december 2005

$4.45

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A Journal of Roman Catholic Tradition

why the New Rite
of Episcopal
Consecration
is Valid

The Immaculata, Our Ideal
Fr. Karl Stehlin (Priest of the Society of St. Pius X)

What is the first thing you think of when I say “St. Maximilian Kolbe”? If it’s “holocaust” or “concentration
camp” then you’ve been sucked in by the “St. Max Kolbe, Patron Saint of the Holocaust” crowd.
This new book by Fr. Karl Stehlin, Superior of the Eastern European District of the Society of Saint Pius X, is
one of the few that focus primarily on his apostolate of Our Immaculate Lady. Without diminishing his heroic
death, I guarantee you that after reading this book, you will now answer my first question, unequivocally with
“Our Lady”—and that is just as St. Maximilian Kolbe would want it. He dedicated his life to spreading devotion
to Our Lady, particularly following the method of St. Loius de Montfort. This is not so much a biography
of this great Saint, but rather an explanation of his teachings about Our Lady and how to use one’s
Total Consecration most effectively to fight for the salvation of souls, i.e., Knighthood in the Militiae
Immaculatae (or M.I.—Army of the Immaculate). The following quote from the book will give you a taste: After
discussing how St. Kolbe is now often portrayed as a saint of Ecumenism, Fr. Stehlin says:

N EWI NG
ER
F
F
O

The Spirit of the
Militiae Immaculatae
according to
Fr. Maximilian Kolbe

Neo-CONNED!

The real Maximilian Kolbe, in contrast, is quite a different one, as demonstrated by the second motto
at the beginning of the Statutes of the M.I.: “Thou alone hast conquered all heresies throughout the world.”
The primary goal of the M.I. thus consists in overcoming heresies and errors, and that is one of the finest
victories of the Immaculata. The Saint had no doubt whatsoever that erroneous doctrines are the mortal
enemy of souls, because they darken human reasoning and destroy logical thinking. Since human activity
is aimed at that which is perceived as true and good, false teachings are the worst possible calamity and
the greatest danger to the salvation of souls. If the understanding adopts these pernicious ideas, then it
chooses the wrong goal and directs its life towards an illusory happiness, which in reality leads to eternal
destruction....Liberalism is opposed to the supernatural; modernism (non serviam—I will not serve!) wishes
to adapt to the times in a purely human way.
One of the best features of this book is that Fr. Stehlin is continually relating Kolbe’s message
to modern times and to the Crisis in the Church...going so far as to point out how the Vatican II
document Lumen Gentium makes it nearly impossible for modern Catholics to truly understand this
profoundly anti-liberal, anti-modernist friar-knight of Our Lady. St. Kolbe consistently warned of the
errors of Freemasonry and the need to convert Jews and heretics...but all the “new Church” gives us is the
“patron Saint of the holocaust.” NO! We need to really know this man and his divinely inspired thinking if we
are going to be victorious in our battle against the enemies of the Church.

192pp, softcover, 24 illustrations, STK# 8133 $16.95

Just War Principles: A Condemnation of War in Iraq
Thirty-one collected essays and interviews

N EWI NG
ER
O FF

In 1928, Fr. Franziskus Stratmann warned that the “modern movement against war” threatened to become
the “reckless revolutionizing of the masses against lawful authority, and the unchecked rule of individualism,”
as we saw very clearly with the anti-Vietnam war movement. He insisted, therefore, “that the protest against the
boundless arbitrariness and barbarity of modern war should find an echo where the greatest spiritual and moral
power is still enthroned: on the rock of Peter.” He asserted in the strongest terms “that the protest against the
exaggerated power of the State and military ruthlessness, and the right, in certain cases, to deny obedience to the
State, can be confirmed by appealing to Tradition, Holy Writ, and to the noblest authorities of the Church teaching
and the Church taught.”
Stratmann’s wisdom is brought to the fore in Neo-CONNED!–an all-star lineup of theologians, journalists,
academics, politicians, military & intelligence men and commentators who bring to bear the wisdom of Catholic
tradition and the prudence of authentic patriotism on the tragic and immoral war against Iraq. These men resist the
aggressive, self-proclaimed “Christian” Presidency of a Skull & Bones Freemason.

“The[se] essays...ranging from the best minds of the liberal left to the great wisdom of the orthodox
right, take on the war in Iraq, closely examining the ideas and motives of its planners, promoters, and
defenders. Here is genuine intellectual diversity and hard analysis —fascinating and required reading.”
Dr. David Allen White, Ph.D., Professor of English, US Naval Academy
“Thank goodness somebody has the courage to publish such a collection of intelligent and truly
patriotic condemnations of the insanity of the United States’ criminal onslaught against Iraq. From the
criminality of the onslaught itself, may as many minds as possible be further opened to the wickedness
of the global plan behind it: the agents of the Antichrist are instrumentalizing the United States of
America!” Bishop Richard Williamson
The 31 essays and interviews in Neo­CONNED! succeed in righting that wrong, setting forth in clear and
persuasive terms the Catholic and genuinely patriotic objection to war in Iraq, based upon both the venerable just­
war tradition of the Church and solid political analysis of some of Americas most noted true conservatives.
447 pp, hardcover, color dust jacket, 19 photos/illustrations, STK# 8145Q $25.95

CONTRIBUTORS

JUAN CARLOS ISCARA
AL-BAGHDADI
• FR.PATRICK
• MUHAMMAD
MARC BOSSUYT, PH.D., J.D.
• DR. PETERJ. E.BUCHANAN
•
PH.D.
• FR. FRANZISKUSCHOJNOWSKI,
• JOY GORDON, PH.D.
O.P. • CHARLEY REESE
• ALFREDO CARDINALSTRATMANN,
OTTAVIANI*
FLEMING, PH.D.
• PROF. ROMANO AMERIO
• THOMASS. MARGOLIS
• SAMUEL FRANCIS, PH.D., R.I.P. • ERIC
WENDELL
• JOSEPH SOBRAN
• PROF. PAULBERRY
• PROF. JOHN RAO, D.PHIL.
• GILL GOTTFRIED, PH.D.
• ROBERT HICKSON, USA (RET.), PH.D. • ERIC
RYBA, PH.D.
• PAUL LIKOUDIS
• PROF. THOMAS
GORDON, PH.D.
• BISHOP JOHN MICHAEL BOTEAN • DAVID
HANINK, PH.D.
• EDWARD PETERS, J.C.D., J.D.
• PROF. JAMES
WILLIAM T. CAVANAUGH, PH.D.
• DEACON KEITH FOURNIER, ESQ. • PROF.
M. VANCE, PH.D.
• JUDE WANNISKI, R.I.P.
• LAURENCE
•
• FORMER STAFF SGT. CAMILO MEJIA

“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

December 2005
Volume XXVIII, Number 12

• Kansas City, Missouri 64109

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

Fr. John Fullerton
Editor

Fr. Kenneth Novak
assistant Editor

PART
I
why the new rite of
episcopal consecration is valid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  2
Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P.

carmelite nuns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
Carmel of the Holy Trinity, Spokane, Washington

Mr. James Vogel
Design and Layout

Mr. Simon Townshend
proofreading

“pray for us sinners...”  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  25
A sermon by Fr. Yves le Roux, SSPX, for the
Feast of the Immaculate Conception

Miss Anne Stinnett
transcriptions

Miss Miriam Werick
operations and MARKETING

Mr. Christopher McCann
CIRCULATION Manager

Mr. Jason Greene
controller

Victor Tan
Secretaries

Miss Anne Stinnett
Miss Lindsey Carroll
Miss Miriam Werick
Mr. Jered Gibbs

The religious education of children  . . . . . . . .  27
Fr. Bernard-Marie de Chivré, O.P.

Christendom
NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Angelus Press Edition

History of the Society of St. Pius X in South Africa
Fr. Coenrad Daniels, SSPX

Persons;
Principles part III  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  37

It’s Not About
It’s About

Origin, Nature, Ends, and Types of Society
Amintore Fanfani

Shipping and Handling

Mr. Jon Rydholm
Mr. Jered Gibbs

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published
monthly under the patronage of
St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels.
Publication offices are located at
2915 Forest Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri,
64109, (816) 753-3150, FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas
City, Missouri. Copyright © 2005 by Angelus
Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Manuscripts
are welcome. They must be double-spaced
and deal with the Roman Catholic Church, its
history, doctrine, or present crisis. Unsolicited
manuscripts will be used at the discretion of
the Editorial Staff.
Unused manuscripts
cannot be returned unless sent
with a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to:
The Angelus, Angelus Press,
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, MO 64109-1529.

The Angelus Subscription Rates

US, Canada, & Mexico
Other Foreign Countries
All payments must be in US funds only.

1 year

2 years

$34.95
$52.45

$62.90
$94.50

2

WHY THE NEW RITE
OF EPISCOPAL
CONSECRATION
IS VALID

The aNgelus • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

3
F r .

P i e r r e - M a r i e , O . P .

In a planned two-part article, The Angelus wishes to settle a
debate that has been circulating in traditional Catholic circles
in recent months. Some writers have examined the new rite of
episcopal consecration and concluded that it must be invalid.
Since this would cause manifest problems if it were true and
due to the heightened awareness of such a theory, The Angelus
presents (for the first time in English) a study of this question
concluding that it is valid.
But, look out! Read carefully. True to Thomistic style, in Part I
Fr. Pierre-Marie presents here all the objections favoring the
in-validity of the new rite of episcopal consecration. This he
does in order to set up his reasoning and conclusion in favor of
the validity of the new rite which will be presented in the main
in Part II (to appear January 2006).
Following the Council, in 1968 a new rite for the
ordination of bishops was promulgated. It was, in fact,
the first sacrament to undergo its “aggiornamento,” or
updating.
In 1978, a certain Fr. Athanasius Kröger, O.S.B.,
published a study in the Una Voce Korrespondenz (Vol.2,
pp.95-106), in which he raised doubts about the
validity of episcopal consecrations accomplished with
the new rite. According to him, the new form was not
specific enough, and it created a situation analogous
to that of the Anglican ordinations that were declared
null and void by Pope Leo XIII.
Later, Dr. Rama Coomaraswamy published
a study entitled “The Post-Conciliar Rite of Holy
Orders.”1 Dr. Coomaraswamy concluded that the new
episcopal consecrations are “almost certainly invalid.”
When updating his study, posted on his Internet site
in 2002, he claimed that his study had never been
refuted.
For about a year now, various documents
have been circulated on the Internet claiming “to
demonstrate” the invalidity of the ordination of
bishops performed according to the rite of Pope
1

Paul VI. Taking up the arguments of the two
aforementioned studies, they add several other
considerations, notably about a change in the matter
of the sacrament.
In the interest of bringing a little order and clarity
to the question, we shall apply ourselves to studying
the validity of the episcopal consecrations according
to the ritual published by the Vatican in 1968. We
shall proceed according to the Scholastic method so
as to treat of the matter as rigorously as possible....
We take the position (today, the most widely held)
of the sacramentality of the episcopate; so doing, we
adopt the hypothesis that is most unfavorable to the
validity of the new rite. [N.B. Theological debate over
this point has taken place for centuries. Although the
Church has defined that there are precisely seven
sacraments, it remains unclear whether episcopal
consecration remains part of the sacrament of Holy
Orders or is merely “a sacramental,” an ecclesiastical
ceremony wherein the powers of the episcopate,
“bound” in the simple priest, are “freed” for the
exercise of the fulness of the priesthood.–Ed.]

Studies of Comparative Religion, Vol.16, Nos. 2,3; republished by The Roman Catholic (New York: Oyster Bay Cove) as a brochure. Dr. Coomaraswamy is
a former surgeon. He has since become a sedevacantist and was recently ordained a priest by Bishop Jose Lopez-Gaston, a Thuc-line bishop.
www.angeluspress.org The aNgelus • December 2005



The Difficulties
(Objections Favoring In-validity)

Analyzed according to the four causes, a
sacrament is a compound of matter (material cause)
and form (formal cause); it is administered by a
minister (efficient cause) who must have the intention
of doing what the Church does (final cause). For
a sacrament to be valid, the four causes must be
respected. It is enough for only one of them to be
deficient to render a sacrament invalid.

does not signify precisely enough the grace of the
episcopacy.
As a confirmation of the insufficiency of the new
form, Pope Leo XIII’s declaration of the nullity of the
Anglicans’ priestly ordinations can be cited. Among
the arguments he made was that of insufficiency of
form:
All know that the sacraments of the New Law, as sensible
and efficient signs of invisible grace, ought both to signify
the grace which they effect, and effect the grace which
they signify. Although the signification ought to be found
in the whole essential rite–that is to say, in the matter and
form–it still pertains chiefly to the form; since the matter
is the part which is not determined by itself, but which
is determined by the form....But the words which until
recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute
the proper form of priestly Ordination–namely, “Receive the
Holy Ghost,” certainly do not in the least definitely express
the Sacred Order of Priesthood, or its grace and power....
This form had indeed afterwards added to it the words “for
the office and work of a priest,” etc.;–but this rather shows
that the Anglicans themselves perceived the first form was
defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could
give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too
late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of
the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the hierarchy had become
extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.5

Defect of Form

1)

 he form of consecration in the 1968
T
Pontifical is completely different from the
former rite.2 Here are the two formulas:
The form according to the traditional rite:

Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy ministry,
and adorned in the ornaments of all glorification
sanctify him with the moisture of heavenly unguent.3

The new form:
So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which
is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your
beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the
holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to
be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your
name.4

It is easy to see that the two formulas have
nothing in common.
Now, it seems that the new form is insufficient.
Indeed, the grace that is asked, the “Spiritus
principalis” (“the governing Spirit,” the Spirit that
makes rulers) certainly is here the Holy Spirit, from
the fact that the word is capitalized.
The formula is much too vague, for all the
sacraments give the Holy Spirit [not Holy Orders
alone–Ed.].
In order for the sacrament to be valid, it would
be necessary to signify the specific grace given by the
sacrament. In the old form, the “ministerii tui summum”
(the completion of Thy ministry) was asked, which,
in the context, clearly means the highest degree of
priesthood, namely, the episcopacy. Consequently,
it does seem that the new form is invalid because it
2

The ordination prayer in the Roman Pontifical before the Council is very
ancient: “The most important part dates back to the Leonine Sacramentary.”
(Joseph Lécuyer, C.S.Sp., “La prière d’ordination de l’évêque,” Nouvelle
Revue Théologique, June 1967, p.601, which refers the reader to L. C.
Mohlberg, Sacramentarium Veronense [Rome, 1956], pp.119-20.) Now,
the Leonine Sacramentary dates from the 5th or 6th century (not to exclude
the possibility that it encompasses prayers more ancient still: Dom Martène
has reported on a pontifical from the Church of Tarentaise [in the region of
Savoy] that he dates to before 300 AD and which includes the essential of
the traditional form: De Antiquis Ecclesiae ritibus [Anvers, 1736], p.250
ff.)
3
Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Nov. 30, 1947, DS 3860:
Comple in Sacerdote tuo ministerii tui , et ornamentis totius glorificationis
instructum caelestis unguenti rore sanctifica....” [English version: Denzinger,
The Sources of Catholic Dogma, tr. by Roy J. Deferrari, 30th ed. (1955;
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

2)

 o justify the adoption of a new form of
T
episcopal consecration, Pope Paul VI
explained in his Apostolic Constitution
Pontificalis Romani, which accompanied the
promulgation of the new rites of ordination:
...[I]t was judged appropriate to take from ancient sources
the consecratory prayer that is found in the document called
the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, written in the
beginning of the third century. This consecratory prayer is
still used, in large part, in the ordination rites of the Coptic
and West Syrian liturgies.6

Now, Dr. Coomaraswamy tells us:
While [Paul VI] is correct in pointing to the “Apostolic
Tradition of Hippolytus” as the source of his new rite, he
stretches the truth to the limit in stating that this highly
questionable document is “still used in large part in the
ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian liturgies.”
In fact the Hippolytus text has almost nothing in common
with the eastern rites, and the crucial words–especially the

reprint, Loreto Publications, n.d.), 2301. Hereafter, abbreviated Dz.]
[English version: ICEL, 1978.] The Latin formula: “Et nunc effunde super
hunc electum eam virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem, quem
dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Jesu Christo, quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis,
qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca ut sanctuarium tuum, in
gloriam et laudem indeficientem nominis tui.”
5
Letter Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896 (DS 3315-3316). [English version:
“A Light in the Heavens”: The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII
(reprint: TAN Books & Publishers, 1995), pp.400-401.]
6
Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis Romani recognitio,, approving new
rites for the ordination of deacons, priests, and bishops, June 18, 1968:
AAS (1968) 369-73. [English version: ICEL, Documents on the Liturgy
1963-1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Liturgical Press, 1982),
2606-12.]
4

5
critical phrase of “governing spirit”–is nowhere to be found
within these eastern rites.7

As proof of his affirmation, Dr. Coomaraswamy gives
the text of the consecratory prayer from the Pontifical
of the Antiochean Syrians, in which one finds nothing
in common with Pope Paul VI’s form. It thus seems
that they wanted to mask the insufficiency of the new
form by a trick. Or, at the very least, they gave proof
of remarkable incompetence.

3)

The essential words of the form according to
the new rite (“So now pour out...praise of your
name”) reflect the theology of the
episcopacy as a power of governing only: either as a
power of jurisdiction, or as an aptitude infused into
the soul to receive jurisdiction; and these essential
words omit the idea of the episcopacy as the supreme
degree of the priesthood.
It is only in the words following the essential part
that mention is made of the function of “high priest.”
On the contrary, in the traditional Roman rite,
the designation of the supreme degree of priesthood
is contained in the essential part of the form by the
words “Fulfill in Thy priest the completion of Thy
ministry.”8

Consequently, in the essential part of the form,
the sacerdotal power of the bishop is rejected, and only
his pastoral power is kept. Thus there is exclusion,
or suggestion of exclusion, of what is, according to
traditional theology, the essential power of the bishop:
the completion or plenitude of the power of Order by
the plenitude of the sacramental character of Order.

4)

The new form, while taking its inspiration
from it, does not reproduce that of the Apostolic
Tradition. Let us compare the two.
A genitive has been transformed into an
accusative9: principalis Spiritus becomes Spiritum
principalem ; super hunc electum was added, without
mentioning other minor modifications.10
In short, the consecratory prayer of Pope Paul
VI is inspired by, but does not reproduce that of the
Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus; it constitutes an
artificial creation of Dom Bernard Botte in 1968.
Consequently, this form is invalid.11

Defect of mAtter
This is a relatively recent argument, since it
is not found in the writing of Fr. Kröger or Dr.
Coomaraswamy, even in his posting of 2002.

