$4.45

NOVEMBER 2010

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

A JOURNAL OF ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITION

INSIDE

Dante’s Paradiso
Interview with Fr. Rostand CONCLUSION
The Life of Fr. Emmanuel

The Notion of Ecclesial Communion

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE PART 3

The Authority of Vatican II PART 11

THE PILGRIM’S GUIDE TO

ROME’S
PRINCIPAL CHURCHES

“You don’t have to
visit Rome to experience
the Holy City.”
•
•
•

Illustrated
Guided Tours
of Fifty-One
of the Most
Important
Churches
in Rome

FULLY REVISED
51 CHURCHES
310 COLOR PHOTOS

This monumental work is back in print after more than 15 years.
Updated and checked for accuracy by the author. A must have
if you plan to visit Rome. Each detailed church tour includes
the history of the building, numbered floor plan, color photographs, and details of the church’s spiritual, architectural,
and artistic treasures.
JOSEPH N. TYLENDA, S.J., has spent a good part of his professional life in
Rome. He is a member of the Historical Institute of the Society of Jesus.

448pp. Sewn Softcover with rounded corners. Maps,
floor plans and 310 color photographs. STK# 8481✱ $29.95

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

The

“Instaurare omnia in Christo — To restore all things in Christ.”

ngelus
Volume XXXIII, Number 11

NOVEMBER 2010
English-language Editor and Publisher
for the International Society of Saint Pius X
PUBLISHER

Fr. Arnaud Rostand
EDITOR

Fr. Markus Heggenberger
ASSISTANT EDITOR

Mr. James Vogel

Contents
Motto of Pope St. Pius X

2 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR
Fr. Markus Heggenberger, FSSPX

3 INTERVIEW WITH FR. ARNAUD ROSTAND

OPERATIONS MANAGER

Mr. Michael Sestak

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT

Miss Anne Stinnett

DESIGN AND LAYOUT

Mr. Simon Townshend

Angelus Press

6 THE LIFE OF FATHER EMMANUEL
Agnes Delacroix

15 SUMMA THEOLOGIAE PART 3
Fr. Albert, O.P.

COMPTROLLER

Mr. Robert Wiemann, CPA
CUSTOMER SERVICE

Mr. John Rydholm
Miss Rebecca Heatwole

Detail from Truimph of
St. Thomas Aquinas over
Averroes, by Benozzo
Gozzoli (15th century).

SHIPPING AND HANDLING

Mr. Jon Rydholm

“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

19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

I Believe in “One” Church:
Reflections on the Notion of Ecclesial Communion
The Christian Life and Truth

27 THE AUTHORITY OF VATICAN II QUESTIONED PART 11
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

29 THE LORD’S PRAYER PART 7
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX

SUBSCRIPTION RATES
US

Foreign Countries
(inc. Canada & Mexico)

1 year 2 years 3 years
$35.00 $65.00 $100.00
$55.00 $105.00 $160.00

32 DANTE’S PARADISO: READING AND COMMENTARY PART 7
Dr. David Allen White

Miniature by Giovanni di
Paolo, depicts a scene from
Dante’s Paradiso, canto 9.

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.

39 CHURCH AND WORLD

Register for free to access back issues 14 months
and older plus many other site features.

Fr. Peter Scott, FSSPX

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) 7533150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
©2010 by Angelus Press. Manuscripts will be used
at the discretion of the editors. Postmaster sends
address changes to the address above.

41 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
43 THE LAST WORD
Fr. Christian Bouchacourt, FSSPX

ON OUR COVER: Dante and Beatrice speak to the teachers of wisdom: Thomas Aquinas, Albertus
Magnus, Peter Lombard and Sigier of Brabant in the Sphere of the Sun (fresco by Philipp Veit).

2

Letter
from
the
Editor

Cardinal John Henry Newman was beatified
on September 19, 2010, when Pope Benedict
XVI visited England. The event took place in
Birmingham.
Honoring this man might seem like an act
of ecumenism: he was born an Anglican, was an
Anglican minister for many years, and converted
at the age of 45. In reality, however, it is the
opposite. Newman, even before he became Catholic
(and later a priest and cardinal) was a champion
of Catholic England, or better, of a nation which
had been Protestant for centuries, but re-opened
the doors to the Catholic Church during the 19th
century. Newman, as an Anglican minister, was
one of the leaders of the “Tractarian Movement”–
sometimes called the “Oxford Movement”–a group
of conservative Anglicans who were attracted to the
Catholic Church. Not all of them converted in the
end, but many of them did. Archbishop Lefebvre
quotes the number of conversions in England before
Vatican II as 14,000-15,000 a year (Open Letter to
Confused Catholics, p. 53)!
Newman was the author of many of the so-called
“Tracts for the Times” (hence the name “Tractarian
Movement”) and the editor of the whole series,
which ended in 1841 with tract 90, written by
Newman himself. It was an expression of serious
doubts on his part about the Anglican position. He
eventually converted in 1845, in the middle of his
life (1801-90).
During this period the Catholic Church
re-established the Catholic hierarchy in England,
consecrating Fr. Wiseman a bishop and officially
sending him to England after he had studied and
lived in Rome. (Many know him today as the
author of the book Fabiola.) This was an important
step of the Catholic Church in a country where
Catholics had been persecuted for centuries. English
Catholics, however, although they were and still
are a religious minority in that country, gained the
respect of the “Church of England,” last but not least
through Cardinal Newman, who converted to the
“Roman” Church.
One of the reasons Cardinal Newman has
been so well known is his outstanding literary
production. Outstanding because he did not write
a single line about non-religious topics. Some of
his works have justly become famous all over the
world. One example is his Apologia pro Vita Sua,
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

an autobiography on religious questions. He wrote
it after he had been publicly called dishonest (by
Charles Kingsley). Newman saw it as an attack
against the Catholic priesthood and the Catholic
Church. He worked day and night on this book;
according to his own diary, he sometimes worked
20 hours without interruption! The Apologia was
first published as a series in a magazine and later
as a book. Paradoxically this book caused a wave
of sympathy for Newman across the whole country.
The work not only became a bestseller, but a classic
along the lines of St. Augustine’s famous Confessions.
When Cardinal Newman was buried in 1890,
Catholics were not alone in mourning him. It is said
that the “Protestant world” followed his coffin to the
grave.
During his lifetime already his literary
productions, including his sermons from before and
after 1845, were used in universities as examples
of excellence in the English language. More
importantly, for his whole life, Newman was an antiliberal, first during his Protestant years and later as a
Catholic. When he became a cardinal (without being
a bishop; a priest-cardinal) under Pope Leo XIII,
he made a journey to Rome (1879) and delivered
a famous speech (the Biglietto Speech) against
religious liberalism. Those who try to use him as an
“ecumenical witness” do not realize his fundamental
opposition towards liberalism. Sometimes he is
even interpreted as a kind of “Church Father of
Vatican II,” notwithstanding the fact that Cardinal
Newman was very clear in religious matters and that
his “Biglietto Speech” is so anti-liberal that most
Catholic bishops today could not read it from the
pulpit without being ashamed.
From this perspective the beatification of
Cardinal Newman is not a proof of an open
or candid liberalism on the part of the Roman
authorities. On the contrary, Newman gives proof of
the open-mindedness and general character of the
religion of Our Lord, able to convert even the most
spirited and critical minds of the day to the Catholic
Church.

Instaurare Omnia in Christo,
Fr. Markus Heggenberger

EXCLUSIVE ANGELUS PRESS INTERVIEW3

FR. ARNAUD
ROSTAND PART 2
The conclusion of an interview with Fr. Arnaud Rostand,
Superior of the U.S. District of the Society of Saint Pius X.
Part 1 appeared in the September 2010 issue of The Angelus.
What do you think about the crisis of female
religious orders in the United States?
(Phase II of the Apostolic Visitation began
in August.) What result do you expect?

