JANUARY 2009 $4.45 “Instaurare omnia in Christo” A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION Gospel in Stone SSPX ROSARY CRUSADETrappist monks return to Tradition Sermon of Bishop De Galarreta Jewish praise for Pope Pius XII Bishop Williamson on Music Order $100.00 or more and receive ALL FOUR BOOKS FREE Christmastide Library-builder ! E E R F . e u l a v 5 A $5 Expires February 2, 2009. For RETAIL customers only. “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 January 2009 Volume XXXII, Number 1 • Kansas City, Missouri 64109 English-language Editor and Publisher for the International Society of Saint Pius X PublisheR Fr. Arnaud Rostand Editor Fr. Markus Heggenberger books and marketing Fr. Kenneth Novak Assistant Editor Mr. James Vogel operations manager Mr. Michael Sestak Letter from the editor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fr. Markus Heggenberger ordination sermon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta music. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Bishop Richard Williamson ugly as sin or gospel in stone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Fr. Markus Heggenberger the new rosary crusade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bishop Bernard Fellay Editorial assistant Miss Anne Stinnett Design and Layout Mr. Simon Townshend THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT The State of Necessity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 comptroller Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA customer service the problem of liberty . .Christendom . . . . . . NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Mrs. MaryAnne Hall Mr. John Rydholm Miss Rebecca Heatwole Delegation of the Jewish International Committee Received at the Vatican. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Shipping and Handling Mr. Jon Rydholm Angelus Press Edition Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre DICI abbey returns to tradition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 sons of st. benedict in germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 catechism of the crisis in the church . . Part . . . . . . .19 . . . 39 Fr. Matthias Gaudron Questions and answers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Fr. Peter Scott The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published monthly under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary, Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557. Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO. ©2009 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts are welcome and will be used at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends address changes to the address above. ON OUR COVER: Lincoln Cathedral, England. The Angelus Subscription Rates 1 year 2 years 3 years US $35.00 Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico) $55.00 $65.00 $105.00 $100.00 $160.00 All payments must be in US funds only. Online subscriptions: $15.00/year (the online edition is available around the 10th of the preceding month). To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access back issues 14 months and older plus many other site features. 2 Letter from the Editor One of the subjects which raises the most interest in traditionalist circles is the question: Is there any hope for a renewal in the Church, any attempt of reform, any movement of a “New Pentecost”? Has the Church finally found her identity again by turning to her traditions? Or is she rather remaining in a state of permanent revolution, inventing new liturgies, doctrinal and moral systems that are more easily accepted in this world than what has been taught and done for almost two thousand years? There is one interesting aspect of this question that is discussed in this issue. Recently a monastery returned to the traditional Latin Mass and to the monastic tradition of its order. Certainly, one swallow doesn‘t make a summer–but might it be a good herald? How should we deal with such an event? There have been quite a number of negative experiences with organizations who gave up a part of their “traditionalism” (if that is possible). I am talking about communities that had been supporting Tradition even at the risk of upsetting the modernist establishment, but finally they chose to limit their activities to the traditional liturgy and “not to focus on doctrinal questions.” The advantage of this political approach is that certain bishops would accept a “traditionalist wildlife protection area,” but not an official return to Tradition altogether. “Tradition lite” is the maximum of what they would put up with (if they had to), which often means: Tradition under certain conditions. For groups who requested the traditional Latin Mass there were often burdensome conditions established like Mass only in the afternoon or no sacraments in the old rite. And if the Mass was allowed in the old rite, this was more a temporal tolerance towards some old-fashioned people who apparently were doomed to the biological process of a slow death. Now there is a monastery that has obtained the permission of the Pope to return to the traditional Latin Mass. For convinced fans of the Novus Ordo it must be quite hard to take the reasoning of the abbot: He wants to prevent his monastery from a slow death, from dying out. In other words, he thinks that the lack of vocations and perseverance thereof is a consequence of the Novus Ordo and the new discipline. This is quite noteworthy especially for a monastery that belongs to a contemplative order of the strict observance (Trappists). Some of the newspapers were quick to ask if perhaps the Pope’s generosity might be a kind of preventive measure, since nearby a foundation of the traditional Benedictines from Bellaigue, supported by the SSPX, had been announced and the foundation is imminent. This might be the case, but the question is whether this is an argument against the return to the traditional Latin Mass. The real question is: How should we assess such an “unexpected turn of events”? This is a rhetorical question for the sake of the argument, because it has been answered by the district superior of the SSPX in Germany, Fr. Schmidberger, in the following way (quoted from the article): The district superior of the SSPX in Germany, along with his fellow priests, is very happy about the return of the Mariawald Abbey to the unchanged monastic and liturgical tradition of the Trappist Order.… The actual district superior of Germany knows better than anyone else (from sorrowful experience) the bad example given by those who accept to live in a “traditional wildlife protection area.” He must be aware of the dangers that threaten those who honestly want, for the greater glory of God, a return to Tradition. Therefore the following conclusions seem evident to me: l In itself, such a return is necessary and desirable. l In 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre used the expression “experiment of Tradition.” He described in those terms the attitude of those who do not see the necessity of Tradition for the Church, but have at least the good will to give it a try. l One swallow doesn’t make a summer...but Noah used a bird in the circumstances of a general debacle. l For the moment, we do not know how the situation will develop. Without being a Cassandra, it seems safe to say that the situation should be watched attentively and that there are some interesting and positive aspects. One of these positive aspects is the permission of the Pope in contrast to the attitude of the German bishops in general and the local bishop in particular. Without overly interpreting this fact, it seems that finally the “experiment of Tradition” has been started with the permission of the Pope. One of the reasons why the SSPX had asked for the general readmission of the traditional Mass for every priest in the Church was that this seemed necessary for the common good of the Church and also necessitated a personal approach from priests to a liturgy that many of them knew only from hearsay. Could it not be that this factor of a “personal approach” is more important than so many other popular arguments, as you might infer from a biased statement of an American cardinal: Of our five million Catholics, only a handful are interested in the Latin Mass. I must focus upon the 99% who need a vibrant Mass that includes them in its celebration. (Roger Cardinal Mahony) He would probably say something similar about his priests. But the question is: Did His Eminence perhaps miss something? Instaurare Omnia in Christo, Fr. Markus Heggenberger 3 osRdINaTIoN eRMoN B i s h o p A l f o n s o d e G a l a r r e t a Given on the occasion of the ordination ceremony at the Society of St. Pius X’s seminary in Ecône, Switzerland ( June 27, 2008). Excellencies, dear Confreres, dear Ordinands, my dear Brethren, When we consider the Church’s thinking on the priesthood, whether in Sacred Scriptures, especially St. Paul, or in Tradition—thinking which is as it were condensed in the Roman Pontifical—we see how truly Archbishop Lefebvre, our holy founder, was the faithful and prudent servant—fidelis et prudens (and we might add brave and valiant as well): He did nothing else than transmit to us faithfully what he had received from holy Church—the true Catholic priesthood. This is so true that it is enough for us to live what he handed on to us, to live what we have received, and, more precisely, to live what we are. Priestly holiness is, simply, to live what we are. I would like to speak to you about the teaching we have received, and about the priesthood. I do not claim to exhaust the subject, but I will consider the elements which, in my eyes, are essential. The Priest Is Meant for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass First and foremost, by his very priesthood the priest is meant for sacrifice, for the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The priest is above all a man of divine worship, a man consecrated and established in order to render true worship to the only true God. He is also established as mediator, intermediary between God and men, especially to offer prayers and sacrifices. He is essentially the man of the holy Sacrifice. There is no priesthood and no priest without the holy sacrifice of the Mass. The Apostle St. Paul says this very clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews: “For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in the things that appertain to God, that he may offer up gifts and sacrifices, dona et sacrificia, for sins” (Heb. 5:1). And after showing that the priest can have compassion for sinners, indeed that he must have feelings of compassion and mercy towards sinners because he himself is “compassed with infirmity,” the Apostle stresses: “And therefore he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins” (5:3). It seems to me that we accomplish this in three ways. It means first of all that we ought to make the holy sacrifice of the Mass the center, the heart, of our spiritual life and of our priestly life, and of our lives period. It is from the holy sacrifice of the Mass and from the celebration of the Mass that we must tap all the graces of sanctification for ourselves and for the faithful. This also implies that the chief means of our ministry as priests is the Mass. This is what Archbishop Lefebvre transmitted to us. Next, we must accomplish the role of mediator by prayer. The priest’s mediation is by means of prayer both public and private. In the liturgy, his mediation is clear enough but it is no less real in his life of personal, private prayer. The priest is ordained to be a mediator between God and men. In other words, his prayer is a prayer of petition, intercession, mediation, reparation, expiation, and especially of propitiation. Our Lord Himself said to the apostles in the Gospel according to St. John: “You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain” ( Jn. 15:16). And our Lord added, “that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.” Thus the priest is an intermediary through prayer, and how powerful is he in this function, like Moses, for example, in the Old Testament, when he obtained pardon for the people by his prayer, or when he obtained victory in battle so long as he prayed for them; or like that www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 4 of Elias, to open or shut the heavens, graces from heaven. Our Lord Himself gave us the example. Archbishop Lefebvre used to speak of our Lord as “the great supplicant.” He is the model of priestly prayer par excellence. And, once again, the priestly prayer par excellence is the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Mediation in order to render God propitious, not only for the Church, for Christians, and for the Mystical Body, but for the world, such is the example we have received from our Lord. As St. John Chrysostom pointed out, we are established to pray for the whole world. Consequently, the holy sacrifice of the Mass must be as it were the model and soul of priestly prayer, and we achieve this first essential aspect by conforming ourselves to Jesus Christ, Priest and Victim. In this respect, an identification, an increasing conformity is required in our sacerdotal life. “Imitamini quod tractatis,” the Roman Pontifical tells us, “Imitate what you handle”—imitate our Lord in holy Mass. Now, in the Mass our Lord is the priest; He is the oblation; He is the sacrifice; He is the victim; therefore a twofold imitation is required. Every day we must try to resemble our Lord the Sovereign Priest in His holiness, in His constant concern for the glory of God: everything is ordained for the glory of the Father. We must imitate Him in His care for the salvation of souls and in His mercy. But besides striving for holiness, God’s glory, and mercy, we must also conform ourselves to our Lord victim, oblation, and sacrifice. Now, sacrifice always implies destruction, particularly in a holocaust. Of necessity, there must be a destruction and, as it were, a mystical death, especially at Mass. It is especially from the example of the Mass that we must draw this spirit, which is the true spirit of the priesthood. Plainly speaking: it means accepting joyfully and willingly sufferings, trials and tribulations, difficulties, misunderstandings, poverty... The list of man’s woes is very long. Yet, all this we must bear; with resignation, we must accept to endure the cross. We cannot avoid feeling the cross as a cross, otherwise it would no longer be a cross. It is a matter of uniting our cross with our Lord’s; of living it in Him to obtain all the graces we need for sinners and for holy Church. I think this is the apex of the priestly life, it is as it were its flower—or rather, its fruit. The Priest Is Ordained to Preach the Truth Whole and Entire The second essential element of the priesthood is the preaching of the Truth. Our Lord Jesus Christ is Truth itself: “I am...the truth” ( Jn. 14:6). He came into the world to give testimony of the truth, as He said to Thomas. And the Church is the pillar supporting the truth. Hence preaching the truth is an essential task of the priest, for which he must prepare. He must be capable or become capable of teaching the truth. He must dedicate himself to preaching. For St. Paul, to be THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org an apostle essentially means to preach, to teach, and to be a doctor, a messenger, a herald who constantly proclaims the word of God—these are his own words: the word of God, the word of truth, the holy words of our Lord Jesus Christ, the words of the Faith, holy doctrine. Such was the example our Lord gave us. His public life was a life dedicated to preaching, teaching, and revealing the truth to souls. He even made it His commandment: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations” (Mt. 28:19)—that is, teach all men. And this preaching must be faithful. What is required in the discharge of one’s duties is fidelity. What is expected of a minister is that he be faithful. A minister must be faithful to his ministry, to what he is asked to hand down. To be faithful means firstly to preach the whole doctrine, and next, to teach it in all its purity. So you see, it is a matter of preaching the whole Faith, and nothing but the Faith. We may neither add nor take out anything. And this whole and unalloyed preaching must necessarily be traditional. It is necessary to preach in accordance with the teaching of Tradition, which is the rule of faith, the primordial criterion of the Faith. St. Paul put it thus: “For we are not as many, adulterating the word of God; but with sincerity, but as from God, before God, in Christ we speak” (II Cor. 2:17). He was rightly proud not to be an adulterator of the Faith. He also said to Timothy: “With all the faith and love thou hast in Christ Jesus, keep to the pattern of sound doctrine thou hast learned from my lips” (II Tim. 1:13)—sound doctrine. He added: “By the power of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, be true to thy high trust” (1:14). So, the priest receives the Holy Ghost very specially in his ordination to the priesthood for the safeguarding of this doctrine, this Tradition, to teach it and preach it. These are the criteria of Catholicity. Recall the words of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians: “Though it were we ourselves, though it were an angel from heaven that should preach to you a gospel other than the gospel we preached to you, a curse upon him!” (Gal. 1:8). So if anyone, be he a priest or a bishop or a cardinal or a pope, “preaches to you what is contrary to the tradition you received, a curse upon him!” (Gal. 1:9). The rule of the Catholic Faith and of the priest’s preaching is conformity with the Tradition of the Catholic Church. And we constantly appeal to this truth. This is the source of our strength. We do not set ourselves up as a magisterium “above the pope’s magisterium.” We appeal to the magisterium of the popes and to the constant teaching, the Tradition, of the Catholic Church, which is above us and above the pope. Next, the priest must preach and teach with authority, with force—an essential quality of preaching. Obviously, this does not mean with violence or aggression. Force means “strength,” to be strong. St. Thomas says that the priest must preach and teach with authority because he is the instrument, the minister of God. Thus he has authority, he is vested with the authority of God for the discharge of this 5 office. Not only must he teach doctrine, not only must he exhort the faithful to do good, but he must also correct their faults and errors, either by denouncing evil or rebuking the guilty. And if it is a matter of faith or doctrine, he is obliged to make a solid refutation. St. Paul emphasized that he must “convince the gainsayers”— he must be able to convince or silence contradictors. He said to Titus: “These things speak, and exhort and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). St. Paul also added, that “embracing that faithful word which is according to doctrine, ...he may be able to exhort in sound doctrine, and to convince the gainsayers” (Titus 1:9). These were St. Paul’s words to Titus. Consequently, to defend the faithful against any doctrinal contamination is inherent in the duty to preach. The priest must fight against errors and false doctors, against heresies and heretics, for he is the guardian of the truths of faith; but he is also the guardian of the good of souls, and their greatest good is precisely this Truth—the Catholic Faith. St. Paul is quite adamant on this score. Recall his words: “I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine” (II Tim. 4:1-2). Of course, we must be patient with the faithful or the culprits when correcting them, but he did not mean just that. He was saying that correction must be done patiently because it is difficult, it is a source of sufferings, and entails a combat. He foretold—this was his spiritual testament— that a time would come when men, even Catholics, would turn away from the truth and would open their ears to fables. Hence the priest must be watchful: “But be thou vigilant, labor in all things, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill thy ministry” (II Tim. 4:5). The defense of the Faith and of souls is a duty. We must denounce errors and heresies, but also the instigators of error and heresy. Obviously, this presupposes strength. When the fight lasts or the crisis persists, our patience and strength are more specially put to the test. For this reason, St. Paul told Timothy: “But thou, O man of God, ...fight the good fight of faith” (I Tim. 6:11-12). For the Apostle to the Gentiles, it was a good fight, and not a bad fight. But we do have to fight. And to do so, we must be strong in the faith. St. Paul reminds us through Timothy that by the imposition of hands, we have not received the spirit of fear, “but of power, and of love, and of sobriety” (II Tim. 1:7). He puts “power” first. The Priest Is Preordained to Bring About the Reign of Our Lord Over Persons and Institutions The third essential element is that the priesthood is entirely ordained to our Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingship. “For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus” (I Cor. 3:11). In other words, it is futile to try to build this mystical edifice which is the Catholic Church on any other foundation than our Lord Jesus Christ. Whoever builds on another foundation builds a purely human and even—as we can see today—a humanistic edifice. The priest must firstly ground his whole priesthood, his whole life, and his whole ministry on our Lord Jesus Christ as essential basis. At the same time, our Lord must be the end of all his efforts, for we have been instituted “to re-establish all things in Christ—omnia instaurare in Christo” (Eph. 1:10), namely, to restore, to set up, or, according to the Greek, to reunite everything in our Lord Jesus Christ. The end of the apostolate, as well as of the priesthood and of the holy Church, is our Lord Jesus Christ. We aim at basing everything upon our Lord Jesus Christ, and at being inspired in all things by Him. The priest can have no other desire or will than to devote his whole life, all his efforts, and all his works so that our Lord Jesus Christ may be all in all. I would like to use the words of St. Augustine: Our Lord must be all in all things and in all men. But it must be the whole Lord with His doctrine, His priesthood, His grace, His sacrifice, His kingship, His Church, His holy Mother. And it must be our Lord for all men, because there is no salvation outside our Lord. There is no other name by which we may be saved. It is a gift, but also a demand. Our Lord is for all men, not just for Catholics or those who faithfully practice their religion. No! Our Lord is for all. Then, all things must be directed to our Lord: all for Him. St. Paul is clear: “For all things are yours...; and you are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s” (I Cor. 3:23). This is the will of God the Father: that all return to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. And we, priests, merely co-operate to bring all back to God. That is why Archbishop Lefevbre would often recapitulate our position with St. Paul’s words: “Oportet Illum regnare—He must reign” (I Cor. 15:25). Our Lord must reign indeed, and the priesthood is a work of Christianization. Our charge is entirely ordained to Christianizing [society] and establishing the reign of our Lord fully over individuals as well as over institutions—in quantum possumus, as far as we can, of course, nowadays. But we are for this reign over individuals as well as societies, and we work towards this. We are for the confessional State, which is a consequence of Jesus Christ’s kingship. We are for the social kingship of our Lord, and hence for the confessional State. This is not merely a matter of politics, or a question of timeliness and whether it is possible or not. No, it is a matter of faith: Oportet Illum regnare. St. Gregory the Great had already said as much: there are heretics who deny our Lord’s divinity, others who deny His humanity, and still others who deny our Lord Jesus Christ’s kingship. Note that he called them all heretics. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 6 By the Episcopal Consecrations, Archbishop Lefebvre Intended to Safeguard the Catholic Priesthood You see my dear brethren, this simple description of the priesthood and its essential elements throws into relief Archbishop Lefebvre’s fidelity in transmitting to us the Catholic priesthood; and it also brings to the fore what we are presently witnessing: that ecclesiastical authorities are going adrift, for they are radically opposed to everything I have just said. And we can observe this even today. Consider, for example, the Holy Father’s visit to the United States. We may say it is a rather typical example of how an underlying teaching is ever present and applied, in varying degrees depending on persons and circumstances. We are not saying that he only preaches error nor that he always preaches error. Yet if we bring out the underlying principles, we find precisely this naturalistic and humanistic spirit which is not strictly speaking supernatural, but rather human. His is a human vision with man as the center of more or less everything. Such a preaching fosters freedom of conscience and religious freedom. Now, this is the very reverse of Christianization, which consists in drawing all to Christ. Here, everything is independent; man is autonomous, whether in his conscience or his social life. Yes, purposely or not, the Roman authorities are doing a work of dechristianization, which is diametrically opposed to the rules inherited from our Lord Jesus Christ because they adhere to the liberal, modernist principles denounced by the Church for two centuries. They have only to read the encyclicals of the previous popes. Moreover, the Truth is no longer preached; it is sought out. Today, the principal means of apostolate is dialogue. What has this to do with the vocation of the priest, who must preach, and preach the truth? who must teach in accordance with Tradition! We can thus see how what ought to be the Chair of Truth and Wisdom has become, in the best of cases, a Chair of Confusion, and in the worst of cases, a Chair of Error. This is dreadful! Yet, this is what we are witnessing today. The sacrifice of the Mass is diminished, blurred, obscured to the point that it even becomes an obstacle to faith and the grace of our Lord and to the real Catholic spirit, which is founded upon the sacrifice of the Cross! This is dreadful. Speaking of the sons of Heli the priest, Scripture says: “Wherefore the sin of the young men was exceeding great before the Lord: because they withdrew men from the sacrifice of the Lord” (I Kings 2:17). Their sins were serious since they were condemned by God; and they died because of them. In any case, all of this shows how important and necessary were the consecrations which took place 20 years ago. If the consecrations were THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org performed, it was precisely to ensure the survival of the Catholic priesthood. And today we are proud of the consecrations. We take pride in this act, not as if it were some kind of rebellion against the authority of the pope, nor do we glory in its seeming disobedience, but we do take pride in it for its true resistance to the destruction of the priesthood, and inasmuch as we did it only to safeguard the Catholic priesthood. Whoever safeguards the priesthood also safeguards the Catholic Faith and the Church. For this reason, we are also proud of the figure of Archbishop Lefebvre. In this context, his figure stands out as that of a giant. For, let us not forget it, the Archbishop was the main savior of Tradition. We are often told: “You are Lefebvrites.” And we always retort: “We are not Lefebvrists, we are Catholics.” But I nevertheless underline that we are disciples of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and very proud of it. We should not let ourselves be drawn into the logic or semantics of our enemies. Of course, the term “Lefebvrist” is derogatory, and means that we are Catholics because we are Lefebvrists. It is quite the contrary: because we are Catholics and because Archbishop Lefebvre was Catholic, we are his disciples. Nowadays it is the very reverse: people believe because they obey; they do not obey because they believe. For them, supernatural faith does not come first, but obedience. You are a Catholic if you obey and not because you believe. But obedience is a consequence of faith. If we have adhered to this savior of Tradition, it is because he was truly Catholic. That being said, we are indeed proud to be known as his disciples. We are very happy to have shared in this fight; we shall still be very happy to carry on, and to share the sufferings, trials, adversities, and even the condemnations he endured. We are not ashamed of the Gospel of our Lord. We are not ashamed of our Lord Jesus Christ. We are not ashamed of the Catholic Faith of all time. We are not ashamed of the Catholic Church of all time. Consequently, we are not ashamed of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. Our Relations with Rome Should Be Envisaged in Light of the Catholic Faith This leads me to speak to you briefly about the current situation. You may have heard that we had received an ultimatum from Rome, from Cardinal Castrillon. “Ultimatum” is a bit too strong a word, according to me. Obviously, they mean this to disturb us, to scare us by pressuring us into the direction of a purely practical agreement, which has always been His Eminence’s proposal. Of course, you already know our way of thinking. This way is a dead end; and for us it is the way to death. To go this way is out of question. We cannot undertake to betray the public profession of the Faith. It is out of the question and simply impossible. Inasmuch as we M 7 are to safeguard Tradition and build up the mystical edifice which is the Church, we cannot lend a hand to a work of destruction. I let you reflect upon all that I have already said, and you will see that it is impossible. Our reply to Rome is along the lines of what we have already been requesting for a long time, namely a series of steps with the preconditions. These might possibly lead to a discussion, to a theological confrontation, and even more than just a theological confrontation, a doctrinal one, and I would even go further than “doctrinal” and say a confrontation with the acts of the Magisterium, and ultimately with the Faith. This is the only path we are ready to tread. This is the only procedure we are requesting. Obviously, the answer of the Society points in this direction, and it will always point this way. Members of the Society of Saint Pius X (Nov. 2008) Oblates 80 Priests 491 SSPX Sisters 164 Brothers 117 Pre-Seminarians 41 Seminarians 215 What does the near future hold in store for us? I do not know. I think that most probably, all this will result in a pause, a stagnation in our contacts with Rome. Less probably it may bring about a new declaration against us. And even less probably, it may lead to the withdrawal of the decree of excommunication prior to a discussion about the Catholic faith–discussion, if we may call it so, as I have just explained it to you. So, I give you these probabilities in what I consider as a decreasing order; yet, it is only a matter of personal conjecture. The Help of Providence and the Blessed Virgin’s Protection By way of conclusion, I remind you, dear ordinands and dear confreres, of the words of our Lord before His ascension into heaven, words which seems to me to contain as it were the very essence of the Gospel: “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth” (Mt. 28:18). Thus spoke Christ the King of the universe, the Master of History and the Church. Then, Christ the Priest, Doctor of Truth, said: “Going therefore, teach all nations” (Mt. 28:19). Christ the Truth tells us: “Baptiz[e] them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (28:19). These are the words of Christ the Life, Christ the Priest, the Giver of grace who command us to convert them and give them grace. “Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:20). Here, Christ the Legislator establishes the moral law and asks us to teach it. “He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned” (Mk. 16:16): thus Christ the Judge and Rewarder forewarns us. “And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt. 28:20). By these words, Christ the Savior and Redeemer, Christ the Head of the Church, the Sacred Heart of Jesus promises His help in His might and mercy. So, then, we have nothing to fear, as He said to the apostles: “Have confidence, I have overcome the world” ( Jn. 16:33). Our Lord is not speaking only of the worldly; the context shows that His overcoming the world includes the ecclesiastical authorities of the time, since shortly before this statement He was speaking of the Pharisees and Sadducees. In other words, our Lord has triumphed over all his enemies. And we are in the service of this most powerful Lord, King of kings and Lord of lords, so we have nothing to fear. In the future, Providence will give us what is good for us, as always—sometimes sufferings or trials, or sometimes a respite or victory in a small battle. We do not know the future, nor where the history of the world and of the Church herself will end, nor what God has in store for us. But whether it be suffering or combat, joy or victory, we are equally confident, for our hope rests upon God, His Providence, and our Lord Jesus Christ. And that is why we pray today especially to the most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Immaculata, the Virgin most pure, because she is the safe and sure way to go to our Lord Jesus Christ and to live the life of Christ. It is the Immaculata who has received the promise of victory: “Ipsa conteret— she shall crush thy head” (Gen. 3:15). The victory has already begun by Mary; the final victory will come through the Immaculata, by the triumph of the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Let us have this confidence; and let us be courageous in the exercise of our ministry and the ever more perfect fulfillment of the demands of the Catholic priesthood. Amen. Taken from DICI, the press agency of the Society of Saint Pius X. www. dici.org. The headings and Scriptural references have been added by DICI. Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta, a Spaniard, was ordained for the Society of Saint Pius X in 1980, and is one of the four bishops consecrated by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 Letter from La Reja Music Dear Friends of The Angelus and Benefactors of La Reja, Music is an activity of human beings that strikes deep into, and comes deep out of, their souls, so it is always of human interest. A friend of the SSPX in the Czech Republic recently sent me a list of questions on music. Here they are, together with the answers that I sent to him: Dear Excellency, I have heard that music played a role in your conversion story. Is it true? I would say so. If I try to read how the Lord God led me to the Catholic Faith, it seems to me that for the dozen or so years beforehand, he brought me for that purpose to classical music, of Beethoven and Mozart in particular. This music, fruit of a Catholic culture, nourished a soul otherwise underfed in the “Wasteland” of modernity. Is there a difference between a Catholic and non-Catholic view of music? If there is, in what does it consist? Of all the differences between men, be they differences of age or ability or nationality or sex or race or whatever, the most important difference of all, without any doubt, is that between Catholics and non-Catholics. Here is why: firstly, religious differences go deeper than any other differences, because in any man’s soul nothing and nobody can go so high or deep as the infinite Lord God, in whom “we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). Secondly, amongst all religions, the Catholic religion alone is completely true, and alone can put man in completely true relations with his God. Therefore since the whole purpose of men’s life on earth is to reach the Heaven of the true God, The aNgeluS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org men divide primarily into those who have, and those who have not, the Catholic Faith. This Faith bears accordingly on every activity of men, which will include music. Thus music written by Catholics will generally be more free and joyful than that written by Protestants or anguished atheists who mistake or deny their redemption by Our Divine Lord. But what about the joyful and godly music of J.S. Bach? Bach drew deeply on the Catholic music of his time. Like many a decent Protestant of the first half of the 18th century, his wisdom and happiness leant ultimately upon the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Protestantism as such does not produce art, but smashes it, like Cromwell’s Puritan soldiers. Protestantism with no Counter-Reformation would have torn Christianity to pieces 400 years ago. Usually a difference is being made between form and content. What to do with someone like Mozart, whose form is brilliant, but whose content is sometimes Freemasonic? To distinguish in Mozart’s music between good and bad, I do not think form and content are the right distinction. Born in 1756 in Salzburg under the devoutly Catholic Empress Maria-Theresa, and born of devoutly Catholic parents, Mozart’s musical genius was soaked from birth in that glorious baroque culture which makes it so special to hear one of his Masses performed in a church building of that period, where it fits like a hand in a glove. Only in his mid-twenties did he quit the constraining service of the Archbishop of Salzburg to free-lance in the Enlightenment Vienna of the Empress’s much more humanistic successor, Joseph II. Here Freemasonry was fashionable, and it drew in many Catholics not concerned enough with their Faith, including the quasi-emancipated young Mozart. So it is true that he wrote several pieces of music for Masonic friends and patrons, the most famous of which 9 is his opera The Magic Flute, but it can be said that while the message of that opera is Masonic, the beauty of the music springs from his natural gifts soaked for all those early years in Catholic culture. Freemasonry as such makes war on the Catholic Church, and therefore as such is no more capable than Protestantism of generating beauty in the arts. See the public statues erected in all modern cities controlled by the Masonic spirit! Freemasonry is not innocent. In Mozart’s music there is a great deal of innocence. What criteria are to be used for discerning classical music? As a general rule, the more melody prevails in music, the higher the music will be. The more harmony prevails, the more it will be music that appeals to the senses. The more rhythm prevails over harmony and melody, the lower the music will be. If then we situate classical music as being much of the cultivated (as opposed to popular) music that was written, broadly, between 1500 and 1900, then we will notice that the closer it was to the Middle Ages, the more melody prevailed. On the contrary, the closer it is to modern times, the more harmony and rhythm prevail. This overall decline of classical music reflects the many-century decline of what is (still) called modern civilization. Which composers would you recommend for a Catholic and why? “Classical music” includes a great variety of styles, epochs and composers, almost as varied as life itself. So just as a doctor will prescribe different medicines for the same patient at different times, or for different patients at the same time, similarly a musical counselor might recommend all kinds of classical music for all kinds of listeners in our own time. However, broadly speaking, to souls caught up in modernity one might rather recommend the more recent classical music, say of the 19th century, as speaking more to their condition. To Catholics on the other hand whose Faith has to a greater or lesser extent protected them from modernity, one might rather recommend classical music prior to the French Revolution of 1789. Vivaldi was a Catholic priest, and his music is full of Catholic joy. Music can be a tool for ruling and manipulating people. Advertising experts spend hours and hours of time to find that kind of music, which makes people attracted to the product, while other kinds of music are being used by the US or Israeli armies against their enemies to break their morale. From where does music get such a great power? The power of music is a spin-off from the power of God. Underlying all of God’s creation is a universal harmony to which music gives voice, as Bach so well knew. Words alone, despite their immense range of expression, cannot make that harmony from God resonate in souls as can music. Animals respond to music, as the myth of Orpheus taming beasts with his lyre truthfully testifies. Humans whose minds are deeply disturbed can be treated with music, as Cordelia treated King Lear. Even plants respond to music, as experiments show by exposing the same plants in the same controlled conditions to different kinds of music. With Gregorian chant they flourish, with Rock’n’Roll they wilt! But just as men have free-will, so they can write or play music in such a way as to promote or refuse this harmony of the universe. Broadly speaking, the music written by atheists in modern times is dissonant and ugly, because deep down they do not want to give glory to God, on the contrary they want to make war on Him and on all his Creation. Thus advertisers will seek a music to make people feel good and buy, whereas modern armies will use Rock to make their enemies wilt, like the plants! Music creates many modern idols. There are youngsters committing suicide when their loved music band stops playing. Is there a relation between music and cult? There seems to be something almost supranatural about music… If music can have something almost supernatural about it, that is because it is the God-given language to express God’s own harmony, once referred to as “the harmony of the spheres”. Music touches depths in the soul that nothing else can reach or express. Many modern youngsters find in their Rock bands an expression of their deep-down protest against their wretchedly materialistic environment, such as they find nowhere else. That is why many of them are passionately attached to their Rock bands, as they are to nothing and to nobody else. Hence the suicides when their favourite band no longer plays. That Rock bands can in this way become objects of a cult proves how little else these poor youngsters have in their lives. What better has our wretched materialism offered to them? What is the relation between music and the invisible world? Can demons act through music? Music is full of the invisible world. The visible world is only what our eyes can see. There is infinitely more to the world than only what eyes can see. Much of this infinitely more can be expressed in music, which is the utterance of a harmony of God, however relatively inadequate it may be to the fullness of God’s own infinite harmony. But devils, fallen angels created by God, certainly know of the power of music to promote or demote that harmony which they absolutely wish to demote, so they are perfectly capable of inspiring devilish music in men, if men freely wish it, as many do, and if God allows it–the power of devils can never go farther than God allows. www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 10 Do you share the view, common among Traditional Catholics, that rock music is fundamentally sick and dangerous? Or are there differences and nuances to be made so that we do not miss some interesting and sound musical and intellectual insights coming from modern forms of music? To pass judgment on Rock music, the first necessity will be to define it. Let us for our purposes define it here as that kind of electronic and vocal music which emerged in the worldwide culture of the industrialized suburbs from the 1950’s onwards, and in which rhythm always plays a predominant part. If then, as said above, the predominance of rhythm over melody and harmony is the mark of a lower music, it is natural for Catholics who retain some sense of God’s harmony to consider that Rock is a low kind of music. Only liberals who refuse all absolutes can pretend that Rock is just as “good” as classical music or any other kind of music. Now the simplest comparison of the melody, harmony and rhythm of almost any “classical” music with the melody, harmony and rhythm of a piece of “Rock” music shows how intrinsically poor the “Rock” music is in comparison. However, there is no denying the musical and artistic gifts of certain “Rock” musicians. The pity is that such gifts are yoked to such poverty. Notwithstanding, in defence of Rock musicians let it be said that they are giving voice to a real protest against a real problem–the devastating soullessness of our materialistic society, mockery of a civilization. In this respect it can be worth listening to the Rockers’ words. They are on to the problem. They are crying out. But the self-satisfied adults are paying no attention, and the Rockers have no solution. And what about some religious and church songs, whose content is correct, but the form or poetical quality is below objective standards of beauty? To any artist applies the common sense distinction of Aristotle between a man’s moral quality as a man and his artistic quality as a painter or poet or whatever. Thus a bad man can be a great artist–a classic example would be Picasso, who made artistically brilliant war upon God and life. The counter-example is any morally good man whose art as art shows little or no artistic talent. An example might be the English poet William Wordsworth, whose later poetry is highly moral but barely known, whereas his early poetry is in all the anthologies. Artistic talent is a special gift of God in whatever domain of the arts, and it can go with or without moral goodness in its possessor. People instinctively recognize in the talent of an artist a spark of something divine, some kinship with the harmony of the universe, but what use the artist makes of his talent depends on his moral goodness or badness. As in the parable of Our Lord, men can be given ten talents or five or only one, THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org but they are judged on how they use those talents (Mt. 25:14-30), be it ten or five or one. Therefore a Catholic who writes music or poetry does not necessarily produce great music or poetry simply because he is a Catholic. It takes something else in addition to do that. In Holy Scriptures we read about angels praising God with singing. What is your idea about how does this music sound? Only in Heaven, or in a special vision of Heaven, will we know how the music of Heaven sounds. All who hear it, and live to tell the tale, relate that it far surpasses anything heard on earth. Nevertheless, broadly speaking, Gregorian chant and the great polyphonists like Palestrina would normally come closest. What song or music would you recommend to someone, who needs to get out of his bed on very early Monday morning, but, because of original sin, doesn’t want to? Beethoven. Try his third or fifth symphonies! Both can inspire a man to want to push the world over, even on Monday morning! Do you have some piece of music, some “hymn” of traditional Catholicism, that you really cherish? Loving Mozart, I do love his Ave Verum Corpus. Written at the end of his life, not far from when he wrote The Magic Flute, it surely shows the deeply Catholic spirit underlying what may have been in Mozart’s case any friendship or collaboration with Freemasons. I wonder if he guessed that it would be–as it surely is–the most frequently played piece of music that he ever wrote. It pays to serve Our Lord! Dear Angelus readers, an American seminarian at La Reja who received the cassock a few days ago, played for seminarians with his 15-year-old sister two of the four movements of Beethoven’s “Spring” Sonata for piano and violin. I wish seminarians were exposed to much more of this kind of music, played live! Thank you meanwhile for any and all help you can give us. There is a tax-deduction if it goes through the SSPX District HQ in