NEW RITE

TEXT OF HIPPOLYTUS

Et nunc
effunde super hunc electum eam
virtutem, quae a te est, Spiritum principalem,
quem dedisti dilecto Filio tuo Jesu Christo,
quem ipse donavit sanctis Apostolis,
qui constituerunt Ecclesiam per singula loca
ut sanctuarium tuum, in gloriam et laudem
indeficientem
nominis tui.

nunc
effunde eam
virtutem quae a te est, principalis sp(iritu)s
quem dedisti dilecto filio tuo Je(s)u Chr(ist)o,
quod donavit sanctis apostolis
qui constituerunt ecclesiam per singula loca
sanctificationem tuam, in gloriam et laudem
indeficientem
nomini tuo.

TRANSLATION:

TRANSLATION:

So now pour out upon this chosen one that power which
is from you, the governing Spirit whom you gave to your
beloved Son, Jesus Christ, the Spirit given by him to the
holy apostles, who founded the Church in every place to
be your temple for the unceasing glory and praise of your
name.

Now pour forth on him that power which is from Thee,
the governing Spirit whom Thou gave to Thy beloved Son
Jesus Christ, whom He gave to the holy apostles who
founded the Church in the place of Thy sanctuary unto the
glory and unceasing praise of Thy name.

10
7

Coomaraswamy, “The Post-Conciliar Rite of Order,” Internet.
8
Before the Middle Ages, the expression was “mysterii summam,” which
amounts to the same thing, for the completion (or perfection, or plenitude)
of the sacrament is the same thing as the completion of the ministry.
9
In Latin, the genitive case is used when a noun modifies another noun and
frequently demonstrates possession. The accusative case is used to show
the direct object of the verb. (“Principalis spiritus” may appear to be
nominative at first, but in context and in reference to the original Greek, it
is clearly genitive.)

The work Rore Sanctifica [a study written in French alleging to “prove”
the invalidity of the new rite of consecration for bishops --Ed.] (St. Remi
Publishing, 2005), from which we have drawn this objection, makes the
reproach that the word puero was replaced with Filio. Rore Sanctifica uses
an Ethiopian (?) version of the Apostolic Tradition which has the word
puer instead of Filius. (which is found in the Latin version of the Apostolic
Tradition we have used.)
11
This argument may seem ridiculous to more than one reader, but we have
presented it, for it is one of the “strong points” of the work Rore Sanctifica.
www.angeluspress.org The aNgelus • December 2005

6

COMP

THE CEREMONY
BEFORE VATICAN II

THE CEREMONY
SINCE 1968

[Near the end of the litany, a cleric places the
Gospels book on the altar.]
The litany finished, all rise and the consecrator,
wearing the miter, stands in front of the faldstool, and
the bishop-elect kneels before him.
The consecrator takes the Gospels book, opens
it, and helped by the two bishop co-consecrators,
he places it in silence on the head and shoulders of
the bishop-elect, turning it in such a way that the
bottom of the pages touches his head, and the top, his
shoulders. One of the ordinand’s assistants, kneeling
behind him, holds the book thus positioned until the
moment when the consecrator hands it to the new
bishop.
Then the consecrator touches with both hands
the head of the ordinand, saying: “Receive the Holy
Spirit.”
This is done in turn by the bishop co-consecrators,
who not only must touch with both hands the head of
the ordinand while saying “Receive the Holy Spirit,”
but also (with, at the right moment, the intention of
conferring the episcopal consecration) recite with
the bishop-consecrator the prayer, “Be pleased, O
Lord,...” and all of the preface which follows....
The consecrator, not wearing the miter, [joins
his hands] and says: “Be favorable, Lord, to our
supplications, and inclining towards your servant the
abundance of Thy sacerdotal grace, pour forth upon
him the virtue of Thy blessing. Through our Lord
Jesus Christ.”
[At the word benedictionis, the three prelates make
the sign of the cross over the bishop-elect.]
Extending his hands, the consecrator alone says:
“For ever and ever.”...
Then he says the words of the form of episcopal
consecration, which must be recited in a speaking
voice, hands extended: “Fulfill in Thy priest the
completion of Thy ministry....”

After the litany, the principal consecrator alone
stands and, with hands joined, sings or says: “Lord,
be moved by our prayers. Anoint your servant with
the fullness of priestly grace, and bless him with
spiritual power in all its richness. We ask this through
Christ our Lord.”
R. Amen.
Deacon: Let us stand.
[All rise.]
The principal consecrator and the consecrating
bishops stand at their places, facing the people. The
bishop-elect rises, goes to the principal consecrator,
and kneels before him.

Pontificale Romanum, Pt. I, ed. typica (Vatican: Plyglotte Press, 1962). The details
in brackets have been taken from Consécrations des Evêques (Angers: Richer,
1920) pp.51ff.
The aNgelus • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

The principal consecrator lays his hands upon the
head of the bishop-elect, in silence. After him, all the
other bishops present do the same.
Then the principal consecrator places the open
book of the Gospels upon the head of the bishopelect; two deacons, standing at either side of the
bishop-elect, hold the Book of the Gospels above his
head until the prayer of consecration is completed.
Next the principal consecrator, with his hands
extended, sings the prayer of consecration or says it
aloud: “God the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ....”
The following part of the prayer is sung by all the
consecrating bishops, with hands joined: “So now
pour out upon this chosen one that power which is
from you, the governing Spirit....”
Pontifical Romain (Paris: Desclée-Mame, 1977). We have rectified the translation
to bring it closer to the original: Pontificale Romanum, ed. typical (Vatican: Libreria
Editirice Vaticana), 1968. [English version: ICEL, Roman Pontifical,1978.]

PARISONS
SECOND TYPICAL
EDITION (1990)
The second typical edition of the new rite,
published in 1990, contains a few changes to the
rubrics. Here is our translation from this ritual:
After the litany, the principal consecrating bishop,
standing with hands extended, says, “Receive,
Lord,...”
R. Amen.
Deacon: Let us stand.
[All rise.]
The bishop-elect approaches the principal
consecrator (who stands in front of the faldstool)
and kneels before him.
The principal consecrating bishop places his
hands on the head of the bishop-elect in silence.
After the imposition of hands, the bishops present
remain around the principal consecrating bishop
until the end of the prayer of ordination, in such a
way, however, that the action can be seen clearly by
the faithful.
Then the principal consecrating bishop takes the
Book of the Gospels which a deacon hands him, and
places it, open, upon the head of the bishop-elect;
two deacons standing on either side of him hold the
Book of the Gospels above the bishop-elect’s head
until the end of the ordination prayer.
The bishop-elect kneeling before him, the
principal consecrating bishop, without the miter,
having near him the co-consecrating bishops also
without miter, says, hands extended, the prayer
of ordination: “God the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ....”
The following part of the prayer is recited by all
the consecrating bishops, hands joined, in a low
voice, nevertheless in such a way that the principal
consecrating bishop’s voice can be clearly heard:
“So now pour out upon this chosen one that power
which is from you, the governing Spirit....”

7
In the traditional rite, the bishop-elect receives
the imposition of the Gospels book upon his neck.
Then the imposition of the hands (the matter of the
sacrament) takes place, followed by the consecratory
preface which contains the form of the sacrament
(the words of consecration).
In the new rite, the imposition of the Gospels
book has been modified and displaced: it is placed
upon the bishop-elect’s head (and no longer upon
his bowed neck), between the imposition of the
hands and the consecratory preface (and no longer
before the imposition of the hands).
The result, it seem, is a dissociation between
the matter and the form, a dissociation that can
render the sacrament invalid. In the sacrament of
baptism, for example, if the priest were to pour the
water in silence, then add another rite (for example,
the imposition of salt on the tongue), and finally
pronounce the words (“I baptize thee in the name of
the Father, etc.”), the baptism would be invalid.
A further difficulty (which does not seem to
have been remarked before) is that, in the new rite,
the consecrator speaks the words of the sacramental
form with hands joined. In the old rite, he spoke
them with his hands extended in front of his breast,
which prolonged the rite of the imposition of the
hands and manifested the union of matter and form.
In order to show clearly the difference in the
course of the ceremony in the two rituals, they
are reproduced here (see “The Ceremony before
Vatican II” and “The Ceremony since Vatican II.”)

Defect of intention

1)

One could raise one other difficulty against
the validity of the new ritual: intention.
It has been declared that this ritual was adopted
with an ecumenical intention. The Copts and the
western Syrians are mentioned. The Anglicans could
have been mentioned, too, since they have also
adopted a similar rite, derived from the Apostolic
Tradition of Hippolytus.
Now, such an intention can corrupt the validity
of a rite. Indeed, among the reasons Pope Leo XIII
gave for the invalidity of the Anglican ordination
rite is defect of intention:
With this inherent defect of form is joined the defect of
intention, which is equally essential to the sacrament. The
Church does not judge about the mind and intention in
so far as it is something by its nature internal; but in so
far as it is manifested externally she is bound to judge
concerning it. When any one has rightly and seriously
made use of the due form and the matter requisite for
effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered
by the very fact to do what the Church does. On this
principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly
conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or
unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On

Pontificale Romanum, ed. altera, (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1990).
www.angeluspress.org The aNgelus • December 2005



CNS photo

Giacomo Cardinal Lercaro
(1891-1976). Born in the

archdiocese of Genoa, Italy. Studied
at the Seminary of Genoa and the
Pontifical Biblical Institute at Rome.
Ordained in 1914, consecrated
Archbishop of Ravenna in 1947, and
created Cardinal Priest on January
12, 1953. President of the Consilium
for Liturgical Reform.

Fr. Louis Bouyer, Oratorian
(1913-2004). Born in Paris; grew up in a

non-denominational Protestant environment.
Studied for Protestant license in theology at
Paris. Influenced by his teachers, Auguste Lecerf
(Calvinist), Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran), and
Sergei Bulgakoff (Russian Orthodox). Began
publishing in 1938. By 1947 he had become a
Catholic priest and member of the Oratory, and
had obtained a doctorate in theology from the
Catholic Institute of Paris. His major works are
Liturgical Piety (1954), and Eucharist (1968).

the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest
intention of introducing another rite not approved by the
Church and of rejecting what the Church does, and what
by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the
sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary
intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention
is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.12

2)

 s regards intention, a final difficulty arises
A
from the fact that the new rite was introduced
for the purpose of applying the new conciliar
theology concerning the episcopacy. Here is the
comment of Canon André Rose expressed in an
article published in La Maison Dieu, No.98 (the journal
of pastoral liturgy edited by Cerf Publishing)13:

12

Apostolicae Curae (DS 3318).
13
The article appeared in Au Service de la Parole de Dieu (Gembloux:
Ed. J. Duculot, 1968), pp.129-45, and reprinted in La Maison Dieu, 98,
pp.127ff.
14
The ancient formulary came from the 7th-century Gelasian Sacramentary,
augmented by a part coming from the Frankish liturgy. The original part,
of Roman origin, presented the ordination of a bishop under the form of
the “spiritual” vesture of a new Aaron. The non-Roman supplement was
formed of a mosaic of extracts from the epistles, underscoring the relations
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

Dom Bernard Botte
(1893-1980). Monk of Mont César,

Belgium, as a young monk he assisted Dom
Beauduin and listened to his lectures at
Liturgical Weeks. He specialized in Oriental
languages, which enabled him to study the
ancient sources of rites. He collaborated
in the Centre de Pastoral Liturgique and
the Institut Supérieur de Liturgie. He was
appointed to the Consilium, and directed
work groups that devised several key changes
in the Roman liturgy.

On June 18, 1968, the Apostolic Constitution Pontificalis
Romani recognitio was promulgated, approving the new
ceremonial for the ordination of deacons, priests, and
bishops. The most striking change introduced by this
document is undoubtedly the introduction of a new
consecratory prayer for ordination to the episcopacy.
The Roman document cites the doctrine of the
Constitution Lumen Gentium on the episcopacy as the
supreme degree of the sacrament of Holy Orders....It is
to better emphasize the doctrine of the Second Vatican
Council that the formula of the consecration prayer for
episcopal ordination is now replaced by a new prayer,
extracted from the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a
document from the early 3rd century.14 Nonetheless, this
ancient text has always been in usage to the present day,
in a more developed form, in the liturgy of the Copts and
western Syrians.15

between the mission of the bishop and that of the apostle. On the superiority
of the prayer of Hippolytus in relation to this prayer, see J. Lécuyer, “The
Prayer for the Ordination of a Bishop” in Nouvelle Revue Théologique,
Vol.89, June 1967, pp.601-6. The author underlines the profound parallelism between certain passages of the Constitution Lumen Gentium and this
prayer. See also, “L’Evêque d’après les prières d’ordination” (article written
in collaboration by several Canons Regular of Mondaye), in L’Episcopat
et l’Eglise universelle (Paris, 1962), pp.739-68.
15
The complete text of this prayer is to be found in H. Denzinger, Ritus
Orientalium, (Graz, 1961) pp.23-24.



Archbishop Annibale Bugnini
(1912-82). Ordained priest in 1936;

Secretary, Commission for General
Liturgical Restoration, 1948-60; Secretary,
Pontifical Preparatory Commission
on the Liturgy, 1960-62; Peritus,
Conciliar Commission on the Liturgy,
1962-64; Secretary, Consilium for the
Implementation of the Constitution on the
Liturgy, 1964-69; Secretary, Congregation
for Divine Worship, 1969-75. Ordained
titular Archbishop of Diocletiana, 1972;
Pro-Nuncio Apostolic in Iran, 1976-82.

Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani
(1890-1979). One of the 20th century’s

most influential churchmen. Known for
being staunchly orthodox, he was Secretary
of the Holy Office from 1959-66 and
Prefect of the Doctrine of the Faith from
1966-68. He is best known for writing the
Introduction to the “Short Critical Study
of the New Order of Mass” along with
Cardinal Bacci which was sent in 1969.
As a result, it is commonly known as “The
Ottaviani Intervention.”

This intention to apply the conciliar doctrine
could be disquieting when one knows that the Council
gave a heterodox teaching on collegiality, a doctrine
that it was necessary to correct by a nota praevia which
is hardly mentioned in our day.
This disquietude could increase from the fact that
the ritual in use at the time was reproached for having
been modified in the 12th century in such a way as
“to veil somewhat the universal collegial power of the
bishops over the entire People of God.”16

Arguments on
the Contrary17

1)
16

 he reform of the ritual of episcopal
T
consecration was examined by the Holy
Office at a time when Cardinal Ottaviani

“From the 12th century a slightly different formula was introduced at Rome,
undoubtedly for fear of overshadowing the exclusive power of the Pope
over the whole Church: instead of saying “ad regendam ecclesiam tuam
et plebem universam,” henceforth was said “ecclesiam tuam et plebem sibi
commissam,” which results in veiling somewhat the universal collegial power
of the bishops over the whole People of God.” (Joseph Lécuyer, C.S.Sp.,

[known for his staunch and unwavering orthodoxy–
Ed.] was the Prefect. Fr. Bugnini relates the episode in
his memoirs.
The completely positive answer from the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith was particularly pleasing and
an occasion of both joy and surprise. The Consilium had
been worried especially about the proposal to use the text
from the Traditio Apostolica of Hippolytus for the prayer of
episcopal ordination. Here is what the Congregation said
(November 8, 1967):
“Their Eminences of the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith carefully examined the matter at their plenary
session on Wednesday, October 11, 1967, and came to the
following decisions:
“The new schema is approved with the following
qualifications:
1. Number 89: in the questions asked of the candidate
for the episcopal office, greater emphasis should be
put on faith and its conscientious transmission;

“La prière d’ordination de l’évêque,” Nouvelle Revue Théologique, Vol.89,
June 1967, pp.602-3.) What Fr. Lécuyer regrets as a loss seems to us rather
a clarification: a simple bishop does not rule “the whole people,” even if
he must have a solicitude for the universal Church.
17
It is known that in the arguments on the contrary (“sed contra”), the
argumentation is not always irreproachable. St. Thomas sometimes gives
a response to these arguments at the end of his article in order to rectify
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

10
moreover, the candidate should be expressly asked
about his determination to give obedience to the
Roman Pontiff.18
2. Number 96: The text of Hippolytus, duly
adapted, is acceptable.19 Regarding the approach: the
mind of the Cardinals is that liturgical innovations
should be dictated by real need and introduced with
all the precautions that so sacred and serious a matter
requires.
“Once the changes listed have been made in the Ordo,
it is then to be studied by a joint committee, in accordance
with the august decision of the Holy Father...”20

Now, Cardinal Ottaviani would never have
allowed a rite of doubtful validity to pass review.

2)

 rchbishop Lefebvre, visibly raised up by
A
God to sustain the little flock of the faithful,
never called in question the validity of
the new rite of episcopal ordinations as published by
Rome.
We know that he was informed of the objections
made against the ritual, especially by Fr. Kröger.
If Archbishop Lefebvre had had a serious and
positive doubt about the validity of the ordinations, he
would not have failed to say so given the seriousness
of the consequences.

3)

 or the 37 years that have elapsed since this
F
rite was promulgated, most of the Roman Rite
bishops of the Catholic Church have
been ordained with it. There is certainly not a
single resident bishop (a bishop having the power of
jurisdiction) who was ordained before 1968.
Consequently, if the new rite is invalid, the
Roman Church is deprived of a hierarchy, which
would seem contrary to the promises of Christ (“the
gates of hell shall not prevail against her”).

