Good inexpensive
recordings exist, but generally, records are cheap
as the result of compromise, either in terms of
production or performance quality. While I won’t
attempt here to provide an exhaustive listing of
reliable labels, I trust these, those with an asterisk to
such an extent that I will often buy their records with
no knowledge of the artist or music represented:
* Archiv Production/Deutsche Grammophon
Albany Records
Angel/EMI
Centaur
* Chandos
Decca/London
* ECM
Erato

* Harmonia Mundi/Deutsche Harmonia Mundi
* Hyperion
* Naxos (a good-quality budget label)
Phillips
RCA
SONY-BMG/CBS-Columbia Masterworks
Telarc
Teldec
* Virgin/Veritas
As you gain familiarity with these labels, you will
come to recognize the dependability of certain artists,
composers, etc: each recording you buy can act as
a reference for the next. In fact, buying samplers of
specific labels may accomplish this most efficiently.

Ideal Vintage
For those of you not willing to wait for the list
to appear in the The Angelus, at least take my advice.
Choosing from recordings on the list of labels, buy
anything written between the years of 1550 and
1750. Music of the High Renaissance and early
Baroque represents some of the most finely crafted,
technically interesting, and properly ideologically
oriented art in history. This epoch stands as one
of the few guarantees of reliable goodness in the
history of human creative expression. The genres,
forms, and techniques of the High Renaissance and
Baroque musical periods made substantive demands
on composers sufficient to weed out mediocrity before
the fact (you simply couldn’t write the music without
real talent), and resulted in almost universally good,
yet accessible music. More than this, music of the
Church—much originally composed for liturgical
use—predominates, providing one of history’s greatest
artistic examples of the confluence of purpose and
process: great music written for the highest end. This
in no way implies that this era will suit you more than
any other, or that it produced the greatest music ever
composed, but if you hold in your hands a well-made
recording of music written between these dates, you
have near-absolute certainty of quality, appeal, and
safety for ears of all ages.
Dr. Andrew Childs serves currently as Professor of Music at St. Mary’s Academy and College in St. Mary’s, KS, where he lives with his wife and daughter,
and two cats of legendary girth and good nature. He is also Assistant to the
Director of Education for the US District of the Society of Saint Pius X. He
has taught at Yale University, the University of California at Irvine, Missouri
State University, and Connecticut College. An active professional performer,
he has sung over 100 performances of nearly 30 operatic roles.

1

Researchers at my alma mater, UC Irvine, began the formal study of the
effect of music on “Spatial-Temporal Reasoning” now known colloquially
as the “Mozart Effect,” in the early 1990’s.
2
Some people ramble on about recordings the way others ramble on about
wine, but I tell you, there is some validity in these commentaries.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

36

Letter #72
h . e .

B i s h o p

B e r n a r d

f e l l a y

Letter #72 to Friends and Benefactors from Bishop Bernard Fellay,
Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X

Dear Friends and Benefactors,
The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, which
acknowledged that the Tridentine Mass was never
abrogated, raises a certain number of questions
concerning the future of the relations of the Society of
St. Pius X with Rome. Several persons in conservative
circles and in Rome itself have made themselves
heard, arguing that, since the Sovereign Pontiff had
acted so generously and thus given a clear sign of
his good will towards us, there would be nothing left
for the Society to do but to “sign an agreement with
Rome.” Unfortunately, a few of our friends were
deceived by such an illusion. We would like to take
the opportunity of this Eastertide letter to review
once again the principles governing our actions in
these troubled times and point out a few recent events
which clearly indicate that, basically, nothing has
really changed except for the Motu Proprio’s liturgical
overture, so as to draw from all this the necessary
conclusions.
The fundamental principle that dictates our
action is the safeguard of the Faith, without which no
one can be saved, no one can receive grace, no one
can be pleasing to God, as the First Vatican Council
states. The liturgical question is not paramount; it
only becomes such inasmuch as it is the manifestation
of an alteration of the faith and, consequently, of the
worship due to God.
A notable change of orientation took place at
Vatican II with regard to the Church’s outlook,
especially on the world, other religions, the State, and
even itself. These changes have been acknowledged
by all, yet not all judged them in the same way. Until
The ANgelus • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

now, they were presented as being very profound,
even revolutionary. One cardinal at the Council could
even speak of “the Revolution of 1789 in the Church.”
While still a cardinal, Benedict XVI phrased it
thus:
The challenge of the sixties was to assimilate the best
values expressed in two centuries of ‘liberal’ culture. These
are values which, even if they originate outside the Church,
can find a place, once purified and corrected, in her vision
of the world. This is what was done.1