One of the most visible as well as dreadful signs
of the crisis in the Catholic Church today is the
decline—if not the disappearance—of religious life.
The numbers are alarming: in the United States,
between 1965 and 2000, the number of religious
seminarians decreased by 95 percent according to
the official Catholic Directory. There were 179,954
Sisters in the United States in 1965; today there are
57,544, half of whom are over 70 years old! The
number of female religious vocations has declined in
the same way as the religious seminarians.
Religious life in the Catholic Church has always
been a type of “barometer” of the Faith. The history
of the Church shows that in every period of great
fervor, the Church experienced flourishing and
prosperous vocations. This is logical as the religious
life is essentially consecrating one’s life to imitate
and follow our Lord Jesus Christ in His poverty,
obedience, and chastity. It is an ideal of perfection;
desiring to become perfect by the observance of the
three vows and by submitting one’s will to the rules
and constitution of a religious order. It is normal
that during times of great and profound faith, many
want to enter monasteries and convents.
But the decline in numbers is not the only sign
of the crisis in religious orders: there are even more
terrible signs of this collapse. I believe we can say
today that there is virtually no religious life left in

most, if not all, of the official congregations. What
do I mean by that? I mean to say that the practice
of the religious vows has disappeared, especially
among the Sisters. In many cases, the Sisters no
longer live in communities, but have their own
places; they often don’t wear religious habits. What
is the difference between their ‘religious’ life and a
secular one?
Let me give a particular example. There
were two Sisters, from two different religious
congregations, who had left their communities
years ago and had been living in our houses since
then. Recently, they decided to return to their
communities. Both were horrified by the lifestyle,
the atmosphere, by the religious Sisters themselves!
After a short time, they both came back to us. There
was no way they could live a normal religious life in
their own orders.
Pope Benedict XVI has decided to have a
canonical visitation done for the female religious
orders in the United States. It seems that what
prompted the visit was the very public positions that
some Sisters took in opposition to the U.S. Bishops’
Conference on moral and medical issues related to
Medicare.
It appears to me that this is only the tip of the
iceberg; the problems of religious Sisters in the
United States, and religious life in general, are much
graver and deeper.
I am afraid that these canonical visitations will
not bring much of a solution to the problems of
religious life in America. Although Rome wants to
correct the situation and to restore things, Rome
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

4

still does not understand, or does not want to face,
the cause of the problems. They cannot deny that
the beginning of the decline in numbers, and loss of
adherence to true religious life, is exactly 1965—the
closing of the Second Vatican Council. But they
do not make the connection. Rome still sees these
only as abuses. This is why I do not think there will
be good fruits. I do not think these visitations will
observe the true causes, and thus will not propose
true solutions.
What is the true solution to the crisis of the
religious orders? It is the restoration of a true
religious life. Men and women must consecrate
themselves to the service of God and not live in
a worldly way, but on the contrary, they must
embrace poverty, chastity, and obedience, following
the counsels of our Lord Jesus Christ. There is no
other solution.
This religious life is beautiful to see. When one
visits a monastery, such as Our Lady of Guadalupe
in Silver City, New Mexico, the Sisters of the
Society of Saint Pius X, the Dominican Sisters in
their schools, the Franciscan Sisters, and so on, it
is very edifying. It shows the solution to restoring
and saving religious life. By the way, the traditional
orders are the ones who are showing an increase in
receiving vocations. It is even more obvious in the
case of the religious than in the seminaries or secular
vocations.

Among the bishops, do you see
a change in attitude regarding Tradition?

What do we mean by “Tradition?” We often
use the term in a very broad sense. Often people
understand “Tradition” as a mere attachment
to the Latin Mass. But this broad meaning or
understanding of Tradition is definitely not the
theological concept of Tradition. It is, in fact, a
manner of speaking that betrays the true notion of
Tradition. If Tradition were a simple attachment to
the old liturgy, it would have no strength; it would
be a sentimental attachment to older times, to
certain outdated things, like the liturgy. Tradition
is not a mere attachment to old customs; it is the
attachment to, and the transmission of, “the Faith
of all times.” It is the fidelity to the teaching of the
Church that cannot change and the handing over of
it from one generation to the next. It implies that the
dogmas which were defined by the Church in the
past cannot change and must be believed today as
they were yesterday; what was true yesterday cannot
be contradicted today. The truth, the Revelation
of God, cannot change. That is why the concept of
Tradition implies not only the notion of safeguarding

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

the Faith, but also of combating error. This is
especially true in today’s situation after Vatican II,
since so many heresies and ambiguities have been
promoted within the Church.
Once again, to separate the fight for the Latin
Mass from the true notion of Tradition (to safeguard
the Faith and combat errors) is to destroy the true
notion of Tradition itself. It is a betrayal of Tradition.
It is interesting to remember that Pope John Paul
II in 1988 accused the Society of Saint Pius X of
having an “incomplete and contradictory” notion
of Tradition, referring to the “living tradition.”
However, in reality, the concept of “living tradition”
is opposed to the true notion of Tradition; the phrase
implies that beliefs can change since they are living.
So if we mean “Tradition” in the broad sense as
an attachment to the Latin Mass, there is no major
or profound change in attitude among the bishops.
It is true that, in the United States, the bishops have
responded to the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum
of July 7, 2007, better than others have. Some have
allowed the Tridentine Mass into their dioceses, and
the number of churches where the Mass is available
has increased. Nevertheless, it seems to me as
something imposed upon them. How many bishops
are actually saying the Tridentine Mass? How many
are still restricting, under difficult conditions, the
priests who have asked to say the old Mass? Many
have placed restrictive provisions which are not
expressed or required in the motu proprio. When
a group of faithful requests the Traditional Mass,
permission is given sporadically, or not at all.
In addition, if we speak about the real sense
of Tradition, the protection of the Faith and the
opposition to errors, there is definitely no change in
the attitude of the bishops. They are so infested with
the new notion of ecumenism that safeguarding the
Faith is of no or little concern to them. First, they do
not think that there is a contradiction between the
teaching of the Church before Vatican II and the
actual teaching of the conciliar Church. Secondly,
they do not see that errors and heresies have been
spread in the Church, and that the Catholic Faith is
in danger. I think we can say that it is this notion of
Tradition that the bishops do not understand.
For example, I have just read about a French
bishop who had no problem attending an Anglican
ceremony in England where women were
“ordained” priests. I do not know if that bishop
will be excommunicated by Rome, but it will be
interesting to see if anything is done.
The attitude towards Tradition has changed
more among the priests than the bishops. Here we
meet priests who are interested in our positions;
priests who read, who want to know; priests who are

5

not satisfied with the actual situation in the Novus
Ordo, who see the benefit of the Tridentine Mass,
and who also think. Some of them are not only
interested in the Mass, but in the doctrinal positions
of the Society of Saint Pius X. There, I think, is a
growing reality that is very encouraging.

How important are the groups of laymen
(like Una Voce), who are defending the old Mass?

For Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, and for us,
the reason for refusing the New Mass and remaining
faithful to the old is grounded on doctrinal reasons,
not only on aesthetics. It is not merely a preference
or love for its sacredness or beauty that we are
attached to the Tridentine Mass. It is not because we
are attached to the past or mere sentiment.
The reason for our defending, adhering to, and
promoting the old Mass is that this Mass expresses
the Catholic Faith, the perennial beliefs of the
Church, the unchangeable Revelation. Archbishop
Marcel Lefebvre often used the expression the Mass
of all time because this Mass, the Mass of Saint Pius
V, is essentially the same as the Mass of the first
centuries of the Church. This Mass has sanctified
generations of Catholics for hundreds of years
throughout the history of the Church. It is the Mass
of the saints, and it is the Mass for today—a Mass not
specific to one time, but for all time.
And we must understand that it is the Mass for
all times because it perfectly expresses and contains
the doctrine of the Church, the treasure of the
Sacrifice of Our Lord, the real presence of Jesus
Christ, and the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
in which all priests participate from the Apostles to
the end of time.
The doctrines of the Catholic Church have been
watered-down in the new Mass to the point that it is
not clearly expressed. It is full of ambiguities which
allow even Protestant ministers to use it for their
own religions. The new Mass does not offend their
heretical beliefs; it does not bother them. We must
even go further and say that the new Mass is not
only ambiguous, it is full of the Protestant spirit. It
conveys more Protestant ideas than Catholic ones. It
is indeed a poisoned Mass because it was fabricated
with a very clear ecumenical intention.
The doctrinal reasons for our resistance are
essential to the fight against Modernism, against
the new theology. To separate the defense and the
promotion of the Latin Mass from these reasons is
to sabotage the whole fight. That is why Archbishop
Lefebvre never accepted jeopardizing the cause of
Tradition by any kind of compromise.