Answer to the Question
In order to answer the question, it is necessary to
find out what was done.
Now, at this level of inquiry, we should first
point out the lack of seriousness of those who have
undertaken to “demonstrate the invalidity of the new
rite.”
For example, Dr. Coomaraswamy, followed in
this by numerous disciples, did not go to the trouble
to inform himself as to the identity of the Coptic and
what might have been deficient. That is what we shall do here.
“Largior pars fiat circa ipsam fidem eamdemque fideliter tradendam et
explicita quaestio ponatur candidato de praestanda obedientia romano
ponifici.”
19
“Placet textus Hyppoliti [sic], opportunis inductis accomodationibus.”
20
Annibale Bugnini, La Riforma liturgica, 1948-1975 (Rome: CLV Edizioni
liturgiche, 1983), p.692 [English version for citations: The Reform of the
Liturgy 1948-1975 (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1990), p.712].
This approbation was conveyed to Fr. Buginini on November 8. The notification bears a protocol number (Prot. 578/67), but no signature, at least
on the copy we consulted in the archives of the German Liturgical Institute
(Trier), under “Pontificale Romanum.”
18

THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

Syrian rites to which Pope Paul VI compares the new
rite.
The doctor quite simply made an error as to
rite. He compares the rite of Pope Paul VI with a
Syrian rite that has nothing in common with it, and
then confidently concludes that the pope “stretches
the truth to the limit in stating that this highly
questionable document is ‘still used in large part in
the ordination rites of the Coptic and Western Syrian
liturgies.’”
Indeed, we shall have no difficulty in showing that
the affirmation of Pope Paul VI is exact and that it is
the doctor who has not done his work.
When someone pretends to be involved
in something serious like theology, he must
do it seriously. This is not the case with Dr.
Coomaraswamy and the “Coomaraswamists.”21

The Genesis of the New Rite
Let us begin by exposing the genesis of the new
rite.22 The execution of the reform prescribed by
the Second Vatican Council was entrusted to a new
organism, parallel to the Congregation of Rites, called
the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra
Liturgia (Commission for the Implementation of
the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy), referred to
hereafter as the Consilium. Its president was Cardinal
Lercaro, Archbishop of Bologna,23 and its secretary
was Fr. Bugnini (who had already worked on the
preparation of the Constitution on the Liturgy.)
The Consilium was composed of two different
groups. Firstly, there were 40 members as such,
for the most part cardinals or bishops, who had
a deliberative vote. Then there was the group of
consultors, more numerous and given the task of
preparing the work.
The consultors were divided into a certain
number of study groups (coetus), each one tasked
with a specified area. Each group was presided
over by a relator who had to organize the work.
Dom Bernard Botte, O.S.B. (1893-1980), a monk of
Mont-César (Belgium) was the relator of “Group 20”
given the task of revising the first part of the Roman
Pontifical [which included the rite of ordinations].
His collaborators were: Fr. B. Kleinheyer (secretary),
then professor at the seminary of Aix-la-Chapelle,
author of a thesis on the ordination of the priest in
21

Coomaraswamy and most of his disciples are sedevacantists. It is a windfall
for them to have been able to “demonstrate” the invalidity of the new rite
of episcopal ordination. Thus the last conclave was a “conclave of laymen”
and Benedict XVI cannot be pope, because he is not even a bishop...
22
See especially: Bernard Botte, O.S.B., Le Mouvement liturgique: Témoignage
et souvenirs (Desclée, 1973) pp.156ff. This book contains interesting
admissions. [English version of cited passages: From Silence to Participation: An Insider’s View of Liturgical Renewal, tr. by John Sullivan, O.C.D.
(Washington, D.C.: The Pastoral Press, 1988), pp.125ff.
23
1891-1976. After the Council, Cardinal Lercaro became a public leader of
the progressive wing. Later, Cardinal Gut replaced Cardinal Lercaro at the
head of the Consilium.

11
the Roman Rite; Fr. C. Vogel, professor at Strasbourg,
who had taken the succession from Msgr. Andrieu
for editing the Ordines Romani and the RomanoGermanic Pontifical; Fr. E. Lengeling, professor of
Liturgy at Munster-in-Westphalia (later Dean of the
Faculty of Theology); Fr. P. Jounel, professor at the
Superior Institute of Liturgy at Paris; Msgr. J. Nabuco,
Brazilian prelate and author of a Commentary on the
Roman Pontifical; finally, (but not at the beginning) Fr.
J. Lécuyer, then professor at the French Seminary in
Rome, who in 1968 became Superior General of the
Congregation of the Holy Ghost after the resignation
of Msgr. Lefebvre. The three most active members
were Dom Botte and Frs. Kleinheyer and Lengeling.
The group held its first meeting at Trier from
August 3-5, 1965. Despite his faults, of which we shall
speak later, it must be recognized that Dom Botte
was competent, and that the group which he directed
worked seriously. After the first presentation of the
project of the new rite before the Consilium, Dom
Botte wrote to Fr. Kleinheyer on November 27, 1965:

courage to resist. An example is given in the memoirs
of Dom Botte:
Thereafter we decided to use the new rite on the occasion
of the ordination of Bishop Hänggi, bishop-elect of Basel.
But before obtaining the pope’s definitive approval, the
text still had to be submitted for review to the appropriate
Roman congregations. This is why I was called to Rome to
appear before a commission composed of representatives
of the congregation for the Faith, the Congregation of the
Sacraments, and the Congregation of Rites.
The latter congregation proceeded in an entirely correct
fashion: it sent me a series of written remarks which I had
time to examine. Some looked well-advised to me, and I
immediately agreed to them. Others were less so, but I
was able to prepare a reply. Unfortunately, the other two
congregations did not have the same attitude, and their
representative waited to get into the meeting to raise loads
of unforeseen objections. The representative from the
Congregation of the Faith30 proved particularly zealous in
dissecting the text and asking for corrections. As banal an
expression as “celebratio mysteriorum” was suspect because it
could be regarded as approving the theories of Dom Casel
[See The Angelus, April 2002– Ed.] As a result we were not
moving ahead. Perhaps this was fortunate, in a certain way,
since for the time being it limited the damage to a small
part of the text. But on the other hand, if we continued at
this pace and with the same method, I didn’t see where it
would all end, or, especially, what would be left of our draft
since everything was being challenged. This never would
have happened with Cardinal Lercaro, but Cardinal Gut
was incapable of leading the discussion, and when he did
intervene, it was generally misinterpreted. Father Bugnini
was visibly ill-at-ease, but he was intimidated by the
cardinal’s attitude. We couldn’t continue on in this way.
I managed to keep my cool during the first meeting, but
afterwards I had one of the most beautiful fits of anger in my
life. I quite frankly told Cardinal Gut and Father Bugnini
that if this should go on in the same way and in the same
spirit, I’d pack my bags and return home. The commission
had before it a draft which had required several years’ work
by specialists. It had been revised and corrected several
times by about forty consultors of the Commission. It had
been examined and approved by about forty cardinals
and bishops. And, at the last minute everything had to be
changed and new solutions improvised at a moment’s notice
on the advice of half-a-dozen incompetent bureaucrats. No
lay institution could survive with such work methods.
I don’t know how things were worked out, but I’m fairly
certain that Father Bugnini found a diplomatic solution.
He knew I’d given no empty threat, and he himself was
exasperated by the procedure. As a matter of fact the person
from the Congregation of the Faith who really got on our
nerves had disappeared by the next session, and I’ve never
seen him since. At the beginning of the second meeting I
ventured to tell the representatives of the congregations,
except for the Congregation of Rites, which had sent its

I believe that that is the first time that they found
themselves in the presence of a coetus that proposed
reasonable things supported by sufficient documentation
and justification. One bishop told me: “There is no way not
to agree with you, since it has been explained so well.” It
went completely otherwise for the ordo missae!24

The Coetus drafted five successive schemas:
Schemas 102 (De Pontificali No. 5 of September 10,
1965),25 150 (De Pontificali No. 7 of April 5, 1966),26
180 (De Pontificali No. 12 from August 29, 1966),27
220 (De Pontificali No. 15 of March 31, 1967),28 and
270 (De Pontificali No. 17 of February 1, 1968). All
these schemas are kept in the archives of the German
Liturgical Institute at Trier, where they can be
consulted.29

The Origin of the New Rite
as Told by Dom Botte
Let us first look at what the artisans of the new
rite said about their reform, then we shall look at what
they didn’t say.
The chief artisans of the reform were the
“experts,” that is to say, the consultors. Undoubtedly,
their work was subject to the Consilium and to the
Roman Congregations, but it was the consultors who
had the initiative in the work, and who sometimes
exerted pressure that their superiors did not have the

28

24

Archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B
116.
25
This first schema of the Pontifical was presented to the Consilium at the
sixth plenary session, from Nov. 21-23, 1965.
26
Discussed in a relation between the relators of the Consilium in May,
1966.
27
Discussed at the seventh plenary session of the Consilium, October 6,
1966.

Sent to the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith and of Sacraments
and Rites on April 8, 1967, and to Pope Paul VI on April 19.
29
The history of the work of Group 20 has been written: Jan Michael Joncas,
“The Work of the Consilium in the Reform of the Roman Rite Episcopal
Ordination, 1965-1968,” in Ephemerides Liturgicae 108 (1994), 81-127,
183-204. Nevertheless, this work only provides information of a “material”
nature.
30
According to Fr. Bugnini, two representatives from this congregation
participated at the meetings: Msgr. Philippe and Msgr. G. Agustoni (op.
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

12
remarks beforehand, what I thought of their method. The
review then moved ahead by leaps and bounds, and it was
over by the end of the meeting. The text was ready for the
ordination of Bishop Hänggi.31

It is not normal to leave so much power to
experts, even if they are very knowledgeable in their
field. They should have been more closely directed
by the hierarchy and checked as regards doctrine.
Our Lord entrusted His Church to bishops, not to
“experts,” and the principal role of the hierarchy is to
watch over the orthodoxy of the faith.
It comes as no surprise that the result of the
Consilium’s work was not a happy one for the
Church. The reforms reflect the attitudes–and the
defects–of the experts.
Now, Dom Botte had a failing: a lack of filial piety
towards Rome. This stands out in his memoirs:
When the Commission was established, I was often
obliged to stay in Rome in order to speak before the
group. These visits were as short as possible. As there
were two sessions back-to-back, I received permission to
speak on the last day of the former and on the first day
of the latter. My excuse was that after three days I turned
anti-clerical, and after a week I risked losing my faith. It
was only a joke, but I must say that I did not bear up well
under the Roman atmosphere. I like Italy a lot though,
and have fine memories of time spent in Verona, Florence,
and Venice. But Rome was something else. There was too
much red, purple, and cassocks. I stayed at the Pensionato
Romano, a large building six stories high, located on the via
Transpontina, not far from the Vatican. It was comfortable
and meticulously clean; but the cooking was insipid, and the
atmosphere purely clerical. My only break was to eat my
meals in the little public restaurants on the nearby streets
where I felt more at ease.32

It was not just “the Roman atmosphere” that Dom
Botte didn’t like. It was also the theology and liturgy
of Rome:
The Pontifical took shape progressively, from the fifth
to the end of the thirteenth centuries, to a great extent
outside Rome. It contained elements of very different origin
and value. The essential element, that is, the laying on of
hands, was somewhat buried under a pile of secondary
rites. Furthermore, certain formulas were inspired by
medieval theology and needed correction. For example,
the theologians of the Middle Ages considered the handing
over of the paten and chalice to be the essential rite of
ordination to the priesthood. Now, this was not compatible
with the Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis of Pius
XII which had re-established the primacy of the laying on
of hands. The rite of handing over the paten and chalice
cit., p.692).
Botte, An Insider’s View of Liturgical Renewal, pp.138-39.
32
Ibid., p.131.
33
It is true that the power to celebrate Mass is given to the priest by the
imposition of hands alone. But that does not prevent one from keeping the
venerable rite of “handing over” the implements which does but illustrate
this power. If Dom Botte were right, it would have been necessary for Pius
XII to correct the ceremonial of the ordination of priests when he promulgated his Apostolic Constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, but he declined to
do so.–Ed.
34
Botte, An Insider’s View of the Liturgical Renewal, pp.134-35.
35
Note that it involves the ordination of a patriarch. Coomaraswamy compares
the rite of Paul VI with the rite of ordination of a simple bishop (quite dif31

THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

could be retained, but not the accompanying formula:
“Receive the power to celebrate Mass for the living and
the dead.” The power to celebrate Mass is given to the
priest by the imposition of hands alone.33 Besides, the text
was loaded with questionable symbolism: for example, the
miter as symbolizing the two horns of Moses as he came
down from the mountain. The investiture ceremonies were
interminable....
The main one was the formula for the ordination of a
bishop. The text in the Pontifical was comprised of two
parts. The first was derived from some old strictly Roman
sacramentaries, the Leonine and the Gregorian. They
articulated only one idea: the bishop was the high priest of
the New Testament. In the Old Testament the high priest
was consecrated by anointing with oil and clothing with
precious vestments. In the New it was the anointing of the
Holy Spirit and the ornament of virtues. The literary form
of this section did not make up for its poor content. The
typology insisted exclusively on the cultic role of the bishop
and left aside his apostolic ministry. The second part was
a long interpolation found for the first time in the Gelasian
Sacramentary. It consists of a jumbled series of scriptural
quotations, most of which–but not all–are linked to the
apostolic ministry. This interpolation of the Gelasian did not
suffice to re-establish the balance. Could we, after Vatican
II, retain such a poor formula? Was it possible to correct
and improve the text?34

It should come as no surprise that by giving Dom
Botte free rein the result was a ritual that broke with
the tradition of the Roman Church. He describes how
he proceeded:
I didn’t see how we could make a coherent whole out
of the two badly matched parts of the formula. Should
we create a new prayer from start to finish? I felt myself
incapable of this. It’s true that some amateurs could be
found who would be willing to attempt it–some people
feel they have a special charism for composing liturgical
formulas–but I don’t trust these amateurs. Wouldn’t it be
more reasonable to seek a formula in the Eastern rites that
could be adapted? An examination of the Eastern rites
led my attention to a text I knew well, the prayer in the
Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus.
The first time I proposed this to my colleagues they
looked at me in disbelief. They found Hippolytus’ formula
to be excellent, but they didn’t believe it had the slightest
chance of being accepted. I told them that I perhaps had a
way of getting it accepted. If I was paying attention to this
text it wasn’t because I had just finished a critical edition
of it, but because my study of the Eastern rites made me
notice that the formula always survived under more evolved
forms. Thus, in the Syrian Rite the prayer for the patriarch’s
ordination35 was none other than the one in the Testamentum
Domini,36 a reworking of the Apostolic Tradition. The same

ferent from the rite of ordination of a patriarch), and he is astonished at
finding no concordance.–Ed.
36
This is a translation into Syriac of a Greek text (probably 5th century) from
the patriarchate of Antioch, analogous to the Apostolic Constitutions. It
contains an ecclesiastical rule which follows closely the Apostolic Tradition,
placed in the mouth of our Lord at the time of an apparition in Galilee after
His resurrection. It constitutes the first books of a vast canonical collection
called the Clementine Octateuch. Edited by I. E. Rahmani (Mayence, 1899)
with the title Testamentum Domini Nostri Jesu Christi (reprint–Hildesheim:
G. Olms, 1968); French translation in F. Nau-P. Ciprotti, La Version syriaque de l’Octateuque de Clément (Paris: Lethielleux, 1967). See the text
in Annex 3 [to be published in the Jan. 2006 Angelus.–Ed.].

13
is true for the Coptic Rite where the prayer for the bishop’s
ordination is close to that of the Apostolic Constitutions,37
another reworking of Hippolytus’ text. The essential ideas
of the Apostolic Tradition can be found everywhere.
Reusing the old text in the Roman Rite would affirm a unity
of outlook between East and West on the episcopacy. This
was an ecumenical argument. It was decisive.
I had provided the fathers with a synoptic table of the
different texts with a brief commentary. The discussion
was lively, and I understand why. What finally obtained
a favorable vote was, I think, Père Lécuyer’s intervention.
He had published in the Nouvelle Revue Théologique a short
article showing how the text of the Apostolic Tradition
agreed with the teaching of the ancient Fathers. During the
session, when it was time to vote on this issue, he made a
plea which convinced those who were wavering. Afterward
we invited him to join our work group, and he was a great
help to us by his theological competence and knowledge
of the Fathers.38

Dom Botte then explains how the allocution for
the ordination of a bishop was composed:
Another problem was that of the addresses to the
candidates. These were found in the Pontifical for all the
orders except the episcopacy. They were drafted at the end
of the thirteenth century by Durand of Mende. Why did he
not compose one for the ordination of a bishop? We don’t
know, but the question came up: wouldn’t it be desirable
to have an address at the beginning of this ordination? It
was the hope of the Council that the ordination rite be a
catechesis for the people. We believed we were responding
to the Council’s directives by providing an address given
by the first consecrator. In our first draft there was only
a simple rubric indicating the moment when it was to be
made, for our understanding was that the person speaking
would improvise it. Therefore, we had not drafted any
text. The bishops of the Commission asked us–with an
insistence that surprised us–to draft a formula which could
at least serve as a model. So I asked Professor Lengeling to
compose an address inspired by the teachings of Vatican
II. He did this very carefully. It was an excellent synthesis
of the Council’s teaching: each sentence was backed up
by precise references. However, since the conciliar style is
not particularly elegant, I tried to give a more harmonious
literary shape to the text. I don’t know if I succeeded, but
at least I am sure that I did not misrepresent the drafter’s
thought since he agreed with me.39

We shall conclude this account of the genesis
of the new rite by the explanation of how the
examination of the candidate which precedes the
ordination of the bishop-elect was changed:
The final point that presented us with a problem was the
examination which precedes the ordination of the bishop.
This is an old tradition which was kept by the Pontifical.
37

A Syrian compilation, probably written at Antioch c. 380, of three earlier
writings: The Didascalia of the Apostles (originating from the region of
Antioch in Syria in the first half of the third century, probably written by a
bishop to instruct his fellow bishops in the episcopacy on proper conduct in
the pastoral ministry, it includes treatises on Christian life, the hierarchy, the
liturgy, lawsuits, offerings, and the reconciliation of sinners); the Didache
of the Twelve Apostles (originating in Syria, from the first century–with a
later, final redaction–by one or several unknown authors containing teaching
on the doctrine of the “two ways,” a liturgical section, advice on discipline,
and comments on eschatology); and the Diataxis of the Holy Apostles or
the Apostolic Tradition (see below). This compilation has been accused of

The one consecrating asked a series of questions of the
candidate before the people. Undoubtedly this venerable
custom should be kept, but the examination aimed at the
orthodoxy of the candidate in light of heresies today having
only historical interest. We thought it preferable to have
the examination cover the commitment of the bishop to
the church and his people. I drafted a questionnaire which
I submitted for review to my consultors. We proposed it
to the Commission which received it well and helped us
finalize it. It serves as a useful complement to the address
of the consecrator.

This insider testimony puts a finger on the
problem with this liturgical reform: it was entrusted
to specialists who did not have much interest (nor,
probably, competence) in that which concerns the
integrity of the Faith.
It is quite inexact to claim that the examination
in the traditional rite only targeted “heresies today
having only historical interest.” It was a magnificent
moral and doctrinal allocution exposing the candidate
to what he must do and believe. Certain questions are
even quite current:
Will you receive with respect, teach and guard the traditions
of the orthodox Fathers, and the constitutions and decrees
of the apostolic Holy See?...Will you, with the help of God,
keep and teach chastity and sobriety?...Do you believe that
there is only one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?...Do
you anathematize every heresy that arises against this holy
Catholic Church?...Do you believe that the New and the
Old Testaments, the Law, the Prophets, and the Apostles
have as their sole inspiration God the Lord almighty?

Rather than replace this questionnaire on faith and
morals, it would have been better to complete it in
such fashion as to fight against more recent errors.
But this was hardly the concern of Dom Botte and the
other “specialists.”