In the name of this assimilation, a new vision
of the world and its components was imposed: a
fundamentally positive vision, which dictated not only
a new liturgical rite, but also a new mode of presence
of the Church in the world: much more horizontal, and
more concerned about social and temporal problems
than those of a supernatural and eternal character...
At the same time, the Church’s relationship
with the other religions underwent a transformation.
Since Vatican II, Rome has avoided any negative
or deprecatory observations about other religions.
For example, the classic term of “false religions”
has completely disappeared from ecclesiastical
vocabulary. The words “heretic” and “schismatic,”
which used to designate the religions closer to the
Catholic Church, have also disappeared, except when
they are occasionally employed, especially the term
“schismatic,” to label us. The same holds true for the
term “excommunication.” The new approach is called
ecumenism, and contrary to what everyone used to
think, it does not mean a return to Catholic unity, but
rather the establishment of a new kind of unity that no
longer requires conversion.

37
Christian denominations are considered under
a new light, and this is especially clear for the
Orthodox. In the Balamand Declaration, the Catholic
Church officially pledged herself to not convert
the Orthodox and to collaborate with them. The
dogma “outside the Church there is no salvation,”
recalled in the document Dominus Jesus, underwent
a reinterpretation for the sake of the new vision of
things. They could not keep this dogma without
broadening the limits of the Church, and this was
accomplished by the new definition of the Church
given in Lumen Gentium. The Church of Christ is
no longer the Catholic Church, it subsists in her.
They may say that it subsists only in her, but the
fact remains that they claim that the Holy Ghost
and this “Church of Christ” act outside the Catholic
Church. The other religions are not without elements
of salvation... The “Orthodox Churches” become
authentic particular churches in which “the Church of
Christ” is built.
Obviously, these new views completely disrupted
the Church’s relations with the other religions. It is
impossible to speak of a superficial change; for what
they want to impose on the Church of our Lord
Jesus Christ is a new and very profound mutation.
John Paul II consequently was able to speak of a
“new ecclesiology,” admitting an essential change
in the part of the theology that treats of the Church.
We simply cannot understand how they can claim
that this new understanding of the Church is still
in harmony with the traditional definition of the
Church. It is new; it is radically different and obliges
the Catholic to observe a fundamentally different
behavior towards the heretics and schismatics, who
have tragically abandoned the Church and scorned
the faith of their baptism. From now on they are no
longer “separated brethren,” but brothers who “are
not in full communion”...and we are “deeply united”
by baptism in Christ in an “inamissible”2 union. The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s latest
clarification of the word “subsistit ” is very revealing
on this point. Even as it states that the Church cannot
teach novelty, it confirms the novelty introduced at
the Council...
Likewise for evangelization: the sacred duty of
every Christian to respond to our Lord Jesus Christ’s
command is at first upheld: “He that believeth and
is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth
not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:15-16). But then
it is alleged that this evangelization only concerns
the pagans, so that neither Christians nor Jews need
be bothered. Very recently Cardinals Kasper and
Bertone, addressing the controversy over the new
prayer for the Jews, stated that the Church has no
intention of converting them.
Add to this the pope’s positions on religious
liberty, and we can easily conclude that the combat
for the Faith has not slackened over these last few
years. The Motu Proprio that introduces the hope

of a change for the better in matters liturgical is not
accompanied by the logically related measures that
should follow in other domains of the Church’s life.
All the changes introduced at the Council and in the
post-conciliar reforms, which we denounce precisely
because the Church had already condemned them,
have been upheld. The only difference is that now
they claim at the same time that the Church does not
change...which amounts to saying that these changes
are perfectly in line with Catholic Tradition. This
confusion of terminology combined with the assertion
that the Church must remain faithful to her Tradition
might well be troubling to more than a few. So long
as facts do not corroborate this new assertion, we
must conclude that nothing has changed in Rome’s
intention to pursue the conciliar course despite forty
years of crisis, despite vacant convents, abandoned
rectories, and empty churches. Catholic universities
persist in their divagations, and the teaching of the
catechism is uncertain while Catholic schools are no
longer specifically Catholic: they have become an
extinct species...
For these reasons the Priestly Society of St. Pius
X cannot sign an “agreement.” It definitely rejoices
at the Pope’s desire to reintroduce the ancient and
venerable rite of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass,
yet it also observes the opposition—sometimes very
tenacious—of entire bishops’ conferences. Without
giving up hope and without impatience, we can see
that the time for an agreement has not yet come. This
does not prevent us from continuing to hope, nor
from following the line of conduct defined in the year
2000. We are still asking the Holy Father to annul
the 1988 decree of excommunication because we are
convinced that this would be a boon for the Church,
and we encourage you to pray for this to happen.
But it would be very imprudent and hasty to dash off
ill-advisedly in pursuit of a practical agreement that
would not be based on the Church’s fundamental
principles, and especially the Faith.
The new Rosary Crusade we have invited you to
join, to pray that the Church recover and resume her
bimillennial Tradition, calls for some clarification. This is
how we envision it: let everyone pledge to recite daily a
rosary at a fairly fixed time of day. Given the number of
our faithful and their distribution throughout the whole
world, we can be assured that at every hour of the day
and night prayerful voices will be ascending to heaven,
voices earnestly praying for the triumph of their heavenly
Mother and the coming of the reign of our Lord “on earth
as it is in heaven.”