The experience of the past 40 years also shows
that only the fidelity and firmness of Archbishop
Lefebvre has brought forth true fruits of restoration.
We are not alone in stating today that Archbishop
Lefebvre helped save the Mass; that we still have it
today is due to his steadfastness. I believe that if we
are able to speak about Vatican II today, if at last
there are some voices even from outside the Society
of Saint Pius X that are critical of the Council on a
doctrinal level, it is also thanks to the determination
of the “bishop of steel.” This was not because of
an unreasonable stubbornness, but because, like a
rock, he insisted that the problem is doctrinal; it is a
problem of Faith!
Now, the problem I see with these groups of lay
people, or even with the Ecclesia Dei congregations,
is that they have put aside the doctrinal issues that
are inseparable from the Mass. I am absolutely
convinced that the more these groups of laymen or
priests in the hierarchy of the Church recognize that
it is a doctrinal problem, accept it, and stand up for
it, the more important and effective they would be
in the restoration of the Catholic Church. It is not
only the time to fight for the old Mass; it is time to
stand up for the Faith.
Monsignor Guido Pozzo, Secretary of the
Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, in a conference
to the priests of the Fraternity of St. Peter on July
2, 2010, admitted that one of the reasons for the
crisis today was the refusal to condemn errors. He
is definitely correct on this point: errors need to be
condemned as such. We cannot protect the Faith,
protect the Mass, without denouncing what puts
them in danger. We would have liked Msgr. Pozzo to
explain that.

Do you know of any monasteries that might
be moving towards the traditional Latin Mass,
even against the resistance of the bishops?

I have no internal information about any new
monasteries that wish to move toward the Tridentine
Mass, at least, not in the United States. We know
that some have already done so; The Angelus recently
printed some information about a monastery in
Germany. I am sorry I am not able to give you a
scoop!
Nonetheless, it is an interesting consideration.
Usually, the monasteries and religious orders are
independent of the diocesan bishops; at least more
so than diocesan priests. They should have more
liberty and ease in moving towards the old Mass.
We can hope and pray that many will; what a
blessing for the Church it would be!
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

6
A g n e s

D e l a c r o i x

The Life
of Father
Emmanuel

The only photograph of Fr. Emmanuel (right).

“The writings of Fr. Emmanuel fill me with spiritual joy.
With what doctrinal clarity and simplicity he speaks of the most
important matters in our Faith.”–Archbishop Lefebvre
On the tomb of Fr. Emmanuel, this verse of St.
Paul is inscribed: “Mihi autem absit gloriari, nisi in
cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi.”– “But God forbid
that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ.” It summarizes in one inspired line two
of the Father’s greatest virtues: humility and love of
the cross. The cross was the inseparable companion
of his whole life, the seal of Christ upon his work.1
Another word of the Apostle could be
marshalled to complete this epigraph: “…you shine
as lights in the world, holding forth the word of
1

The Father even bore the cross in his name since he was called Andrew,
like the Apostle to whom he had a great devotion. He received the
religious habit on the Feast of St. Andrew, about which he wrote:
“We have been founded on the cross; we have lived on the cross; if
we grow, it will be by the cross; and on the cross we will die.” Letter
of November 30, 1881, quoted in Le Père Emmanuel by Dom Bernard
Maréchaux (Mesnil-Saint-Loup, 1935), p. 245.

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Life…” (Phil. 2:15-16). For if the Father lived in
obscurity by virtue of his humility, he was a child of
light by his preaching and by his constant concern
and effort to make the faith known. And this light,
which he knew how to shine, sometimes very far, by
his words and writings during a time when religious
ignorance and liberalism obscured minds, is not the
least of his works.

Youth and Formation
Father Emmanuel was born on October 17,
1826, at Bagneux-la-Fosse (in the south-east of the
Aube, formerly the ancient province of Burgundy,
east of Paris), to Alexander André, a carpenter,
and Emilia Piot. At baptism he received the

7
name Ernest, and was the eldest of a family of six
children.2
When he was nine, Ernest was stricken by
typhoid fever, which carried him to the brink of
death. After lying nearly unconscious for 40 days,
he miraculously recovered. A short time later, he
evinced the desire to become a priest. His parents
were too good of Christians to oppose this vocation,
so they placed him in the little boarding school of
Ricey-Haute-Rive, where he soon stood out by his
aptitude for study and his mirth.
On Good Shepherd Sunday, at twelve and a
half, Ernest made his first Holy Communion. The
following year, he entered the minor seminary of
Troyes and received the sacrament of confirmation.
It was for him the occasion of particular graces: “I
understood what the supernatural life is: everything
that I could teach souls about this life, I learned
myself on that day and in that place.”3
From his days in the minor seminary, young
Ernest found the work incredibly easy and became
accustomed to taking first place.
In January 1842, he had the sorrow of losing his
father, crushed to death by the wheel of his mill.
The following year, at 17, Ernest entered the
major seminary at Troyes. In that era, the Church of
France was lifting its head again after the turbulence
of the Revolution and the “monitored freedom” in
which the Napoleonic regime kept it. It was a period
of Catholic awakening. The ultramontane spirit rose
in opposition to the old Gallican spirit, which tended
to withdraw the Church of France from Roman
authority. The ancient religious orders were restored
and new congregations appeared.4 Dom Guéranger
re-established the Benedictine order in 1837 and
launched a campaign to persuade the bishops of
France to adopt the Roman liturgy.5
The new bishop of Troyes, Msgr. Debelay,
known for his keen Roman tendencies, imposed
the use of the Roman liturgy in his seminary and
throughout the diocese. The Reverend André
followed the renewal closely, and his soul, in these
circumstances formed in a filial attachment to
Rome, received a most salutary influence. This love
of the Church united round the Roman See was
to be one of the characteristic notes of the future
Father Emmanuel and was to inspire his work in
favor of the return to unity of the schismatic Eastern
Churches.
In his personal studies, the seminarian deepened
his knowledge of the liturgy. He also explored the

Several of them departed this world for heaven in childhood.
Maréchaux, Le Père Emmanuel, p. 12.
4
Oblates of Mary Immaculate, the Holy Ghost Fathers, Marists, etc.
5
At that time, the Gallican liturgy was still in use in France.
2
3

works of St. Augustine,6 absorbing his doctrine on
grace.
In 1848, the Reverend André, 22 years old,
completed his study of theology. Unable to be
admitted to the priesthood at such a young age,
he had to spend a year at home and then return
to the seminary. But there, the wind had changed.
Marked as an ultramontane intransigent, noticed
for his blunt frankness and the quickness of his
character, he was viewed as problematic. In this
difficult period, he prayed, took counsel, humbled
himself, and followed the advice he was given to
place himself in the school of St. Francis de Sales.
Ordained priest on December 22, 1849, he had the
joy of celebrating his first Mass at the Visitation of
Troyes vested in one of the holy bishop’s chasubles.