Objections Encountered
Dom Botte and Fr. Bugnini hardly speak of the
objections that were made to their work. Even if they
were not numerous, they merit being made known.
The prayer of Hippolytus was presented by Dom
Botte at the sixth plenary session of the Consilium
(from November 21-23, 1965); here are the reactions
to this reading as they are conserved in the private
protocol of Group 20 (we translate from the Latin
text):
Msgr. Hervas40: We have no right to change the form [of
the sacrament].
being at the service of a heterodox theology (Arian according to B. Capelle
and J. Lecuyer; subordinationist, Apollinarist or Macedonian according to
others) whereas several defend its orthodoxy (F.-X. Funk; M. Metzger in
his edition of “Sources Chrétiennes” (SC) Nos. 320, 329, and 336). See
the text in Annex 3 [to be published in the Jan. 2006 Angelus–Ed.].
38
Botte, An Insider’s View, pp.135-36.
39
Ibid., p.136.
40
The Most Reverend Jean Hervas y Benet, Bishop of Mallorca in Spain
(1905-82).
41

Ferdinando Giuseppe Antonelli, O.F.M., secretary of the Congregation of
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

14
Dom Botte: That’s true, but we do have a right to propose
changes to the Holy See.
Fr. Antonelli 41: We must pursue the investigation. It
would be preferable to indicate the essential words in the
new preface.
Cardinal Confalonieri: In the prayer of Hippolytus
the essential idea is well indicated (“Nunc effunde...”). But
the allegory taken from the Old Testament in the current
preface is beautiful. In the second part [of Hippolytus’
prayer] there are ideas to retain.
All are agreed that the investigation is to be continued.42

The questions you ask are the very questions I have
asked myself, and I think it is a good idea to explain to you
why I resolved them in the way I did, which you know.
1. On the subject of prayer in the form of a preface, two
remarks:
a) I do not believe that the introduction “Vere
dignum...” [“It is truly meet...” is the beginning of
every preface in the Missal–Ed.]is due to a Gallican
influence, which would represent a more ancient
tradition. If one follows the development of texts,
it can be seen that it involves an interpretation of a
rubric: in tono praefationis [“in the tone of the preface”–
Ed.]. Besides, we have the Gallican consecration
prayers conserved in the Gelasian [sacramentary]
(and given a secondary importance in the Pontifical),
and they do not have the Vere dignum.
b) It is incontestable that there are forms of
blessing in the form of a thanksgiving...But it must
be remarked that essentially these involve blessings
of things and not consecrations of persons....Notice
that in no Eastern rite, not even in the Gallican or
the old Roman, are the ordination prayers in the
form of a thanksgiving. By setting aside the form
of thanksgiving, we are conforming ourselves to
a universal tradition from which the Roman Rite
departed because of an erroneous interpretation of
a rubric.
2. As for the obsession with reducing everything to
Hippolytus, I believe that it exists only in your own mind....
There is only one case where we have preferred him, that
of the prayer of the episcopal consecration....Contrary to
what you think, I was not guided by a doctrinaire desire to
go back to the rites and usages of antiquity.
a) The Roman formula (contrary to what happens
for the priesthood and the diaconate) is of a poverty
of thought that contrasts with the sumptuousness of
the form. Everything is reduced to the symbolism of
Aaron, which, moreover, ends by being materialized
in the rites. Everyone is in agreement in finding that
it only gives a very imperfect idea of the theology of
the episcopacy.45
b) Consequently, the question arose, can we rework
it, add to it, or replace it with another formula. I
could hardly see anyway of reworking it. It has its
unity. Introducing foreign developments would
only result in making of it a monster of the genre of
Homer’s chimera. Have a new formula composed
by theologians? May God preserve us! I refuse to do
it, and I do not believe anyone is capable of doing
it. Therefore but one solution remained: look [for a
replacement] in the Eastern tradition.
c) One fact impressed me: For the consecration
of the patriarch in the patriarchates of both Antioch
and Alexandria, we find two related formulas which
are revisions of the prayer of Hippolytus. Whoever
the author may be, this is a fact of tradition. For
centuries, these prayers have been in usage in these
two patriarchates and give the episcopacy an infinitely

After the reading of this protocol, Dom Botte
wrote to Fr. Kleinheyer on December 11, 1965:
As regards the formula of episcopal consecration, I do
not think that it will be difficult to get the text of Hippolytus
passed. The objections are only coming from Cardinal
Confalonieri, because the Roman formula seems so beautiful
to him. The others have been struck by the richness of the
text. The Cardinal’s idea was to keep the Roman formula
and enrich it with the second half of Hippolytus. It will be
sufficient for us to show that this would result in something
rather lame.43

Several personages outside the Consilium were
consulted. On April 14, 1966, Fr. Louis Bouyer [19132004] wrote to the secretariat of Group 20:
Taken as a whole, this revision is a happy simplification
and a return to a more ancient tradition and more meaningful
by its sobriety. Nevertheless, I am afraid that it also
undeniably savors in some measure of antiquarianism.

He leveled two criticisms: on the one hand,
the abandonment of the consecratory prayer in its
“Eucharistic” form (in the form of a preface). He
recognized that this form was of Gallican origin,
but he found it very much in keeping with Biblical
tradition and he wondered if the ancient Gallican
tradition might not be closer to the origins than the
Roman tradition. And on the other hand, he did not
like Hippolytus:
Hippolytus was certainly an antiquarian, but, like
most antiquarians, while he understood well enough the
antiquity he wished to preserve as such, he did not realize
that undoubtedly he shared to a lesser degree the spirit of
the popes who were his contemporaries and to whom he
was opposed (very likely in liturgical matters as well as in
everything else). He was just an “integrist” before it was
called that, and you accord far too much honor to this
particularly narrow-minded and fanatical anti-pope by
substituting his lucubrations for texts that have behind them
centuries of usage.44

Dom Botte replied June 2nd with a handwritten
letter five pages long. Here are some excerpts:

the Sacraments, who became a bishop in 1966 and cardinal in 1973 (18961993).
42
Archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier).
43
Ibid., Kleinheyer file, B 116.
44
Ibid., B 117.
45
This is undoubtedly the most contestable passage in this letter of Dom
Botte. The purpose of the traditional rite was not to give a complete theolTHE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

ogy of the episcopacy, but it highlighted very well its essential aspect: the
bishop is the high priest of the New Testament, he possesses the supreme
degree of the priesthood. That is much less clear in the new rite. In reality,
it was a lack of love for the Roman liturgy that led him to seek something
else.–Ed.
46

Archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B

15
richer version than the Roman prayers. Would this not
be an opportunity, since it is necessary to change, to
get closer to the Eastern tradition? As you see, it is not
a concern for antiquarianism that has guided me, but a
concern for ecumenism....After these considerations,
if Hippolytus had a bad character, that is another
question. The work has an existence independent of
its author. We have no intention of getting caught up
in controversies about his person, nor the authenticity
of his work. Our guarantee is that this prayer inspired
two great Eastern patriarchates.46

His disparagement of the Roman liturgy aside,
the soundness of Dom Botte’s argumentation must
be recognized: the fact that the prayer of Hippolytus
was adopted by two Eastern patriarchates47 assures
its worth, prescinding entirely from the person of its
author48 or his character,
Another objection came from Msgr. Lallier,
Archbishop of Marseille, or rather from his secretary
Fr. Colin (for Msgr. Lallier was about to leave
Marseille for Besançon). In a letter dated September
28, 1966, at his bishop’s behest, Fr. Colin wrote his
remarks to Fr. Bugnini.49 He does not address the
principle of the reform, but he asks:
But one might wonder if a revision as profound as the one
envisaged does not risk being premature at the present time.
A reform excellent in itself can, in fact, not be opportune
and miss its goal if the psychological conditions in which it
is introduced are not favorable. Now, the consequences of
the reform of ordinations are great, as much for the priests
as for the seminarians and even the Christian people.

His criticisms bear upon the suppression of the
minor orders.50 As regards our subject, only this
sentence applies:
Moreover, allow me to express my sorrow at seeing the
disappearance of certain very rich formulas from the
present Pontifical, especially among the texts of Gallican
origin.

our little working group, we have been clear and of the
same opinion on the essentials of the subject from the
beginning!

Incidentally, we know that Dom Botte energetically
opposed Msgr. Lallier’s participation in the committee
tasked with the final revision of the schema.52
A final objection: We saw that Msgr. Jean Hervas
y Benet, a Spanish bishop, had expressed an objection
during the first presentation of the new rite before the
Consilium. He returned to the attack in a three-page
typewritten note dated October 14, 1966, written
in Latin.53 All the while praising the erudition and
work of the experts, he shared his several qualms of
conscience. He observes that the new consecratory
formula would completely eliminate the consecratory
preface presently in use, of which the essential part
had just been declared by Pope Pius XII in the
constitution Sacramentum Ordinis. Now, he says, to
justify such a step, it would be necessary:
a) That it be able to be shown, for grave reasons, that it
is not possible to improve upon the existing consecratory
form, by removing or adding some part, according to the
Council’s norm: “in such a way that new forms organically
proceed from the old.”...
b) It would be necessary to establish undeniably that
the new form better and more perfectly signifies the
sacramental action and its effect. That is to say, that it
should be established in no uncertain terms that it contains
no ambiguity, and that it omits nothing from among the
principal charges which are proper to the episcopal order.

He proposed comparing the old formula and
the new by placing them in parallel columns, which
he began to do for the essential words and for the
passage that indicates the power of governing (“ut
pascat gregem sanctum tuum” [“may shepherd thy
holy flock”–Ed.] in the new rite). Then he posed the
question:

We were only able to find one reply to Fr. Colin
in the archives of the secretariat of Group 20. But
we did find a letter from Fr. Vogel to Fr. Kleinheyer,
dated November 15, 1966,51 where he says:

A doubt occurs to me concerning the words “Spiritus
principalis”: do these words adequately signify the sacrament?
And can not the words “pascere gregem tuum” be interpreted
uniquely of the power to teach and to sanctify, excluding
the power to govern?

I was quite disagreeably surprised when I read the
letter from Marseille (Fr. Colin). Apparently there is some
resistance from that quarter. But I could not have imagined
it would be manifested so strongly. How good it is that, in

And he concluded by saying that sufficient elements
had not been given to the Consilium to enable them
to judge such an important matter.

117.
At the Church’s beginning, there were only three patriarchates: Rome,
Antioch, and Alexandria, all three tied to the person of St. Peter. He it was
who founded the Church of Antioch before going to Rome, and he sent
his “secretary,” St. Mark, to found the Church of Alexandria in his name,
as it were. The presence of the same prayer in the two patriarchates of
Alexandria and of Antioch is obviously a very strong argument.
48
From this we see how futile are the discussions of Rore Sanctifica to determine whether Hippolytus is really the author of the Apostolic Tradition.
The problem does not lie there.
49
Archives of the German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B
117.
50
He expressed himself in these terms: “Certainly, the minor Orders often
did not correspond with the exercise of a real ‘function.’ But they had
an indisputable spiritual advantage: that of making the clerics become
progressively more aware of the profound exigencies of the priesthood,

of ‘revealing’ to them little by little the interior attitudes that the Church
expects of her ministers and from which a priest cannot dispense himself
in the daily exercise of his ministry: welcoming the faithful, fidelity to the
Word of God, combat against the devil, the testimony of an exemplary life,
etc. Would there not be a detriment to the spiritual formation of the clergy
by suppressing too hastily these ‘steps’?”
51
German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 117.
52
On June 22, 1966, the Secretariat of State had asked that Msgr. Lallier,
Archbishop of Marseille, be assigned to the work group. Dom Botte made
a little threat: it was either him or Msgr. Lallier. (Bugnini, La Riforma
liturgica, pp.690-91.)
53
German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 117; our translation.

47

54

Msgr. Hervas regretted the omission of this word from the rite of ordination
to the priesthood.
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

16
The critique was grave, and called for a serious
response. We do not know if such a response was
forthcoming, for we have found nothing in the
archives of the Group 20 secretariat. On the other
hand, we did find a letter dated October 21, 1966,
from Dom Botte to Fr. Kleinheyer, the Group
secretary, displaying an unpardonable levity, of which
we present a few excerpts:
My Dear Professor:
Attached is a comment on our schema by a Spanish
bishop. Theologians are rather obtuse people who have no
notion about literary genres. There is a difference between
a treatise of theology or a Conciliar decree and a sermon.
What preacher would ever dream of using so ugly a word
as “sacramentaliter” [“sacramentally”–Ed.]54 or its translation.
Moreover, it would be incomprehensible to the people. The
Conciliar decrees are not models of eloquence, and I see no
point in composing allocutions in Scholastic jargon, neither
in Latin nor in any other language. Durand of Mende55 had
more good sense, and he was more inspired by the Fathers
than by St. Thomas’s Summa....56

In fact, Dom Botte does not take up the questions
raised by Msgr. Hervas about the new rite of
episcopal consecration. Even if the objections do not
call into question the validity of the new rite [as we
shall see in Part Two to be published in January 2006–
Ed.], they clearly pose the question of the lawfulness
and the opportuneness of such a change. The offhand
and even contemptuous way Dom Botte treats the
problem (“theologians are rather obtuse people”) in
itself suffices to condemn this reform.
The prayer of ordination of a bishop (presented
in Schema 180) was discussed at the seventh session
of the Consilium on October 6, 1966. The only
opposition came from Cardinal Felici57 and Msgr.
Hervas. Fr. Lécuyer successfully defended the new
prayer. It was approved on October 7, 1966, by
30 votes for, 3 against, and 2 “juxta modum” [an
affirmative vote but with reservations–Ed.]. The
Consilium approved, by a vote of 34 for and 1
abstention, that the entire schema (including the
ordinations of deacons and priests) be submitted to
the Sovereign Pontiff for approval.58

55

William Durand, Bishop of Mende from 1286 to 1296, a liturgist of
repute.
56
German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 117.
57
Cardinal Felici committed a blunder that Dom Botte knew how to exploit.
The cardinal declared that he preferred the address actually in usage to the
one that had been proposed. Dom Botte replied that there was no address
in the rite currently in effect (ibid., B 131.) Six years later, in his memoirs
Dom Botte savored his victory: “Hardly had I finished my explanation
than I heard the peremptory remark: ‘The old address was better.’ The
speaker wanted to develop his idea, but I grabbed the mike in front of me
and cut him off by asking where this address was found in the Pontifical.
He wanted to go off on a tangent, but I brought him back to the question.
He gazed at me with a stunned look. I added: ‘Don’t look, it’s not worth
your time–there never was an address for the ordination of a bishop in the
Pontifical.’ A little discreet laughter was heard, followed by silence. Our
address was approved without difficulty.” (Botte, op. cit., p.128.)
58
German Liturgical Institute (Trier), Kleinheyer file, B 131.
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

The new rite was approved by the Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith on October 11, 1967.
The only remarks concerned the examination of the
candidate and the ordination prayer, about which it
was noted: “The text of Hippolytus, duly adapted, is
acceptable.”59
The Congregation of Sacraments requested
that the new rite be preceded by an introduction
affirming the sacramental nature of ordination to the
episcopacy, in conformity with Lumen Gentium. As for
the text, comments were only made about details, as,
for instance, that they found the allocution to be too
long.60
Finally, the Congregation of Rites (of which
Fr. Bugnini was the under-secretary) only made
comments about details.61
Before receiving the pope’s definitive
approbation, the reformed rite was submitted to a
joint commission of the Congregations for the Faith,
of Sacraments, and of Rites, which met February 1-2,
1968.62
The pope approved the reform of the rite on June
10, 1968.63
Part II (the conclusion) will make replies to all the objections for invalidity of
the new episcopal rite of consecration found in Part I. It will also provide in
chart form the texts of the two certainly valid Eastern rites upon which the new
formula of consecration is based in parallel with the Apostolic Constitution of
Hippolytus and the new formula of ordination introduced into the Latin rite.
Two other tables will show the relation between the two Eastern rites and the
text of Hippolytus.
This article is translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Sel de la Terre,
No.54. Autumn 2005, pp.72-129.
Fr. Pierre-Marie, O.P. is a member of the traditional Dominican monastery
at Avrillé, France, several of whose members were ordained by Archbishop
Lefebvre. He is a regular contributor to their quarterly review, Sel de la Terre
(Salt of the Earth).

59

This document of the CDF is cited more fully above under “Arguments on
the Contrary.”
60
The pages that we consulted in the Trier German Liturgical Institute archives
on the Pontificale Romanum shelf are undated and unsigned.
61
The comments were handed by the congregation’s secretary, Msgr. Ferdinando Antonelli, to the under-secretary, Fr. Bugnini, on December 16,
1967. (Trier German Liturgical Institute, Pontificale Romanum shelf.)
62
Bugnini, La Riforma liturgica, p.692.
63
To give an idea of the liberty that the reformers took with the pope’s
directives, we point out this fact: The pope had explicitly asked that the
chant of the Veni Creator–which Fr. Bugnini and Dom Botte wanted to
suppress–be kept in the rite of ordination of bishops. In the 1968 edition,
the rubric prescribes that it be sung after the homily, “or another hymn that
corresponds to it, according to local custom,” and the 1990 edition rubric
merely directs that “it may be sung, or another hymn....”

Traditional
Religious
Orders
17

CCARMEL
ARMELITE NUNS
OF THE HOLY TRINITY,
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON

T

he very name of “Carmel” is in itself an indication of the origin of the Order.
Carmel is a mountain in Palestine, which forms part of the Lebanon range.
“Carmel” in the Hebrew tongue means “vineyard” or “orchard.” Holy
Scripture presents Mount Carmel as a fertile and delightful place, and its
descriptions are often used in the Liturgy to symbolize the Blessed Virgin
Mary. Even to this day, Mount Carmel, surrounded by the sea, remains a site of
breathtaking beauty.
Tradition traces the origin of the Order back to the Prophet Elias, who first
frequented the holy mountain. During a terrible drought, Elias went up on
Mount Carmel to implore God’s mercy over His people. At his prayer, a small
cloud rose from the sea and grew until it covered the entire sky, pouring forth a
salutary rain upon the thirsty ground. The Church has always seen in this little
cloud a prophetic image of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pope St. Pius X, in his
Encyclical Ad Diem Illum, wrote “Mary was the object of the thoughts of Elias
when he was contemplating the cloud rising from the sea.”

www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

18

The hour of
mental prayer

The public chapel of the Carmel

Carmel, being a place of solitude and very suitable for a
life of prayer, became the refuge of the disciples of Elias and
Eliseus, who were known as “the Sons of the Prophets.” At the
time of the Crusades, hermits from the Occident also came to
dwell in the natural grottos so numerous on Mount Carmel. In
1209, St. Albert, Patriarch of Jerusalem, wrote a Rule for the
“Brother Hermits of the Blessed Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel.”
This Rule only codified the form of life that the Hermits had
spontaneously adopted. The Saracen invasion forced the Brother
Hermits to leave Palestine and seek refuge in Europe. It was at
that time that they were given the name of Carmelites.
In 1251, St. Simon Stock, General of the Order, received the
Holy Scapular from the hands of our Blessed Mother as a pledge
of her protection over the Order.
It was only in the 15th century that Bl. John Soreth
established the Carmelite observance for women, and for
this reason he is considered as their founder. Little by little,
relaxation crept into the Order and the Rule was mitigated,
i.e., its primitive austerity was softened. But God raised up St.
Teresa of Avila, who reformed the Order and caused the spirit of
contemplation to blossom again.
Teresa de Ahumada entered the Carmel of the Incarnation
in Avila, where she lived for more than 20 years as a good
religious. However, she realized that the lack of a strict
enclosure, together with frequent worldly conversations in
the parlor, seriously hindered a true life of prayer. With a few
companions, she decided to return to the Primitive Rule. In
spite of much opposition and many difficulties, she founded
the Carmel of St. Joseph in Avila. She extended the reform to
the Carmelite Fathers with the help of St. John of the Cross.
She spent the last years of her life traveling throughout Spain,
founding one Carmel after another. When she died at Alba de
Tormes on October 4, 1582, at the age of 67, she had founded 16
Carmels for nuns.
After the death of the holy reformatrix, two of her daughters,
Bl. Ann of St. Bartholomew and Ven. Ann of Jesus, founded
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

“Gloria Patri....”