Kansas City, but you need to mention that it is meant for La Reja. This interview originally appeared in Te Deum, published by the St. Joseph’s Institute in Prague, and was reprinted with permission of Michal Semin, the interviewer and editor of Te Deum. Bishop Williamson is the Rector of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix Seminary in La Reja, Argentina. If you would like to help the seminary in La Reja: To ensure that a check sent to help the seminary in La Reja will be tax-deductible in the US, make it out to “Society of St. Pius X,” accompanied by the request that it benefit the South American seminary and send it to: US District Headquarters, SSPX, Attn: Mr. Tim Eaton, Bursar 11485 North Farley Rd. Platte City, MO 64079-8201 The Decline of Sacred Architecture –Symptoms of a Doctrinal Problem 11 ? n i S s a y l Ug or ? e n o t S n i l e Gosp F r . M a r k u s H e g g e n b e r g e r 12 (Right) Our Lady of the Angels Cathedral, Los Angeles, which replaced the original Cathedral of St.Vibiana (Left), destroyed in 1996 by His Eminence Roger Cardinal Mahony. Christian art is art produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement, and portray in tangible form the principles of Christianity. This definition has been, in every age, the key to producing, using, and understanding Christian art. In every age, that is, with the exception of our own. In the 20th century there developed a modern style of architecture and correspondingly a modern form of sacred art and architecture which we may rightfully call Modernism. Some examples may illustrate what we call modernism in sacred art, specifically in architecture: 1) The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Los Angeles, CA, completed in 2002 The Archdiocese of Los Angeles decided that it needed a larger facility and decided to demolish the old cathedral. Preservationists, however, pressured them not to destroy the historic landmark. The situation was further complicated when the 1994 Northridge Earthquake caused extensive damage to the cathedral and its 1,200-seat sanctuary. Deciding that the damage was not worth repairing in such a small structure, the archdiocese began demolition on the site in 1996, without permits. However, the sudden dismantling of the bell tower on a Saturday morning prompted a frantic save-the-cathedral campaign, and work by the archdiocese was halted by preservationists who had a temporary restraining order placed on demolition. The archdiocese argued that it had the right to level its own facility; preservationists and the city wanted the church to be preserved. The structure was listed on the country’s “11 Most Endangered Places” by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. A state Court of Appeal rejected the archdiocese’s argument to be allowed to quickly demolish the cathedral. Finally a compromise was reached: the City of Los Angeles agreed to swap land with the archdiocese, giving the Church a much larger plot next to the 101 Freeway. The archdiocese agreed, and the land was developed into the new Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, constructed and consecrated as the new mother church cathedral parish of the archdiocese. Some items from St. Vibiana’s Cathedral were used in the new cathedral. Commentary of The Economist (May 1995): The earthquake that rocked Los Angeles more than a year ago has given the city’s Roman Catholic leaders a heaven-sent excuse to tear down St. Vibiana’s Cathedral, which sits on 2nd and Main (a bad part of town), and build a $45m religious complex in its place. (N.B.: the final cost of the new cathedral was $189.7 million) 2) The Cathedral of Taranto (Italy) designed by Gio Ponti in 1970 The prominent Romano Amerio from Switzerland commented on this building: The new cathedral in Taranto, considered to be a masterpiece of church architecture, is in fact entirely at odds with Catholic doctrine. In the traditional understanding the altar should be on high, as should the church if possible inasmuch as it symbolizes the mount of meeting with God; thus the people should lift their eyes to altar. At Taranto the altar is in the lowest place rather than the highest, as if God were below and man were above Him. As opposed to the THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org Christ the King, Liverpool, England and 13 idea of the sacred as something marked off or set apart, the vault is thrown open to the sky in order to signify, as the architect himself asserts, that the space outside is sacred as well. This is to destroy the idea of the sacred in general, and specific Catholic localization of the sacred in the Eucharist as well. At Taranto too, the Blessed Sacrament altar is set to one side, and is no more significant than any of the other side altars dedicated in honor of various saints, and no more significant than the altar that is a memorial to those who died during the war. (Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century [Kansas City: Sarto House, 1995], p.648. Available from Angelus Press; price: $23.95) 3) The Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ the King (England) The Cathedral of Christ the King is a Roman Catholic cathedral in Liverpool, England. It replaced the Pro-Cathedral of St. Nicholas, Copperas Hill, and was consecrated in 1967. The cathedral is the seat of the Archbishop of Liverpool, the mother church of Liverpool’s Catholics, and the metropolitan church of the ecclesiastical Northern Province in England. 4) Cathedral of Evry (near Paris, France) Of special interest are some selections from the speech given by Pope John Paul II on Friday, August 22, 1997, when he visited France and the new cathedral of Evry. Address of Pope John Paul II Dear Brother Bishops, Dear Brothers and Sisters, 2. Brothers and Sisters, you have erected this stunning building. You have created an admirable space for the liturgical assembly of the diocesan Church. I thank the Lord with you and I share your recognition towards your pastors and towards the architects, builders and benefactors who have united efforts to raise such a sign in the heart of the New City of Évry: the house of God and the house of man. This is an act of hope, a testimony to the vitality of a community which has rightly endeavoured to express itself in the language of these times, at the approach of the new Millennium. 3. As the Successor of Peter, I come to confirm you in your faith, in communion with the universal Church,… You will be the true builders of the Church, the spiritual temple (cf. Lumen Gentium, 6), if you bring the Good News to all nations, if you engage in dialogue with your brothers and sisters of different backgrounds and different cultures, if you welcome those scarred by life, the poor, the sick, the handicapped, those in prison. All are called to be the living stones of the edifice in which Christ is the cornerstone. To Him, the Living One, He who is, who was, and is to come, I entrust your diocesan Church. May he grant you a strong faith and a generous love. May he enable you to bring up your children in the faith. May he raise up vocations among you to the priesthood and to the consecrated life, vocations which are indispensable for the life of the community. This address of Pope John Paul II is a stunning document of the silent cooperation of Church leaders with a culture that is not supporting the Catholic Faith in the least but is rather opposed to it. The question is not only raised by nonCatholics, but should be an important concern for any Catholic: Why is it that modern architecture no longer expresses in “tangible form the principles of Christianity” (see definition in the beginning of this article), but rather tries to be commonplace, banal, and ugly? To put it in other words which may better allow us to go to the doctrinal root of the question: Why does Christian art and architecture now try to be a part of the surrounding world rather than something “set apart”? What is the definition of “sacred”? Why does it try to be like everything else–or compete with them–rather than be the “chosen body of Christ” that has its own laws and that is like a “candle put upon www.angeluspress.org Cathedral of the Resurrection, Evry, France THE ANGELUS • January 2009 Taranto Cathedral, Italy 14 a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house” (Mt. 5:15)? We are approaching the crucial doctrinal question. If sacred art is an expression of the Faith, does the decline of art not mean that there is a decrease or even a decay of the Faith? In the words of Romano Amerio: The new style of church architecture has also been influenced by the idea that what is sacred is produced by man and for man, and has lost all feeling for the sacred as such. The functionalism that is so characteristic of modern architecture, and that has become the first principle of all building, governs the design of churches as well; they are now conceived in a utilitarian spirit which, while keeping their religious use in view, does not exclude other uses either; hence the so-called multi-purpose churches that are used as places for non-religious meetings, as concert halls, as shelters for those on strike, etc. The ideas of adoration and of the sacred as something essentially separated or set apart are lost in all this. The new church architecture treats the sacred as something diffused throughout the whole of reality, and hence any attempt to localize it in church buildings must be abandoned. (Iota Unum, pp.647-8) The Purpose of Christian Art Catholic art consists of all visual works produced in an attempt to illustrate, supplement, and portray in tangible form the teachings of the Catholic Church. This includes sculpture, painting, mosaics, metalwork, embroidery, and architecture. Catholic art has played a leading role in the history and development of Western art since at least the fourth century. The principal subject matter of Catholic art has been the life and times of Our Lord, along with those of His disciples, the saints, and the events of the Old Testament. The years 1180-1275 marked the first flowering of dedicated church architecture. This era, referred to as Gothic, featured churches that were built to appear that they were “reaching for the sky,” as a symbolic expression of religious aspiration (stretching toward heaven). At this time church architecture had to symbolize Christian belief to a population that was not as proficient at reading and writing. Carvings and statues had a role to play for people who could not read as much, which allowed church architecture to tell a story. As a result it was in this period that religious symbolism became an important part of church design. Further, as most dwellings were fairly unimpressive, the construction of the church from stone served to set it apart as a building of extraordinary significance. Author and Catholic architect Steven J. Schloeder notes that Gothic sensibility... was a theological rather than stylistic initiative: Gustave Doré, The New Jerusalem (Apoc. 21:2) THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org The Gothic cathedral as an expression of the heavenly Jerusalem was not an attempt at “stylistic” or aesthetic expression. Nor was it a theatrical presentation enabled by the evolving technology of the age. Instead it was a very real religious image–at least in the mind of Abbot Suger of St.-Denis, the builder the first “Gothic” building–of the celestial city on earth, “a spectacle in which heaven and earth, the angelic hosts in heaven and the human community in the sanctuary, seemed to merge.” 15 We can trace back modernism in art to the beginning of the 20th century. Where do we have to trace back modernism in sacred art? To the Second Vatican Council? To the time when the Church wanted to be “like the world,” pretending that this would be a specifically missionary attitude, whereas in reality it was the abandonment of any missionary spirit altogether. Does it not appear that sacred art is drawing from murky waters like functionalism, adapting to the world, banality, ugliness, and even pornography rather than from the vision of the heavenly Jerusalem? A Christian knows very well that the heavenly Jerusalem is not realized in this world, but he does not cease shaping his life according to the ideal of preparing the second coming of Christ. He knows about the glory of the Lamb and about the personal sacrifice that is required to get to heaven, and he knows about the necessity to be encouraged by different means– for example, by sacred art. It is only a question of common sense to see that certain forms of modern churches are more discouraging than helpful to “take up the cross and follow” the Master (Mt. 10:38). Basilica of Saint-Denis (Paris) The church is an architectural landmark as it was the first major structure partially built in the Gothic style , although only part of the original Gothic ambulatory at the chevet, or east end remains. The narthex of the Gothic church was begun in 1136 and finished in 1140 by the Abbot Suger (1081-1155). The choir was begun in 1140 and was consecrated on the June 11, 1144 after only four y ears of work. The majority of the present day structure, however, was begun in 1231 in the Rayonnant Gothic style [a period in French Gothic architectural style c.1240-1350]. The church is also important architecturally due to the fact that it is considered to be the first church built in the Rayonnant style. Among other innovative features are the stained glass windows in the chevet, the rose window on the facade, and the statue columns (now destroyed) flanking the portals on the west facade. Abbot Suger (c. 1081-January 13, 1151) was one of the last French abbot-statesmen, a historian and the influential first patron of Gothic architecture. Suger was born into a poor family and in 1091 was brought to the nearby abbey of Saint-Denis for education. He trained at the priory of Saint-Denis de l’Estrée, and there first met the future king Louis VI the France. In 1106 he became secretary to the abbot of Saint-Denis. In 1118 Louis VI sent Suger to the court of Pope Gelasius II at Maguelonne, and he lived from 1121-22 at the court of Gelasius’s successor, Calixtus II. On his return from Italy, Suger became abbot of St-Denis. Suger served as the friend and counsellor both of Louis VI and Louis VII. He left his abbey, which possessed considerable property, enriched and embellished by the construction of a new church built in the nascent Gothic style. Certain scholars believe that the theology of the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite influenced the architectural style of the abbey of St. Denis. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 16 The New Rosary Crusade Sermon by Bishop Fellay, Lourdes, October 26, 2008 THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org We are gathered here on the magnificent Feast of Christ the King in order to honor, praise, and thank, but also to hear and implore the Blessed Virgin Mary. Pius XI, faced with the tribulations of the world, with the systematic rebellion of men against God, wanted to insist on the rights of God on earth; and this Feast of Christ the King, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, image of the invisible God, true God and true man, affirms those rights of God. We see Jesus Christ affirming the rights of God, not only in heaven, not only at the end of time, but throughout all time, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In the Our Father, He asks us to pray: “May Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” And we heard it in the epistle today: everything was created by Him and for Him, and everything has in Him its consistency: individuals, societies, everything. In spite of this affirmation, of this reminder, we see that the world turns a deaf ear because it does not want to listen. We see it already in the 19th century, we have seen it since the French Revolution, and we see that it continues. And when we look at these apparitions of the Blessed Virgin, whether at La Salette, Lourdes, or Fatima, we have the impression that heaven said something like this: “They refuse to listen to the Son; perhaps they will listen to the Mother.” These apparitions are acts of mercy on the part of our Good Lord and which remind us precisely of the rights of God. Our Lady leads us straight to Our Lord, to God. And if we are here, it is first and foremost in order to honor Him, to say that we, at least, wish to pay attention to His message because heaven has deigned to speak to men by Mary. Of course, it is not a question of public Revelation, which ended at the death of the Apostles, but it is still Heaven which is speaking, and obviously always with the same message. We come to honor this Messenger from heaven who takes pleasure in confirming at Lourdes the dogma concerning her–that dogma of the Immaculate Conception defined four years earlier. We can sense Heaven’s pleasure at this declaration on earth. We can sense the joy of Our Lady when she says to little 17 Bernadette: “I am the Immaculate Conception.” Let us unite ourselves to all those who praise Our Lady in her Immaculate Conception. Let us put all of our heart, all of our affection, and all of our will into making reparation for those miscreants, for those poor souls who find nothing better to do than to insult their Mother by so many outrages. Let us make reparation by the angelical salutation, by that chain of Ave Maria’s which is the rosary. What Our Lady is telling us here is very simple: “Prayer, penance, penance.” One might think she was being a little sparing with her words, but what she has said suffices. She has given us the two remedies proportional to the situation in which we find ourselves. We are only on earth in order to reach heaven, in order to be saved. God is permitting us to live in a horribly troubled time, and the remedies are always the same and always simple: prayer and penance. What insistence on penance, three times the same word: “penance, penance, penance.” It is the exact echo of the words of Our Lord Himself: “If you do not do penance, you will all perish.” It was true when He said it and it is true for all time. Yet what has been happening for the last forty years is something truly astonishing: that word has grown silent! The world thinks only of pleasure, the world wants only an easy life. And we find nearly no one reminding us of the road to heaven: penance. It is the cross, it is the path of Our Lord; there is no other. We are saved by the Cross of Jesus. There is where we find the price of our redemption, in His precious Blood which flows at His death, and if we want to be saved we have to follow that path. It is the great teaching of the sacrifice of the Mass, of that extraordinary invitation from the Sovereign High Priest, that invitation to baptized souls to unite themselves to Him in His sacrifice. And not only for the time of a Mass but for the time of a life on earth. Prayer as well: Our Lady shows us that prayer by her hands, which are holding a rosary, and at her feet we see roses. “Lourdes” in Arabic means “rose,” from the name of the lord of this castle who refused to surrender to Charlemagne in 778 but who, exhorted by the bishop of Le Puy, agreed to surrender body and soul to the Queen of Heaven. And he converted a short time later, taking the name of Lourdes (Lourdus): rose. We are here in the territory of the Blessed Virgin. It is undeniable that heaven wished to give to this prayer a very particular power as an antidote to the modern world and to the modern spirit. For this chain binds us up in the mysteries of Our Lord and unites us to the graces which He merited, strengthening us in the Christian spirit. It gives us the strength to live as Christians today, in this world. Let us therefore take seriously these two invitations, to penance and to the rosary. The Protection of Our Lady upon the Society of Saint Pius X My very dear brothers, we are of course here to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady, but we are also here for another anniversary, which we consider as intimately tied to Our Lady because we see in it her particular protection. I am referring to the 20th anniversary of the Episcopal Consecrations. And we dare to say that we see in this a kind of miracle. Yes, a miracle: that 20 years later we are still here, that we are still here without having changed our direction in spite of an extremely difficult and delicate ordeal in which it is so easy to fall to the right or to the left. Humanly speaking, a false step is nearly inevitable. Now this constancy points to a very special protection, which we dare attribute to Our Lady. Another sign of this protection is in the fact that the four bishops consecrated 20 years ago are all here, not only very much alive, but united; united in the same combat, in spite of all the prophets of doom who predicted, now 20 years ago, that there would be all sorts of divisions. Nothing of the kind! They are all here, and it is a great grace from heaven for which we thank the Most Blessed Virgin. Certainly then, during these days, we wish to raise up toward Our Lady a vast wave of gratitude for those consecrations, for all the protection which they were able to supply to the movement of Catholic Tradition. Obviously, we implore Heaven, we implore the Blessed Virgin that she might maintain us in this line of fidelity to the faith and of fidelity to the Church. Today, in the wake of these consecrations, we would like to launch another crusade, a crusade of the rosary. We launched one two years ago. It was in order to obtain the first precondition, as we call it, to obtain from the Holy Father, by the intervention of Our Lady, that the holy Mass, the Mass of All Time, might recover its rights in the Church. These rights have been reaffirmed by the motu proprio. Today even in Rome itself, there are voices who attribute this fact to the recitation of the rosary. Confident in Our Lady, we would like on this day to launch this same crusade again. We would like to appeal to your generosity, my very dear brothers, to ask the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to obtain the second precondition: the retraction of the decree of excommunication. For this reason we invite you this time to gather, from now to Christmas, a million rosaries which we might present with insistence to the Sovereign Pontiff. We are asking for this retraction for two reasons, which are on two different levels because they are of unequal importance. The first reason has a certain importance, but compared to the second it is less grave. As you know, the argument of excommunication is very often used by, shall we say, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 18 the “progressives,” as an easy way of not entering into discussion, of not listening, of not looking objectively at the content of what we would like to bring to their understanding. In fact, these grave questions which we present to them are easily swept aside by the peremptory answer: “You are excommunicated.” The second reason, which is more serious, is that this excommunication did not so much excommunicate four people, or six people if we count Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer. In reality, our founder embodied an attitude, and we can say that this attitude, which is eminently Catholic, appeared in his attachment to the deposit of the Faith, in his attachment to all that which Our Lord gave to His Church and which has been passed down from generation to generation; in other words, in his attachment to Tradition. It is not a fossilized attachment, a dead fidelity; it is an attachment to gathering from the past the principles and the life lessons for living today since Truth, since God, is outside of time. The Faith does not change, the supernatural principles of the Church do not change. This excommunication had as a consequence that all those who, near or far, make some attempt to move toward an attachment to the Church’s past, are more or less treated as “Lefebvrists.” This attitude–absolutely Catholic and absolutely necessary to the very being of the Church and to her survival–is what was excommunicated. We therefore ask the Holy Father to lift the decree of excommunication–the Holy Father, who, by definition, by