+ Bernard Fellay
1
2

Interview, Jesus (Nov.1984, p.72).
Translator’s note: Theological term meaning “that cannot be lost.”

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

Ten Minutes

38

with Fr. de Chivré:

Scouting
Spirit
of Danger
and
the

Young men, think of me as a veteran wanting to tell you a secret. I can tell by
looking at you that no one has ever told you what I’m going to say. Granted, you know
how to wear the Boy Scout bandana and the khaki shorts, how to hike and how to
camp. But do you know where your “Boy Scouts” began? It is something with which
you need to concern yourself, especially since it is something the Boy Scouts no longer
care to think about. The various new “methods” of your Boy Scouts–all excellent for
a youth club perhaps–have killed the spirit of the Boys Scouts, this is, the spirit which
went beyond methods. That “spirit” was the spirit of a danger which at one time was
dominated by your promise.

The ANgelus • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

39
Listen to me closely. It all began in 1920 in the
aftermath of World War I. Long before you, men
had died by the millions, some merely boys. Their
strength sapped away as they held out for four years
of winter and sweltering heat. In my country they
were called the “Unwashed,” the “Shaggy Soldiers.”1
All around mothers were in tears, families were left
with nothing, and the country bled dry by sacrifice
and privation.
In the midst of all this, there were some
frightening symptoms. Scoundrels of all kinds tried to
make money off soldiers’ common graves. One such
scoundrel dug up my brother’s body, dead two years
since May 1918, put it in the coffin meant for bringing
the war-dead back to their hometown, and showed
up at our house to make a grisly offer: “If you want it,
you’ll have to give me five more bucks than we had
agreed upon.” I kept my mother from coming close.
She knelt a hundred yards away praying her rosary. I
was 17 years old and, yes, I knew danger.
And then there are the memories of my younger
brothers, all of us breathing in the same danger that
our elder brothers had lived through for those years.
None of us had even two pennies to rub together to
start our lives in the world.
It didn’t take any of us long to learn, however,
that these dangers were good for us and that we had
to discover activities to keep them alive, turning them
into a law of honor binding us to those who had gone
before us. We needed a danger, not a method.
A danger lived in our own flesh.
“The Scout is pure in his words and his actions.”
A danger for our selfishness.
“The Scout is a brother of every other Scout.”
A danger for our adolescent whims.
“The duty of the Scout begins in his own home.”
A danger for our conscience.
“The Scout is proud of his faith.”
A danger in the service of our country.
“The Scout is a son of his fatherland.”

Well, my young friends, a danger is not
something you learn with “methods”; it is something
you live in the day-by-day of immolated existence,
bound by no other vow than that of your Catholic
baptism, carried all the way to the danger of dying for
it out of faithfulness and hidden heroism.
Danger is the commerce between God and the
ones made in His image. It is a perpetual engagement
of honor to stand and deliver every time we are
called upon to prove the love of a dangerous Law–the
Law to maintain and preserve the Catholic Faith.
Most probably, you do not know that scouting
was born out of the admiration of your founder,
Baron General Baden Powell, for the courage of
young army men placed at the service of danger
and victory under his obedience. The recollections
of these brave young men by General Powell