19

Assisting at Mass
The call to prayer
Teresian Carmels in France and Belgium. The first
Carmel in the US was founded in 1790 by Carmelites
from Belgium.

The Ideal of Carmel
The ideal of Carmel is a life of prayer and union with
God. (Rev. Fr. Francis of St. Mary, O.C.D.)

A very old Carmelite text, The Institutions of the
First Monks, tells us the aim of the Order:
This life of Carmel has a double aim: the first is the
perfection of charity, which one can reach “with the help
of divine grace, through our efforts and virtuous works.”
The second is “to taste somewhat in the heart and to
experience in the soul, not only after death but even in
this mortal life, the intensity of the Divine Presence and
the sweetness of the glory of heaven.”

This contemplation is a gratuitous gift from God
who gives it “when, how, and to whom He pleases.”
But if contemplation is a gratuitous gift from God,
the soul nevertheless must dispose herself to it by a
generous abnegation and a great fidelity to mental
prayer.

Each vocation reproduces the invitation of Jesus
to the rich young man. God looks upon us, He is the
first to love us and He says: “Come!” But He adds:
“if you wish.” The soul remains free to respond
generously to this invitation. The soul which God calls
to Carmel discovers in herself this need to find God,
to contemplate Him, and to love Him in the silence of
heart-to-heart contact. Attracted by prayer and silent
adoration, the soul desires to give herself entirely to
God. As the sanctuary lamp before the tabernacle,
she wants to consume herself for God alone. Hidden
behind the grates, she adores for all those who do not
adore, loves for those who do not love, and hopes
for those who do not hope. The soul that aspires to
Carmel understands that the contemplative life will
allow her to concentrate all of her energies on God
alone.

The Apostolate of Prayer
One does not leave the world in order to escape from
it, but to take it more perfectly in charge before God.
(Rev. Fr. Francis of St. Mary, O.C.D.)

www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

20

Making habits

Embroidery of
church vestments

Laundry day

Ora et labora
St. Teresa of Avila founded the reformed Carmel to counteract the
ravages brought about by the Protestant heresies. She stressed this apostolic
aim of the Carmel in the first chapters of her Way of Perfection. St. Therese of
the Child Jesus understood this very well:
What a noble mission is ours! We offer our prayers and sacrifices for the Apostles
of the Lord....It is our responsibility to preserve the salt of the earth.

The Carmelite prays for all of her brothers; nevertheless, priests have
a privileged place. “I came to Carmel...above all to pray for priests,” said
St. Therese of the Child Jesus. Through her prayers and sacrifices, the
Carmelite obtains graces for priests to reach souls and lead them to God.
She merits graces for souls to be docile to the teaching of the preachers. Bl.
Elizabeth of the Trinity, O.C.D., sums up the apostolate of a Carmelite in a
letter to a priest:
While you will bring Him to souls, I will stay...silent in adoration before the
Master, asking Him to make your words fruitful in souls.

Pope Pius XI declared St. Therese of the Child Jesus Patron of the
Missions, on a par with St. Francis Xavier, thus showing the importance of
the apostolate of the contemplatives.
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

Characteristics of
Carmelite Spirituality
Solitude
God is not found in the turmoil
of the world. The strict enclosure,
the grates and veils separate the
Carmelite from the world. St.
Teresa of Avila clearly said that the
only desire of a contemplative is
“to be alone with God Alone.” In
consequence, there is no common
workroom in Carmel. Each Sister
works alone in her cell or in the
workroom that has been allotted
to her. God reveals Himself to the
solitary heart: “I will lead her into
solitude and speak to her heart.”

21

of
s

y

Sacristy work

Recreation
“You are to eat whatever may
have been given you in a
common refectory.” (Rule)

Silence
Together with solitude, silence is one of the
dominant notes of Carmel. There are different
kinds of silence: silence of action: walking softly,
closing doors quietly, and making as little noise
as possible...silence of the tongue: avoiding
unnecessary conversations or words outside of
the two daily recreations...interior silence: silence
of the imagination and the memory, which keeps
the soul in an atmosphere of recollection and
enables her to remain in the presence of God.
The Carmelite makes the motto of the
Prophet Elias her own: “He is living, the God in
Whose presence I stand.” Silence is at one and
the same time both asceticism and a necessary
condition for the life of continual prayer which
is that of the Carmelite. It keeps the soul in a
certain expectation, waiting for the Spouse.

Detachment
In order to arrive at possessing everything, desire to possess
nothing....For, in order to pass from the all to the All, thou hast
to deny thyself wholly in all. (St. John of the Cross)

In order to reach the summit of Mount Carmel, it is
necessary to take the path of “the Nothing,” which alone
leads to “the All.” The Carmelite adds to silence and
solitude a generous and continual effort to be detached
from all. If God is to fill the soul, He must find it empty.
This implies a work of purification and mortification of
all the powers of the soul and of all the senses. There
is detachment of the heart, by which we renounce all
attachments to material goods (vow of poverty) and also
all attachments to creatures (vow of chastity). The vow of
obedience helps the religious to detach herself from her
own will. “Obedience is the way that leads most quickly
to the summit of perfection,” said St. Teresa of Avila. To
renounce one’s will in order to submit to the judgment and
will of others is no easy task. To triumph over the many
struggles, one needs God’s grace and great generosity.
Finally, the soul must be detached even from the
complacency she finds in her spiritual exercises and
consolations. St. John of the Cross teaches that “love does
not consist in feeling great things, but in experiencing great
privations and great sufferings for the Beloved.”

Mortification
The life of Carmel is austere in itself; simple buildings
without decoration, bare white walls, coarse habits
(homespun frieze is now replaced by wool cloth). The
Carmelite must endure the cold in the winter and the heat
in summer. Abstinence from meat is perpetual. The Rule
provides, nevertheless, for exemptions to remedy “bodily
sickness or feebleness...for necessity has no law” (Rule). The
fast of the Order, which is less severe than the fast of the
Church during Lent, lasts from September 14 until Easter.
To these mortifications imposed by the Rule, the
Carmelite will add all the little acts of mortification which
love inspires. St. Therese of the Child Jesus gives us a good
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

22
example of the little way of renouncing ourselves in
little things.
All this should not frighten any applicant.
Carmelite life has been adapted so as not to exceed
the normal strength of a 21st-century girl.

Penance
Wishing to fill up those things that are wanting
of the sufferings of Christ, in her flesh, for His body,
which is the Church, the Carmelite gives herself up
to the practice of penance. If the Carmel is austere,
it is not, strictly speaking, a penitential order. The
penances imposed by the Rule are practiced, not
as an end, but as a means of attaining perfection in
conformity with Christ. “Do not forget that you are
the spouses of a Crucified God,” St. Teresa said to her
daughters.
Solitude, silence, detachment, and mortification:
such are the elements of the active purification
undertaken by a soul “kindled in love with
yearnings.” God Himself will complete the work with
passive purifications: sickness, moral and spiritual
sufferings. In the crucible of trials, the soul is purified
like gold in the furnace in order to be presented to
God “holy, pure, and irreprehensible.”
Mental Prayer
Mental prayer is the cornerstone of the spirituality
of Carmel. All the exercises of the day converge upon
the two hours of mental prayer prescribed daily by
the Constitution. In turn, it is from mental prayer that
all the actions of the day proceed.
Solitude, silence, detachment, and mortification
are necessary conditions for mental prayer. If they are
the negative aspect of Carmelite spirituality, mental
prayer and union with God are its positive aspect
and its goal. The emptiness hollowed in the soul by
a generous effort of asceticism will be filled by God
during prayer. The “Nada” of St. John of the Cross
exists only for the “Todo.”
In order to be strong, the structure of mental
prayer must have a deep humility as its foundation,
otherwise the soul could go astray and become the toy
of her own illusions or fall prey to the devil.
Provided that the soul is humble and adheres
to the doctrine of the Church, she will enjoy a
great freedom in mental prayer. In Carmel, neither
methods of mental prayer nor subjects for meditation
are imposed. However, a certain discipline is required
to avoid spiritual laziness. A sound theological
knowledge is also necessary in order not to stray from
the path of orthodoxy. A weekly spiritual conference
given by a priest nourishes the soul of the Carmelite
and provides the necessary elements of Catholic
dogma.
“The essence of mental prayer is not to think
much, but to love much,” teaches St. Teresa of Avila.
Meditation and reasoning prepare the soul to remain
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

in the presence of God and to speak to Him. This
is also the teaching of our holy Mother: “Mental
prayer is a friendly intercourse of the soul with Him
Who loves her.” The more the soul progresses, the
more this colloquy becomes simple and occupies the
greatest part of her time of prayer. It may even be
but a simple loving gaze upon God, until the Lord
Himself raises the soul up to Him in contemplation.
The value of prayer, however is not measured by
the sweetness one may enjoy, but by the generous
accomplishment of one’s duties, in spite of the
repugnancies of human nature. Mental prayer leads to
a life of union with God, which is defined as the union
of our will with the Will of God.

The Order of the
Blessed Virgin Mary
Tradition says that the Blessed Virgin Mary gives birth
to Carmel. She is the life of the Order, firstly, because
she gives us her own life as a model to imitate, as an ideal
to obtain; and secondly, because the veneration of Mary
is the whole reason for the Order’s existence. The Order
was founded to honor the Mother of God. (Fr. Gabriel
of St. Mary Magdalene, O.C.D.)

We have already seen the important place that
Our Lady holds in the development of the Order.
She was prophetically announced on Mount Carmel
in the little cloud seen by the Prophet Elias around
900 years before her Immaculate Conception. She
was called “Sister” by the first Christian hermits, who
were honored with the title of “Brothers of the Blessed
Virgin Mary of Mount Carmel,” and was invoked in
the following manner by St. Simon Stock:
Most beautiful flower of Carmel, fruitful vine;
Splendor of Heaven, Blessed Mother of the Son of God,
Incomparable Mother,
Sweet Mother, who knew not man,
Grant a pledge of your protection to the children of
Carmel.

Mary granted this request in giving the holy
Scapular to St. Simon Stock as a sign of her protection
over the Order, which hails her as “Regina Decor
Carmeli–Queen and Beauty of Carmel.”
“Carmel is all Marian” is what the early
Carmelites proudly proclaimed, and Our Lady is
to be found throughout the history of Carmel. St.
Teresa of Avila established her as the Prioress of her
monastery; she is the “Virgin of the Smile” of St.
Therese of the Child Jesus, and the “Janua Coeli” of Bl.
Elizabeth of the Trinity.
Yes, Mary is truly the Queen of Carmel, but as
St. Therese put it so well: “She is more Mother than
Queen.” Each Carmelite has an ardent filial love for
the Mother of God, as well as the desire to imitate the
silent, hidden, and adoring life of the Blessed Virgin
in Nazareth. Our Lady is her model in prayer and in
her intimate life with God.

DAILY SCHEDULE
The Divine Office and Holy Mass
As all nuns with solemn vows, the Carmelite is
held to the recitation of the breviary. She uses the
Roman breviary, completed by the supplement of
the Order. The Divine Office is recited in choir on
one note (recto tono). This sobriety in the liturgy is
characteristic of Carmel and its goal is to concentrate
all of the attention on God alone.
The Holy Mass is occasionally chanted in
Gregorian. The Carmelites assist at Mass in the choir,
but are hidden from sight by the grate and curtains.
However, this does not prevent them from seeing the
altar. The Holy Mass is the climax of the Carmelite’s
day. She then offers the day to the unique redeeming
Sacrifice of the Cross.

5:40 AM

Awakening

6:00 AM

Angelus, Lauds, followed by
one hour of mental prayer

7:15 AM

Prime and Terce

8:00 AM

Holy Mass
Breakfast
Work time (preceded by Novitiate
for the Novices)

11:45 AM Sext
NOON

Angelus, supper or collation (a
smaller meal taken during some
periods of the liturgical year),
followed by an hour of recreation

You must give yourselves to work of some kind, so
that the devil may always find you busy; no idleness on
your part must give him a chance to pierce the defenses
of your souls. (Rule)

1:30 PM

None

2:00 PM

Spiritual reading

By her vow of poverty, the Carmelite embraces
a life of labor, which is in full accord with the great
monastic principle “ora at labora–pray and work.”
The employments are varied. There are those that
are directed towards the service of the community,
such as the laundry, kitchen, sacristy, garden....Then
there are those destined to procure some resources
for the monastery, such as the making of altar linens
and vestments and various other arts and crafts. St.
Teresa of Avila wanted her daughters to be occupied
by manual work that is not too absorbing, thus
leaving the mind free to be occupied with God. The
Carmelite works alone, either in her cell or in another
assigned place, unless some necessary chore requires
the help of the whole community, in which case
silence and recollection are, nevertheless, kept.

2:30 PM

Work time

4:45 PM

Vespers, followed by one hour of
mental prayer

6:00 PM

Angelus, supper or collation,
followed by one hour of recreation

7:30 PM

Compline (Grand Silence begins
after Compline until Prime the
next day)

9:00 PM

Matins

Work

Recreation
Although a hermit for most of the day, the
Carmelite comes together with her sisters twice a day
for a period of recreation. These times of relaxation,
prescribed by the Constitutions, are spent in a wholly
family spirit. On weekdays, the Carmelite brings her
work basket to the recreation and continues her usual
work while chatting cheerfully with her companions.
St. Teresa has forbidden games at recreation,
saying, “Our Lord will give to some the grace of
recreating the others.” This proves to be very true!
Carmelite recreations are always quite lively. The
Prioress also profits from the times of recreation to
confide particular prayer intentions to the Community
and to share with the Sisters any important news of
the events in the life of the Church.

23

10:00 PM Lights out

The Formation of a Carmelite
The Postulancy
The young lady who aspires to become a
Carmelite, teaches St. Teresa, must have sound
judgment and good health. A good nervous balance is
necessary for someone who wishes to live in a Carmel
and will have to bear the solitude and regularity of
the monastic life. The entrance to Carmel marks the
beginning of the postulancy. During six months (or
more, if necessary), the postulant follows the Rule
like all the other religious. She submits to the law of
enclosure, but remains free to leave the convent if she
discovers that she does not have a vocation.
A Sister chosen by the Prioress is given the
charming name of “Angel,” and will initiate the
newcomer to the usages and customs of Carmel. The
daily novitiate and the direction of the Mistress of
www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • December 2005

24
Novices will begin the Carmelite formation of the
postulant.
After six months, upon the vote of the Chapter,
the postulant is accepted as a novice and will receive
the holy habit of Carmel.

The Novitiate
The Novitiate begins with the ceremony of
the “Taking of the Habit.” In accordance with the
regulations made under the pontificate of Pius XII,
the postulant receives the habit at the grate of the
choir without leaving the enclosure for the ceremony.
The novitiate lasts two years. At the end of the two
years, upon the vote of the chapter, the novice is
allowed to take her temporary vows. The three vows
of poverty, chastity, and obedience according to
the Primitive Rule of the Order of Mount Carmel
are taken for one year. These vows will be renewed
every year for six years. The temporary professed
sister remains free to leave the Carmel at the end of
each year should she realize that she does not have a
vocation.
The Solemn Profession
This is the final step and will change the novice
into a Carmelite nun. Again, the chapter votes,
and if the novice is accepted, she pronounces her
solemn and perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and
obedience. The vows are always taken in the chapter
room, in the presence of the nuns only. At the end
of the Holy Mass following the profession, the newly
professed Sister receives the black veil, sign of her
consecration to God.

History of the Carmel
of the Holy Trinity
The Carmel of the Holy Trinity was founded
by the Carmel of the Sacred Heart (in Quievrain,
Belgium). We can trace our origins back to the
Carmelite Reform undertaken by St. Teresa of Avila.
After the death of St. Teresa, a few Spanish Carmelites
came to France in 1604, and established the first
Reformed Carmel in Paris. Several foundations were
then made from the Carmel of Paris. In 1610, one
of the Spanish Carmelites went to Bordeaux, where
she founded the seventh Carmel of the Reform in
France. In 1616, the Carmel of Bordeaux founded
a Carmel in Toulouse, which, in turn, founded the
Carmel of Limoges in 1618. In 1654, the Carmel of
Limoges founded a Carmel in Angouleme. During the
religious persecution which raged in France in 1901,
the Carmelites were expelled from their Carmel in
Angouleme and took refuge in Enghien, Belgium. In
1925, they returned to France and established their
Carmel in Tourcoing (Northern France). In 1949, the
Carmel was transferred to Parkes, Australia, where it
celebrated its third centennial in 1954.
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

The blood sister of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre,
Mother Marie Christiane, Foundress of the Carmel of
Quievrain–then in the Carmel of Parkes, Australia–
knew from her episcopal brother that many vocations
were falling away because there was no Carmel
in which the Tridentine Mass was offered. Having
received the necessary permissions, she returned to
Europe, and was later joined by Sr. Marie Pierre.
Together, they founded the Carmel of the Sacred
Heart, in Quievrain, Belgium, in August, 1978.
God blessed the new Carmel. In 12 years, five
other Carmels were founded by the Carmel of
Quievrain: two Carmels in France, one in Germany,
one in Switzerland, and one in the U.S.
In 1984, property was acquired in Phoenixville,
Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia. On October
4,1985, our Mother Foundress and six Sisters flew
from Brussels to New York. The first Holy Mass was
celebrated on October 5 in the tiny chapel of the
temporary Carmel. On November 13, 1985, His
Grace Archbishop Lefebvre blessed the enclosure and
the Sisters resumed their regular cloistered life.
With time, many obstacles proved that it would
not be possible to establish a full-sized monastery in
Phoenixville. In the summer of 1989, a suitable piece
of property was found on the outskirts of Spokane,
Washington. Eight months later, the first wing of the
Carmel was completed and the Sisters moved into
their new home on July 11, 1990.
Our monastery is now entirely completed and
awaits all of the generous vocations which Our Lord
has chosen for it from all eternity.
For information on this Carmel:
Carmel of the Holy Trinity
S. 4027 Wilbur Road
Spokane, WA 99206
Tel: 509-928-0114
Other traditional Carmels affiliated
with the Society of St. Pius X:
Carmel de Sacré Coeur
Rue des Wagnons, 16
B-7380 Quiévrain
BELGIUM
Carmel du Coeur Immaculé de Marie
15 La Grangeotte
33220 Eynesse
FRANCE
Carmel du T.S. Sacrement
Avenue de Lachomette
43210 Bas en Basset
FRANCE
Karmel St. Josef
Kochbacher Str. 89
59929 Brilon Wald
GERMANY
Carmel Marie Reine des Anges
Crémières
1071 Chexbres
SWITZERLAND

25

“Pray for
us sinners...”
F r .