reason of his function, ought to will the good of the Church and therefore ought also to will that Catholic being which was targeted by the decree. We have examples by the hundreds of this excommunication of Tradition. We see priests, seminarians…but above all priests who began to act in the direction of conserving the traditional spirit, and right away they received this shameful label. I remember a monsignor in Rome, a Brazilian, who explained to me that one day, in the seminary, he had the silly idea of putting on a black shirt, and that was enough to get him labeled a “Lefebvrist”! One fine day he said to himself: “I really need to find out what that even means.” He ended up with us! Our Consecration to the Most Blessed Virgin Mary My very dear brothers, if we are asking once again for the retraction of this decree of excommunication, we insist on one point: it does not mean that after it is retracted everything will be over. On the contrary, this step resembles, if you will, a kind of initial clearing of the jungle. If you want to get through, if you want to establish a THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org road or have a plane be able to land, you first have to level the ground, you have to make a clearing. It is a labor which is not yet essential either to the landing strip or to the road to come, but which is nonetheless very important and makes things easier. What is essential is the Catholic Faith; we hope finally to get to the heart of the question, once the Faith has been set free of those accessory things used precisely by the enemies of Tradition, like that label they stick on us. You see, it has only taken a few financial upsets in the last few weeks and everyone is in a panic: there is an economic crisis, there is a financial crisis! If the earth moves a little too much, the world is shaken, and everyone says there was an earthquake. But today the Church is turned upside down and they tell us everything is fine. No! We have to go to the heart of the matter. Obviously, that is what we are seeking. That is the grace which we are asking of the Blessed Virgin. Even if there are steps to get there. We conclude with this thought, my very dear brothers: we are launching not only a rosary crusade, a prayer to Mary, but also, since we are living in indescribably terrible times and we see how Heaven is insisting that we have a very special relationship with the Blessed Virgin, it seems to us that it is certainly the moment, on the occasion of this pilgrimage, to renew our consecration to the Most Blessed Virgin. In 1984–a long time ago now–the entire Priestly Society of Saint Pius X was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And we attribute to this protection by Our Lady the fact that we are here, the fact that this work continues to grow. It is not a question of personal self-congratulations but quite simply of observing the facts and thanking the good God and our good Mother. This consecration has consequences; it is not a question of a simple act, performed one time. We must live by it. To consecrate means to give oneself. In this consecration, we say to the Virgin Mary: “Since we have given ourselves to you, our apostolate is yours, it is no longer ours.” The one in charge of this apostolate is Our Lady. Our role is to follow her, to listen to her. To consecrate oneself also means working to imitate her virtues, her life, in all that we can imitate in her: her faith, her humility, her purity. Therefore, with all our heart, in all truth, let us renew this consecration; we will do it to proclaim that we desire her as our Mother, as our Sovereign. It is she who will lead us to Our Lord; it is she who will protect us; it is she who will lead us to God. Amen! Taken from DICI, No.184. DICI is the press agency of the Society of Saint Pius X. www.dici.org. The sermond was delivered by Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X, Sunday October 26, 2008, on the Feast of Christ the King, in the Basilica of St. Pius X at Lourdes. THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT Let your speech be “yes, yes: no, no”; whatever is beyond these comes from the evil one. (Mt. 5:37) l January 2009 Reprint #84 THE STATE OF NECESSITY In a letter dated July 8, 1987, Archbishop Lefebvre wrote to Cardinal Ratzinger: “The permanent will to annihilate Tradition is a suicidal will, which justifies, by its very existence, true and faithful Catholics when they make the decisions necessary for the survival of the Church and the salvation of souls.”1 In his homily on the day of the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, the Archbishop returned to this rule, from which he deduced the legitimacy of his actions. “Thus,” he explained, “we find ourselves in a case of necessity.... This is why we are convinced that, by the act of these consecrations today, we are obeying...the call of God.”2 The Real Reason for the Society’s Stand The attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of St. Pius X is not reducible to a certain personal attachment to the Church’s Tradition. If it only involved a personal attachment, we should have accepted long ago (as ultimately the priests of Campos did in 2002, and the priests of the Institute of the Good Shepherd in 2006) the principle of the personal apostolic administration or of a personal parish, which are particular, limited legal frameworks within which the expression of a personal attachment to the Tradition of the Church can legitimately prevail, more or less, according to the terms of the agreements. And because this attachment is merely personal, there is no room for challenging the gains of the Second Vatican Council to which one must willy-nilly pledge allegiance, even if it is only by signing the New Profession of Faith of 1989.3 Archbishop Lefebvre never refused in principle Rome’s extended hand, and, following its founder, the Society of St. Pius X always remains ready to respond favorably to the opportunity of these discussions with the authorities of the hierarchy. But these contacts have only one goal: to let the pure and integral voice of Catholic Tradition be heard in Rome so that it might recover its rights in the whole Church. The discussions will be in vain for as long as Rome maintains in principle the corrupted teachings of the Second Vatican Council. Things stand thus because the liturgical and doctrinal Tradition reigning prior to Vatican II is not just one form of Catholic expression among others in the Church. It cannot be defended by pleading only the cause of “all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition.”4 The defense of this Tradition is nothing more nor less than the defense of the integrity of the Catholic Faith, which is the common good of the Church; by this very fact it entails the fight against the reforms that issued from Vatican II which challenge fundamental truths of faith and thus endanger the common good of the Church. When this common good of the Catholic Faith is considered by the authorities as the object of a simple personal attachment, a state of necessity exists. The State of Necessity A state of necessity is an extraordinary situation in which the necessaries of natural or supernatural life are threatened in such a way that to safeguard them one finds oneself habitually obliged to break the law. Now, law is essentially intended by legislators to procure 19 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT these necessaries to their subjects. In the Church, the whole edifice of ecclesiastical law is by definition ordered to the preaching of the doctrine of faith and the administration of the sacraments.5 If the application of the law goes against the end of the law intended by the legislators, it is no longer legitimate because selfcontradictory. The subjects can and must take no notice of it in order to obtain the end of the law despite the authorities who apply the law contrary to the law. It is clear that since the Second Vatican Council the Church has found herself in such a situation. The common good of the Church is the handing down of the Catholic Faith, and if the pope has received authority from Christ, it is uniquely to safeguard Tradition. Now, since the Council, instead of continuing to transmit the deposit of faith as did all their predecessors for two thousand years, the men of the Church have taken it upon themselves to impose on the faithful the principal theses of the new theology condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis and then confirmed by Vatican Council II and the reforms that followed, novelties absolutely contrary to all that our Lord taught. Since 1965, the authorities of the Church have imposed a new Creed in three articles, with religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality; since 1969, they have also imposed a reformed liturgy with a new Mass of Protestant spirit and sacraments renewed in an ecumenical sense. These popes have imposed the grave errors of neomodernism, already condemned by their predecessors. Faced with this generalized protestantization, the Church must react. A state of necessity exists that legitimates resistance; it is this resistance that explains the work of Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X. The Enduring Dilemma Archbishop Lefebvre perceived the dilemma: either capitulate to tyranny under pretext of obedience, or else resist tyranny by rejecting false obedience. If this government [the conciliar Church] abandons its duty and turns against the Faith, what ought we to do? Remain attached to the government, or attached to the Faith? We have a choice. Does the Faith take precedence? Or is it the government that takes precedence? We are faced with a dilemma and we are indeed obliged to make a choice.6 The choice was made and the defense of the Faith prevailed over false obedience: We do not reject the pope’s authority, but rather what he does. We do indeed recognize the pope’s authority, but when he makes use of it to do the opposite of that for which it was given him, it is obvious that we cannot follow him.7 These words were spoken 20 years ago. Today, everything still hinges on this state of necessity. If one believes that it no longer exists, deeming that Pope 20 Benedict XVI has set about correcting not only the abuses but also the false principles of the Council, it becomes necessary to cease a resistance that can no longer be justified; it becomes necessary to accept the canonical statute proposed by Rome. This is what the priests of Campos and those of the Institute of the Good Shepherd have done. But if one has kept one’s eyes open, one sees that the state of necessity still exists, and this is why the resistance must continue. Just as in June 1988 Archbishop Lefebvre would have performed “Operation Suicide”8 had he decided against consecrating the four bishops, so also today, obtaining a purely canonical solution for the Society of St. Pius X from Rome would be “very imprudent and hasty,” as Bishop Fellay recently reaffirmed.9 In fact, it is possible that circumstances have evolved on this or that point since the Roman authorities have been trying to establish a new equilibrium far removed from the shameful abuses that followed the implementation of the Council. But for all that, the circumstances have not changed fundamentally insofar as the same Roman authorities in charge of reforming abuses are still imbued with the same false principles of Vatican II, which are the ultimate source of the abuses. This analysis, moreover, has been confirmed by the events of the last 20 years, which correspond with an aggravation of the crisis. The distance that has opened between the two liturgies amounts to an abyss separating two conceptions of the Church and the Faith.10 The extent of this separation can be measured by the force with which the national episcopacies oppose the initiative of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum. Even if the traditional rite of the Church is not supposed to exclude the new rite, its extension is viewed badly. The same opposition was to be seen when the Vatican proposed correcting the mistranslations of “pro multis,” which is part of the words of consecration in the Mass. These two examples show that Rome is not followed when it comes to reining in abuses. On the other hand, Rome is pursuing ecumenical dialogue more than ever and continues to preach the principle of the secular State. Another very tangible result of the crisis is the steep decline in vocations in the last two decades.11 A Doubly False Argumentation In a little book published last year by Éditions Sainte Madeleine of the Monastery of Le Barroux, the Most Reverend Fernando Arêas Rifan reasons exactly as if a state of necessity not only no longer exists more than 20 years after the episcopal consecrations at Ecône, but that it never existed. The book, entitled Tradition and the Living Magisterium, is a revision of a “pastoral orientation” addressed to the priests of the St. John Vianney Apostolic Administration of Campos. It comprises three chapters. The first claims to recall the basic givens of traditional theology on the magisterium. The following two chapters apply these principles, the second to the question of the Mass, and the third THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org to the teachings of the Second Vatican Council. The fundamental flaw of this reflection is twofold: it presents a warped idea of the magisterium, and it denies the state of necessity. A False Idea of the Magisterium of the Church Bishop Rifan has a false idea of the magisterium. The first chapter of his book Tradition and the Living Magisterium overlooks the fundamental points of the actual doctrine of the Church on the pope’s power and the Church’s magisterium [teaching authority]. Yet Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer had underlined these points in a remarkable study published in Heri et Hodie (No.3, May 1983), the monthly periodical of the priests of Campos. This study was included in a booklet that came out in several languages, the English version being published in 2000 under the title Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman: A Summary Defense of Catholic Tradition (pages 22-23). The Bishop Emeritus of Campos emphasized this fundamental truth: “the pope is essentially the Vicar of Jesus Christ.” From this he draws several consequences: This aspect is of the very essence of the papacy. It cannot be put aside. Forgetting it would have the worst consequences, leading people to believe that the pope is master of the Church, that he can do what he wants, ordain and rescind according to that which might seem best to him, the faithful being always and absolutely obliged to obey him. Upon reflection, it is clear that this conception attributes to the pope omniscience and omnipotence, exclusive attributes of God. It would be idolatry, transferring to the creature that which is proper to divinity. This is why the First Vatican Council, in defining the powers of the pope, took care to also define its purpose and its limits. The pope must keep intact the Church of Christ, through which the Divine Savior perpetuates His work of salvation. Therefore he must maintain the structure of Holy Church as the Lord has constituted it, and he must vigilantly preserve and wholly transmit the faith and morality received from the Apostolic Tradition.... Should the pope be unfaithful to this mission, the grave duty of Catholics is to resist him in order to remain faithful to Jesus Christ, of whom the pope is only the vicar. ...Whence it follows that the priests of Campos, in rejecting the New Mass, do not reject John Paul II, nor communion with the entire Church, since the New Mass is prejudicial to the Faith.... Contrary to these luminous considerations, Bishop Rifan preaches blind obedience to a pseudomagisterium, to an absolute rule independent of the objective tradition of past centuries: Being content with quoting earlier popes alone as if they were the current pope, or earlier bishops as if they were the present bishop, would be to betray the lack of a good Catholic spirit. It would be the negation of the living magisterium and the institution of a posthumous magisterium in the Protestant style. But is he not forgetting rather quickly that the Church’s magisterium is essentially a traditional magisterium: www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 in every age of history, the present teachings of the Catholic hierarchy always rest upon those of the past, in keeping with the words of St. Paul: “Tradidi quod et accept—I have handed down to you what I received.” The Church’s teaching is a constant teaching, for it accomplishes the integral transmission of the inalterable deposit of divine revelation. Therefore, if the faithful Catholic observes a break in the Church’s preaching, this can only be because the men charged with making this teaching heard have been unfaithful to the mission received from God; the faithful must then remain as constant as divine Tradition itself and not allow themselves to be swayed by the winds of new doctrines. Acting thus, the faithful do not place themselves above the magisterium; on the contrary, they do but show their submission to the magisterium of yesterday, which is the still living, and as indefectible as divine revelation, condemnation of today’s now unfaithful pseudo-magisterium.12 Rejection of the Obvious Not content with falsifying the Catholic notion of the Church’s magisterium, Bishop Rifan also denies the state of necessity, which is nonetheless a tangible reality. Anyone used to hearing Archbishop Lefebvre preach could not but be struck by an expression that recurred incessantly, every time the former Archbishop of Dakar expounded the profound reasons for the Society’s combat: “We are obliged to observe...” This is a decisive expression, for it indicates the point of departure for all of our analysis: these are facts that have no need of demonstration because they impose themselves upon the consciences of Catholics who are the least bit lucid. From the beginning of the Society’s opposition, the attitude of Churchmen, who abuse their power by imposing on Catholics the errors already condemned by the whole of the preceding magisterium, especially by Pope St. Pius X and his successors until the venerated Pope Pius XII, has been obvious. The Conciliar apostasy is a fact against which no theoretical argument can prevail. Either one sees or one does not see. Or else one no longer sees.13 And once one has become blind, one can no longer bear the brightness of the light: then “you’re a libertine if you have good eyes.” Bishop Rifan denies the obvious. And the negation of the obvious is already contained in the false idea that he makes of the magisterium. If one ascribes to the magisterium the exclusive attributes of God, neither the pope nor the bishops could ever be unfaithful to their charge, not even outside the strict limits of their infallibility. The faithful will always offer to their pastors an absolute obedience. The state of necessity is by definition an impossibility. With such a postulate, the only thing left to do is to deny the fact of the crisis in THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 21 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT b. The apocryphal letter of Cardinal Ottaviani the Church, to minimize and then reduce to nothing the serious detriment caused by the teachings and reforms of Vatican II: religious liberty, ecumenism, the new ecclesiology, and the new Mass. This is the natural bent of the Ecclesia Dei movement. Chapters 2 and 3 of Bishop Rifan’s book are a striking illustration of this. The New Liturgy and the State of Necessity It suffices to examine the normative text of the Novus Ordo of 1969 to realize that the liturgical reform constitutes as such and in its principles a grave detriment for the common good of the unity of faith and worship in the Church. The conclusion of the Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass presented on September 25, 1969, to Pope Paul VI by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci is well known. The Novus Ordo Missae “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session 22 of the Council of Trent.”14 This conclusion pertains independently of all the abuses which could have followed during the implementation of the new rite (defective translations, innovations and glosses exceeding the letter of the text, etc.). The critique in this case applies, not to abuses, but to the rite itself as it is expressed in the normative text of the 1969 typical edition. An Incontestable Examination As was to be expected, Bishop Rifan attempts to challenge the worth of the Short Critical Study; but for lack of valid arguments he is obliged to stoop to false reasoning, which the attentive reader will have no trouble discerning. a. A simplistic amalgam We start with the most flagrant of these untruths: the Short Critical Study is not reliable because “the majority of the radical critiques of the Novus Ordo originate with persons inclined to sedevacantism.”15 Many Communists think that two and two are four. Because they are Communists, should we think that two and two do not make four? Does Bishop Rifan suspect that, among those who, like him, are attached to the traditional rite of the Mass of St. Pius V, there are a good number of “persons inclined to sedevacantism”? Does he then conclude the illegitimacy of the traditional rite? It may be that one of the principal authors of the Short Critical Study, Fr. Guérard des Lauriers, ended up in sedevacantism,16 but that was in 1977, long after the drafting and publication of the analysis of the New Mass. Should all the works of Tertullian written before his adhesion to Montanism be put on the Index? In fact, do the priests of Campos still use the Catholic Catechism of Marriage by Fr. Barbara, a sedevacantist of the first hour like Fr. Guérard des Lauriers? 