Beginnings of His Ministry
Right after his ordination, at 23, he was assigned
to Mesnil-Saint-Loup, a small parish of Champagne,
about 12 miles west of Troyes. On December 24,
1849, the new parish priest made his entrance
at Mesnil. The first Mass he celebrated was the
Midnight Mass. “When I intoned the Gloria, the
people said to themselves, ‘Here’s a priest who
sings too well; he’ll never stay with us.’ They were
wrong; I stayed.”7 Indeed, he stayed so long that he
remained their pastor for 53 years.
When the young parish priest arrived, MesnilSaint-Loup was but a very ordinary parish, and
even “inferior to the neighboring parishes from a
religious standpoint,”8 of 300 to 350 souls. Most of
the women fulfilled their Easter duty, but very few
communicated on Sundays and holy days. Even
though many men attended Mass, the immense
majority of them did not perform their Easter duty,
and they all frequented the tavern. There was
dancing every Sunday.
It was in these circumstances that the young
parish priest began his pastoral visits. His
Burgundian mirth, which contrasted with his
parishioners’ native phlegm, quickly attracted their
hearts. He had a special solicitude for children and
young people. He provided them a solid preparation
for their first Communion, he instituted parish
prayer on Sunday evenings to draw them away
from the dances, and he considerably enlivened the

“One day someone made this unfortunate and quasi blasphemous
statement in his presence: ‘St. Augustine is a Jansenist.’ The young
seminarian was wounded by it as if by a poisoned dart. He wanted his
heart to be unscathed by this imputation. He prayed to St. Augustine,
read his works, and imbibed his doctrine….Then the light came: with
his penetrating mind, he grasped the essential distinction separating St.
Augustine from Jansenius.” Maréchaux, Le Père Emmanuel, pp. 23-24.
7
Ibid., p. 41.
8
According to Msgr. Écalle, vicar general, who knew the parish at this
period. Cited in Le Père Emmanuel, p. 38.
6

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

8

The rectory, old church and new church of Mesnil-St-Loup
young people’s games in the village square by his
presence.
It was a good beginning. Yet he would say later
on, “At that period, I did not know what I was
about. I was forging ahead without realizing where
I was going.”9 He had not yet received the grace of
Holy Hope.

Our Lady of Holy Hope
In June 1852, with his bishop’s permission,
Father André undertook a trip to Rome. On the
way, while he was saying his rosary, the name of
Our Lady of Holy Hope came to his mind and
stuck. Arriving in Rome, against every expectation,
he obtained from Pope Pius IX a feast in honor of
Our Lady of Holy Hope, enriched with a plenary
indulgence for his parish.
Back at Mesnil on July 25, 1852, it was only on
the day of the Assumption in a memorable sermon
that he made known to his parishioners the Holy
Father’s rescript in favor of the feast. The whole
parish turned with one heart towards Our Lady of
Holy Hope, and one invocation sprang to their lips:
Our Lady of Holy Hope, convert us! From this day,
the Blessed Virgin’s immense power of conversion,
omnipotentia supplex,10 was manifested strikingly at
Mesnil. For the celebration of the first Feast of Our
Lady of Holy Hope, October 22, 1852, the pastor
obtained numerous communions, notably among
the older boys, who till then had been kept away
9
10

Ibid., p. 48.
“Omnipotence in supplication,” an expression of the Fathers of the
Church.

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

The statue of
the Virgin of the
Mesnil church:
Pope Pius IX
granted it the title
of Our Lady of
Holy Hope.

from human respect. It was a first victory. In 1853,
after having had to face an opposition as vehement
as unexpected, the faithful erected an altar to Our
Lady of Holy Hope in the parish church. During
the battle waged on this occasion, a solid core of
fervent, convinced Catholics emerged from the
wavering, irresolute mass. Then, another gain, the
men and boys could be seen reciting the rosary
in church next to the women. After that, human
respect was over: Christian freedom was definitively
acquired at Mesnil.

The Confraternity of
Our Lady of Holy Hope
One of the first works linked to the grace of
Holy Hope was the erection of a confraternity for
the recitation of the invocation “Our Lady of Holy
Hope, convert us.” This did not happen without
some efforts: the pastor had to address Rome
to obtain approbation of the prayer, which the
Episcopal Council refused to approve under its usual
form. At last, the Association of Perpetual Prayer
to Our Lady of Holy Hope saw the light of day. It
was to be subsequently elevated to the rank of an
archconfraternity.
The extension of this association became for
the young priest the occasion of a colossal labor: he
had to inscribe the names of thousands of associates,
draft and distribute thousands of membership
certificates. The pastor added this charge to the
work of his parish ministry, a parish in the midst of
conversion! He handled everything with prodigious
energy.

9
A new wind was blowing on Mesnil, which
was none other than the Holy Spirit. The grace
of baptism hidden in hearts but until then seldom
deployed reappeared in all its freshness and
strength. It was just what the young priest, with his
profound sense of supernatural realities, desired:
Christians who lived by their baptismal grace. The
transformation was taking place beneath his eyes.
In the years 1852-1861, not an Easter, nor month of
May, nor Feast of Our Lady of Holy Hope went by
without some genuine conversions bringing back
souls to God by separating them radically from a
worldly life.
This metamorphosis in the parish occurred not
only under the priest’s eyes, but also very largely
thanks to him: he co-operated with all his might
and ardent zeal in the work of conversion engaged
by Our Lady. Yet it would be false to think that this
movement did not meet with opposition, which took
several forms. Opposition within the parish itself
(a few young libertines created a “second parish”
where they parodied the liturgical ceremonies; Our
Lady took revenge in her own way by suddenly
converting the leader of this band…who ended up a

monk); diabolical opposition, which manifested itself
by an epidemic of nervous crises of demonic origin;
and, finally, ecclesiastical opposition (“the little
prayer” seemed singular, and the bishop himself,
Msgr. Coeur, seemed very reticent). However, the
ecclesiastical retreat of 1858 was the occasion of an
understanding between the young parish priest and
his pastor; they left it perfectly reconciled.
During this period, not content to lavish his care
on his faithful and to devote himself to the diffusion
of perpetual prayer, Fr. André applied himself to
the study of Hebrew. He employed every spare
moment, especially the nights. His constitution
was robust, but it had its limits. In 1860, he fell
ill from a very serious cerebral anemia. Violent
pains gripped his head. He saw himself obliged to
leave off celebrating Mass and the recitation of the
Breviary, and to be replaced for about a year by a
colleague. At the same time, terrible calumnies were
being circulated about the pastor. He only obtained
a retraction from the calumniator by threatening
legal action.

The new church of Mesnil-Saint-Loup

The altar of Our Lady of Holy Hope: Traced on the
wall in letters of gold, the invocation in French and
Greek: “Our Lady of Holy Hope, convert us.” It is
the expression of an immense desire and a humble
prayer: that the Churches of East and West be united
in the Faith at the feet of Mary Immaculate.

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

10

Our Lady of Holy Hope Church
Once back on his feet, responding to the desire
of the faithful, Fr. André launched into a work on
a grand scale: the construction of a new church
to be dedicated to Our Lady of Holy Hope. The
village church was too narrow to accommodate the
influx during the feasts of Holy Hope, and it was
dilapidated. The new bishop, Msgr. Ravinet, gave
his approval in 1862, and the first stone was laid in
1864.
Fr. André paid with his own person: he could
be seen unloading carts, climbing ladders, running
along the scaffolding, chatting with the workers,
by whom he was much loved. While the work
was inspiring, it was also a cause of worries: some
days, the priest saw the parish purse empty without
knowing where to hope for help. Providence always
provided, but frugally.
For the Feast of the Sacred Heart 1866, a Mass
was sung on an improvised altar in the new church
with bare walls and an earthen floor. The furnishing
was carried out slowly during the following years,
and the church was consecrated in 1878.