inspired him to prove that scouting could offer a
training ground for generosity in the face of danger,
a formation to conquer oneself. Boy scouting was
a code of honor effecting soul, heart, conscience,
and virtue, shaking off all of that apathetic selfcenteredness and irrational superficiality common
among boys. The General wished to breathe into
them a courageous spirit without using any so-called
“method” besides the constant call to duty through
a Scout’s Law in honor of God, country, and family.
This was to be initiated through a Scout’s Promise
officially made before a chaplain and the troop
leaders who would stand witness of the moral dangers
to which the Law and the Promise committed the Boy
Scout, with the help of God. Baron General Baden
Powell was a deep believer in God. He once said to
Canon Cornette, the chaplain of my Boy Scouts troop
to whom we had given the nickname “Old Wolf”:
“Father Chaplain, my best troops in the whole world
are your Catholic troops.”
All in all, this kind of scouting has vanished,
despite the uniform, as a result of the influence
brought to bear by the enriched middle class. It has
been killed by its betrayals of camps modernized to
the point of comfort, of seeking a kind of snobbery
in sports and performances, and of trying to copy the
campaigns of political parties–none of which have
anything to do with a boy’s coming face to face with
the courage to risk his own skin.
Boy Scouts used to be responsible for taking
on dangers in honor of Christ, proclaiming Him,
studying Him, receiving Him on their lips, and
offering Him the space of life contained in any and
every danger be it physical, moral, or intellectual.
Scouting was at the service of the dangers of the
conscience (of which the young no longer want to
hear about). Yet, you young men wear a uniform
that cries out for the danger of conquering the day
instead of compromising according to the order of the
day. You wear a uniform that incites the dangers of
succumbing to the reproaches of human respect, but
you conquer by obedience to the Scout’s Law.
Oh, young men, seek to honor your baptism!
Are you friends to the dangers of a life awaiting your
triumph, waiting to be aligned with the life of Calvary
all the way to its resurrection? If so, it is your turn to
prove those noble decisions and noble examples. All
the rest is really a waste of time.
Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P. (say: Sheave-ray´) was ordained in 1930.
He was an ardent Thomist, student of Scripture, retreat master, and friend of
Archbishop Lefebvre. He died in 1984. Originally published as “Ohé garçon, toi
qui doutes!” in Le Scoutisme, collection of conferences by the Rev. Fr. BernardMarie de Chivré (Touraine: Micro-Edition, 2007), pp.51-53.
1

translator’s note: Nicknames given to the French soldiers of World War I.

www.angeluspress.org

The ANgelus • June 2008

PART 13

40

F r .

M a t t h i a s

G a u d r o n

Our serialization continues with the chapter of
the Cathechism devoted to ecumenism. Many
ramifications of the Church’s view of false religions
are considered, including what kind of knowledge
non-Christians might have of God.

Catechism
Of the Crisis
In the Church
49) What should we think of the
“anonymous Christians” theory?

For Karl Rahner, the non-Christian religions are
an anonymous Christianity. They are ways of salvation
“by which men approach God and His Christ.”1 Of
course, they do not profess belief in Christ as the
Christians do, but they seek Him. This opinion is
totally false. Rather, the non-Christian religions prevent
men from believing in Christ and being baptized.
When Islam proclaims that it is a blasphemy to say
that God has a Son, it keeps its adepts from embracing
the true faith.
l But did not the Fathers of the Church acknowledge
that the pagan religions contained “seeds of the
Word”?
John Paul II claimed as much, in line with Vatican
II.2 But the Fathers of the Church saw no such thing.
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

The passages of St. Justin and Clement of Alexandria
cited in this context are in fact not speaking about the
pagan religions, but of the philosophers and poets.
And St. Justin even specifies that this “seed” spread
throughout the human race is that of (natural) reason,
which he carefully distinguishes from supernatural
grace.
l So, then, are there no “anonymous Christians”?
If it were absolutely necessary, one might call
“anonymous Christians” those who, despite the false
doctrines of their religion, are interiorly disposed
by a special grace of God to receive all that God
has revealed. But it would be better to employ the
traditional expression describing this case, “baptism of
implicit desire.”

41

50) Are all men automatically
saved by Christ?

Christ died for all men in the sense that all
have the possibility of gaining salvation. No one is
excluded. But to be saved in fact, a man must accept
the grace Christ merited for him and offers him. If he
refuses, he remains in the state of perdition and will
be damned eternally (unless he converts before his
death).
l Where is the error of universal salvation to be
found?
The error of universal salvation, that is, the thesis
according to which all men have received from Christ
not just the possibility of being saved but salvation in
fact, seems to have been taught by Cardinal Wojtyla
in the 1976 Lenten retreat he preached to Pope Paul
VI and his household. Here is what he says: “Thus the
birth of the Church, at the time of the messianic and
redemptive death of Christ, coincided with the birth
of “the new man”–whether or not man was aware
of such a rebirth and whether or not he accepted
it. At that moment man’s existence acquired a new
dimension, very simply expressed by St. Paul as “in
Christ.”3 He adds: “All men, from the beginning of
the world until its end, have been redeemed by Christ
and his cross.”4
l What do these words of Cardinal Wojtyla imply?
If every man, “whether or not man was aware of it
and whether or not he accepted it,” possesses being in
Christ and is justified, then it follows that, according
to the Cardinal, all are saved and none are damned.
l Did John Paul II continue to favor this error after
his election to the papacy?
Once pope, John Paul II wrote in his first
encyclical, Redemptor Hominis:
We are dealing with “each” man, for each one is included
in the mystery of the Redemption, and with each one Christ
has united himself for ever through this mystery...man in all
the fullness of the mystery in which he has become a sharer
in Jesus Christ, the mystery in which each one of the four
thousand million human beings living on our planet has
become a sharer from the moment he is conceived beneath
the heart of his mother.5