Theotokos! Our Lady, you are the Mother of
God. You have given yourself totally to the will
of God, your life was one of unfailing loyalty, a
perpetual praise of adoration. In you, nothing
escaped from the love of God, and your response
itself was worth more in the eyes of God than the
merits of the saints.
Ave Maria! We greet you, Mother of the Savior
and our mother. We greet you with an infinite
respect, you who, throughout your entire life knew
to prefer the will of God to your own will. We
greet you with the admiration of those who know
themselves to be poor, infirm sinners and who
contemplate with you the beauty of God in your
Immaculate Conception. We greet you with a filial
affection, you who, by your fiat repeated up until
the foot of the Cross, have become our mother. We
greet you and we rejoice in all your prerogatives, O
triumph of the heart of God and the honor of your
children.

Y v e s

l e

R o u x

Gratia Plena! Your soul is full of grace, O Mary;
the splendor of God lives there and the Son of God
receives there His priestly consecration. You are
the first and most sacred sanctuary of Christianity.
Through the grace of our vocation we have the
privilege of being made its guardians. Give us the
intelligence of your greatness and the love of your
splendor so that we may show ourselves worthy.
Gratia Plena! This fullness infinitely exceeds
our understanding. God alone can measure it
because He Himself is the measure of it. You are,
indeed, the Mirror of the Trinity, the Speculum
Justitiae. Your soul receives the limpid water of grace
without introducing to it the usual cloudiness of the
resistance of our poor wills. Completely abandoned
to the Divine Will, you become a fountain of
gushing water; a fountain of grace where divinity
comes and quenches one’s thirst; a fountain of life
where we receive the mercy of your maternal heart.
Gratia Plena! Are we even obliged to translate
this phrase? Alas, it seems that we must respond
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • December 2005

26
in the affirmative. The modernists are not only
content with attacking your Son, they persevere in
destroying the Church; they attack you and deny
aggressively your Immaculate Conception. They try
to rally your children to their side by disfiguring the
Angelic Salutation. Thus the phrase, “full of grace,”
which translates the ineffable fullness flooding your
soul is now rendered by the wretched “filled up with
grace.”
Some think that we are in the midst of a war of
words which seems old fashioned. It isn’t true! Let
us not forget, indeed, that all the heresies get around
souls by subtle changes which at first seem such
trivial things. This recent variation in language is,
at the least, ambiguous. The fullness of the grace of
the very Blessed Virgin Mary is no longer expressed
the way it ought to be. It is insidiously implied that
the majesty of the Divine Presence in Our Lady
is no longer that fullness which defies time and
measure. This insinuation is too much. The grace in
you, Holy Virgin, has been and remains eternally
that plenitude which escapes all human judgment.
You are, O Virgin Mary, the Immaculate; fullness
of grace; fullness of the gifts of the Holy Ghost;
fullness of the virtues; the fullness of God! We want
to continue to greet you as such: Ave Maria Gratia
Plena!
Dominus Tecum! Here is your greatest secret.
Your being is not your own. Christ is the center of
your soul. In us, mercifully, He resides and dwells.
In you, His life is your life; with us, our life is
limited just to belong to Him. All the difference lies
in the fact that you are in the order of being itself;
we remain confined in the order of having. You are
of God; we are of man.
Dominus Tecum! Your life, entirely abandoned,
disappeared into that of God. You are the most
pure echo of the Creator. Your heart only vibrates
to His divine accents. St. Louis Marie Grignion de
Montfort could justly affirm that when we greet
you with the sweet name of Mary, in your soul
you answer, “Jesus.” You know nothing other than
Christ and His Love. Your soul is but a divine,
incandescent ember.
Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus! You, Our Lady,
are the Immaculate, free of all stain. We are naught
else than poor sinners for whom weakness is just
the same as presumptuousness. We place our
recourse in you, our mother and advocate. We
place it especially in your Immaculate Conception
because God has given you the unique privilege in
view of your divine maternity. And yet, He wanted
this maternity to extend to sinful souls and be the
privileged instrument of His mercy. Also, He gave
to you the power of communicating the grace which
decorates your soul to those who confide themselves
to you, who consecrate themselves to you as queen.
The herald of the Immaculate, St. Maximilian
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

Kolbe, said very justly that you have received
from God a power of “immaculization” over all
those who offer you a special devotion. [See The
Immaculata, Our Ideal, available from Angelus Press.
Price: $16.95. See inside front cover of this issue of
The Angelus for details.–Ed.] May we belong to that
number in order that your Immaculate Heart might
come to purify our hearts!
You are our mother, O Immaculate Mary, and
your mother’s heart, far from recoiling in front of
the filth of our souls, attacked by the putrefaction of
our world, inclines upon us in order to retrieve us
from the mud of our iniquities. Mother, your reason
for being is the gift of life, the life of grace which
you live. This life truly makes of us your children
because it is the vivifying presence of Our Lord
Jesus Christ in us, regenerating our soul. Dominus
Tecum–Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
You are our mother, O Immaculate Virgin, as
Apostles of Jesus and Mary because the Priestly
Society of Saint Pius X has solemnly consecrated
itself to you on this beautiful feast of your
Immaculate Conception. On this day when we
renew our promises in your heart, we come to
reiterate that consecration in order that we might
only be docile instruments in your all-pure hands.
Guard our religious society and keep all its members
safe from the errors of the world. Preserve us from
the stains which defile your divine Son, preserve
us most especially from the restless wandering
which distances us from the virtue of faith. In
this apostate world, let us know how to resist and
remain unshakable in our fidelity. Without your
aid and maternal protection we would not be able
to cultivate all the flowers of the virtues, and your
worldly enemy, Satan, would know how to get
around us. Protect our chaste heart safe from the
appeals of the flesh; keep our soul in the nobility
of the truth which is beyond all compromise; keep
within our Society and in our souls the desire to
fight to defend your honor and that of your Son.
Sustain our ardor, maintain happiness in our
hearts, in order that, united to your Immaculate
Heart, we might participate in your assured victory;
in the end, your Immaculate Heart will triumph.
Our Lady, guardian of the Faith, keep our faith
intact; Mother of Divine Charity, inflame our souls
with the ineffable love of your Son, Our Lord Jesus
Christ; Our Lady of Blessed Hope, convert us. Ave
Maria Gratia Plena–Dominus Tecum–Ora Pro Nobis
Peccatoribus.
Fr. Yves le Roux was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1990 and is
currently Rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, where
he also teaches Introduction to Philosophy, Ethics, Acts of the Magisterium,
and Liturgy. This article was given as a sermon on the Feast of the Immaculate
Conception in 2003. Reprinted with permission. Coronation of the Virgin
(detail) by Gentile da Fabriano (1370-1427) from the J. Paul Getty Museum,
Los Angeles, California.

27

Ten Minutes

			 with Fr. de Chivré:

The Religious

Education

of Children

The problems surrounding the education of children in their
religion are vast. I can only sketch out general themes which I have
chosen because they seem to me both the most essential and perhaps
the most forgotten.
In this type of education, what takes priority is the place of God in
the soul of the child and not the place of the child in the life of God. It
is about allowing God to possess in the mind of the child–by preparing
it for Him–a place where His lights, His counsels, and His inspirations
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • December 2005

28
might be received to the point of not only being
accepted by the child, but so desired that he will
then of his own volition enlarge that place as much
as possible by a heartfelt need to open himself to the
action of the supernatural. To do this requires that
we place God within reach of the child, to make him
understand the importance of God in his life now
and forever; to give him a need of God even outside
of any religious practice; to give him a spontaneous
love of God so that he pursues Him willfully even
as he is launched into life on his own. It is therefore
not first and foremost about religious exercises. It
is about creating and strengthening a state of soul
through knowledge of doctrine, through the liturgy,
through exercises suited to the natural capacities of
the child, both in quality and in quantity.
Consequently, what is worthwhile in the eyes
of God (as He is the standard and not what is
considered worthwhile in the eyes of men) is only
such knowledge, liturgy, and exercises which form
these dispositions in the child’s soul permanently,
for an entire life. These dispositions are what
will enable the child to find his role in helping
forge a generation capable of bringing about an
authentically Catholic world, in his home, in his
morals, in his business, in his respect for Sunday,
in his suffering, in his death, etc. Regardless of the
number of religious exercises he has performed–like
them or not–during his school years, the only
purpose of these exercises must be to form the
disposition of perseverance in the conscious life of
the child and not to discourage him, let alone drive
him away.
If we assess the problem frankly we must agree
that in the service of God three things are key:
knowledge (or understanding); love; freedom. As
long as these three elements are not prayerfully
fostered in religious education on a level with the
mind, heart, and sensibility of the child, God will
not be understood and so will be forgotten; God
will not be served and so will be offended; God
will not be desired and so will be disdained. This,
then, is the crux of the matter: religious education
addresses not merely the brain of the child as does
mathematics, but rather his nature as man; religious
education therefore concerns things that engage the
nature of the child, and not strictly his diploma.
Among the things which characterize the nature
of a child are his power of attraction and his need for
independence. What is boring repels the child and
makes him hate it. What forces the attention of the
child automatically exasperates him and creates
an antipathy. These problems are resolved by
organizing religious education under the trademark
of quality, but never the trademark of quantity.
Quality engages our nature while sheer quantity
stifles it. A student puts up with the quantity of
academic studies because at the end of them shines
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

the quality of the diploma obtained. In religious
education, however, there is nothing to be waited
for. Instead, the nature and the conscience of the
child themselves increase in quality more and more
day to day.
This end is to be achieved concretely under
the two aspects of education in religion, that of
duties to God and of personal generosities. The aspect
of duties flows from the rights of God over us and
from the respect due to the body and soul He
gave us. These duties are outlined for us by the
commandments of God and the Church, Mass on
Sunday and Holy Days, our Easter duty, and the
practice of charity towards our neighbor. The aspect
of personal generosities is that enthusiasm to add
to duty-bound obligatory homage one’s free and
spontaneous homage by such things as weekday
Mass, supplementary prayers, voluntary sacrifices,
and broader apostolic activities.
When educators discuss duties with children,
they must concentrate their attention on the
duties owed to God, even if at the expense of
supererogatory [“added-on” practices as opposed
to obligatory practices–Ed.] practices, for this is the
mind of the Church. But the duties owed to God
must be discussed creatively and attractively: 1) by
the intelligent presentation of their importance; 2)
by the detailed explanation of their exigencies and
the virtuous attraction which they contain; 3) by the
preoccupation with seeing them respected, and with
gaining the free consent of the child.
To “educate” means leading the child to do
without the educator by instilling the certitude
that his own freedom will take up and continue
even better those things which the educator has
explained, taught, and taught to love. Before all else
our Catholic children must be formed in devotion to
duty, though they must be intelligent–not blind–in
performing their duties and know that they are
means to an end and not an end in themselves. For
instance, it is not assisting at Mass which saves; it
is knowing why we assist at it and, knowing why,
desiring to assist; desiring it, loving to assist. Out
of 52 Masses of the year, how many work our
salvation?...how many for which I will stand in
judgment?
Children must learn the quality of their
religious duties by having instilled in them a love
for Him to Whom they are dutiful. No tackedon, arbitrary duties. All duty calls for the love of
duty; all love presupposes the knowledge of what
we love. Religious duty is not something whose
measure we determine ourselves; it is something
which we discover, learn to appreciate, and learn
to love. These duties come from God through His
Church and it is God who has measured out their
practical quantity; we are therefore already certain,
without adding or subtracting anything from this

29
divine measure, that we are performing a work of
education in harmony with our nature and, by its
harmony, a work full of the promise of success.
In the practice of duty, however, the quality
of the act may be compromised by excess or
defect. For example, it is an excess for liturgy to
be unnecessarily drawn out, or a defect when it is
sabotaged by the thoughtless manner in which it
is celebrated or assisted at. I could tell you about
an evening prayer in a parish church at which the
boys of the local Catholic school were obliged to
assist and formed the majority in attendance, during
which all present conscientiously dropped off to
sleep. I assisted at the prayer myself just to see. Here
is what it included:
l
l
l
l
l
l
l

Compline
Litany of the Holy Name of Jesus
A 15-decade rosary
Numerous ejaculations
Adoro Te Devote
Salve Regina
Tantum Ergo...

And with this, we expect children to love our
Lord?! An exaggerated liturgy, songs dripping with
sentimentality, slumping adults, Benediction drawn
out in the extreme and of a frequency which takes
away from the child all desire for it...? Let me repeat
word for word the commentary of one little girl:
“Forget prayers when I’m on vacation...the ones
at school are already long enough!” The length of
the liturgy should be measured according to how a
child perceives length. We have to get it through our
heads that the practice of religious duties has for its
primary and essential consequence the awakening in
us of the desire to return, which presupposes that the
child is attracted to this duty. A religious exercise
perfectly executed leaves us ready for the next one.
Likewise, we need to be aware that the two great
enemies of duty in religious education are privation
and oversaturation.
Good habits and the taste for a thing are only
acquired by acts and by acts that are repeated. A
child deprived of religious exercises will not have,
later on, any reason to begin. We are therefore
not to eliminate what God expects, but rather to
eliminate what God does not expect. On the other
hand, a child who is oversaturated will have every
reason to stop. I could tell you the story of a certain
general of the French army responding to Fr. Delor,
O.P., during the First World War: “Fr. Chaplain, I
went to so many compulsory Masses at school that
I think I might take the liberty of skipping Sunday
Mass.” I could also cite the following commentary
by one of my soldiers before we parted, after having
been through the entire war together: “Fr. Chaplain,
I thank you for never nagging me about the Faith

and religious practice. That is the reason why I am
rethinking the question today.”
It is a delicate ideal we must pray to achieve
for our children. We must be careful that when
inspiring in our children the notion to “please our
Lord” we don’t insist to the point of indiscretion
in pushing them into the confessional or toward
Communion! This reminds me of the answer a
patient gave to me one day from his hospital bed, “I
received Extreme Unction to please Sister.” I much
prefer the wise principal of a high school, zealous
to respect the freedom of conscience of his young
men, who organized Sunday Masses in such a way
that he could already be sure a few of them would
not receive Communion, in order to encourage the
timid to stay in their place rather than go to the rail
simply out of human respect.
Perhaps you ask the question, “To the duty
which is absolutely indispensable in forging a
generation–by which I mean a duty understood,
loved, and desired–do we need to add
supererogatory (non-obligatory) practices?” To the
extent these practices have a formational value
reinforcing in the child the practice of his duty to
completion and spontaneously because of his own
personal desire to do so, I answer yes; otherwise I
answer no. As regards supererogatory practices, only
honest desire for them is able to bring merit and
fecundity to them. In good theology, is it honoring
God, is it pleasing Him, to bring young souls before
Him by force to make them assist at supplementary
Masses, Benedictions, and Ways of the Cross, like
the indifferent bystanders at Calvary, at the risk,
later, of transforming them into executioners? I
could tell you about one boy folding his daily
paper to the shape of his missal and spending that
obligatory Mass reading about the sports page.
I could tell you about another one preparing his
composition in the chapel during a religious exercise
he was forced to attend. Is it our role to stand guard
over the children in church as we cause them to
offend God? Once again, God takes primacy over
us, over our points of view, over our methods. Let’s
be frank with ourselves.
We only benefit from a ceremony if God benefits
from it first by respect and by love, and filling
up the chapels of our schools by force during the
week would seem the surest means of emptying
the churches of our parishes. Ceremonies that
bore us will tomorrow be ceremonies neglected. A
personal exercise implies that we want to add to the
obligatory homage the spontaneous homage of our
heart. Worship of this kind calls into play a child’s
liberty of conscience. You will never convince me
that we “form” the conscience of a child, in the
philosophical sense of the word, by dunking him
into a tub of holy water! Certainly, the educator
has a duty concerning these practices. He ought
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • December 2005

30
to organize them together with a small number of
freely consenting students. He suggests, proposes,
and sparks desire, but never insists. I remember an
all-night adoration spontaneously requested by an
entire troop of Catholic girl scouts during a retreat at
which I had taken care to avoid as much as possible
any supererogatory religious exercises. There was
the proof for me that to obtain much we have to
keep well away from forcing anything.
Yet, the facts are there, cruel, stark, and terrible.
In spite of the indisputable devotion of our schools,
in spite of the skill of our schoolteachers, catechism
teachers, and parents, society continues to decline
and the forces of perversion are winning out over
the forces of Christianization. What do our graduates
become once they are launched in life? I dare to pose
the following questions:
l
l

l

l
l

l
l

What is the percentage of students who continue
to practice the Faith?
What is the percentage of students who have
understood the reasons to continue to practice
it?
What is the percentage of those who give
absolute priority to God in their family and
social life?
What is the percentage of those who no longer
practice at all?
What is the percentage of those who do not
teach their children to practice because their
upbringing left them bitter?
What is the percentage of those who have
apostatized?
What is the percentage of those who have
become vaguely anti-clerical? actively anticlerical? officially anti-clerical?

Admittedly, all sorts of alien and dangerous
influences bombard the mystery of the conscience
and diminish the responsibility of our graduates,
but is a diminution of responsibility the same
as entirely eliminating it? First caution: when I
consider the enormous role of individual freedom in
the question of education in religion, I cannot rush
to condemn the education given when, in fact, the
fault may lie in the manner in which it was received;
too easily students seize upon or exaggerate any
errors of method to excuse their infidelity, even
their apostasy. The duty of the school is to avoid
as many mistakes as possible in order to give
the least possible handle to a nefarious tendency
toward criticism in the young, often all too eager
to interpret religious education to the benefit of
their excessively temporal tastes. There is room
for methods to evolve with the times. A second
caution: the religious education given in our schools
is too often the least of parents’ concerns, and the
family, which ought to complete this education
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

by its example, its approval, and its cooperation,
shows no interest since a diploma is not offered
nor endangered. For too many parents the order of
values is reversed: there is bodily health, worldly
success, intellectual success, and–last on the list–
supernatural success.
Well, what is my conclusion? Do I advocate
a restriction to the bare minimum of religious
exercises in our schools? I answer by proposing an
excellent experiment: would a school at which the
obligatory religious duties are fulfilled to intellectual,
moral, and material perfection, with nothing
supererogatory, ensure greater perseverance and
greater devotion to the cause of God later in life?
Would it give rise to spontaneous–and therefore
meritorious–practices, not collective but individual?
Out of two schools, one of them piling on
devotions, novenas, Ways of the Cross, and
the other developing understanding, love, and
preparation for religious duty, which would yield
souls thirsty for God, resolute fighters, and noble
characters? I would like to see the experiment
performed but I can already foresee drawing the
following conclusions:
Whatever inscribes the supernatural in the
nature of the child by dint of sympathy,
attraction, and admiration of that nature for the
process of education, is much closer to the goal
(than the method of accumulated checklisted
practices) by the quality which it yields.
l Whatever is wearisome at school is rejected by
students when they are away from school.
l What is done under constraint and by force
at school, without attraction of conscience, is
abandoned at home.
l

Families are not exempt from the grave duty of
reinforcing at home the religious education received
at school by their example, by religious exercises
well understood and made a part of life, by their
refusals, and by their respect. For a child, nothing
can take the place of parents who are profoundly
Catholic, upon whose religious attitudes he will
model his own, drawn as he is by the open, healthy,
and balanced atmosphere which he breathes at
school, and happily content with the reasonableness
of the measure with which he is initiated into loving
God without measure.
Translated exclusively into English for Angelus Press. 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.