22 The second sophism is rather sly. Bishop Rifan presents it in §8 of Chapter 2, in which he makes much ado of the famous letter of February 17, 1970, which Cardinal Ottaviani purportedly addressed to Dom Marie-Gérard Lafond, O.S.B., and in which the eminent prelate would have claimed that he never authorized anyone to publish the Short Critical Study.17 However, this letter is a forgery. In a study which is by now quite old, Jean Madiran demolished this imposture. He had only to relate a few facts of which he was the direct witness. In October 1969, Cardinal Ottaviani personally gave authorization to publish the Short Critical Study to Fr. Raymond Dulac, one of the principal collaborators of the journal Itinéraires. One month after the letter to Dom Lafond, Jean Madiran personally obtained assurance from Cardinal Ottaviani that the authorization was authentic. Until now, it has been generally granted that the objection derived from the purported Ottaviani letter to Dom Lafond was unfounded. By resorting to it anew, 35 years after Jean Madiran’s refutation, Bishop Rifan deprives the Ecclesia Dei cause of a sizable part of its credibility. c. Bishop de Castro Mayer Reread and Corrected Chapter 2 concludes with a §9 in which, for the purposes of his cause, Bishop Rifan quotes Bishop de Castro Mayer’s September 12, 1969, letter to Pope Paul VI. The short excerpt18 could make one believe that Dom Antonio was seeking papal indulgence just for the privilege of continuing to use the Tridentine liturgy. But when the letter is read in its entirety,19 it becomes clear that it constitutes an unflinching list of charges against the New Mass.20 Contrary to what Bishop Rifan tries to make us believe, Bishop de Castro Mayer was seeking from Paul VI permission to keep the traditional rite to the exclusion of the new. Bishop Rifan quotes a short excerpt from a second letter sent by Bishop de Castro Mayer to Pope Paul VI on January 25, 1974.21 This passage expresses a protestation of obedience towards the pope in everything that he might decide in conformity with Church Tradition. But Bishop Rifan avoids specifying the precise tenor of this letter. The letter accompanied three documented studies,22 in which the Bishop of Campos explained to the Pope the acts of the pontifical magisterium that were unacceptable: ecumenism, religious liberty, and the New Mass. The third of these studies is by the Brazilian Lawyer Xavier da Silveira; it was subsequently published under the title What Should We Think of Paul VI’s New Mass? Bishop Rifan speaks of it, but elsewhere, in order to deny him any credibility under the pretext that the author delves into the (entirely hypothetical) question of a possible heresy of the Sovereign Pontiff. Yet the letter of January 25, 1974, quoted only partially by Bishop Rifan in §9, in a passage that Bishop Rifan does not quote, unreservedly praises this study on the THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org New Mass, asserting that the arguments employed by Xavier da Silveira express the thought of the Bishop of Campos.23 Fourteen years later, Dom Antonio had not changed his mind, since, having resolved to go to Ecône in person to attend the episcopal consecrations of June 30, 1988, he publicly protested against “these pernicious errors of which they [the faithful] are the victims, deceived by many persons who have received the fullness of the Holy Ghost!”24 Despite Bishop Rifan’s untruths, two facts remain uncontestable: the Short Critical Study always kept its value in the eyes of Cardinal Ottaviani, and Bishop de Castro Mayer, basing himself upon this study and that of Xavier da Silveira, always contested the grounds of Paul VI’s liturgical reform. The Illegitimacy of the New Rite In light of these two studies, it appears clearly that the reformed new rite of Paul VI is illegitimate. Certainly, Pope Paul VI desired to impose this reform, but that is not sufficient to constitute a legitimate exercise of authority. A pope can abuse his authority, and Paul VI undoubtedly exceeded the limits of his powers by promoting a rite so far removed from the Catholic definition of the Mass. Such a rite cannot be placed on the same rank as the traditional rite of St. Pius V: To compare the current reform to the reform, or rather, the act by which St. Pius V canonized the Latin rite of the Mass with the aim of protecting the faith against Protestant ideology is to give proof of a serious ignorance of the history both of the Council of Trent and of the Second Vatican Council and its liturgical reform. On the one hand everything was done to safeguard the traditional expression of the true faith; on the other, the ecumenical idea so attenuated this expression that doubt invaded the minds of the faithful and of priests.25 The reformed rite of Paul VI is an intruder; it is not only less good than the traditional rite, and the latter is not only preferable. The rite of Saint Pius V is good and legitimate; the rite of Paul VI is bad and illegitimate. Without affirming as much, no one can refuse in principle to celebrate the New Mass.26 Bishop Rifan’s Preferences In favor of the traditional rite of St. Pius V, Bishop Rifan from now on professes a simple preference: We keep the rite of Mass in its traditional form, that is to say, the ancient form of the Roman rite....We love it, we prefer it, and we keep it because it is, for us, the best liturgical expression of Eucharistic dogma and a solid spiritual nourishment. We keep it for its richness, its beauty, its elevation, its nobility and the solemnity of its ceremonies, for its sense of the sacred and reverence, for its sense of mystery, for its greater clarity and rigor in the rubrics, which represent a greater security and protection against abuses by not leaving room for the “ambiguities, liberties, creativity, adaptations, reductions, and instrumentalizations” of which Pope John Paul II complained.27 For Bishop Rifan, the traditional rite of Mass is no longer the perfect expression of the Church’s faith, in contrast with a new rite that represents a striking departure from it both as a whole and in its details. The traditional rite is the object of a personal preference for motives extrinsic to the profession of Catholic faith, which does not exclude the legitimacy and the intrinsic goodness of Pope Paul’s new rite: Although we have the Mass in the traditional Roman rite as the rite proper to our Apostolic Administration, the participation of the faithful or the concelebration of one of our priests or its bishop at a Mass in the rite officially promulgated by the Church’s hierarchy, determined by it to be legitimate and adopted by it, as is the case of the Mass celebrated in the current Roman rite, cannot be considered a bad action or one susceptible of the least criticism....28 Our purpose, assuredly, is to combat herewith the doctrinal error of those who consider the New Mass as it was officially promulgated by the Church’s hierarchy to be sinful, and, consequently, who think it impossible to attend it without committing a sin, violently attacking those who in certain circumstances participate in it as if they had committed an offense against God.29 The Limits of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio In lines that were written before the promulgation of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Bishop Rifan already displays an enthusiastic welcome for the extension of the traditional liturgy: “Our applause is won over by the much desired Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI, who will grant universal freedom for the Mass in the traditional Roman rite, which will be of benefit to the whole Church.” It is undeniable that the recent Motu Proprio of July 7, 2007, represents an unprecedented expansion since 1969. But this expansion does not go so far as to make the traditional rite the ordinary and common expression of the law of prayer; the ordinary expression of this law remains the Novus Ordo Missæ of Paul VI. In the text of the Motu Proprio, Article 1 contains the decisions made: The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the Lex orandi (Law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. Nonetheless, the Roman Missal promulgated by St. Pius V and reissued by Bl. John XXIII is to be considered as an extraordinary expression of that same Lex orandi, and must be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. For the same “lex orandi,” we are told, there are two expressions, one of which is extraordinary in relation to the other. The Motu Proprio of July 2007 thus introduced the cohabitation of the two missals, except that the two are not on the same level: a place is kept for the Catholic THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 23 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT A Twofold Error Condemned by Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX Mass; honorable by reason of the antiquity of its usage, it was never abrogated and remains the extraordinary expression of the liturgical law. But the Catholic Mass must take a place beside the Novus Ordo Missae, which remains the ordinary expression of the liturgical law. Certainly, from the standpoint of the faithful and priests who want to continue defending Catholic worship, a small place is not nothing, and it is even better than nothing at all. But from the standpoint of the Roman authorities, who want to continue imposing the liturgical reform of 1969 as the ordinary expression of the law, this little place must be inscribed in the liturgical pantheon, which is on an equal footing with the catechetical and dogmatic pantheon. A Pantheon or caravansary: such is the conciliar Church, in the image of modernism, which recognizes to all the religions, cults, and liturgies their expression, provided that they be living, that they be the spontaneous fruit of conscience and sensibility, the traditional sensibility included—why not? But with Archbishop Lefebvre, we persist in believing that the Catholic Mass merits much better than a little place beside the reformed Mass of Paul VI. The conclusion that retains our interest is the following30: the Motu Proprio of Benedict XVI does not put an end to the state of necessity, and necessitates the continuing resistance of faithful Catholics in favor of the Catholic rite of the Mass, which must be recognized as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer (lex orandi) of the Catholic Church, to the exclusion of the new reformed rite of 1969. The law of belief does indeed depend upon the law of prayer. If there are two expressions, one good and the other bad, of the “lex orandi,” then there are equally two beliefs, one good and the other bad. The same principle holds true: “Lex orandi statuat legem credendi.” The belief of the people must be regulated by the expression of the liturgy (this is a necessary consequence). The missal conditions the faithful’s profession of faith. Corresponding to a bad missal is bad belief. In order to restore the good belief completely, it does not enough to set the good missal beside the bad one; it is necessary to re-establish the traditional Missal of 1962 as the ordinary expression of the law of prayer to the exclusion of the missal of Paul VI. In spite of certain undeniably positive aspects, Benedict XVI’s act brings nothing that might justify Bishop Rifan’s attitude. There is matter to justify, to the contrary, the attitude of the Society of St. Pius X.31 Religious Liberty and the State of Necessity The declaration Dignitatis Humanae on Religious Freedom explicitly contradicts the teaching of the preceding Tradition. 24 Religious liberty was condemned by Pope Gregory XVI (1830-46) in the Encyclical Mirari Vos of August 15, 1832, then by Pope Pius IX (8146-78) in the Encyclical Quanta Cura of December 8, 1864. This error can be summarized in two points: (1) “the best political regime and the progress of civil society absolutely require that human society be constituted and governed without making any distinction between the true and false religions” and consequently, “the best condition of society is that in which the civil authority does not have a duty to suppress by legal penalties the violators of Catholic law, except insofar as keeping the peace may require; (2) freedom of conscience and of worship is a right due to every man; this right must be proclaimed and guaranteed by the law in every wellorganized society; the citizens have a right to complete freedom to manifest openly and publicly their opinions whatever they may be, by means of speech, the printed word or any other means, which neither the civil nor ecclesiastical authority may limit.” This twofold condemnation bears upon two different expressions of one and the same error, the error of the religious indifferentism of the public power. The first expression: Civil authorities must not intervene to repress the external manifestations of false religions in the framework of life in society. Second expression: individuals have a right not to be prevented by the civil authorities from exercising the exterior acts of their religion, true or false, in the external forum of life in society. This condemned error now forms the basis of all modern democracies. In his recent speech at the UN, Pope Benedict XVI, far from challenging this state of affairs, sees in it the logical culmination of the reforms undertaken by the Second Vatican Council. The false principle condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX has become the charter of the new social doctrine of the Conciliar Church. Religious Liberty in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae a. The text of Dignitatis Humanae The essential passage is in §2: This Vatican Synod declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that in matters religious no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs. Nor is anyone to be restrained from acting in accordance with his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits. The Synod further declares that the right to religious freedom has its foundation in the very dignity of the human person, as this dignity is known through the revealed Word of God and by reason itself. This right of the human person to religious freedom is to be recognized in the constitutional THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org law whereby society is governed. Thus it is to become a civil right. This passage can be broken down into the following three propositions: (1) Religious freedom is a right proper to the human person; (2) This right must be recognized and guaranteed by the law in every society; (3) This right means that everyone must be free from all constraint whether from individuals or social groups or any human power whatsoever, such that in matters religious, no one may be compelled to act against his conscience nor prevented from acting, according to his conscience, in private as in public, alone or in association with others, within due limits. b. The meaning of the text The text does not teach (at least in §2) freedom of individual consciences in matters religious in the sense of the religious indifferentism of individuals; that is to say, in the sense that every man would have the right to choose the religion he likes (whether it be true or false objectively), without regard for any objective moral order.32 The text teaches the freedom of individual external actions in matters religious in the sense that every man has the right not to be prevented by the civil authorities from exercising in the external forum of life in society, the religious acts that he feels in conscience obliged to accomplish, provided that these acts do not trouble the public order; this amounts to the teaching of the religious indifferentism of the civil authorities. In effect, the right thus defined implies that the civil authorities must not intervene in the external forum of life in society, whether in favor of the true religion or disfavor of false religions unless the public order would happen to be threatened. Religious indifferentism in general corresponds to two distinct errors: the religious indifferentism of individuals and the religious indifferentism of the secular power. Section 2 of Dignitatis Humanae teaches the second error without teaching the first. But the teaching prior to Vatican II condemns the second error as well as the first, for there is a link of cause and effect between the second error and the first: man being a political animal, if he lives in a society in which the public powers profess indifferentism, he will finish by professing the same indifferentism. This is why this passage of Dignitatis Humanae is condemned as such by the previous magisterium. This passage teaches the second error, which is the very negation of the Social Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. c. The question of due limits The indifferentism of civil authorities is described when No. 2 of Dignitatis Humanae indicates what are the external acts which men may, as a consequence of this freedom from constraint, accomplish or not. The text then speaks of “due limits.” But this mention does not aim at restraining the specifically religious domain of the liberty in question. The exercise of a right can have extrinsic limits when the concrete exercise of a right, specifically defined by a property (in this instance the www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 “religious” domain), oversteps this domain in virtue of other related properties. There are mixed matters, where certain limits will restrain the exercise of a right not by reason of the proper matter of the right, but by reason of another matter that coincides in fact with the proper matter of the right. For example, a religious procession on a public thoroughfare involves the religious domain as such, but also affects the domain of traffic circulation. The two facts coincide, but remain distinct nonetheless. If the procession is limited because it impinges on the traffic of the route followed, the limit in question is extrinsic to the religious domain. On the other hand, the fact of exercising a true or false religion is an action intrinsic to the religious domain, and if this action is limited (for example, if the authorities allow the funeral procession of Baron James de Rothschild to the Père-Lachaise Cemetery while forbidding the Corpus Christi procession), the limit in question is intrinsic to the religious domain. As such, the properly religious domain of the right recognized by Dignitatis Humanae is without intrinsic limits because it is ascribed to all religions, true or false. At most there will be extrinsic limits taking into account the circumstances in which the right in favor of religion (whether true or false) is exercised. d. A coherent text This mention of “due limits” must be understood, then, not in relation to the objective order of the true religion, but in relation to the objective order of civil society, and signifies that the exercise of a religion, whether true or false, must respect good order and public peace. That is why this restriction of the right takes away absolutely nothing of the fundamental perversity of the false principle of religious liberty. Even if it imposes on the exercise of religion the limits required for the sake of public tranquility, the State remains absolutely indifferent to the truth or falseness of religion.33 (To be continued.) Authored by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Courrier de Rome, July-August, 2008. English version: Fr. François Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, 2nd ed. (Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1999), p.22. 2 Ibid., pp.118-19. 3 See Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Ecône, May 14, 1989, in Vu de Haut, No. 13, Fall 2006, p.70. 4 John Paul II, Motu Proprio Ecclesia DeiAdflicta, §5 [English version from Vatican web site]. 5 Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 682, and 1983 Code, Canon 213: “The Christian faithful have the right to receive assistance from the sacred pastors out of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially the word of God and the sacraments.” 6 Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily at Ecône for the Chrismal Mass of Holy Thursday, March 27, 1986. 7 Archbishop Lefebvre quoted in Fideliter, November-December 1988, pp.27-31. 8 “Today, this day, is Operation Survival. If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have 1 THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT 25 performed ‘Operation Suicide’.” Archbishop Lefebvre, Homily of June 30, 1988, in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.119. Bishop Fellay, Letter to Friends and Benefactors No. 72, April 14, 2008. 10 “The liturgy is a theological place. The Ordo Missae of 1969 implements in particular the theology of the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. Lumen Gentium presents the Church as both the Mystical Body of Christ and as the People of God gathered in the name of Christ....The desire to encourage in the Latin Church a return to another theological accent by extending the 1962 Ordo is to cause a deep disturbance in the People of God”: Dom Jean-Pierre Longeat, “L’Unité de la Liturgie Romaine en Question,” La Croix, October 23, 2006, p.25. 11 According to figures reported by the newspaper La Croix of April 11, 2008, p.17, France, “the Eldest Daughter of the Church,” numbered 20,523 priests (diocesan and religious) in 2007, compared to 28,780 in 1995. The total number of seminarians declined from 1155 in 1995 to 756 in 2007. The number of entrants into the first year of seminary studies went from 247 in 1995 to 133 in 2007. The same newspaper in its May 29-31, 2004, edition (p.13) reported that France still compares favorably with Africa (one priest per 4700 inhabitants) or South America (one priest per 7100 inhabitants). 12 Having explained this in detail in a previous article, “À propos de St. Vincent de Lérins,” published in the February 2008 edition of Courrier de Rome [English version: see SiSiNoNo, May 2008], we shall not develop this point further. The reader who would like to delve into this should consult this study. 13 “It seems that if one excludes from Assisi every thought of religious syncretism, this meeting can be situated on the level of natural religion; and that, having as its goal peace in the world, it should be understood as a highly and soundly political diplomatic act” (Jean Madiran, editorial of the newspaper Présent, No. 5001, January 26, 2002, p.1). Citing these reflections, Fr. Louis-Marie de Blignières, O.P., comments: “Unfortunately, Madiran’s interpretation was practically unnoticed by the public nor was it picked up by Catholic commentators. It presents, however, the advantage of showing that Assisi can, thanks be to God, be considered other than as ‘a public sin against the unicity of God,’ as Archbishop Lefebvre asserted in 1986, or as a ‘blasphemy’ as his successor at the head of the SSPX maintained in 2002” (“Reflections on Assisi,” Sedes Sapientiae, No. 80, Summer 2002, p.23). It would suffice for Mr. Madiran and Fr. de Blignières to reread the Encyclical Mortalium Animos of Pope Pius XI (January 6, 1928) to be reminded that a natural religion never existed in the pure state. God promulgated a supernatural revelation which obliges all men to practise religion as it has been established in the one and only Catholic Roman Church. The claim that one is abiding by the precepts of the natural law alone already constitutes an admission of religious syncretism. The scandal of the ecumenical meetings at Assisi I (19886) and II (20002) and of Naples (2007) merely renews the error of the pan-Christians condemned by Pius XI. 14 Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci, The Ottaviani Intervention: Short Critical Study of the New Order of Mass, translated by Fr. Anthony Cekada (1969; reprint, Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books & Publishers, 1992, p. 27. 15 Rifan, Tradition, p. 16. 16 Ibid., p. 54, n. 71. 17 Ibid., p. 65-66, with n. 97. Source of information on the the affair: Jean Madiran, “Sur la Lettre du Cardinal Ottaviani à Paul VI,” Supplément au no. 142 d’ Itinéraires,” April 1970. On page 6, this study shows that the letter was published at the instigation of Msgr. Gilberto Agustoni, Cardinal Ottaviani’s secretary. Since Ottaviani was already blind, it was easy for his secretary to abuse his trust by getting him to sign texts without telling him their precise content. 18 Ibid., p.67. 19 Reproduced in the journal Le Sel de la Terre, No. 37, Summer 2001, p.29. 20 “The Novus Ordo Missæ, by the omissions and mutations it introduces into the Ordinary of the Mass and by many of its general norms, which indicate the conception and the nature of the new missal in its essential points, does not express as it should the theology of the holy sacrifice of the Mass established by the holy Council of Trent in its Session 22, a fact which simple catechesis does not succeed in counterbalancing....The Novus 9 Ordo not only does not sustain fervor but on the contrary diminishes faith in the central truths of the Catholic life, such as the real presence of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament, the reality of the propitiatory sacrifice, and hierarchical priesthood.” 21 Rifan, Tradition, p.54, n.70. 22 See Le Sel de la Terre, No. 37, Summer 2001, p.33ff. 23 Le Sel de la Terre, No. 37, Summer 2001, p.34. Bishop de Castro Mayer was careful to state that the considerations on an eventual heresy of the Sovereign Pontiff remained purely theoretcial and did not imply any intention of analyzing the particulars of the present situation in the Church. 24 Declaration of Bishop Antonio de Castro Mayer in Laisney, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, p.125. 25 Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Courrier de Rome, July 1974. 26 “The New Mass is not good! If it were good, then tomorrow we would have to start saying it, obviously. If it is good, we must obey. If the Church gives us something good and tells us ‘You must take it,’ what reason could there be to say no? Whereas, if we say, ‘This Mass is corrupted; this Mass is bad: it makes us gradually lose the faith,’ then we are indeed obliged to refuse it.” Quoted in The Mass of All Time (2005; English version: Angelus Press, 2007), p. 271. 27 Rifan, Tradition and the Living Magisterium, p.38-9. 28 Ibid., p.47. 29 Ibid., p.49. Archbishop Lefebvre said just the opposite: “The New Mass leads to sin against faith, and that is one of the most serious of sins, the most dangerous of sins, ...the loss of faith...” (The Mass of All Time, p.284). 