From Rectory to Monastery
For a long time, Fr. André had nurtured a desire
for the monastic life.11 But the work of Our Lady of
Holy Hope seemed to fix him at Mesnil. He opted,
therefore, for a third order, and chose that of the
Carmelites, into which he was received in 1858.
At this period, he linked up with Fr. Eugene
Babeau, then vicar of Ervy, who also joined the
third order and with the bishop’s blessing settled
at Mesnil. Their plan was to found a society of
missionary religious and Carmelite tertiaries.
Yet deep within, Fr. André continued to
dream of the Benedictine life. The example of the
Monastery of La Pierre-Qui-Vire, founded by a
priest and then attached to an existing congregation,
led him to believe that his own desire might be
realized. Msgr. Ravinet subscribed to the new plan.
Father Bernard of La Pierre-Qui-Vire promised
them affiliation with his community once four or
five professed religious had joined them; and while
waiting, he advised the two priests to undergo an
apprenticeship of the monastic life in his monastery.
On November 30, 1864, on the Feast of St. Andrew,
in the chapel of the diocese of Troyes, both of them
donned the black habit of the Benedictines. Fr.
André received the name of Brother Emmanuel12
and Fr. Babeau that of Brother Paul-Eugene.
One day during his seminary vacations, on the way to the Abbey of
Molesmes, he received from God the anticipated vision and taste for
the monastic life.
12
Emmanuel was Msgr. Ravinet’s first name. It was also a reminder
of the mystery of the Incarnation, to which Fr. André had been very
devoted. And, lastly, it was the name destined to a priest who had very
11

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

From this day, the two new religious began their
life as monks at Mesnil in an admirable poverty and
austerity.13 In the parish, this life was a great source
of edification, and it was all the more so in that
Father Emmanuel, though a monk, remained no less
the parish priest. His zeal was undiminished; he was
still as attentive to souls. For everyone he became
henceforth “the Father.”
Yet these promising beginnings were to
be followed, from 1865 to 1870, by a period
of abandonment: no one joined the nascent
community,14 and the work of Perpetual Prayer only
advanced slowly. Father Emmanuel suffered from
the situation but did not grow discouraged. Then
the War of 1870 erupted. The Father saw in France’s
defeat at the hands of the Prussians the chastisement
of her infidelity to the promises of her baptism. He
was aware that the restoration of the nation could
only come through a revival of the Christian spirit
among the faithful, and he set himself to this work.

Attempt to Join
the Order of St. Benedict
After 1870, having gathered several religious
together, Father Emmanuel undertook the
construction of a small monastery and envisioned
the association of his young community with La
Pierre-Qui-Vire. But in June 1873, after a stay of
several weeks in this friendly monastery, he fell ill,
exhausted by the austerities of the rule.15 The novice
master then advised him to consider Solesmes,
whose mitigated observance would suit him better.
The Father then got in touch with Dom Guéranger,
the Father Abbot of Solesmes, whom he had known
for many years.
In July, he received a cordial welcome and
spent several weeks at the abbey in a very fraternal
atmosphere. In the spring of 1874, a rescript of
the Congregation of France authorized Father
Emmanuel to make his profession after only a
month of novitiate. He undertook with joy this
month of probation. But two days before the
day fixed for the profession, Dom Guéranger
summoned the Father for a doctrinal discussion.
Father Emmanuel confirmed that without his being
“Thomist,” he shared the doctrine of St. Thomas
on predestination, grace, and the Incarnation. Dom
Guéranger insisted that he repudiate these doctrines.
seriously planned to join the nascent community, but who died before
being able to put his plan into effect: Fr. Lievre. Fr. André took his
friend’s name for himself.
13
The two Fathers observed perpetual abstinence, slept on the ground,
and rose at four o’clock in the morning to chant the Divine Office.
14
A few children were confided to the Father for him to educate in a
monastic atmosphere. The presbytery only became narrower and less
suitable.
15
The rule of La Pierre-Qui-Vire notably included rising in the middle
of the night.

11
The Father, who had particularly delved into the
doctrine of grace and wished to remain independent
of every theological system on these questions,
which were free, flatly refused.16 The Father Abbot
declared that in these conditions it was impossible
to receive his profession. The decision was without
appeal,17 and the next day, July 4, 1874, the Father
had to leave Solesmes. The disarray was great in the
little community of Mesnil, but the Father stayed
calm and supernatural. Yet these trials took a toll on
his health, which weakened considerably.

Msgr. Cortet and
Father Emmanuel
Msgr. Ravinet having resigned for health
reasons, a new bishop was consecrated in November
1875. He was Msgr. Pierre-Louis-Marie Cortet. The
bishop made known his desire that the community
should place itself completely under his authority
since it had not received canonical investiture.
Subsequently, he declared that he desired it to
move into town. As Father Emmanuel was trying to
safeguard the Benedictine identity of the community
and its attachment to the parish work of Our Lady
of Holy Hope, the bishop reacted sharply (without,
however, insisting on the move). Seeing, moreover,
the deferential and cordial welcome shown him
during his visits to Mesnil, Msgr. Cortet wavered
between two contrary sentiments: while he held him
in the highest regard, he never lost an opportunity
to mortify him. He also asserted his intention to
dispose freely of the monk-priests for the needs
of his diocese. It was thus that Father Paul was
named pastor of Faux-Villecerf in July 1876, and
Father Bernard was transferred to another parish to
replace a sick priest. The erection of the Society of
Missionary Fathers of Our Lady of Holy Hope in
November 1876, with Constitutions approved by the
bishop, altered nothing in the situation. Recruitment
into the small community became very difficult
He told Dom Guéranger: “I have prayed very much, and I have even
suffered and wept, to arrive at understanding something about the
mysteries of grace; what I believe I know has come to me in large
part from the practice of souls; how can you expect me to renounce
doctrines in which I have found peace?” Le Père Emmanuel, p. 166.
17
Dismayed, the Father Prior, Dom Couturier, who bore a deep affection
for Father Emmanuel, tried in vain to bend Dom Guéranger. Likewise,
Msgr. Ravinet saw his appeal on Father Emmanuel’s behalf rejected. Two
factors may explain the abrupt position of Dom Guéranger: on the one
hand, he had fought his whole life against Jansenism and experienced
a profound repulsion for everything that, rightly or wrongly, seemed
to him to approach this current of thought. In this light, Thomism was
for him a dangerous doctrine. On the other hand, recalling the divisions and disputes which had profoundly affected the Congregation
of Saint Maur in the 18th century, he placed the good of unity above
everything. Cf. Dom Guy-Marie Oury, Dom Guéranger, moine au coeur
de l’Église (Editions de Solesmes), pp. 452-53. Dom Guéranger wrote
to the community of Mesnil: “For a religious family, there is nothing
above unity. Until now, God has given it to us; I cannot consent to see
it altered.” Letter of July 4, 1874 (Le Père Emmanuel, p. 159).

16

insofar as it offered no guarantee of religious life for
those who desired to enter there.
Otherwise, the bishop was well disposed to
the foundation of various works for the good of
the parish. It was thus that the Father was able
to launch the Bulletin of Our Lady of Holy Hope in
1877, which was intended to be the organ of the
archconfraternity of the same name, though it
exceeded this objective by its solid doctrinal and
liturgical content. Then in 1878, he created the
Society of Jesus Crowned with Thorns for the
safeguard of modest dress among the Christian
women of the parish. The same year, the Father also
had the joy of giving the habit to the first six nuns
of the Benedictine Monastery of Our Lady of Holy
Hope.

Parish Crisis and
Anticlerical Decrees
During the years 1870-1880, a deeply impious
man18 inaugurated a conspiracy the goal of which
was Father Emmanuel’s departure. The man
exerted a real fascination on the young people
and made many lose the faith. He unleashed an
open campaign against Father Emmanuel in the
antireligious newspaper of the department. During
this period, it is an established fact that occultism
and sorcery were practised at Mesnil, and two cases
of diabolical possession are on record.
Furthermore, the Father discovered a secret
work aimed at corrupting the innocence and
faith of children before the age of their first Holy
Communion. While he had not believed that a child
could be a deliberate hypocrite, he was forced to
recognize that he was wrong. Horrified, he found
himself compelled to organize a poll in his parish for
the admission of children to first Holy Communion,
and henceforth to redouble his prudence. He said:
“I had rather be cut into pieces than allow myself to
admit a child who has not decided from the bottom
of his heart to serve God.”19
During this time, the elections had brought a
Left-wing majority to Parliament and Mac-Mahon
had resigned from the presidency of the Republic.
Politics became radically anticlerical. Jules Ferry had
President Grévy sign the decrees of 1880 that placed
religious associations beyond the pale of the law.
Thinking to protect the community, Msgr. Cortet
obliged the monks, excepting Father Emmanuel,
to wear the cassock, and appointed Father Bernard
curate 50 miles away. Paradoxically, the community
suffered no vexation from the authorities,20 but it

He was a foreigner who had settled in the country.
Le Père Emmanuel, p. 220.
20
The Father merely received the courteous visit of the secretary general
of the prefecture of the Aube who, learning that the community was
18
19