???????????????????
?????????????????

31

Angelus Press Edition

NEWS
THE SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X IN

SOUTH AFRICA
On the far tip of the enormous continent
of Africa lie the countries which this article is
about. South Africa lies at its very southern tip,
zimbabwe, which used to be called Rhodesia, is
to its north, and Namibia, which was called South
West Africa, to its north west. Between Namibia
and zimbabwe lies Botswana, a country which
is known for its Kalahari desert. Then, to the
east of zimbabwe, lying on the Indian Ocean,
we find Mozambique. A country that also needs
mentioning is zambia which lies to the north
of zimbabwe. To European standards, these
countries are very big. The whole of Europe will
fit three or four times in the countries mentioned.
Yet their total population does not even reach
closely the total population of Europe. Nor, for
that matter, does its history reach so far back.
While most of Africa is veiled in historical
darkness, it is expedient that we speak a little of
the Catholic origins in these areas.
www.angeluspress.org

The aNgelus • December 2005

Christendom
NEWS
Angelus Press Edition

32

HISTORY
The history of the Catholic Church in southern
Africa goes back to the arrival of Bartholemew Diaz
(a Portuguese sailor) at Walvis Bay, (in modern day
Namibia), on December 8, 1487. He called it the
Gulf of Santa Maria de Conceicao. The first Mass,
said perhaps in late December 1487 or early January
1488, was celebrated on the island of the Holy Cross
(named as such by Diaz) just off modern day Port
Elizabeth (South Africa). Ten years later, Vasco da
Gama, on his way to India, would, on Christmas day,
sight the land to which he gave the name “Tierra de
Natal” (today called KwaZulu Natal). These explorers
also brought missionaries with them and even though
they remained in the Cape area (southern tip of South
Africa) they also evangelized Angola, Mozambique,
and to a lesser degree zimbabwe too.
With the arrival of the Dutch in April 1652 things
changed completely. How different from the arrival
of the Portuguese 150 years earlier! They had been
given orders by the Portuguese King John II to “first
spread the Christian Faith and secondly to gain the
riches of the East.” With the Dutch, however, all
Catholic priests were excluded through religious
intolerance; not even Catholic settlers were allowed
there. In 1660, a French bishop who wrecked at Table
Bay was forbidden to say Mass. Such was the situation
up to and including 1795 when the British occupied
Cape Town. In 1802 the Dutch regained control of the
Cape and on July 25, 1804, the Dutch Commissioner
General published an ordinance promising religious
toleration. At once, three priests arrived from
Holland. One of them, Fr. Joannes Lansink, was
appointed Apostolic Prefect in 1805. However,
Cape Town fell to the British in 1806 and the British
governor lost no time in expelling the three priests
who had so recently arrived. The first Apostolic
Prefect of the Cape died at sea on his way home.
In 1814, an attempt was made to find a successor
to Fr. Lansink. Thus it was that Pope Pius VII
appointed the Benedictine Dom Edward Bede
Slater as the first Apostolic Vicar of the Cape (181832). He never set foot on South African soil as the
government in London forbade him to go there, so he
went to the island of Mauritius (Indian Ocean) where
he was first Apostolic Vicar there too. His successor,
Dom William Placid Morris resided too in Mauritius,
never putting foot on South African soil. With the
appointment of Bishop Raymond Griffith, O.P., as
third Apostolic Vicar of the Cape in 1837, the history
of the Catholic Church as a visible institution in South
Africa began.
Missionaries (few in number) evangelized all of
the western Cape and then the eastern Cape became
a Vicariate with Bishop Aiden Devereux and his
The aNgelus • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

(Above) Bro. Gregory
with Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre. (Left) Bishop
Richard Williamson visits
the school in Roodepoort.
(Right) St. Boniface Chapel
in Omaruru, Namibia, built
by the O.M.I. priests (1907)
and now owned by the
Society of Saint Pius X.

successor Bishop Ricards residing in Grahamstown,
(later transferred to Port Elizabeth).
In 1852 the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O.M.I.),
founded by St. Eugene de Mazenod, arrived in the
Natal area, with Bishop Allard as first Apostolic Vicar
of the large area from the east coast to Bechuanaland,
(now Botswana) and up to modern-day zimbabwe.
zimbabwe would become the zambesi Mission,
which was given to the English Jesuits.
In 1880 the Trappists with Abbot Franz Pfanner
would arrive, first at Dunbrody, then settling at
Marianhill. At the time, it was the largest Trappist
monastery in the world. During this same time,
missionaries landed off the coast of Namibia, the
land of vast deserts. These were mainly O.M.I.’s.
They would travel far and wide, establishing many
missions in the north, close to the borders of Angola.
Many died due to the harsh conditions. These are the
beginnings of the Catholic Church in southern Africa.
For the next sixty or seventy years the Church
grew rapidly, making many converts among the many
different black tribes. Generally, the blacks were
very superstitious. Witchcraft and ancestor worship
formed part of their everyday life. Very few, however,
were the converts among the white settlers who were
steeped in their Calvinistic ideas. An incredibly fast
decline in the new-born faith of the Africans came
about with the advent of the Second Vatican Council.
Conversions came to a halt and many turned back
again to witchcraft and ancestor worship. Liberation
Theology was one of the main effects in Africa of the
Council, a theology, if one can call it so, which did
untold damage.

THE BEGINNINGS OF TRADITION
Fr. Gregory zier is often spoken as the father
of Tradition in Southern Africa. He was of German
descent and had come to South Africa after the First
World War. He had set his heart upon the conversion

33

of witch doctors among the zulu tribe. He worked
in close collaboration with the Marianhill Fathers in
Natal. He always, however, remained a secular priest.
How many witch doctors did he convert? His great
humility never allowed him to reveal any numbers.
Nevertheless, he was known far and wide for his
powers of exorcism. From all over, many would daily
come and see him to ask him for deliverance. Perhaps
it looked funny to Westerners when they found him
in his little hut, the walls of which were covered with
witchcraft paraphernalia. Why did he do so? Why
did he require these objects from those whom he
exorcised? He knew the blacks and their superstition.
They had an enormous fear of these objects: bones,
pins, feathers, carved pieces of wood, etc. Adorning
the walls of his hut with these things showed the
people not only that he had no fear of them, but that
his powers of the holy priesthood were far superior.
This caused them to have an even greater respect for
him.
One little amusing story of his work deserves to
be told. The zulus have an immense fear of snakes.
These animals are for them somewhat akin to evil
creatures. One day, Fr. Gregory found a rather large
snake. It was, however, already late. He wanted to
keep it for the next day to show the zulus that he had
no fear of this “diabolical” creature. How was he to
keep it until the next day? He had an idea. He slipped
a large, golden brass ring around the snake and tied
it with a piece of string to the post. Unfortunately,
the next morning the snake was gone. The string
was broken. It was not long after when a very great
consternation broke out in the nearby village. They
came to call him in great haste: “Father, you must
come quickly, the people have called together all the
witch doctors. The gods are speaking to us, they say,
and something very bad is going to happen to us.
Many people have seen a snake with a golden ring
around its belly!” Poor Fr. Gregory! That one he lost!

The Society of
Saint Pius X in
South Africa

But now let us pass on to the present crisis in the
Church. Fr. Gregory never offered the New Mass. He
refused! For this too he very soon became known.
Nevertheless, the news of his refusal filtered through
to the people rather slowly. Perhaps it was due to the
fact that there were many who believed as he did.
Other priests slowly began to say the New Mass.
Many people were in bewilderment.
It was not until a good four or five years later,
about 1974, when a small group began to form around
him. More and more people began to ask him to
come here and there to celebrate the true Mass for
them. Interestingly enough, it was mainly the whites
that began this refusal of the New Mass. It must be
said, however, that in general, although the blacks did
not like the New Mass, they never stood up to fight
against it. Only one black priest was bold enough to
do it: Fr. Marcus, a zulu priest.
Very soon Fr. Gregory was asked to come up
even to the north of South Africa. Well into his
seventies already, Fr. Gregory must have foreseen the
need of younger priests. He must have understood
the widespread corruption among his fellow priests
in southern Africa because he urged his little flock
to turn to no one but Archbishop Lefebvre in
Switzerland.

FIRST ARRIVAL OF THE
SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Soon letters were sent. They were written in
English. Archbishop Lefebvre handed them on to
Fr. Williamson, at that time still a relatively young
priest. Soon plans were made for a visit. And so,
in July and August of 1978, Fr. Williamson would
be the first priest of the Society of St. Pius X to
visit southern Africa. He met up with all these little
groups. He recommended that people no longer
attend the Novus Ordo Mass at all. This was for many
www.angeluspress.org

The aNgelus • December 2005

Christendom
NEWS
Angelus Press Edition

quite revolutionary. For years they had attended
their Sunday Mass…and now, not to do so and
to be left in limbo at the same time because there
was no guarantee of any future priest. What about
the children? When would they be able to attend a
Mass again? Where would they be able to confess?
Certainly this was a time of great consternation and
trial for many. Even their way of life had to change.
Television was condemned; they had never heard
such straight and clear teachings. Some understood.
Others believed that this young priest was just full of
himself. Others thought he was crazy!
Nevertheless, God has His ways. He will never
abandon those who seek His mercy. To cut a long
story short, at the moment when Fr. Williamson left
South Africa, there appeared another priest whom
very very few people knew about. This was Fr.
Schelmardine. At one time belonging to the Pretoria
diocese, he too had refused to offer the New Mass.
He was a medical doctor even before he became a
priest, and he also inherited a small farm far out to
the eastern boundaries of South Africa. There he
decided to use his medical profession to look after
the poor. For nine years, every morning he would
offer the Holy Mass all alone. Thus it was that in
1978 he was discovered and agreed to come out and
serve the people one Sunday every two months. With
this promise the group of the “Halfway House” was
started. The “Halfway House” was an area between
Pretoria and Johannesburg where a number of people
from both cities would come. One hour of travel was
a certainty even for those who lived the closest. Thus
this little group, about 30 in number, began to be
more and more united.
Also in Natal, under the continuing care of Fr.
Gregory, the group increased. Other groups also
began to form very quickly: Port Elizabeth, Cape
Town, Bulawayo and Salsbury (now Harare), the last
two both in zimbabwe, and then even in South West
Africa (now Namibia).
Fr. Williamson continued his visits every year,
from 1979 to 1983. His main purpose was to preach
the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius of Loyola. His
argument was that a solid core of faithful had to be
formed to hold out for the future. This he endeavored
to do by the preaching of the spiritual exercises.
His judgment on this proved to be accurate. Many
many years later, even to the present day, this core
still exists and was, in fact, the cornerstone upon
which the Society of St. Pius X in southern Africa
would build its apostolate. In 1981 southern Africa
was graced with the visit of Archbishop Lefebvre.
He visited all these centers excepting Namibia. The
reaction among people was diverse. Some already
had a great respect for him. Others knew only what
the media had told them, that he was a rebel! But it is
The aNgelus • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

3

(Top) The parish in Umlazi, close to Durban. (Center) The
Superior, Fr. Coenrad Daniels, and Fr. Sebastian Wall with children
of Umlazi inside the Umlazi chapel. (Bottom) Zimbabwe girls
from their St. Andrew’s Society with Fr. Gendron.

35

worth mentioning a certain encounter: A certain man
confessed later: “I had come to see him, this rebel
and hear for myself. But, I was filled with amazement.
This little man, a rebel? I had never seen such a
humble man. I was very much mistaken!”
A few other priests also came to understand
more profoundly the problems in the Church, and
they too then helped these small groups. These were
Fr. Beddingveld in his mission among the zulus, Fr.
Leslie from the Durban diocese, Fr. Ranger from
the Port Elizabeth diocese and Fr. Cosgrove from
Cape Town. During this period, many young men
went to Ecône to see if God was calling them to the
priesthood. Some went through to the priesthood,
while others returned.

THE SOCIETY OF ST. PIUS X
Finally in 1984, the first priest of the Society of St.
Pius X was sent to establish a priory in Johannesburg.
This was Fr. Delsorte. He was helped by Fr. Leslie
for some months, after which the second Society
priest came, Fr. C. Hähnchen, from Germany. Then
came Fr. Frank Peek, from New zealand, who was
to help since the district was too vast for only two
priests. Already they were receiving requests to come
to zimbabwe and to Namibia. This they did and
found scattered groups of lost sheep everywhere. Fr.
Reinartz, from Germany, came in August of 1987.
Without mentioning other priests who came
and went, it was finally in August 1989 that Fr.
Gerspacher, from Canada, arrived as Superior of the
autonomous region of southern Africa. He began the
Society bulletin for southern Africa, which, a little
later would acquire the name: Nova et Vetera.
Another important event in southern Africa
which strengthened the traditional movement and
shook the modernists was the priestly ordination in
Johannesburg of two young men in 1989. Other forms
of the apostolate also rapidly spread, particularly the
Eucharist Crusade for the children and the Third
Order of the Society of St. Pius X. Recently the
St. Andrew’s Society for girls (SAS) has also been
introduced.
In the 1990’s, many advancements were made
in the form of the building of chapels. Thus in 1991
the original small chapel in Johannesburg was sold in
order to buy a much larger property on the outskirts
of Johannesburg, Roodepoort. Here also a small
school was founded which is still running today.
Thanks to a Holy Ghost Brother by the name of Br.
Vincent, who came to help the Society in 1986, many
buildings were erected or old ones renovated. The
property in Roodepoort was an old school, which now
serves as a very beautiful priory. Port Elizabeth chapel
was a rather ugly shop, which is now the pride of that

The Society of
Saint Pius X in
South Africa

little group. Cape Town chapel was an old Post Office,
and is now a beautiful little chapel. In Omaruru,
Namibia, the Society was able to buy an old, rundown chapel, built by the O.M.I.’s in 1907. This too
was completely renovated.
But chapels also had to be closed down. For
example, priests used to go into Soweto, a rather
dangerous township, to administer the sacraments
to a group of about 20 zulus. It was already planned
to close this mission and help the people to come to
the priory of Roodepoort. Nevertheless, before its
actual closure, one of the priests, having brought the
sacraments to a sick lady, was, upon returning to his
car, held up at gun-point to hand over the keys. He
could not do otherwise. The thieves spared his life but
took off with the car. It was never found.
Speaking of crime, its rate has escalated to a
phenomenal degree. The little pick-up truck owned
by the Roodepoort chapel has had 12 attempts of
theft. Our chapels have to be surrounded with high
fences and even guarded by vicious dogs. Often our
faithful fall victim to thefts. As a result, to help them
we are obliged to conjure up all kinds of security
systems, from coded gates to ticket systems.
One of the main difficulties of the apostolate in
southern Africa is the vast distances to be travelled
for relatively few people. Most centers have to be
visited by means of aeroplane. Namibia, to give an
example, is visited both by plane and then by car.
Firstly, a flight of two hours (from Johannesburg to
Windhoek) and then a trip of over 900 miles by car.
Four centers are visited with a total of 30 people. One
day a priest from Argentina was assisting in Namibia.
His comment was: “In Argentina we travel the same
distances, but not for so few people!”
At present, there are seven Society priests
working in southern Africa. Two are based in Harare,
zimbabwe, three in Roodepoort, Johannesburg, and
two in Durban. There is also one Society Brother
and the Holy Ghost Brother mentioned before. Two
oblates help at the priory in Roodepoort. From these
three centers all the other chapels are visited. There
are also a few very small chapels that have a priest
when possible. Such is the tin-shack chapel of Umlazi,
close to Durban. Southern Africa can boast today of
23 traditional vocations to the religious life.
Recently contact was made with people in
zambia, who have been crying for a priest for a long
time. This mission remains very difficult because
the closest airport is over 600 miles away. Yet it is
wonderful to see how these people are keeping the
Faith and persevering in the love of God.
La Reunion, a French island in the Indian Ocean,
has also been visited a number of times by the priests
of southern Africa. The trip is four hours by plane if
a direct flight can be obtained. Otherwise the priests
www.angeluspress.org

The aNgelus • December 2005

The Society of
Saint Pius X in
South Africa

Christendom
NEWS
Angelus Press Edition

are often bound to fly through the island of Mauritius
which adds another two or three hours to the trip.
The main language grouping of Catholics is among
the English-speaking people as the Afrikaners have
seldom converted to Catholicism and the Catholic
Church is still known as the “Roman danger” (Romse
gevaar). Hence the greater number of people are
English-speaking, except for Namibia where they
speak German. A number of black Africans come to
our chapels, notably in Roodepoort (about 20) and
in Durban (about 80). Many of these speak English
but their mother tongue for the most part is zulu. In
zimbabwe the number of black Africans has grown
to about 100. Many of these do not speak English
since their mother tongue is Shona. This is perhaps
the greatest nightmare for a missionary; there are no
fewer than 700 black languages in Africa, and that’s not
counting the dialects.
The number of faithful has increased gradually
but steadily over the years. From the first handful,
then 20 and 50 in the garages converted to a chapel
or the scout halls, to about 250 at Roodepoort, 180
in Durban, 220 in zimbabwe, Port Elizabeth 40, and
Cape Town 50. Over the years the greatest loss of
faithful has come from the departure of many families
to other countries. This is so much the case that as
many as 25 families have settled in other parts of the
world, fearing for their futures in the changing social
and economic conditions of southern Africa. More are
still to leave according to the opportunities which are
available. This tendency will unfortunately continue to
leave us with minimal growth, although Providence has
provided the chapels with new faithful to offset those
we have lost.
The interaction of the races in southern Africa has
been highlighted considerably over the years worldwide. In a much misunderstood area, the relation
between the often different cultures can sometimes lead
to amusing happenings. One such took place when
the community went together to Harare to St. Joseph’s
Priory, a trip of over 600 miles, in order to assist at the
ordination of the then deacon Rev. Mr. Justin Swanton.
The house servant, a former seminarian, was left to
look after the Priory house. Off we set and reached
Harare without incident, and the ordination was
duly conferred with a splendid celebration following,
organized by the Prior, Fr. Craig Bufé. We who
had driven up would stay till after Sunday while Fr.
Reinartz would fly back to Johannesburg to celebrate
the Sunday Masses. All went well and Fr. Reinartz
arrived at the Priory only to find that it had been more
or less taken over by a number of the house servant’s
friends. Needless to say this state of affairs could not
be allowed to continue and the friends would have to
leave. All would have ended happily if one of them
had not been found to be at that very moment quite
The aNgelus • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

36

happily sleeping in Fr. Reinartz’s bed. Without too
many words the whole lot were given the order to
leave and with them our faithful servant.
Due to the rapidly decaying financial and social
structure in southern Africa, our apostolate is obliged
to extend aid to the needy. Daily there are more and
more without work and so hunger follows closely. It is
now no longer an uncommon sight to see up to 30 or
40 beggars at our gates, begging for food or clothing.
We cannot, in the charity of Christ, send these beggars
away empty-handed. It is not only the cost involved,
but also the work. The oblates in Roodepoort now
have a system. When the red flag hangs out by the
window, there will be no distribution of food. As soon
as the green flag is hoisted, then they may come…and
they do! In zimbabwe the situation is similar, except
that the famine has grown to a much greater degree.
It must here be added that, thanks to many donations
from all over the world, this corporal act of mercy can
be continued.