30 For more details about the Motu Proprio, the reader may refer to the article published in the September 2007 of Courrier de Rome [and in the January 2008 issue of SiSiNoNo]. 31 For more details, the reader may wish to consult the exclusive interview with the Most Reverend Bernard Fellay, in Nouvelles de Chrétienté, No. 111, May-June 2008, online at www.dici.org. 32 The religious indifferentism of individuals is condemned in Proposition 15 of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors (DS 2915). 33 This reading of §2 of Dignitatis Humanae is confirmed in parallel places of the document: the end of §§3, 7, 10, and 12. $2.00 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify. SHIPPING & HANDLING 5-10 days 2-4 days USA For eign Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $4.00 $6.00 FREE 25% of subtotal Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $8.00 $10.00 $8.00 FLAT FEE! ($10.00 minimum) 48 Contiguous States only. UPS cannot ship to PO Boxes. Available from: ANGELUS PRESS 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109 USA Phone: 1-800-966-7337 www.angeluspress.org 27 A r c h b i s h o p M a r c e l L e f e b v r e Christendom NEWS Angelus Press Edition The PRoBLeM oF LIBeRTy On May 2, 1965, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, gave a conference to students in Paris on the problem of liberty. A transcript of this address was printed as a 16-page booklet, which does not give any particulars as to the organizers of the meeting, nor its exact location. The text shows that the orator himself does not quite know his audience, particularly the field of study of these young people. Were they already members of movements whose enthusiasm was admired by the former Archbishop of Dakar in 1968: “We see the rise of a new generation…young people thrilled by their discovery.…They see that their minds’ and hearts’ desire has been hidden from them, and it is that treasure that has transformed the world. They have discovered…the true history of Christian civilization, and henceforth it becomes their life, their interior life, their life in society, and their ideal. They will never again abandon it” (Itinéraires, No.127, pp.227-28; quoted in Marcel Lefebvre [Angelus Press, 2004], pp.388 [Available from Angelus Press; price: $22.95]). The interest of the conference lies in its content, the problem of liberty, and in its date: May 1965. That is a few months before the works of the Second Vatican Council (which would deal with the issue of religious liberty) were resumed. The Superior General of the missionary Holy Ghost Fathers divided his discourse into two parts, the first of which is reproduced here. After recalling the principles, he dealt with the ways in which liberty is applied, and quite naturally he came to speak about religious liberty, which he was to discuss in the conciliar aula that coming fall. The second part will be published in an upcoming edition of The Angelus. When we read this document, of great pedagogical clarity, we can affirm that the opposition of the founder of the SSPX to the modern doctrine of religious liberty remained unchanged before, during, and after the Council. www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 28 I have been asked to come and talk to you on the very delicate subject of liberty. If I had some hesitations, it was not because I was not very happy to come and talk to you about this, and even more to get in touch with you and encourage you. The reason was rather that, being taken up with many things, I was afraid I would not meet your expectations, nor be quite up to the task requested of me. Consequently, you will excuse me if my discourse is both very simple and full of conviction. I will first try to give you some principles, and then some applications of liberty. I thank you for your kindness in inviting me, because I am most happy to come into contact with you, and I am pleased to be able to tell you to continue your efforts, and pleased to be able to tell you that you have the truth. You have the truth by the simple fact that you really study Christian and Catholic principles from their truest and safest source. You can certainly do much good, to yourselves first, and also to many around you. This is why I did not hesitate to accept the invitation, hoping that you would be a little indulgent with me if my discourse is not exactly what you expected. If, at the end of this brief exposition, you have some questions about liberty, or even about some other topics, I will try to answer in truth and charity. The subject of liberty is an immense subject. This subject touches so much upon the very heart of what we are, the very core of man, and consequently all of human society, that it is difficult to embrace it completely and thoroughly. I must admit that, rather than proceed with an analysis of liberty, as Pope Leo XIII did in his Encyclical Libertas Praestantissimum, I prefer to begin with a synthesis. I fear that such an analysis being long and difficult to do, some notions concerning liberty itself will not be brought into light very well, and that, in our judgment upon liberty, we end up lacking the light which is needed to consider it in its entirety. The Order of the Universe and Natural Law In order to correctly understand our liberty and its end, we must consider it within the order of the universe. I think that we will understand the role of our liberty by examining first the universal order that God put into things. I am not begging the question when I say this. I am not using preconceived principles to prove the thesis I wish to prove, but I am starting from what is obvious. When we open the eyes of our mind, of our intelligence, we cannot but observe that there is a magnificent order in the universe. This order is nothing else than the orientation of all the activities of nature to an end, a useful end, an objective assigned by God to all of Creation. You, who are students–I do not know your THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org particular field of study–but one way or another, you are studying laws that are inscribed in nature; all the more so if you are pursuing scientific studies. Man cannot help researching the laws of nature, laws which direct the activities of any being. And we realize that these laws are truly inscribed in nature since we manage to discover them. Eventually we make them into a science. All of our scientific books, all the books which study nature–vegetative as well as animal nature, human nature and the nature of man in society–are searching for laws deeply inscribed in nature. We can manage to discover them quite well. We would even be more learned if we could manage to know them all. That is what scientists endeavor to do. Whether it be medicine, or any science connected with physics or chemistry, men always study the laws inscribed in nature. We often realize that we have not reached the end of a science and that God still has hidden secrets and mysteries in nature which we only discover progressively. These laws are inevitably observed by unintelligent beings, that is to say that they follow the course of the laws necessarily and in a predetermined manner. If they are laws in the realm of physics, it is obvious that, as a rule, these laws apply absolutely and without fail. If they can fail, it means that there are other laws at play that we do not yet know, otherwise we could really foresee all that is conditioned by a law in nature down to its most remote effects. If, at times, there are errors, for instance, in meteorology, if weather forecasts are so often wrong, it is precisely because we still hardly know the laws. The day when we manage to discover all the laws governing the weather, obviously we will manage to forecast unerringly that on such a day, at such a time, it will rain or not; the weather will be nice or not… So, no matter what, we must first discover the laws and then realize that these laws apply without fail in natural things and for non-living elements. If we move to life, the laws for plants are already less determined. In plants, some elements are, as it were, left somewhat to the free determination of the plants themselves in their growth. A climbing plant, for instance, will adjust to the elements it finds, it will cling to and wind around the obstacles it meets. There is a certain adaptation which comes from the very nature of the plant. It is not imposed upon it from outside. It is already a certain trace of freedom, a touch of indetermination found in vegetative life. If we go further up, we come to animal life, and sensitive life. In this domain, determination is still less important. There is some indetermination in the senses, in the sensitive faculties which are the reason why animals seem to have also a certain freedom. Certainly, there is, in some measure, some indetermination and the possibility of selfdetermination, yet not a completely free selfdetermination. An animal is subject to influences 29 to which he responds almost automatically. This is why an animal does not make any progress, or hardly any, unless he is trained by man. Otherwise, by their nature, animals do not progress. An animal remains always within the same limits because it has no awareness of its acts. At least, we cannot say that it has a veritable conscience like ours. So we can observe a certain indetermination in plants and animals, and this touch of freedom which these latter possess we call “instinct.” The instinct of animals is the center of all their sensations. It is what enables them to guide themselves in a remarkable way through the sensations they experience, yet according to the laws inscribed in nature by the Creator. This instinct has something about it which makes us wonder and which often goes beyond anything we can do. The properties of animal instincts are real marvels, yet they remain internally determined in their acts. The determination of their actions, of their activities, is subject to internal laws. They are not free with the freedom that man enjoys. Human Liberty and Its Laws Let us now move from animal life to human life. The difference is great because man is free. Why? Because man possesses psychological liberty, the faculty of being capable of making decisions. Yet, precisely, if animals, plants, and minerals follow laws and consequently conform to the order in the universe, if God has given liberty to man, it is inconceivable that this liberty does not also obey laws. And here is the crux of the difficulty for those who have an erroneous notion of liberty. They believe that, because man can decide for himself to do things of which he is conscious, and that, psychologically speaking, no one can do anything from inside to affect this determination, this can be applied to the domain of man as a whole. Consequently he is free to do what he wills. This simple psychological liberty is applied to man as a whole. It is as if we were to say in analyzing his intelligence: “Man can know, man has the possibility of knowing. Hence he may know anything he wants, he is not obliged to attach himself to any particular knowledge.” But saying this, we ignore the truth for which intelligence is made. Thus a faculty is defined without taking into account its end. It is quite absurd. We must not only analyze the faculty in the abstract, we must consider it in the complete man, in the laws that God imposes upon him. Then we will very clearly see that the freedom that God gave to man is nothing else than the permission for man to make decisions for himself in view of the end that God wants to give him. This is what makes all the grandeur and nobility of man. Whereas animals are interiorly conditioned and determined, man, on the contrary, can decide for himself, without anybody being able to influence him in the very cause of his liberty. You can make him a martyr as much as you want, but no one will manage to make him believe in the very depth of his liberty something he does not want to believe, nor to make him will something he does not want. Obviously, his will can be influenced and may eventually yield in a certain way. He may even, in the case of persecutions, express something which is in agreement with what his torturers think, but deep down he will not assent to it. Consequently, his freedom remains total in spite of all the exterior influences which may be exercised in any direction. No one can act directly upon the very root of human liberty. This is what makes man free. And he is free because he is an intelligent being. For we cannot imagine someone who is free without intelligence. How would he direct this liberty? How could man direct himself in life if we took liberty as the first principle of human life? Liberty is unthinkable by itself. It can be conceived only together with intelligence and will. Intelligence shows us the law that God wants us to apply–a law which He expresses and makes manifest–and the will which adheres to it of its own movement and decision. Such is precisely all the grandeur of man: to know the law inscribed in nature and apply his will to it. But, you see, we cannot really conceive liberty, and we cannot truly understand it unless we place it within this universal order. If we begin by analyzing liberty itself, we run the risk of confusing psychological liberty with moral liberty. Pope Leo XIII very aptly pointed out the difference between natural (or psychological) liberty and moral liberty. Natural liberty is liberty in its physical being. Moral liberty is the application of this liberty to the end of man which is determined by laws known to the intelligence. Hence, moral liberty is not complete because laws limit it. There are things which are good and there are things which are bad, there are things which we are not allowed to do. Then, you might object that this moral liberty imposes limitations upon our psychological liberty. Not at all! because it presents itself as an object to our liberty, to our intelligence, and does not influence the subject himself. It has an influence upon our mind through the intelligence, as object of our faculty, and not upon the subject himself. If moral liberty influenced the very faculty of being free, of course, at that moment we would no longer be free. But it offers itself to us as a law to which we must freely submit of our own accord. Hence, man’s grandeur certainly resides in this liberty. But once again, this liberty must strive to exercise its activity according to the laws which are in nature. It would be a sorry thing to think that men, who are intelligent and capable of knowing the laws which must lead them to their end, are eventually less faithful to the law than are irrational creatures like the birds, the flowers of the fields, www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 30 the inanimate beings which must follow God’s law perfectly without any disorder. Whereas man, who is intelligent, to whom God has given intelligence for a purpose so that he may submit of his own accord to the laws and that, understanding the grandeur of his laws and of his end, that he might submit freely and consequently adhere with all his soul to the grandeur of the universe’s order and to the grandeur of the order willed by God, in order to merit a participation in this order of the universe and to the goal which is the glory of God. That man would seek ways opposed to such laws! It is in this perspective that I try to consider in what liberty consists and what the limitations of this liberty are. We might perhaps say that law is a limit to our liberty. Law, as an ordinance of reason destined to guide the activities of various beings towards their end, tends by definition toward the good of these beings, since, materially speaking, the end and the good are one. If we are considering especially reasonable beings, we will say that the effect of morals is to make them virtuous. It is only through virtue that man makes himself ready to obtain the Sovereign Good. Such is the remote effect of the law. Law has immediate effects: its proximate end is to create an obligation to act in the subject of the law. In unintelligent beings, this necessity is unavoidable and irresistible. In reasonable beings, it is of a moral nature and is called obligation or duty. Here also, it is still a necessity, even against the will of the subject of the law, but it is moral and not physical, i.e. it does not proceed from a determination intrinsic to nature, nor from an outward constraint: it addresses reason, yet respects the liberty of the subject of the law. As you can see, moral obligation is addressed to man as an obligation, yet not as such an obligation that man is no longer free. The subject remains free, but he must submit. This law, which man conceives as his good and as his end, must morally be subject to it. This is where the difficulty of liberalism comes in. Liberalism affirms that moral obligations suppress our liberty. This is not exactly true. Moral obligations do not suppress our liberty. There is no liberty to do as we please. There is no man without a law, without a goal, without an end, nor without reason. We cannot be free unless we have an orientation to choose with our liberty, a choice that necessarily leads us to an end, to a goal. Hence, moral obligations do not diminish our liberty but guide it and show us what is its goal and its usefulness. Its end is the very reason God gave the gift of liberty. I believe that we must strive with our whole soul and heart to know these laws if we want to reach our end. This is why God gave us intelligence and free will. Just as unintelligent beings know the law only in a non-intelligent manner and follow it by instinct and necessarily, so we must seek with our whole soul the law of our activity, the law of our nature which will lead us to our end. THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org Natural law has been inscribed in our very conscience, in our very hearts and souls. It is complemented by positive law: human and divine laws, the law of the Church which Our Lord founded for the salvation of all men. No man is outside of the supernatural order. There has never existed any man outside the supernatural order. Adam and Eve lived in the supernatural order. Because of their sin, they were deprived of supernatural goods and suffered serious losses in the order of nature. Since then, every man needs to restore the supernatural order in order to also restore the natural order and rediscover the application of the laws leading him to his natural and supernatural end. There is an exaggerated tendency to separate the natural and the supernatural orders. God had already given to Adam and Eve the supernatural order. And we wonder why God gave these laws of the supernatural order which make our lives so difficult. Why did He not simply give us a natural law? God in His liberality, bounty, grandeur, and magnificence towards men wanted to add something to what might have been sufficient for a certain natural happiness. He wanted to give men an even greater happiness. Are we to reproach God for having desired to give us a good even greater than that which we would have had by our mere nature? We can truly say that the supernature which God gave us so that we may better know and love him, and more greatly enjoy his grandeur during all eternity, is now, as it were, part and parcel of human nature. Because, once again, there is no man, and there never was any man, who was outside of the supernatural order. I think this is a rather common error to believe that, when we do not have grace, we are outside of the supernatural order, or we are merely in the order of nature. We lose the order of nature once we are no longer in the order of grace because the order of grace is necessary for the perfection of the natural order. We do not realize this now. When they lost the supernatural order, Adam and Eve also lost the natural order inasmuch as they were in a deficient state in regard to the laws of the order of nature. This is why our liberty is also affected, not mortally wounded, but wounded by sin, by the loss of the supernatural goods. And the consequences of this loss are also felt in the order of nature. We are less able to exercise our liberty than were Adam and Eve when they had the perfection of both nature and supernature. Published for the first time in English. This article is reprinted with permission from Christendom, No.17 (Sept.-Oct., 2008), published by DICI, the international new bureau of the SSPX. Archbishop Lefebvre gave this conference in 1965 while still Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, then the largest missionary order in the world. Edited by Angelus Press. The second part of this conference will be published in an upcoming issue of The Angelus. 