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

12
was the bishop himself who in fact deprived it of its
existence. 21 For the Father only had with him two
monks22 and had to suspend the public recitation of
the Office.
The Father did not let himself get discouraged,
and the events were for him the occasion of
reflections that far exceed the narrow confines of
his parish. It was at this time that he published his
studies on Naturalism, “The Christian of the Day
and the Christian of the Gospel,” and “The Two
Cities.” In a wholly Catholic spirit, he also launched
a campaign in favor of the Uniate Greeks, which
would result, in 1885, in the publication of the
remarkable Revue de l’Église Grecque-Unie, which
later, in 1890, became the Revue des Églises d’Orient.

named prior. It was for Father Emmanuel a rude
blow from which he never completely recovered.
He was linked to Father Bernard Maréchaux by a
profound affection and had planned to make him his
master of novices.24
In 1888, the Benedictine nuns in turn were
affiliated with the Olivetan Congregation.
Despite threats of being denounced, the
community recommenced the recitation of the
Divine Office. In 1891, it was endowed with
a novitiate and a chapel, and welcomed new
recruits…while Father Paul, the companion of the
first hour, made his entrance into eternity.
Finally, Father Emmanuel was named Abbot of
the Holy Hope in 1892.25

From the Black Habit
to the White

Battles and Advances

Msgr. Cortet considered the dismembered
community dissolved and the regular priests as
being able to be employed freely in the parishes of
his diocese. The only way to conserve a properly
religious existence was to attach the little monastery
to a congregation recognized by the Holy See.
The Father envisaged affiliating it to the
Benedictines of Delle, on the Territory of Belfort, an
abbey depending on the Helvetic Congregation, but
the bishop refused to authorize it. He then turned
to Dom Couturier, the new Abbot of Solesmes. He
replied kindly in 1885, but without going back on
the decision of his predecessor: “The impossibilities
of yesterday remain impossibilities today.”23 Finally,
the Father heard of the Benedictine congregation
of Our Lady of Mount Olivet. He informed himself
further, and then solicited the association of his
community. The paternal reply of the Abbot
General, Dom Schiaffino, filled him with hope.
He then addressed a request to Msgr. Cortet, who,
this time, wholeheartedly gave his consent. Father
Emmanuel and Father Bernard received the white
habit of the Olivetans on May 23, 1886, at the
monastery of Settignano, near Florence, and made
their profession the following August 5. Three other
religious pronounced their vows in 1887.
In the months that followed, Father Paul was
relieved of his parish and finally returned to the
religious life. Contrariwise, Father Bernard was
sent to Soulac (in the Gironde), where there was
an Olivetan monastery charged with an important
parish, so that he could come to the aid of the priorpastor. When he passed away, Father Bernard was
strictly diocesan (which sheltered it from the decree of expulsion)
promised to refer the matter… and never returned.
21
In the diocese, the people were saying: “So his Excellency wants to
dissolve the community of Mesnil himself?” Le Père Emmanuel, p. 235.
22
One of whose health was poor.
23
Letter of February 14, 1885. Le Père Emmanuel, p. 166.
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Always solicitous of the sanctification of his
parish, Father Emmanuel particularly took care of
the men. In 1888 he inaugurated the Society of the
Resurrection for men and older boys. The purpose
was to form among them a Christian elite capable of
serving as the leaven for the whole parish.
In 1889, he remarked: “The Christians of
Mesnil-Saint-Loup, whom the Blessed Virgin had
converted to God, are being roughly worked over
by the grace of this world to be converted to liberal
Catholicism.”26
With an illustrious priest of his age, Father
Garnier, the Father instituted adoration of the
Blessed Sacrament on Sundays for the entire day.
The pastor collaborated closely with M. Coltat,
an excellent teacher, but remained frightened by
the symptoms of incredulity and corruption that he
observed in the youth.27
During the years 1893-1895, he observed a
lessening of fervor among his faithful and realized
that many of them entertained thoughts of despair.
The devil retook possession of a parish woman,
which obliged the Father to undertake long and
painful exorcisms.28

See the short biography of Dom Bernard Maréchaux published as an
introduction to “The Pastoral Work of Father Emmanuel” [French],
Sel de la Terre, No. 26, p. 114.
25
It was an honorific title, and did not amount to the erection of the
monastery into an abbey.
26
Le Père Emmanuel, p. 318.
27
In 1889 he wrote: “For me, I do not see any way to make the first
Communions with the little boys today: at school they have received
an indecipherable spirit: there is contempt, malice, stupidity; there is
everything except good….And the greatest evil is that the older boys
seek with satanic zeal to infuse the poison into the youngest. The
problem for M. Coltat and me is to preserve the youngest, and we do
not know if we shall succeed.” Ibid., p. 317.
28
“If you only knew what a battle it is to fight against the devil,” the
Father wrote. “I am as tired as if 25 chariots had run over my back.”
Note this answer of the devil: “You want me to go away. Go away first
from the country and then I’ll leave.” Letter of June 22, 1894. Ibid., p.
349.
24

13
The church and the two monasteries

Parish life in Mesnil-Saint-Loup
The newspaper La Liberté de l'Yonne wrote, on February 15, 1920: “Sunday is the best day to see the type of life
people in Mesnil are leading...On this day, nobody works in Mesnil. The fields are deserted but the church is always
full of people because the Christians not only abstain themselves from servile labor but use the whole day to praise
God. The most fervent are at Mass early in the morning: young people, men, and women alike, and they receive Holy
Communion with an impressive respect. Everyone is at the Sung Mass; the men with their sons are in the back of the
church singing the whole Mass [They would sing the Ordinary and Proper of the Mass on all Sundays and feast days
of the year—Ed.]...All use their missal to follow the Mass and many know sufficient Latin to understand the most
common liturgical expressions.
“When people leave the church, they do it in order, in silence, and in recollection. Visitors say this village behaves
like a well-ordered monastery. The simplicity of their clothes gives the same impression. There are no exaggerated
fashions in this village; all the women wear modest dresses...The whole parish attends Vespers in the evening and, later,
Compline. In the hours not spent with family, the young play games in the churchyard...”

At the same time, conscious that the spirit of
semi-Pelagianism was blowing in the ranks of the
clergy,29 the Father intended to elucidate the true
notion of grace as he had studied it in St. Augustine
and rediscovered it with happiness in St. Thomas
and in the liturgy. He published two small treatises:
Original Sin and The Grace of God and the Ingratitude of
Men.

Last Years
From 1890, the Father’s health declined
rapidly. In 1896, the death of the sub-prior of the
29

“By his readings and by the practice of souls, Father Emmanuel had been
led to conclude that the doctrine of grace was greatly weakened and
disfigured in the minds of many Christians.” (Dom Maréchaux, preface
to the Opuscules doctrinaux, 1911, p. xv). Indeed, at this period, in order
to oppose the remnants of Jansenism, the role of grace was willingly
minimized and that of man’s will was maximized. From there to saying
that it is man who makes his own salvation and that it depends on him
to be predestined there is but a step…which many did not hesitate to
take. The Father recalled, on the contrary, that the first grace is before
any merit, that it is grace that holds the will of man in its dependence,
without for as much impinging his liberty; that God can convert the will
of even a rebellious man; and that, finally, we are saved by grace and
not by ourselves.

Benedictines caused him such pain that his state
declined even further. His last years were marked
by physical ills—the Father progressively lost the
ability to write, it became very difficult for him to
express himself and to celebrate Mass—and by moral
sufferings: he suffered from his powerlessness, his
solitude, and the painful awareness of the progress of
irreligion. He had to leave the direction of the parish
to Father Bernard, returned from Soulac in 1899.
In 1901 the Waldeck-Rousseau Law on
associations subjected the religious congregations to a
demand for authorization (all the more derisory as it
was revocable at will). A triple alternative was offered
to religious communities: seek authorization, which
implied communication with the authorities about the
statues and the State about resources; or go into exile;
or await an inevitable dissolution and the liquidation
of property. Father Emmanuel suffered immensely
from the situation, but reacted as a man of faith. To
ask authorization would be tantamount to delivering
himself into the hands of his enemies. Expatriation
was impossible for a community as poor as his
own. Thus he painfully waited, but with dignity, a
dissolution as iniquitous as it was inevitable.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

14

The Monasteries

Monastery of the Benedictine Sisters

and psalms, and sometimes seemed to be occupied
saying Mass. Finally, on March 31, at the hour of the
evening Angelus, he effortlessly rendered his soul to
God.
According to his wishes, he was clothed with
the monastic habit and the pontifical ornaments
to which his title of Abbot entitled him, and was
laid in state in the capitulary hall. For two days, an
unbroken file of religious and faithful paid their
respects. Finally, on April 3, 1903, a first Friday of
the month, on the Feast of Our Lady of Compassion,
the Father was interred.