CONCLUSION
It is very hard to say what will happen in the
future. As it is all over the world, the Society in
southern Africa can only try, with the help of the grace
of God, to safeguard the Faith. The next generation,
to which we are bound to hand on the Faith, will be
obliged to continue the battle. In all our chapels put
together we may have as few as 100 children. The
world, however, is an immense attraction for these
young and tender souls. We lose many children. The
moment they reach 16 or 17, they abandon our Lord
Jesus Christ and give themselves to the world. Please
pray for souls, especially these young ones, that they
may keep the Faith, persevere in the love and service
of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and in this way save their
souls and many others also.
May God bless you and His Holy Mother guide
you.

To help the Society in Southern Africa, please make all checks payable
to the “Society of St. Pius X” and add a note that it is for the missions
in Southern Africa. Please mail it to: Society of Saint Pius X, 2918
Tracy Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109.
Bank transfers may be made to:
Nedbank, Westgate branch
Acc.#: 1982 290250
Bank clearing code: 19 - 82 - 41

Persons;
Principles
37
37

It’s Not About
It’s About

A Catechism
Of Catholic
Social
Teaching

Part III
Heading one:
A m i n t o r e
F a n f a n i
(1908-99) Former Prime Minister of Italy
and a professor of Economic History at the
Catholic University of Milan, Italy.

With another installment, The
Angelus continues the serialization
of the book Catechism of Catholic
Social Teaching by Amintore
Fanfani (translated by Fr. Henry
J. Yannone, The Newman Press,
1960), which will run monthly until
its conclusion. He was the author
of articles and books on economics,
including Catholicism, Protestantism,
and Capitalism, available from
Angelus Press for $14.95.

Man and
society

Chapter 2. Origin, Nature,
Ends and Types of Society
What is the
of society?
13) origin

Natural instinct and a need for well-being and
perfection caused man to unite with other men. Thus
society arose.
Leo XIII: Man’s natural instinct moves him to live in
civil society. Isolated, he cannot provide himself with the
necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of
developing his mental and moral faculties. It is, therefore,
divinely ordained that he should lead his life–be it
domestic, social, or civil–in contact with his fellow men,
where alone his several wants can be adequately supplied.
(Immortale Dei, §2)
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • December 2005

38

14)

	In what sense does
society have a divine origin?

Since God gave man instincts, assets and
insufficiencies which move him to unite in a
society, it can be said that society was willed
and ordained by God himself.
Leo XIII: And indeed nature, or rather God
who is the author of nature, wills that man should
live in a civil society; and this is clearly shown
both by the faculty of language, the greatest
medium of intercourse, and by numerous innate
desires of the mind, and the many necessary
things, and things of great importance, which
men isolated cannot procure, but which they can
pro­cure when joined and associated with others.
(Diu­turnum, §7)

15)

What are the duties
of society toward God?

In view of its origin and end, society must
recog­nize God as its author, respect His laws
and honor Him.
Leo XIII: The State...must evidently act up to
the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God,
by the public profession of religion. Nature and
reason, com­manding every individual devoutly
to worship God in holiness...bind also the civil
community by a like law. For men living together
in society, no less than individuals, owe gratitude
to God. It is He who gave it being and maintains
it, and whose ever-bounteous good­ness enriches
it with countless blessings. (Immortale Dei, §3)
Leo XIII: If then any State aims only at external
ad­vantage and wealth, it is wont in its government
to put God and the moral law aside, it wrongfully
turns away from its end and from the teaching
of nature, and can­not be called a community or
society, but is rather a deceitful resemblance and
a parody. (Sapientiae Chris­tianae, §2)
Pius XI I: A social teaching or a social
reconstruction program which denies or prescinds
from this internal relation to God of everything
that regards men, is on a false course; and while
it builds up with one hand, it prepares with the
other the material which sooner or later will undermine
and destroy the whole fabric. (Christmas Message, 1942)

16)

	Is the practice of religion
necessary to the per­fection of society?

The virtues of self-denial, justice, brotherhood and
charity which man needs in associating with others
and which cooperate in the perfec­tion of society, find
in religion an enhancing and a strengthening force, so
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

“This task of the Church
is indeed arduous, but
they are simply unwitting
deserters or dupes who, in
deference to a misguided
supernaturalism, would
confine the Church to the
‘strictly religious’ field,
as they say, whereas by
doing so they are but
playing into the hands of
their enemies.”–Pope Pius
XII, Address to members
of Rinascita Cristiana,
January 22, 1947.
“The economic wealth of a
people does not properly
consist of abundance of
goods, but rather in a
fair distribution of
goods.”–Pope Pius XII

that the better the practice of true religion, the more
perfect will society also be.
Pius IX: A society of men free from religious obliga­tions
and duties of true justice, can have no other aim except
to acquire and accumulate wealth, and no other law in its
operations except to follow its indomitable desire to satisfy
its own pleasures and convenience. (Quanta Cura)

39

17)

	What is the
end of society?

The end of every society, as a medium necessary or
optional, is the perfection of man and the common
good.
Pius IX: In the plan of the Creator, society is a natu­
ral means which man can and must use to reach his
destined end. Society is for the man and not vice versa.
This must not be understood in the sense of liberalistic
individualism, which subordinates society to the selfish
use of the individual; but only in the sense that by
means of an organic union with society and by mutual
collaboration the attainment of earthly happiness is
placed within the reach of all. (Divini Redemptoris, §29)
Leo XIII: For nature has not formed society in order
that man might look to it as an end, but in order that in
it and through it he might find fitting help to his own
perfection. (Sapientiae Christianae, §2)
Pius XII: The origin and the primary scope of social
life is the conservation, development and perfection of
the human person, helping him to realize accurately
the demands and values of religion and culture set by
the Creator for every man and for all mankind, both
as a whole and in its natural ramifications. (Christmas
Mes­sage, 1942)

man
remain in society?
18)	Must

Man must belong to those forms of society which
are necessary for the achievement of his per­fection.
Pius XI: But God has likewise destined man for civil
society according to the dictates of his very nature....
It is society which affords the opportunities for the
development of all the individual and social gifts
be­stowed on human nature. These natural gifts have a
value surpassing the immediate interests of the moment,
for in society they reflect the divine perfection, which
would not be true were man to live alone. (Divini
Redemptoris, §29)

s collaboration of the individual
to the perfecting of society?
19)	Inecessary

In order to offset the insufficiencies of man it is
necessary that every individual be a part of society,
collaborating with the perfecting of so­ciety for
his own good, for the welfare of man­kind and the
realization of the plan of Divine Providence.
Pius IX: Man cannot be exempted from his divinely
imposed obligations toward civil society, and the repre­
sentatives of authority have the right to coerce him

when he refuses without reason to do his duty. (Divini
Redemptoris, §30)

20)

	Are there various
types of society?

Man joins other men for a variety of reasons. The
limits, the nature, and the purpose of these groups
determine the different types of society.
Leo XIII: The experience of his own weakness urges
man to call in help from without....It is this natural
impulse which unites men in civil society; and it is this
also which makes them band themselves together in
associations of citizen with citizen; associations which, it
is true, cannot be called societies in the complete sense
of the word, but which are real societies neverthe­less.
These lesser societies and the society which consti­tutes
the State differ in many things, because their immediate
purpose and end is different. (Rerum No­varum, §37)

21)

	With regard to the latitude of their ends
how are societies distinguished?

With regard to the latitude of their ends, socie­ties
are universal, such as civil society; and particular or
private, such as commercial so­cieties.
Leo XIII: [Various societies] differ in many things,
because their immediate purpose and end are different.
Civil society exists for the common good, and, therefore,
is concerned with the interests of all in general, and
with the individual interests in their due place and
proportion. Hence, it is called public society....But the
societies which are formed in the bosom of the State are
called private, and justly so, because their immediate
purpose is the private advantage of the associates. “Now,
a private society,” says St. Thomas again, “is one which is
formed for the purpose of carry­ing out private business;
as when two or three enter into partnership with the view
of trading in conjunc­tion.” (Rerum Novarum, §37)

22)

	With regard to the capability
of achieving their ends,
how are societies distinguished?

With regard to the capability of reaching their ends,
societies are perfect, such as the Church and the
State; and imperfect, including all others.
Pius IX: The Church...[is] a perfect society, be­cause it
has in itself all the means required for its own end. The
civil society is a perfect society having in itself all the
means for its own end. (Divini Illius Magistri)

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • December 2005

40

23)

	As to their nature,
how are societies divided?

As to their nature, societies are natural, such as
the family and civil society; conventional, such as
cultural, commercial, athletic and the like; and
supernatural, such as the Church. The supernatural
society and the natural are neces­sary societies.
Pius IX: There are three necessary societies, distinct
from one another and yet harmoniously combined by
God, into which man is born: two, namely the family
and civil society, belong to the natural order; the third,
the Church, to the supernatural order. (Divini Illius
Magistri)

24)

	Is there any order among
the various forms of societies?

The order among the various forms of societies
depends upon their necessity and the priority of the
end of each of them.
Leo XIII: Particular societies, then, although they
exist within the State, and are each a part of the State,
nevertheless cannot be prohibited by the State ab­solutely
and as such. For to enter into a “society” of this kind is
the natural right of man. The State must protect natural
rights, not destroy them. If it forbids its citizens to form
associations, it contradicts the very principle of its own
existence; for both they and it exist in virtue of the same
principle, viz., the natural propensity of man to live in
society. There are times, no doubt, when it is right that
the law should interpose to prevent associa­tion–as when
men join together for purposes which are evidently
bad, unjust, or dangerous to the State. In such cases
the public authority may justly forbid the formation of
associations, and may dissolve them when they already
exist. But every precaution should be taken not to violate
the rights of individuals, and not to make un­reasonable
regulations under the pretense of public benefit. (Rerum
Novarum, §38)
Leo XIII: [Ecclesiastic and civil society] each in its
kind is supreme....But inasmuch as each of these two
powers has authority over the same subjects...God...has
marked out the course of each in right correla­tion to
the other...a certain orderly connection, which may be
compared to the union of the soul and body in man. The
nature and scope of that connection can be determined
only...by having regard to the nature of each power,
and by taking account of the relative excellence and
nobleness of their purpose. (Immortale Dei, §6)
Leo XIII: The family [is]...a society limited indeed
in numbers, but a true “society,” anterior to every
kind of civil society, with rights and duties of its own,
totally independent of the commonwealth....Wherefore,
pro­vided the limits be not transgressed which are pre­
scribed by the very purposes for which it exists, the
family has, at least, equal rights with the State in the
choice and pursuit of those things which are needful to
its preservation and its just liberty...and...if a family finds
THE ANGELUS • December 2005 www.angeluspress.org

itself in great difficulty...it is right that extreme necessity
be met by public aid. In like manner, if within the walls
of the household there occur grave disturbances of
mutual rights, the public power must intervene.... (Rerum
Novarum, §§9, 11)

s there any form of society which
not be confused with other forms,
25) Imust
whether natural or conventional?
The Church, or society of the faithful, on account of
its origin, scope and its means, is a perfect society
of a supernatural and universal order. It is clearly
distinct from all other forms of human societies and
possesses its own inde­pendence and its own rights.
Pius IX: The third society into which man is born
when through Baptism he reaches the divine life of grace
is the Church; a society of the supernatural order and
of universal extent; a perfect society, because it has in
itself all the means required for its own end, which is the
eternal salvation of mankind; hence it is supreme in its
own domain. (Divini Illius Magistri)

26)

	Which is the pre-eminent type
among natural societies?

In view of the universality of its scopes, civil
society or the State is a pre-eminent form of society
with respect to all other natural and conventional
societies. However, this pre-emi­nence must not
infringe upon the rights and prerogatives proper to
other forms of society.
Pius XI: Civil society is a perfect society, having in
itself all the means for its peculiar end, which is the
temporal well-being of the community, and so, in this
respect, that is, in view of the common good, it has pre­
eminence over the family, which finds its own suitable
temporal perfection precisely in civil society. ( Divini
Illius Magistri)
Pius XI: The State, then, should leave to these
smaller groups the settlement of business problems of
minor importance....The more faithfully this principle
of “subsidiary” function is followed, and a graded hier­
archical order exists between the various associations,
the greater also will be both social authority and social
efficiency. The happier, too, and more prosperous will
be the condition of the commonwealth. (Quadragesimo
Anno, §80)

Taken from Amintore Fanfani, Catechism of Catholic Social Teaching (The
Newman Press, 1960), pp.15-23.

2006 Liturgical Calendar

Sofanctuaries
Sacrifice

Altars and Churches of Catholic Tradition

The 2006 Liturgical Calendar features 12 sanctuaries of Catholic
Tradition of the US District of the Society of St. Pius X with their
histories and explanations. Extra chapels are featured in a special section.
Why an altar calendar? Because the Catholic Church considers the altar
as the whole reason for the existence of the building in which it stands.
Not only does she look upon it as the sacrificial stone, upon which Christ,
our Priest and Victim, offers Himself daily in His Eucharistic Sacrifice,
which is the central act of her liturgy; but she has proclaimed that the
altar represents the Lord Himself. He is Altar, Victim, and Priest; and the
reverence for the altar symbolizes the reverence due to Christ Himself.
She declares this in the Divine Office for the Dedication of the Lateran
Basilica: “[T]he altar which, anointed with oil, denotes the representation of
Our Lord Jesus Christ, who is our Altar, Victim, and Priest.” The Pontificale
Romanum expands this further by including the members in union with
the Head of the Mystical Body. In the rite of the subdeaconate, it says:

W
E
N

For the Altar of Holy Church is Christ Himself, as John bears witness, who, in his Apocalypse, tells us that he
beheld a golden Altar (Apoc. 8:3) standing before the throne, in Whom and through Whom the offerings of the
faithful are made acceptable to God the Father. The cloths and corporals of this Altar are the members of Christ,
God’s faithful people, with whom, as with costly garments, the Lord is clad, according to the Psalmist–“The Lord
reigns, He is clothed with majesty” (Ps. 92:1).

Moreover, on the altar’s upper surface are incised five crosses, representing Our Lord’s five wounds.”
[Adapted from G. Webb, The Liturgical Altar (1949), pp.18-20].
Plenty of room for your notes and appointment reminders. Large-holed for easy hanging! All the feast
days of the year according to the 1962 Roman Missal are listed with class and liturgical color marked.
Reminders of days of fast and abstinence. Includes the latest directory of Latin Mass locations and
traditional Catholic schools in the US and Canada. Our most popular item year after year and, as always,
it’s so handsome, you won’t want to throw it out at the end of the year!
10¾" x 10¾" Full color throughout, STK# CAL2006 $9.95

Illustrated Catechism for Little Children

A very unique catechism for children around the age of First
Holy Communion. Profusely illustrated in full color. Eleven chapters
covering, in 96 questions: God, the Holy Trinity, the Angels, Man,
Sin, Our Lord, Grace, Confession, Communion, Confirmation and
the Blessed Virgin. Chapters include the common Q&A format,
along with a “reading” which is broken into separate points and
which explains the answers more thoroughly, an illustrative story,
sidebars on the lives of child-saints, and a “Words to Explain”
section. The centerfold (to the right) is an EXCELLENT depiction of
the workings of Sanctifying Grace...sometimes a difficult concept to
communicate to children. You will NOT be disappointed.
48pp, softcover, 17 illustrations, STK# 8132Q $7.95

The Mass Explained to Children
Maria Montessori

Every conceivable element of the traditional Mass explained to children 8-15. 
The Mass of the Catechumens  The Mass of the Faithful  The Last Supper  The
Meaning of the Mass  Introduction to the Mass  Eucharistic miracles  History
of the Mass  Activity in Heaven during Mass  Why we fast for Communion 
Meaning of the altar, altar cloths, crucifix and candles, sacred vessels, bells, incense,
vestments, and more! Hundreds of questions answered. “Therefore, when we go to
Mass,we do not go there only to commemorate Jesus; we gop to find Him, to receive
Him. He is present there, He lives, He will never leave us. This is our comfort, our
hope, the greatest part of our Faith: the Mystery of the Mass.”
116pp, hardcover, 36 illustrations, STK# 7028Q $14.95

N EW

CAN YOU TELL
THIS BOOK BY
ITS COVER?

The Liberal Illusion by Louis Veuillot
Poems, Schemas, Introduction, and Chapter Summaries

by Bishop Richard Williamson

Louis Veuillot’s mid-19th century condemnation of liberal Catholicism throws a flood of light on
the crisis of Church and world following on the Second Vatican Council.
Catholics who read The Liberal Illusion will grasp, once and for all, that the crisis is primarily
due not to Vatican II, but to a centuries-long struggle between Revelation and Revolution. Vatican
II was merely a decisive moment in that struggle when power within the Church passed from the
servants of Revelation to the deluded victims of the Revolution.
This edition offers readers a pictographic overview and outline in the form of a unique fold-out
insert to provide them with a thread to connect together the 38 chapters.
Bishop Williamson helped us to prepare this book to be studied. The Schema at the front
unfolds so the chapter numbers are exposed, giving the reader Main Parts, Subdivisions, Tickets for
Chapters, and One-line Summaries. This chart gives a horizontal breakdown of the book.
The Game Plan is available on the reverse side. This chart-like analysis is a vertical breakdown
of the main principles (whether they be right or wrong) and their consequential sub-principles which
have become the battlecries of modernity.
Each short chapter is preceded by a crunch paragraph authored by Bishop Williamson
summarizing its contents.

146pp., softcover, double-sided color fold-out, STK# 8147Q $12.95

Unique, color, fold-out insert
contains helpful study guides
to help the reader make the
most of this book.

Shipping & Handling
US/Canada

Foreign

$.01 to $10.00
$3.95
$7.95
$10.01 to $25.00 $5.95
$9.95
$25.01 to $50.00 $6.95
$12.95
$50.01 to $100.00 $8.95
$14.95
Over $100.00
9% of order 12% of order
Airmail surcharge (in addition to above)
Canada 8% of subtotal; Foreign 21% of subtotal.

angelus Press
2915 Forest Avenue,
Kansas City, Missouri 64109

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

www.angeluspress.org
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.