31 deLeGaTIoN oF The JewIsh INTeRNaTIoNaL CoMMITTee ReCeIVed aT The VaTICaN On October 30, 2008, for the second time, Benedict XVI received a delegation of the International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations, with which the Holy See has been in contact for some 30 years. These regular contacts, called “fruitful” by the Pope, “contributed to a greater understanding between Catholics and Jews.” The Pope declared: I gladly take this occasion to reaffi rm the Church’s commitment to implementing the principles set forth in the historic Declaration Nostra Aetate of the Second Vatican Council. That Declaration, which firmly condemned all forms of anti-Semitism, represented both a significant milestone in the long history of Catholic-Jewish relations and a summons to a renewed theological understanding of the relations between the Church and the Jewish People. Catholics, the Holy Father added, are increasingly conscious of the spiritual patrimony they share with the people of the Torah, the people chosen by God in his inexpressible mercy, a patrimony that calls for greater mutual appreciation, respect, and love. Jews too are challenged to discover what they have in common with all who believe in the Lord, the God of Israel. The pope continued: Dialogue between cultures and religions must more and more be seen as a sacred duty incumbent upon all those who are committed to building a world worthy of man. The ability to accept and respect one another, and to speak the truth in love is essential for overcoming differences, preventing misunderstandings, and avoiding needless confrontations....A sincere dialogue needs both openness and a firm sense of identity on both sides, in order for each to be enriched by the gifts of the other. Rabbi David Rosen, president of the International Jewish Committee for Interreligious Consultations, quoted the address of John Paul II, in 1990, for the 25th anniversary of Nostra Aetate and thanked the Holy See for his commitment against all forms of antiSemitism. After having evoked the various meetings of the pope with the Jewish community of France and of the US, he recalled the words of Benedict XVI in Paris: “The eternal Covenant of the Almighty with the Jewish People,” which the Church considers as “her beloved brethren in the faith,” underlying that this “emphasis upon the eternal validity of the Sinai Covenant would stimulate” the research, to which John Paul II issued the call, “to reflect more and express more completely” the signification of the relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. He said he was himself reassured by the words of Cardinal Walter Kasper and the letter of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone to the rabbis of Israel concerning the absence of any proselytism in the prayer for the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy. He stressed the “remarkable landmark” of the fact that for the first time a rabbi was given the right to speak during the recent Bishops’ synod. He reiterated the request for experts to have access to the archives of the Vatican concerning the time of Pius XII’s pontificate. The Jews and the Beatification of Pope Pius XII Richard Prasquier, president of the Representative Council for Jewish Institutions in France (CRIF) and president of the French Committee for Yad Vashem, was present with the delegation of the Jewish Committee. In a press release of this past October 17, the CRIF made a pronouncement concerning the project of beatifying Pope Pius XII, declaring that, if it were carried out, it would deal a severe blow to the relationships between the Catholic Church and the Jewish www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 32 world. As long as the Vatican refuses to open its archives for the time of the Second World War to historians, and the majority of independent historians do not support the thesis of an untiring activity of the pope in favor of the Jews, such a beatification would be felt negatively by all of the Jewish institutions over the world. Unless new documents, up to now not provided, unquestionably modify the historical vision of that time, the Jews who have survived the Holocaust would feel like a deep wound that the silence of the Magisterium concerning the genocide of the Jews be proposed as a model behavior. On this subject, the delegation was able to meet with Msgr. Sergio Pagano, prefect of the Secret Archives of the Vatican who described “in detail” the “technical challenges” to be met in order to list everything before the documents could be consulted by researchers: “the description of the various positions (protocols, booklets, envelopes, etc.); the numbering of each loose sheet; a stamping of the papers for safety reasons; the binding of the sheaves of papers which are more deteriorated or more fragile.” Msgr. Pagano expressed his regret for the delays imposed by this cataloguing work, which will require a minimum of five or six years “with the present labor forces.” That same October 30, Fr. Federico Lombardi, director of the Holy See Press Office, announced through the documentation service of Vatican Radio (SeDoc) that the secret archives of the Vatican concerning the pontificate of Pius XII (1939-58), will not be opened to researchers for the next six or seven years because of the important archiving work still necessary. Indeed, he explained, the archives of the pontificate of Pius XII being made up of the archives of the pontifical representatives (nunciatures), those of the Secretary of State, as well as those of all the Roman Congregations and other Vatican offices, amounts to 16 millions sheets, among them 15,430 files and 2,500 booklets. The minute work of cataloging and preparing the documentation requires a specialized staff which is hard to find, and accounts for the delay. “Before that is achieved, it is unrealistic to think of opening the archives to researchers” whose request is quite “understandable and justified.” Lastly, Fr. Lombardi specified that when the work of setting the documents in order is completed, “the final decision to open the secret archives of the Vatican concerning the pontificate of Pius XII is up to the pope himself.” The opening of the secret archives of the Vatican to researchers was inaugurated by Leo XIII in 1881 and has been continued by his successors. The established principle has been to open to research the documents of “pontificate after pontificate” and not after a number of specific years (50, 70 or 90 years, as is the case for other archives) because the secret archives of the Vatican are not classified in chronological order but by “pontificate.” To this day, the Vatican archives are available to researchers up to the date of February 10, 1939, the last day of the pontificate of Pope Pius XI (1922-39). Reprinted from DICI, No.186. Nov. 22-Dec. 20, 2008 (www.dici.org). (Sources: vatican.va/VIS/apic/imedia/zenit/crif) The aNgeluS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org COMMENTARY It has become somewhat standard practice in academia to accuse Pope Pius XII of at least implicitly aiding and abetting the Nazi persecution of Jews during World War II. This is in direct contrast to the historical evidence, especially much prominent testimony from contemporary Jews. Even withstanding the fact that the Vatican archives have not yet been opened for Pius XII’s pontificate, we quote here some of these Jews who recognized publicly what Pope Pius XII did during those years. Let their words speak for themselves.–JV 33 “The Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pope Pius XII was instrumental in saving at least 700,000, but probably as many as 860,000, Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” (Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas E. Lapide, New York: Hawthorn, 1967) “No Pope in history has been thanked more heartily by Jews. Upon his death in 1958, several suggested in open letters that a Pope Pius XII forest of 860,000 trees be planted on the hills of Judea in order to fittingly honor the memory of the late Pontiff because the Catholic Church under the pontificate of Pius XII was instrumental in saving the lives of as many as 860,000 Jews from certain death at Nazi hands.” (Pinchas E. Lapide, ibid.) “I told [Pope Pius XII] that my first duty was to thank him, and through him the Catholic Church, on behalf of the Jewish public for all they had done in the various countries to rescue Jews....We are deeply grateful to the Catholic Church.” (Moshe Sharett, Israel’s first foreign minister) “Only the Church protested against the Hitlerian onslaught....Up till then I had not been interested in the Church, but today I feel a great admiration for the Church.” (Albert Einstein, Time Magazine, 1940, quoted in Three Popes and the Jews by Pinchas E. Lapide, New York: Hawthorn, 1967, p.251) “The repeated interventions of the Holy Father on behalf of Jewish communities in Europe has evoked the profoundest sentiments of appreciation and gratitude from Jews throughout the world.” (Rabbi Maurice Perlzweig, Political director of the World Jewish Congress in a letter written February 18, 1944, to Msgr. Amleto Cicognani, the apostolic delegate in Washington, D.C.) “In the most difficult hours of which we Jews of Romania have passed through, the generous assistance of the Holy See…was decisive and salutary. It is not easy for us to find the right words to express the warmth and consolation we experienced because of the concern of the supreme pontiff, who offered a large sum to relieve the sufferings of deported Jews….The Jews of Romania will never forget these facts of historic importance.” (Rabbi Alexander Safran, chief rabbi of Romania, letter to Msgr. Andrea Cassulo, Papal Nuncio to Romania, April 7, 1944) “The people of Israel will never forget what His Holiness and his illustrious delegates, inspired by the eternal principles of religion, which form the very foundation of true civilization, are doing for our unfortunate brothers and sisters in the most tragic hour of our history, which is living proof of Divine Providence in this world.” (Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of the British Mandate of Palestine, March 1945) “What the Vatican did will be indelibly and eternally engraved in our hearts. Priests and even high prelates did things that will forever be an honor to Catholicism.” (Eugenio Zolli, former chief rabbi of Rome and convert to the Faith, 1948) “More than anyone else, we have had the opportunity to appreciate the great kindness, filled with compassion and magnanimity, that the Pope displayed during the terrible years of persecution and terror when it seemed that for us there was no longer an escape.” (Elio Toaff, Chief Rabbi of Rome, 1951) “We share in the grief of humanity at the passing away of His Holiness Pope Pius XII. In a generation affected by wars and discords, he upheld the highest ideals of peace and compassion. When fearful martyrdom came to our people in the decade of Nazi terror, the voice of the Pope was raised for the victims. The life of our times was enriched by a voice speaking out on the great moral truths above the tumult of daily conflict. We mourn a great servant of peace.” (Golda Meir, Israeli Prime Minister, message of condolence to the Vatican, sent 1958) “The papal nuncio and the bishops intervened again and again on the instructions of the pope, and that as a result of these labors in the autumn and winter of 1944, there was practically no Catholic Church institution in Budapest where persecuted Jews did not find refuge.” (Jewish historian Jeno Levai, Hungarian Jewry and the Papacy: Pius XII Did Not Remain Silent, 1965) “Pius XI had good reason to make Pacelli (the future Pius XII) the architect of his anti-Nazi policy. Of the 44 speeches which the Nuncio Pacelli had made on German soil between 1917 and 1929, at least 40 contained attacks on Nazism or condemnations of Hitler’s doctrines. Pacelli, who never met the Führer, called it ‘neo-Paganism.’” (Pinchas E. Lapide, Three Popes and the Jews, New York: Hawthorn, 1967, p.118) “Never, in those tragic days, could I have foreseen, even in my wildest imaginings, that the man who, more than any other, had tried to alleviate human suffering, had spent himself day by day in his unceasing efforts for peace, would–20 years later–be made the scapegoat for men trying to free themselves from their own responsibilities and from the collective guilt that obviously weighs so heavily upon them.” (Msgr. John Patrick CarrollAbbing, But for the Grace of God, pp.48) “During the Nazi occupation of Rome, 3,000 Jews found refuge at one time at the pope’s summer residence at Castel Gandolfo. Amazingly, Castel Gandolfo is never mentioned or discussed in the antipapal writings of many of the pope’s critics. Yet at no other site in Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews saved and sheltered for as long a period as at Castel Gandolfo during the Nazi occupation of Rome. Kosher food was provided for the Jews hidden there, where, as George Weigel has noted, Jewish children were born in the private apartments of Pius XII, which became a temporary obstetrical ward.” (Rabbi David www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 Dalin, Ph.D., July 29, 2005 interview with Dr. Thomas E. Woods) Abbey Returns to Tradition 34 Photo by bernie2612. Mariawald is a Cistercian Monastery of the “strict observance” (known popularly as the Trappist order, very contemplative and one of the strictest orders in the Catholic Church) in Europe. In fact it is the only monastery of this order left in Germany. Mariawald has always been a Novus Ordo monastery. But recently the abbot announced that he had the intention–and the permission of the pope–to return to the traditional rite of the Church, the Traditional Latin Mass. Many will ask: What is this? Is it another compromise like Le Barroux, or Campos, or the Redemptorists? The answer to that question is that, for the first time, the direction of “reformation” is from the Novus Ordo towards Tradition, whereas in the examples of Le Barroux, Campos, and the Redemptorists, it was Tradition towards (theological) compromise. It will therefore be interesting to see how this “experiment of Tradition" will turn out in the future. This article consists of three parts: A news story about this development, the declaration of the Abbot and the comment of Fr. Schmidberger, District Superior of the SSPX in Germany. The aNgeluS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org 35 Mariawald Abbey as Pioneer Power is in quietness. This thought comes spontaneously when you get a glimpse at Mariawald Abbey. But although the activities and prayers of the monks on Kermeter Hills near Heimbach may be done in tranquility, at present the whole world is talking about the only Trappist Monastery left in Germany. The reason: a few days ago Pope Benedict XVI granted the abbot of the Trappist Monastery Mariawald, Joseph Vollberg, the privilege of using the old liturgy and the traditions that were in use in the Order prior to the liturgical reforms of 1965 and 1969. This does not only affect the celebration of the Mass. Even beyond the liturgy, the life of priests and brothers in future will follow their traditional way of life. But the sensation is not only in the fact that the Pope in person supported Abbot Josef by granting a privilege from the highest quarters. Mariawald is also the first Cistercian monastery of the strict observance– this is the official name of the Trappist Order– internationally to reintroduce the old liturgy and the old monastic culture in their life. According to the Dürener Zeitung [a local newspaper–Ed.], the changes in Mariawald will not enter into effect at once, but in September 2009, when the abbey will be celebrating its centenary as an abbey. Then the changes will become fully effective. Abbot Joseph’s asking Rome for the privilege and obtaining it has not only and primarily to do with the foundation of a monastery by Benedictines in Reichenstein near Monschau–those monks are followers of Archbishop Lefebvre. There are other reasons as well. On July 7, 2007, the Pope published a letter (a so-called Motu Proprio), by which he allowed the use of the Mass in its traditional form to a larger extent than before. In this old rite of Mass, priest and faithful face the altar and, according to their faith, the risen Christ. Since then there has been a lot of interest in this traditional form of Catholic worship. That is why you find today in the diocese of Aachen, to which Heimbach and Mariawald belong, celebrations according to the Roman Missal of 1962 in Mönchengladbach, Herzogenrath, Kohlscheid, Aachen and Steinfeld. Dom Josef, as he is called according to his official title, feels thoroughly motivated by the Pope and the papal juridical decree to enact the traditional reform of his monastery in order to guarantee its existence in the future. The 45-year-old monk, born is Hessen, met the Pope before. On June 18, 2008, he had the opportunity to make the Pope aware of his intentions during a general audience. Moreover, his concerns were shared in Rome by the influential curial Archbishop from Sri Lanka, Albert Malcolm Ranjith. Also, the Pope knows Mariawald. In 1991, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, he ordained the monk Robert Hirtz to the priesthood. The abbey is the pioneer of a renewal of the monastic life in the spirit of tradition. The decline of monastic life has to be stopped (in the past Mariawald has suffered from a series of departures and financial problems). Abbot Dom Josef explained in a conversation with the Dürener Zeitung that it was this type of question that brought about his decision. There were controversial discussions with his fellow-monks, but the majority of them saw his arguments, were fully in favor of returning to tradition, and were disposed to learn the celebration of the Mass in the traditional rite. The superior of the monastery seems to have a lot of spiritual energy. Talking to him you find that he is neither cold nor incommunicative, but rather joyful and convinced of his cause. Forward-looking adaptations from Mariawald are nothing new. The monastery has become known in recent years for its commitment in organic farming.–Aachener Zeitung (Nov. 26, 2008). [Aachener Zeitung is a newspaper from Aachen, Germany–Ed.] A Manifesto For a Return to Monastic Tradition By the abbot of Mariawald, Cistercian Abbey of the strict observance in Germany The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI has granted to the abbot of the Trappist abbey Mariawald (diocese of Aachen), Dom Josef Vollberg, O.C.S.O., according to his petition, the privilege to return with his abbey to the liturgy and observance in the Ancient Use of the Order which was in force up to the reforms in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. This so-called “use of Monte Cistello” was approved during the time of the Council in the years 1963-64 as a preliminary step of reform. In a letter of the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei” of November 21, 2008, this papal privilege is granted to the Abbey. In it, reference is made to the personal decision of the Holy Father to accede in all www.angeluspress.org The aNgeluS • January 2009 36 respects to the privileges desired by the Trappist for a full return to the Ancient Use in liturgy and monastic life. This includes the return to the ancient liturgical tradition of the Order in the celebration of Mass and Divine Office as it was binding until the liturgical reform of the Second Vatican Council. The project of reform in Mariawald and the petition of the Abbot concerning this can be regarded as a fruit of the efforts of Pope Benedict XVI for the renewal of the Church in the spirit of tradition. As the various postconciliar reforms have not yielded for the monastery the expected flowering in liturgy and in the life of the Convent, now the return to tradition links to the centuries-old tradition of the Order. Through the return to the ancient Gregorian liturgy and the stricter use of the monastic form of life, Dom Josef promises himself new spiritual impulses, also regarding new vocations for the abbey. Worldwide, it can be felt that monastic communities which cultivate the preconciliar Latin liturgy can boast of significant numbers of vocations. Especially in France, on the background of a traditional interpretation of the rule of St. Benedict and the Gregorian liturgy in Mass and Divine Office, there are flourishing abbeys. In Germany, it has previously not been possible for vocations to the monastic life of a traditional form to join a corresponding community. With the papal privilege in Germany, too, there is now for the first time the possibility for young men to live the ancient tradition of contemplative life in the august forms of the classical liturgy and in the strict observance of the rule of St. Benedict. Dom Josef sees himself confirmed in his decision by the Holy Father, whose generously formulated privilege of all desired forms of return to tradition also bespeaks his personal desire that in the rediscovery of the ancient liturgy and manner of life, a renewal of monastic life as a whole may be stimulated. Thus, the abbot is convinced, the personal and direct action of the Pope for the Mariawald Abbey corresponds to the “Project of Tradition” the Holy Father initiated in 2007 by his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum for the liturgy. Dom Josef finds himself and his abbey motivated by the Holy Father and his immediate and direct papal juridical act to implement the tradition-oriented reform of the monastery with new spiritual vigor for the sake of its future. The Abbey assumes in this a pioneering role worldwide to renew the monastic life out of the spirit of tradition and to counteract the decline of monastic life, which especially some Trappist abbeys have experienced in recent years. In the field of economics, the monastery has in recent years already put an emphasis on its focus on organic agriculture. Now it is the spiritual content of contemplative life which is to receive new stimuli from the great tradition of the Order and its classical Latin liturgy. Currently in Mariawald there are ten monks, a novice, and an oblate. The history of the abbey began with the founding of a Cistercian priory in the 15th century. After an interruption of monastic life of more than 60 years through the turmoil of the French Revolution, the monastery, newly populated in the 19th century by Trappists from Alsace, was raised to abbey on the Feast of St. Michael in 1909. On the background of this historic date, now the implementation of the full return of the abbey to the old tradition of contemplative life and to classical Gregorian liturgy is to be completed on the Centenary on September 29, 2009. Dom Josef Vollberg, O.C.S.O., Abbot Mariawald November 25, 2008 PRESS RELEASE The district superior of the SSPX in Germany, along with his fellow priests, is very happy about the return of the Mariawald Abbey to the unchanged monastic and liturgical tradition of the Trappist Order. He hopes and prays that other monasteries may imitate this courageous move in the direction of Pope Benedict XVI’s Motu Proprio so that monastic life in Germany may flourish again. This is the only way that our fatherland might become a Christian nation once again and that the Church will be able to achieve an urgently needed reform of her leaders and members. Let us imitate the call from the Book of Machabees: “Let us raise up the low condition of our people, and let us fight for our people, and our sanctuary” (I Mach. 3:43).–Fr. Franz Schmidberger, District Superior of the SSPX in Germany (November 2008) The aNgeluS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org S 37 Sons of St. Benedict in Germany Reichenstein Manor, the future Benedictine monastery near Monschau (Germany) Photo by Rainer Faymonville It has been widely observed that in the diocese of Aachen, Germany, two noticeable events happened around the same time: the foundation of a traditional Benedictine monastery from Bellaigue (France) and Silver City (USA), initiated by the SSPX in Germany, and the return of a Trappist abbey in the same diocese to the traditional rite and monastic life. Some newspapers drew a connection between the two events, going even so far as to quote a priest from the diocese stating that it might be a political move from Rome as a preventive measure against the “Lefebvrists.” Presumably this is the case insofar as the projected foundation of the Benedictines from Bellaigue and Silver City in Germany may have helped to bring about the speedy permission from Rome for the celebration of the Traditional Mass. 38 Monastery in the Eifel Region The foundation of a Benedictine Monastery at Reichenstein Manor (about 20 miles south of Aachen)–in the district of the lovely town of Monschau in the Eifel region–is imminent. On Thursday, January 11, 2007, the city council approved with an overwhelming majority the criteria for construction, restoration, and extension of the monastic facility, built in the 12th century. The former monastery of the Premonstratensian (or Norbertine) order [founded in 1131–Ed.] is located in a protected area near the border of Germany and Belgium. The facility became a private farm after the secularization in 1802. The manor and church were restored over the last 30 years with much dedication. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the District Superior of the SSPX in Germany, and Dom Angel [R.I.P.—Ed.], the prior of the French Benedictine monastery at Bellaigue, were happy about the progress of the construction plans. The plans include the construction of 25 cells for monks, a cloister and facilities for farming. ...That in all things God may be glorified...–(Homepage of the German district of the SSPX, Jan. 1, 2007) PRESS RELEASE OF THE SSPX: New Monastery for Benedictines Acquired The present proprietor of Reichenstein manor, Dr. Handschuhmacher, and his wife signed the contract with the SSPX to buy the facility. Because of this, the establishment of a Benedictine community in the old monastic property 20 miles south of Aachen is finalized. Until the foundation can take place in about three years, construction will be undertaken, so that the monks will find a home according to their vocation. Fr. Franz Schmidberger, the district superior of the SSPX in Germany, along with his fellow priests, are truly happy about the outcome of the contract and about the future foundation of a Benedictine monastery which is entirely committed to Tradition in what has become neo-pagan Germany.