In Memoriam
At his express request, no homily was
preached during the funeral. But at the meal
that followed, Msgr. Écalle, vicar general of the
diocese of Troyes and a longtime friend of Father
Emmanuel, improvised an allocution that admirably
summarized the Father’s life:
In the major seminary, he was our example by his
application to work, to which he brought a veritable
tenacity….The people from Ricey have a reputation for
being obstinate, but for him, it was obstinacy in good. With
that, he was of a profound piety and very gay, full of life
and good humor. He did good to very many, and he did
to me, too.
He was ordained priest. Now, gentlemen, Father
Emmanuel was a true priest, a rare priest, I dare say an
extraordinary priest….By his work, by his zeal, and also by
his firmness in principles and in their application, he made
of this village a model parish, a community worthy of the first
ages of Christianity.31 There he formed elite souls. What that
cost him, God alone knows, for he had to fight and to suffer
very much….
It was by prayer, especially by prayer, that he was able
to bring about this regeneration. All that this man of God
did by his prayers is incredible, here in the diocese, in
all of France, and even beyond, in the whole world. He
instituted the Perpetual Prayer to Our Lady of Holy Hope.
Gentlemen, it is a masterpiece….
Such existences never perish entirely; they survive
themselves.32 It seems as if it is death, then suddenly it’s
the resurrection.33 The cross is the source of every future.
The example of Father Emmanuel proved it and will
prove it.34

Monastery of the Benedictine Monks

On October 1, 1901, the Abbot of Holy Hope
abandoned his religious habit for the cassock.
He kept with him just one monk, who served
as nurse, and placed all his monks as he could.
Father Bernard retired to the presbytery to look
after the parish. A liquidator did not tarry in
presenting himself, placing the seals and proceeding
to inventory the goods. The bell fell silent. The
community ceased to exist.
Afterwards, the Father’s decline accelerated. He
found just enough strength to mount the pulpit, to
the surprise of all, on September 14, 1902, to give
a last, unforgettable sermon on the spirit of the
cross.30 From January 1903, he had the certitude of
his imminent demise. His sufferings increased and
it became impossible for him to take nourishment,
but he never complained. He had a letter written to
the bishop to ask pardon of the faults he might have
committed in his pastoral ministry. The satisfecit
received in reply restored his serenity. The very
last days, he never ceased reciting Latin prayers
30

“You do not have it very much, the spirit of the cross. I can tell you
frankly, I have known you for a long time. You have it less than you
used to….You must love to suffer a little and not ask so quickly to be
delivered.” Ibid., p. 447.

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Translated from La Sel de la Terre, No. 44, Spring 2003, pp. 23-35.

Our emphasis.
In fact, the memory of the Father still survives him, and the good he
accomplished was to perdure so well that it was still patent during the
1950’s. Henri Charlier, settled in the parish from 1925, wrote: “A parish
like this cannot remain what it is at present other than by a permanent
miracle.” L’Œuvre du Père Emmanuel by D. Minimus, supplement to the
Bulletin of Our Lady of Holy Hope, 1958.
33
The resurrection of the community indeed occurred in 1926 around
Dom Bernard Maréchaux.
34
Le Père Emmanuel, p. 463-64.
31

32

15
F r .

A l b e r t ,

O . P .

Summa
Theologiae

God’s existence: Do we need to
prove it? Can we prove it?
In the very first part of his Summa, St. Thomas
treats of the being of God before going on to
speak of His causality. The first question he asks
regarding God’s being is whether He has being or
not. This is, obviously, where we must begin, for
if God doesn’t exist then there is nothing to talk
about. Theology would have no point because
it would have no object. This is, in fact, the
order followed in all sciences, for it must first be
established that their object exists before going on
to treat of what it is.1

God’s existence
needs to be proved

PART 3
The Summa Theologiae of
St. Thomas Aquinas is justly
one of the famous works of
Christendom. Yet this book,
meant for beginners in the ages
of Faith, can seem overwhelming
today. We give here an
introduction to the Summa by
Fr. Albert, a son of St. Dominic,
in the hope of making this
important work more accessible
to modern readers.

Some people in St. Thomas’s time thought that
it was immediately obvious that God exists, and
that there was thus no need to prove it. This is why
he begins this question on the existence of God
with a little article that shows that it does indeed
need to be proved. The first proof he gives of this is
the simple fact that some people deny the existence
of God, as it says in the Psalm: “The fool said in his
heart, ‘There is no God’” (Ps. 52:1). It is possible,
then, to deny God’s existence, although one has to
be a fool to do so. It is to instruct such fools that
theologians formulate the proofs of the existence of
God by showing them that it follows logically from
things that they cannot deny.
As usual, St. Thomas begins by giving the
arguments of those who deny the thesis he is going
to prove; in this case, that the existence of God is
not immediately obvious. The most important of
these is the famous “ontological argument” of St.
Anselm, who says that since God is the greatest
thing that can be conceived of, it is obvious that He
must exist, because it is greater to exist than not to
exist.
In his response, St. Thomas concedes that, per
se, it is true that God must exist because what He is
includes existence, since, as we will see later, His
very essence is existence, as He revealed to Moses:
“I am Who am” (Ex. 3:14). Similarly, we know that
if something is a man, then we know also that it is
1

Thus in his commentary on Aristotle’s work on logic, The Posterior
Analytics, St. Thomas writes: “And just as when we know that this is
such a thing, we ask why, so also when we know about something
simply that it is, we ask what it is, for example, what is God, or what
is man” (II Post. An., l. 1, n. 5). As John of St. Thomas remarks
here, normally a science does not itself prove the existence of its
own object, but since theology is a wisdom (that is, a science that
treats of the highest, first causes) it reflects on its own principles and
defends them and thus can defend the existence of its object, God
the Author of the supernatural order, using the philosophical proofs
of the existence of God the Author of nature.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

16
an animal, because animality belongs to the essence
of man: in the same way, since existence belongs to
the essence of God, He must exist.2
However, adds St. Thomas, even though all
this is true in itself, for us it is not evident because
we do not know what God is: we will only know
that when we see His essence in the beatific vision.
Furthermore, as we said, it must first be established
that He exists before we can even begin speaking
about what He is. Therefore we cannot argue from
the fact that His essence includes existence to the
fact that He actually exists. This is the fault in the
argument of St. Anselm, for he starts with the idea
of what God is and pretends to arrive, from there,
to His actual existence. It is true that the idea of
God includes His existence, so, if He exists, He
must necessarily exist. But that doesn’t take us one
step further to proving that He actually does exist,
because this is still just an idea and not reality.
The importance of this little article today is
obvious. A great many of our contemporaries,
nursed from infancy on the myth of evolution,
honestly think that God does not exist. St. Thomas
shows us that they are not necessarily being
hypocritical but are perhaps just confused, which
should encourage us not to dismiss them as impious
hooligans but rather help them to see that they are
mistaken. It is true that theologians commonly teach
that men cannot deny the existence of God without
sinning but that does not necessarily mean that they
are being positively deceitful: it may be that they
simply are not making the necessary effort to use the
reason God gave them in order to understand this
truth.3