If every man is united with Christ from the first
instant of his conception, what need can there still be
of baptism and membership in the Church?
l Are we really to understand that John Paul II
intended to preach universal salvation?
We need only consider the fact that this pope
wanted to make Hans Urs von Balthasar a cardinal, a
theologian who held the opinion that hell is empty.
l How do we know that hell is not empty?
Sacred Scripture speaks of hell in very many
passages. In the parable of the last judgment, Christ
made it clear that men will go into hell: “Then he
shall say to them also that shall be on his left hand:

“Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire
which was prepared for the devil and his angels” (Mt.
25:41).
l Will very many men go to hell?
It seems that indeed very many will go to hell:
“Wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth
to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat”
(Mt. 7:13).
The Church has always been convinced that
many men are lost. This conviction was a stimulus to
her missionary activity, and many Catholics accepted
untold hardships to go and preach the Gospel and
thus save the greatest possible number of souls.
l Yet did not John Paul II often speak of
evangelization? Of what use are the Church and
evangelization if all men are saved?
If all men are already saved, the mission consists
of telling men: I bring you good tidings; unbeknownst
to you, you have already been saved by the Christ!
l Are there any signs that John Paul II understood
evangelization in this way?
In fact, it is in this way that Cardinal Wojtyla
explained the text of Gaudium et Spes 22, which
affirms: “Christ, the final Adam, ...fully reveals man to
man himself.” This would mean that Christ manifests
to man what has already happened to him, namely,
that he possesses “being in Christ”: “This revelation...
consists in a fact–the fact that by his incarnation the
Son of God united himself with every man.”6
l What can be said about this interpretation?
The Church has never understood her mission
in this way. Being a missionary has always meant
bringing salvation to men through the preaching of
the gospel and the administering of the sacraments. It
has never meant announcing to them that they have
possessed salvation all along. “He who believes and is
baptized will be saved; he who refuses belief will be
condemned.”
Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus
zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu
Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original
was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District
Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is based on
the second edition published in 1999 by Rex Regum Verlag, Schloß Jaidhof,
Austria. Subdivisions and slight revisions made by the Dominican Fathers of
Avrillé have been incorporated into the translation.

1

Karl Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie (Einsiedeln, 1978), III, 350.
John Paul II wrote in his first encyclical, Redemptor Hominis (March 4,
1979): “The Fathers of the Church rightly saw in the various religions as
it were so many reflections of the one truth, ‘seeds of the Word’” (§11). In
a footnote he cites St. Justin and St. Clement of Alexandria, but especially
to the documents of Vatican II that launched this idea: Ad Gentes 11 and
Lumen Gentium 17.
3
Karol Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979),
p.91.
4
Ibid., p.87.
5
Redemptor Hominis, III, 13 [English version: from the Vatican website].
6
Wojtyla, Sign of Contradiction, p.102.
2

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • June 2008

42
F R .

p e t e r

Are all the texts of an
infallible Council infallible?

The infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium is a
defined Catholic dogma that is of Faith. The general
principle is clearly stated by Vatican I’s dogmatic
constitution concerning the Faith (Dei Filius), namely
that “the doctrine of faith…has been entrusted as a
divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully
guarded and infallibly interpreted” (Denzinger 1800).
This infallibility of the Church’s Magisterium can
be exercised either in an extraordinary and solemn
manner, such as by an ex cathedra definition, or in her
ordinary teaching, on a day-to-day basis, without such
solemnity, under the proviso that it be truly universal.
This is in fact the clear teaching of the same document
of Vatican I:
By divine and Catholic Faith, all those things must
be believed which are contained in the written word of
God and in tradition, and those which are proposed by
the Church, either in a solemn pronouncement or in her
ordinary and universal teaching power, to be believed as
divinely revealed. (Dz. 1792)

Note that this can only apply to truths contained in
Scripture or Tradition that she proposes as being
divinely revealed.
This infallibility is exercised first and foremost
by the Pope, in virtue of his primacy, as is formally
defined by the Vatican I document on the Church
(Pastor Aeternus) for his extraordinary Magisterium:
The dogma has been divinely revealed that the Roman
Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when carrying
out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in
accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains
a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal
Church, …operates with that infallibility with which the
divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in
defining doctrine on faith and morals. (Dz. 1839)