–Fr. Franz Schmidberger, Stuttgart (Dec. 1, 2007) Report of Aachener Zeitung The keys are handed over to Dom Matthew Haynos by Dr. Ernst and Helma Handschuhmacher. Reichenstein. It was one of those moments when you think it possible to grab a hold of history. In a scarcely lit church stood ten monks from France in two lines in order to sing the final praise to God on this memorable day. For the first time in 206 years, Compline–the evening prayer of Western Christianity–could be heard at this historical location, which had been officially given to the monks only five hours before. The keys had been handed over by the actual proprietors of Reichenstein Manor, Dr. Ernst and Helma Handschuhmacher, to the prior of the Benedictines from Bellaigue, Dom Matthew Haynos. Two hundred guests were present and celebrated in a convivial and conciliatory atmosphere. “We want to bring peace,” said Dom Bernhard Huber, a Germanspeaking priest from Bellaigue Monastery, translating the address of Fr. Prior Matthew Haynos. He announced, that “our house is always open for everyone, so that they may find God in this place.” (Sept. 23, 2008) PART 19 39 F r . M a t t h i a s G a u d r o n The Catechism examines the questions of Mass facing the people, the “pro multis” translation, the error of “archeologism,” and the validity of the New Mass and attendance at it. Catechism Of the Crisis In the Church 63) What should we think of celebrating Mass facing the people? The purpose of celebrating Mass facing the people is to present it as a meal (the altar for such Masses generally takes the form of a table); the priest is in this case the one who is at the head of the table, and naturally he turns towards the people. But since the Mass is not essentially a meal, this practice should be rejected. Moreover, celebration facing the people gives the impression of a purely worldly ceremony in which man is at the center. Prayer becomes more difficult, for this human face to face is not oriented towards the Lord (ad Dominum). l Is not the Mass facing the people a return to the usages of the early Church? It is in reality very doubtful that the Mass was said facing the people during Christian antiquity. But even were that the case, a return to liturgical forms abandoned long ago would not be a good thing. Such an attitude goes against true tradition (which is attached to what has been transmitted [in Latin, tradere], and not to what has been discarded). It constitutes what Pius XII in his Encyclical Mediator Dei denounced as archaeologism, an “exaggerated and senseless antiquarianism.” l Did Pius XII elaborate on his condemnation of “archaeologism”? Pius XII explained: The liturgy of early ages is worthy of veneration; but an ancient custom is not to be considered better, either in itself or in relation to later times and circumstances, just because it has the flavour of antiquity....The desire to restore everything indiscriminately to its ancient condition is neither wise nor praiseworthy. It would be wrong, for example, to want the altar restored to its ancient form of a table; to want black eliminated from liturgical colours, and pictures and statues eliminated from our churches; to require crucifixes that do not represent the bitter sufferings of the divine Redeemer.... (§66) ...Just as obviously unwise and mistaken is the zeal of one who in matters liturgical would go back to the rites and usage of antiquity, discarding the new patterns www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 40 introduced by disposition of divine Providence to meet the changes of circumstances and situation (§63). It should also be added that the liturgical practices of antiquity are only imperfectly known. Those who pretend to be reverting to them run the risk of falling into many errors. l Doesn’t the orientation of the Roman basilicas prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that in the early Christian era Mass was celebrated facing the people? On the contrary, it is quite likely that celebration facing the people never existed in antiquity. It is true that some basilicas give the impression that the priest celebrated Mass turned towards the people. In fact, he was turning towards the east and not the people. If the basilica were situated facing west, the priest would turn towards the east during the Canon because the rising sun was seen as a symbol of the risen Christ. The priest indeed had the people before him, but they also turned eastwards and so had the priest behind them. All prayed together towards the Lord (ad Dominum). l Can it be said, then, that in Christian antiquity there was no celebration of Mass facing the people? What is certain is that 1) this was not the general rule, and 2) if it ever happened, it was not done with the intention of putting the priest and the faithful face to face. The idea that the celebrant must face the people is of Lutheran origin; it does not appear earlier. 64) Is the New Mass valid? The validity of the Mass depends on the validity of the consecration (transubstantiation of the bread into the Body of Christ and the wine into His Blood). The New Mass is valid if it is celebrated by a validly ordained priest who uses the required matter (wheaten bread and wine) while pronouncing the required words (those of the consecration) and having the required intention. The priest must indeed desire to do what Christ and the Church do during the celebration of Mass (he must be a conscious instrument at their service). Were he to deliberately oppose the Church’s intention (by refusing, for example, to celebrate a sacrifice or by not intending to commemorate the Last Supper), the Mass would be invalid. Now, by the very fact that the new rite can easily be understood in a Protestant sense, it can also easily be used by priests who would no longer have the required intention for celebrating Mass. Such an eventuality is not in the least unlikely considering the totally false image of the Church, the priesthood, and the Mass which has been communicated to very many future priests in the new seminaries. Moreover, the use of any bread besides unleavened bread, or THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org of any wine made of something else than the fruit of the vine, or the omission of the consecratory words would also render the Mass invalid. l Might not the fact that the words of the consecration were modified in the new missal cast some doubt upon the validity of the New Mass? This modification of the consecratory formula, which converges it with Lutheran worship, is regrettable, but is not sufficient to cast a doubt on the validity of the New Mass (the essential meaning of the words of consecration is conserved). On the other hand, some translations are problematic. l Might some translations of the words of consecration raise doubts about the validity of the New Mass? The problem arises from the fact than in several countries, the words for consecrating the wine have been badly translated. The Latin text reads: “My Blood, which shall be shed for you and for many [pro multis].” The French adopted an ambiguous translation: “For you and for the multitude.” But for the translation in many languages, notably English, a patently false translation was adopted: “My Blood, which shall be shed for you and for all.” But this translation alters the meaning of the text. The words “for all” do not occur in the narratives of the institution of the holy Eucharist in Sacred Scripture, nor in the consecratory words of any traditional liturgy. l But is it not true that Jesus Christ shed His blood for all men? It is indeed true that Christ shed His blood for all and that for this reason it is possible for all to be saved (salvation is offered to all). But the Mass is about the new covenant (“For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament”), and not all men belong to this covenant, but only many, namely, those who receive salvation. At Mass, what is involved is not the offer of salvation, but the actual gaining possession of it. l Does this mistranslation have consequences? Obviously, this mistranslation is linked to the modern theory of universal salvation (no one is damned). This bad translation, which is a factual error, thus favors a veritable heresy! l Does this mistranslation render the Mass invalid? It is not certain that this mistranslation renders the consecration invalid (particularly as the priest could understand the “for all” in a way that does not go against the faith, namely, that salvation is offered to all). But it renders this validity at least doubtful (especially if the priest understands the formula in the heretical sense: all men are saved). 41 l Are you not exaggerating the importance of a slight error in translation? The translation is not the result of a slight error, but of a deliberate alteration to which the innovators themselves attach great importance. In Hungary, for example, there were still missals a few years ago with the translation “for many.” After the fall of the Iron Curtain, new missals were published with the formula “for all.” If the innovators go to so much trouble for a single word, it is because they think it is important. l Are there other signs of the importance the innovators attach to the replacement of the phrase “for many” by “for all”? One indication of the importance the innovators attach to this erroneous formulation is that, having tried to impose it by means of a bad translation, they stooped to falsifying the Latin itself. The Latin text of the New Mass still had the formula “pro multis” (for many). But this formula was replaced by “pro omnibus” (for all) in the Latin text of John Paul II’s Encyclical Ecclesia de Eucharistia (April 17, 2003, §2), as it was disseminated by the Holy See’s news services (and by the Vatican’s Web site). l Surely such a falsification provoked an outcry? This falsification provoked such an outcry that, finally, the official version (the one published in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis) was corrected and contains the phrase “pro multis.”1 But the episode remains significant. The partisans of universal salvation intend to bend the liturgy to their heresy. They already partially succeeded with the New Mass of 1969 (which suppressed or attenuated the mentions of hell), and they continue their efforts. 65) Is it permissible to take part in the New Mass? Even if the New Mass is valid, it is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is ecumenical and protestantizing; moreover, it represents a danger to our faith in the holy sacrifice of the Mass. Thus it must be rejected. Whoever has understood the problem of the New Mass must no longer attend it because he would be deliberately endangering his faith, and at the same time would be encouraging others to do likewise by seeming to assent to the reforms. l How can a valid Mass be displeasing to God? Even the sacrilegious Mass an apostate priest might celebrate to mock Christ would be valid yet clearly offensive to God, and it would not be permissible to take part. Likewise, the Mass of a schismatic Byzantine-Rite priest (valid and celebrated according to a venerable rite) is displeasing to God inasmuch as it is celebrated in opposition to Rome and the one Church of Christ. l Surely one may attend a New Mass when it is devoutly and piously celebrated by a Catholic priest with an absolutely unquestionable faith? The celebrant is not at issue, but the rite he uses. It is, unfortunately, a fact that the new rite has given many Catholics a false idea of the Mass, one much closer to the Protestant supper than to the holy sacrifice. The New Mass is one of the main sources of the current crisis of faith. It is thus imperative to distance oneself from it. 66) May one attend the New Mass in some circumstances? One should apply rules analogous to those governing attendance at non-Catholic ceremonies to attendance at the New Mass. One may attend for family or professional reasons, but without actively participating; and, of course, one does not go to Communion. 67) What should be done when it is not possible to attend a traditional Mass every Sunday? One for whom attendance at a traditional Mass is not possible is excused from the obligation to attend Mass that Sunday. The precept of hearing Mass on Sunday only applies to attendance at a true Catholic Mass. One must, however, in this case at least try to attend a traditional Mass at regular intervals. Moreover, even if one is dispensed from attending Mass (which is a commandment of the Church), one is not dispensed from the commandment of God (“Remember thou keep holy the Lord’s Day”). Thus, the Mass one could not attend must be replaced by something; for example, by reading the text of the Mass in one’s missal, by uniting one’s attention for the duration of a Mass with a Mass celebrated elsewhere, and by making a spiritual communion. Translated exclusively for Angelus Press from Katholischer Katechismus zur kirchlichen Kriese by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, professor at the Herz Jesu Seminary of the Society of St. Pius X in Zaitzkofen, Germany. The original was published in 1997 by Rex Regum Press, with a preface by the District Superior of Germany, Fr. Franz Schmidberger. This translation is from the second edition (Schloß Jaidhof, Austria: Rex Regum Verlag, 1999) as translated, revised, and edited by the Dominican Fathers of Avrillé in collaboration with the author, with their added subdivisions. 1 Acta Apostolicae Sedis, July 7, 2003, p.434. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 42 F R . p e t e r What is to be done with blessed items that can no longer be used? There are many such items that the Church uses, including sacred vessels, altar linens, Mass vestments, containers for holy oils, scapulars and other such sacramentals. The Church treats with a special respect and reverence all such items that are blessed or consecrated, that are used in some way in divine worship, or that God uses as an instrument in the bestowal of grace on souls, whether it be via the sacraments, or the devotion of the faithful in using or receiving the sacramentals. This principle is clearly explained in Canon 1296 of the 1917 Code, that requires that all blessed and consecrated items be kept in the sacristy or another decent and safe place, and forbids that they be employed for profane uses. The Church says the same about blessed or consecrated sacramentals, for although they may be given to catechumens or non-Catholics even, that they might receive the light of the Faith, they must always be treated reverently, and may not be used for a different use than that for which they were blessed (Canon 1150 in the 1917 Code & Canon 1171 in the 1983 Code). However, a blessed or consecrated item can lose its blessing. Canonically it is called “desecration,” although it may not be intentional or malicious. It takes place if it suffers such a massive alteration or damage that it loses its former shape and is no longer suitable for the uses for which it was blessed (Canon 1305 in the 1917 Code). This is also the case when such an item is employed in an irreligious or unsavory way, or if it is sold publicly. Such items, having lost their blessing or consecration, can be employed for honest secular uses, such as displaying in a museum. However, the use of vestments and chalices and the like that have lost their blessing through public sale but have not lost their shape or form, should not be employed for any use that would be injurious to our holy religion, such as for heretical worship, for drama, comedy or other secular events, in which case this use would be a mockery of religion. The dilemma that arises as to what to do with such blessed or consecrated items when they have become used or damaged so that they are no longer apt for divine worship, or as to what to do with sacramentals that are no longer wanted or are now worn out (e.g., old scapulars). Clearly one way to prevent any danger of disrespect to sacred items is to entirely destroy them. This is the case when chalices or ciboria are melted down, or when vestments and scapulars are burned. It is R . s c o t t not, however, always necessary to be so radical. Sometimes the form of the item can be so radically changed that the elements of which it is made can be used for secular uses. This is the case, for example, with blessed linens. They “need not be burned. The material may lawfully be put to a profane but decent use, provided that the form of the linen is sufficiently changed to desecrate it” (Matters Liturgical, 1956 ed., §134). The same applies to vestments: “If withdrawn from sacred use, a blessed vestment need not be burned. The material may lawfully be put to some profane but decent use, provided that the form of the vestment is sufficiently changed so that the blessing is lost” (ibid., §112). This means that it is perfectly permissible to take apart linen altar cloths and to make finger towels or purificators, or even napkins out of them. Likewise it is permissible to take apart old vestments and use the trim or material for decoration, clothing, etc. Some items that cannot be burned could be buried, where there is no chance of these items being used in an inappropriate manner. However, they ought to be sufficiently destroyed as to lose their appearance first (=canonical desecration). This could be the case of material from scapulars or vestments that could not be reused. It could also be the case for blessed medals, or other items that are frequently blessed such as holy oil stocks or a pouch to carry the Blessed Sacrament. If possible, though, such items ought to be destroyed so as no longer to be able to perform a sacred function before being buried. Q How can one encourage children to receive Holy Communion frequently? It seems to me that since the time of St. Pius X, this question ought to be asked differently. For the couple of centuries that preceded St. Pius X’s 1910 decree Quam Singulari, it is true, the influence of Jansenism had made many Catholics perceive Holy Communion more as a reward than as a remedy against our venial faults, failings and weaknesses. The innocence and simplicity of childhood were considered an obstacle rather than a manifestation of the great need for this sacrament. However, a century later the pendulum has swung in the other direction, and children very frequently receive Holy Communion out of routine and habit, with little or no examination of conscience and no real preparation nor thanksgiving. This leads to lukewarmness, and has made some think that it is better not to offer daily A THE ANGELUS • January 2009 www.angeluspress.org 43 Mass and Holy Communion to children, as was generally the case in Catholic schools before Vatican II, so as to avoid lukewarm Communions. Is not the question rather to be asked differently, and then the question of frequency would be resolved all by itself: How can one encourage children to receive Holy Communion with greater devotion? This is the grave concern of every pastor, parent, teacher and guardian of children. If the Church’s law imposes upon us the obligation of taking care that children receive their annual Easter communion worthily (Canon 860 in the 1917 Code), it would seem also our duty to take care that children receive their non-obligatory communions with the best possible disposition. If we all listened carefully to the decree of St. Pius X, our teaching as well as our example would inspire children to receive Holy Communion both frequently and devoutly: Those who have care of children must see to it with the greatest diligence that, after their First Communion, children often approach the Sacred Table–daily if possible–as desired by Jesus Christ and our Holy Mother the Church; and that they do so with the devotion compatible with their age. (Quam Singulari, Rule VI) Encourage children to receive Holy Communion devoutly, and they will spontaneously desire to receive it frequently! It is the supernatural spirit that is the key. It most encourages the combination of both frequency and devotion in the reception of Holy Communion. From this spirit flows the reverential awe for the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, dependence on grace, the longing for perfection and to give one’s best to God; also, the love of the Faith and catechism and the appreciation of the emptiness of the world. It is from this that follows the spirit of sacrifice necessary to willingly and joyfully make the efforts necessary to receive frequent and devout Holy Communion. Those families in which both parents pray together fervently and regularly, receive the sacraments of Penance and Holy Communion with love and devotion as often as they can, consistently treat with respect the Church’s teachings, and strive to assist at daily Mass whenever they can, will have children whose innocent imitation of their parent’s virtues and supernatural spirit will produce both frequent and devout Holy Communions. Is the Friday abstinence to be observed when it falls on a First Class feast day? The Church’s traditional law on this question is very clear, for it states that on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation the obligations of abstinence, fast and abstinence, or fast alone, no longer apply (Canon 1252 of the 1917 Code). Consequently, if a Friday is a first class feast, but not a holy day of obligation, then it remains a day of abstinence or fast. Traditionally there are ten holy days of obligation for the universal Church. However, only those oblige in virtue of the precept to which Catholics of a particular country are bound. It is consequently only on those holy days, prescribed for a particular country, that Catholics are exempt from the obligation of abstinence. This includes such feasts as Christmas, the Circumcision, the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and All Saints if they fall on a Friday. The abstinence is not to be observed on the feast day in such cases. However, Christmas and the Assumption both have vigils on which the abstinence ought to be observed. Nevertheless, this freedom from the obligation of abstinence does not include other holy days that fall on a Friday that are observed in the universal Church, but which are not observed in the local place, such as St. Joseph, Saints Peter & Paul, the Epiphany. On these first class feast days, as on other first class feast days that are not counted amongst the ten holy days, a traditional Catholic ought to observe the abstinence, unless he is in Rome or in a place in which all ten holy days of obligation are observed. Of course, the regulations of the post-conciliar church are quite different. The local Episcopal conference can make its own rules (Canon 1252 of the 1983 Code), and not infrequently exempts from all or at least grave obligation of keeping abstinence on Fridays. The 1983 Code also recommends that the Friday abstinence be dispensed from on solemn occasions. This extends the exemption far beyond holy days of obligation. The end result is that there is neither the obligation of the holy day (usually transferred to a Sunday) nor that of the abstinence. A religion without reverence is a religion without rules or obligations! Fr. Peter Scott was ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988. After assignments as seminary professor, US District Superior, and Rector of Holy Cross Seminary in Goulburn, Australia, he is presently Headmaster of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Academy in Wilmot, Ontario, Canada. Those wishing answers may please send their questions to Q &A in care of Angelus Press, 2915 Forest Ave., Kansas City, MO 64109. www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • January 2009 14 NEW books from Angelus Press 22 NEW distributed titles E C I PR CTION U 100 D E R ON ES L T I T lowetres! ra g New pin p i sh www.angeluspress.org F VO LU M E 4 of the INTEGRITY Series is coming. Please talk about it, ladies.... From the book series that’s in 10,000 homes. But, you can’t order it until February 1. Children and Creative Activity ❧ Children and the Imitation of Mary The Love-Education of Girls ❧ Teaching Children To Pray ❧ Mothers of Saints Recreation and Children ❧ On Having Babies at Home ❧ Mother or Cow Marriage and Spirituality ❧ ““He Married an Angel”” ❧ Poverty and Marriage One and One Is One ❧ Mothers-in-Law ❧ The Spirituality of Married Life The Tragedy of Modern Woman ❧ The Latter Day What does a woman want? Answer–A woman wants to do what a woman does. But what if she doesn't know what her feminine nature calls her to do?...If a person or thing moves closer to perfection the more it does what it is supposed to do, then the perfection of a woman striving for sanctity requires she know and love what she has been created to do. S T N U O C S DI G N I P P I H S E FRE SPECIAL OFFERS LES #1049 N EW T IT SHIPPING & HANDLING SIGN UP FOR WEEKLY SPECIALS AT angeluspress.org 5-10 days 2-4 days USA For eign Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $4.00 $6.00 FREE 25% of subtotal Up to $50.00 $50.01 to $100.00 Over $100.00 $8.00 $10.00 $8.00 48 Contiguous States only. UPS cannot ship to PO Boxes. FLAT FEE! angelus Press 2915 Forest Avenue Kansas City, Missouri 64109 www.angeluspress.org ● 1-8 00-9 6 6-73 37 Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music. S Se