This definition lists the conditions for the note of
infallibility to apply to any teaching: firstly, it must
concern a question of faith or morals that is divinely
revealed; secondly, it must be clearly defined, usually
by the anathematization of the contrary condemned
proposition; thirdly, it must be imposed as obligatory
for all Catholics, and not just a part of the Church;
fourthly, it must be taught by the Pope with his full
authority as teacher and pastor as successor of the
Apostles.
The conditions for the infallibility of the Pope’s
Ordinary Magisterium have not been clearly defined.
However, the universality that is inseparable from the
Ordinary Magisterium is interpreted by the theologians
before Vatican II as a universality in time and in place,
namely “that which was believed everywhere, always,
and by all” to use the well known fifth-century formula
of St. Vincent of Lérins.
The same principles can be applied to the teaching
of the bishops gathered together in an Ecumenical
THE ANGELUS • June 2008 www.angeluspress.org

R .

s c o t t

Council, to whom, together with himself, the Pope
communicates his supreme teaching power for the
duration of the Council. In fact, both the Councils
themselves and many of the Popes have frequently
defined the supreme authority of such Councils, as for
example St. Leo IX did for the first seven Ecumenical
Councils, comparing them to the Gospels themselves:
Whatever the above mentioned seven holy and
universal Councils believe and praise I also believe and
praise, and whomever they declare anathema, I declare
anathema. (Dz. 349).

In fact, the denial of the infallibility of Ecumenical
Councils is one of the propositions of liberalism
concerning the Church’s rights that was condemned by
Blessed Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. This is
the condemned proposition (Prop. 23):
The Roman Pontiffs and the Ecumenical Councils have
trespassed the limits of their powers, have usurped the
rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters
of faith and morals. (Dz. 1723)

This infallibility of Ecumenical Councils is
both that of the Extraordinary and the Ordinary
Magisterium. It is precisely the principal purpose of
an Ecumenical Council to define doctrines of faith
and morals definitively as being divinely revealed to
be believed by all the faithful of the entire Church.
In such cases the Pope gives the Council the supreme
apostolic authority it needs to make infallible ex
cathedra definitions as acts of the Extraordinary
Magisterium.
However, it is manifestly obvious that not all the
texts of the Councils consist in such definitions. There
are many other texts that explain the Church’s teaching
or apply it in the form of disciplinary decisions. Such
teachings, however, can also be infallible. If not acts of
the Extraordinary Magisterium, they can nevertheless
be acts of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium.
The problem is that it is not so easy to determine
what teachings are really a part of the Ordinary and
Universal Magisterium, having always been taught
everywhere and by all Catholic authorities. It is
precisely for this reason that the Church has to resort,
from time to time, to solemn definitions. Statements
of Councils that reiterate the Catholic Faith as has
always and everywhere been taught are consequently
infallible in virtue of the infallibility of the Ordinary
Magisterium, whereas statements that might simply
give a theological explanation, or application, while
orthodox and having to be respected as a part of the
Authentic Magisterium, still would not have the quality
of infallibility.
It is the whole work of Catholic theology to
analyze the texts of a Council and thus determine
which definitions are infallible in virtue of the
Extraordinary Magisterium, which is easy to
determine, and which are infallible in virtue of
the Ordinary Magisterium (propositions that are

43
consequently of Faith—de fide—but not defined—de fide
definita). Let us take, for an example, the decree of
the Council of Trent on the sacrament of Penance.
It defines infallibly in virtue of the Extraordinary
Magisterium that Penance is truly and properly a
sacrament and that it is distinct from the sacrament
of Baptism. It likewise defines that the words of Our
Lord on Easter Sunday “Receive ye the Holy Ghost;
whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained”
refer to the sacrament of Penance, and then declares
that it is especially then that Our Lord instituted the
sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has
always understood from the beginning. However, the
object of the definition is not that Christ instituted
the sacrament with these words, but that these words
refer to Penance. Consequently, the teaching of the
Council that it was by these words that Christ instituted
this sacrament is infallible as a part of the Ordinary
Magisterium inasmuch as it is what the Church has
always and everywhere taught, not in virtue of the
definition.
Then there are other teachings in the same Session
XIV on Penance which are theologically certain
conclusions, and not properly acts of the Ordinary
or Extraordinary Magisterium. An example is the
teaching that the three parts of the sacrament of
Penance are the three acts of the penitent that are

writing
Contest
winner

the quasi-matter of the sacrament, namely contrition,
confession, and satisfaction. Such teachings cannot be
rejected without temerity, but they are not of faith.
The case with the Second Vatican Council
is particularly confusing. For although it was an
Ecumenical Council and could have used the charisma
of infallibility to make solemn definitions of the
Extraordinary Magisterium, it nevertheless refused
to do so, as Pope Paul VI himself clearly declared
just after the Council, on January 12, 1966, namely
that the Council “had avoided proclaiming in an
extraordinary manner dogmas having the mark of
infallibility.” This means that only those statements
that can clearly be shown to be a repeat of what has
always and everywhere been taught by everybody in
the Catholic Church can be accepted as infallible in
virtue of the Ordinary Magisterium. Moreover, it is
manifestly obvious that philosophical novelties such
as the egalitarianism behind religious liberty, and
contradictions of Catholic teaching such as ecumenism,
are no in way a teaching of the Church, let alone of the
Ordinary Magisterium, and consequently can and must
be rejected.
Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments
as seminary professor and the US District Superior, he is currently the rector
of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia. Those wishing answers may
please send their questions to Q & A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Ave.,
Kansas City, MO 64109.

Nicholas Ballester
Dayton, OH

The Confidence of a Baby Bird
Our Lord once said to look to the birds for an
example of Divine Providence; the little feathered
creatures are free of care and work, yet God cares for
them and preserves them. The same overall lesson can
be applied to this case as well.
See how the parent bird is standing on the head
of one of its children in order to feed the other. In this
way, the misfortune of one benefits the other. Does the
trampled little chick realize the good service that it is
rendering to its fellow chick just by being trampled?
Probably not. Yet it does not resist, but sits quietly,
content in the knowledge that its parent knows what is
best and that all will turn out for the better.
Ah, if only we humans had that little baby bird’s
unfailing trust and confidence in our own Father when
He sends us sufferings! But, unfortunately, we who
have reason and free will and could gain such graces
from humbly accepting our sufferings, are less wise
than that bird. Just because we have reason, we think

april 2008
that we know better than God and complain bitterly
about any sufferings He sends us, not realizing that all
is part of God’s plan for the good of the whole human
race, and that our sufferings are of great value to others.
To those who complain that God has forsaken them in
their sufferings, Jesus says: “Are not two sparrows sold
for a farthing: and not one of them shall fall on the
ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your
head are all numbered.www.angeluspress.org
Fear not therefore:
you are of
THE ANGELUS • June 2008
more value than many sparrows.”

The Angelus

monthly photo writing contest
Any member of a household aged 10-18 whose family address has a current subscription to
The Angelus (either in print or online) is eligible. There may be more than one entry
per address if more than one child is eligible. (Please include your family’s address and
phone number, especially if you are a contestant writing from a boarding school.) Pricing
for The Angelus is found at the bottom of the “Table of Contents” page.

The Angelus is offering $150 for a 250-word creative writing composition on the above

picture. (This may include, but is not limited to, any poem, dialogue, short story, song lyrics,
script, explanation, etc.) If none is deserving of the prize, none will be awarded. The winning
essay may be published if there is a winner. An extra $50 is available if one is a member of
the SSPX Eucharistic Crusade (verified by your chaplain with your entry).
Entrants must submit a creative-writing composition in their own words about the featured
monthly picture. Submissions must be handwritten and will be judged on content, legibility,
and creativity. The essays will be judged by parties outside of Angelus Press.

Essays must be postmarked or faxed by may 31 and be addressed to:
Attention: The Angelus Monthly Photo Writing Contest
2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, MO 64109
FAX: 816-753-3557 (24-hour dedicated line)

Islam

Catechism Stories
Fr. F.H. Drinkwater

Fr. Drinkwater spent years gathering the over
700 stories presented in this book. Each
story catches the attention and impresses
the memory and explains an aspect of
the Catechism. Read alone or use as a
supplement to the Catechism.

A Saint Under Moslem Rule
Dom Justo Perez de Urbel, O.S.B.

The story of the religious and cultural conflict,
be­tween two antagonistic and incompatible
civilizations: Catholic and Moslem. Set
in 9th century Cordova under Moorish
domination. Great leaders stand forth
like St. Eulogius, the cen­t ral figure and
his friend St. Alvaro. We see the ancient
Moz­arabic rite up close as we listen to chants
and prayers, attend a baptism, wedding,
ordination, and lastly the solemn services
performed over the mar­tyred body of the
leader of the Mozarabic Christians.

245pp, softcover,
STK# 8274✱ $23.95

512pp, 5" x 8", softcover,
STK# 8267✱ $27.95

Children

Flame of White:
A Life of St. Pius X
William Hunermann

St. Francis of Assisi
and the Conversion
of the Muslims

For youngsters 12 and up. The lessons
given us by the life of the only SaintPope in over 500 years are in his
poverty, charity and burning zeal for
souls that should animate all of us.
“I highly recommend this book for
children.”–Fr. Hervé de la Tour, SSPX

Frank Rega

Tells the story of St. Francis’s trip to the
Sultan in Egypt and efforts to convert him
to the One True Faith. Also includes a
brief biography of St. Francis, including his
stigmata; the Franciscans; St. Clare; and
St. Francis’s view of the Crusades. A book
greatly needed in our era of false ecumenism.

152pp, softcover,
STK# 8271✱ $12.50

269pp, hardcover,
STK# 8276, $20.00

The Shepherds
of Fatima
Fr. John De Marchi

Moslems

Hilaire Belloc and G. Oussani

 The life and teachings of Mohammed
 What’s heresy and where we can agree
 What’s in the Koran? A healthy sampling
 How close the Moslems came to

dominating Europe and why their military
threat collapsed  Islam and women
 How Moslems adapt to and use technology
 The origins and rapid development of Islam
 Why it remains a potent religious force to
this day  The Crusades  Christianity in
Arabia: once dominant, then dominated.

Our Lady’s message was entrusted to
three children: children, then, have the
right to hear all about it, and are disposed
to understand what our Lady wants and to
cooperate with her requests. This book is
for them. No more enthralling story was
ever told–and this story is true!

168pp, softcover,
STK# 8277✱ $12.95

El Cid:
God’s Own Champion

164pp, hardcover,
STK# 7051✱ $18.80

James Fitzhenry

An new biography of the extraordinary
“Knight of Vivar” chosen by God to save his
nation from Islam. Known as El Cid, Rodrigo
Diaz is a legendary hero who is directly
relevant to modern times. Exiled by his king,
insulted and maligned, he fought against
seemingly insurmountable odds to save
Christian Spain. For children 12 and up.

The Soul of the Apostolate
Dom Jean-Baptiste Chautard

A favorite book of Pope St. Pius X. Outlines
the close connection between the active and
contemplative life and shows how to integrate them.
The Incarnation and the Redemption establish
Jesus as the Source, and the only Source, of this
divine life which all men are called upon to share...
Failure on the part of the apostle to realize this
principle, and the illusion that he could produce the
slightest trace of supernatural life without borrowing
every bit of it from Jesus Christ, would lead us to
believe that his ignorance of theology was equaled
only by his stupid self-conceit.

336pp, softcover,
STK# 8257✱ $12.50

186pp, softcover,
50+ illustrations & maps,
STK# 8275 $15.95
By purchasing El Cid, God’s Own
Champion through Angelus Press you
can help in the building of a much
needed new church at St. Mary’s
Academy and College in St. Mary’s,
Kansas. Fifty percent of the proceeds
from the sale of this book, through
Angelus Press, will be donated
to assist in the building of this
beautiful new house of God.

W
E
N

Intended primarily for newcomers
(Catholic or not) to the Traditional
Latin Mass, but even “veterans”
will find it informative. Forty-seven
striking color photos accompany
the explanations of every major
part of the Mass. Sections include:
 What is the Mass?  Mass of
the Catechumens  The Introit 
The Gloria  The Epistle  The
Gospel  Sermon  The Creed 
Mass of the Faithful  Offertory 
The Preface  The Canon  The
Consecration  The Our Father 
Holy Communion  Final Blessing
and the Last Gospel  Prayers after
Mass. The explanations are rich in
concise spiritual, doctrinal, liturgical
and historical insights. Can be read
before the Mass as a preparation or
read at Mass as you follow along.
Priced inexpensively so that they
can be freely given to anyone new
to this form of the Mass.
48pp, softcover,
STK# 8266✱ $3.95
25-pack STK# 8266X✱ $74.95

#1036

For the Visitor at M ass

E-mail Updates
from Angelus Press!

If you would like to receive
our bi-weekly e-mail, ­updating
you on new titles, sales and
special offers (most available only online), simply send
your e-mail address to:
listmaster@angeluspress.org.
You can change your e-mail reception
preferences or unsubscribe at any time.

Shipping & Handling
USA

Foreign

$.01 to $25.00
$7.50
$25.01 to $50.00 $10.00
$50.01 to $100.00 $12.50
Over $100.00
Free

25% of
order
subtotal

(for a limited time)

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

1-800-96ORDER
1-800-966-7337

www.angeluspress.org l 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.