John of St. Thomas explains this very clearly: “Existence is an essential predicate of God: for He is distinguished from created being in
this that existence is not an essential predicate of creatures, but it is
essential to God; for God is being that comes from itself (ens a se) and
pure act, and consequently He exists by virtue of His specific reason
(ex vi essentialis rationis suae).…It is impossible in the concept of pure
act that existence be included only in potency.”
3
Cf. Rev. R. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., God: His Existence and His Nature,
trans. Dom Rose (St. Louis: Herder, 1948), pp. 26-28. We can quote
the following passage: “It has not been defined as de fide that there is
no difficulty in the actual exercise of this natural power of reason (to
prove the existence of God) but the doctrine itself is the commonly
accepted teaching of theologians and is proxima fidei.…The reason
for saying that this common teaching of theologians is proxima fidei is
that Scripture declares pagans to be unreasonable and inexcusable for
not having any knowledge of God (Rm 1:20-21; Wisd. 13:1-9).…All
theologians deny the possibility of ignorance or of invincible error on
the subject of God’s existence. This means that speculative atheism is
an impossibility for any man who has the use of reason and is in good
faith. Good faith, in the sense in which the Church understands the
term, differs considerably from what the world generally means by it.
It implies not only that sincerity which is contrary to deceit, but it also
denotes that one has made use of all the means at his disposal in order
to arrive at the truth. In the quest of truth one may fail deliberately,
not only in a direct way, when one does not want to see the truth, but
also in an indirect way, when one does not want to avail oneself of
the means that one ought to use, or when through a perversion of the
intellect, one agrees to doctrines that one ought to reject.”
2

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

God’s existence can be
proved by reason alone
1) Cardinal Ratzinger denies it
In a second article St. Thomas shows that, even
though the existence of God is not immediately
obvious, it can be demonstrated by reason. Here
again this article is of great current interest since
most people today—even many Catholics—believe
that God’s existence is purely a question of personal
faith and not of objective reason.4 By one of these
strange paradoxes of which the modern world is so
full, even though the new Catechism of the Catholic
Church, edited by then Cardinal Ratzinger’s
efforts, expressly repeats the traditional doctrine of
Vatican I which declares that “God can be known
with certainty from the created world by the light
of natural reason,”5 he in a highly publicized
conference he gave against relativism uttered the
following words:
Certainly, the attempt to get out of the swamp of incertitude by means of a strictly autonomous reason, that doesn’t
want anything to do with faith, cannot succeed. In fact,
human reason is not at all autonomous. It always lives in
particular historical contexts. Contingencies block its vision
(as we have been able to ascertain). Thus it has need also
to be helped on the historical level in order to be able to
pass over the barriers that history puts in its path. I believe
that neo-scholastic rationalism failed in its attempt to want
to reconstruct the Preambula fidei 6 by a reason that is totally
independent of the faith, by a purely rational certitude. All
other attempts that follow the same route will obtain in the
end the same results. Karl Barth was right on this point
when he refuted philosophy as a foundation of the faith,
independently from it: our faith would be founded, then,
fundamentally, on changing philosophical theories.7

The only way to reconcile the Cardinal’s
position with the teaching of Vatican I (quoted
by his own catechism!) seems to be to say that
although, per se, God can be known by reason alone,
concretely in the world men live in after original sin,
it is not possible in practice to arrive at this certainty
without the help of faith. This interpretation of
This point of doctrine is not without relation to the question of religious
liberty, for if religion is simply a matter of personal faith and cannot
be judged by objective reason, then it becomes inconceivable that a
public authority could intervene in religious matters since they would
be a strictly personal affair, incapable of objective verification that
can be recognized by everyone. Thus it is not a coincidence that the
neo-modernists who deny the rational proofs of the existence of God
and of the truth of the Catholic faith also preach religious liberty.
5
Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 36, which cites here Vatican I, Dei
Filius 2, DS 3004.
6
“The preambles of the faith,” that is, the fundamental truths necessary
as a preparation for the act of faith, of which the most important is the
existence of God. The Cardinal does not seem troubled by the contradiction involved in the idea of these preambles to the faith depending
on faith itself.
7
Documentation Catholique, No. 1 “hors série,” 2005, p. 55, which
reproduces a conference at Guadalajara in May 1996; Documentation
Catholique, No. 2151, 1997, pp. 29-37.
4

17
Vatican I, however, was ruled out by the spokesman
of the commission who presented this text to the
Council, who said explicitly: “The doctrine hereby
submitted must be considered as universally true,
whether man is viewed in the purely natural state or
in that of fallen nature.”8
Garrigou-Lagrange comments on this saying:
Hence it cannot be maintained that, in consequence of
original sin, there is no justification for the assertion that
reason is assured of the objective validity of its conclusions,
unless this same faculty is fortified by the superadded light
of an illuminative grace.9

Nevertheless it seems that this must be the
Cardinal’s position, and if we go back to his
catechism we can see that it can be interpreted in
this way as well, for after the clear restatement of the
doctrine of Vatican I, it goes on immediately to talk
about “history”:
In the historical conditions in which he finds himself,
however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to
know God by the light of reason alone.10

There is then a quote of Pius XII’s encyclical
Humani Generis which speaks of the difficulty
men can have in knowing God because of His
transcendence and because of man’s weakness,
especially after original sin, and the consequent
need for revelation even of the truths about God
which we can know by reason. This is all fine and
dandy because this is perfectly Catholic doctrine (as
the catechism shows by giving references to Vatican
I and St. Thomas as well) but the fact remains
that you cannot square Vatican I’s teaching about
man’s real capability to know God by reason alone
(even after original sin) and Cardinal Ratzinger’s
rejection of it in his conference. Humani Generis,
Vatican I and St. Thomas, in their remarks about
the moral necessity of revelation so that men might
know “easily, certainly and without error” the
truth about God in no way imply that “a purely
rational certitude” about God “independent of
faith” is impossible as Cardinal Ratzinger says it is,
for this would be to contradict what they say very
clearly elsewhere. If Cardinal Ratzinger is capable
of such contradictions because of his modern
philosophy, the Church and St. Thomas certainly
are not.11 When they speak of the moral necessity of
revelation to confirm man’s knowledge about God,
they in no way imply that by reason alone man

cannot certainly know God. They simply mean that
men, as a whole, have need of this revelation to hold
firmly to all the truths they need to know about God
in order to work out their salvation without being
intimidated or confused by what their imagination
or passions or false arguments might oppose to their
natural certainty regarding these truths.
2) St. Thomas affirms it
St. Thomas quotes as an authority for his thesis
that the existence of God can be proven by reason
the text of St. Paul where he says: “The invisible
things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made” (Rm. 1:20).
But, he goes on, this would not be unless the
existence of God could be demonstrated through
the things that are made; for the first thing we must
know of anything is, whether it exists.
He then explains that the sort of demonstration
he is speaking of here is not like the demonstrations
that prove a property of something by starting
from its essence (as, for example, Euclid proves the
properties of triangles by deducing them from the
essence of what a triangle is12) but rather it simply
proves that something exists starting from one of its
effects.
From every effect, he says, the existence of its
proper cause13 can be demonstrated, so long as its
effects are better known to us. Since every effect
depends upon its cause, if the effect exists, the cause
must pre-exist. Hence the existence of God, in so far
as it is not self-evident to us, can be demonstrated
from those of His effects which are known to us.
We see, then, that this proof of the existence
of God is something very humble. It contents itself
with starting with things that belong to our own
experience (“the things that are made” that we see
around us) and concluding from them the existence
of a cause that must exist to explain them.
By this humility St. Thomas ducks the objections
that are made to the idea of proving God’s existence.
“You can’t prove the existence of something that you
don’t know the essence of,” says one objection, “and
we’ll know God’s essence only when we see Him in
heaven.” Response: “That is true in demonstrations
that prove a property from the essence of something,
as in geometry, but it isn’t necessary to know the
This is the type of demonstration that St. Anselm uses but which, as
we saw, cannot be used to prove God’s existence because we cannot
know what God is here below and so we can’t deduce anything about
Him from His essence. Also, such an argument based on the essence of
something cannot prove anything about its existence, which much be
established first from some other source.
13
“The proper cause is that which can produce a certain effect by itself (per
se) and immediately as such (primo).…Thus to carve a statue requires a
sculptor. To say it requires an artist would be to designate too general a
cause.…Similarly, it would not be definite enough to say that the movements in the universe require a primary being: what they immediately
demand is a prime mover.” Garrigou-Lagrange, op. cit., p. 379.

12

Vacant, Études sur le Concile du Vatican, I, 29, 673, quoted by GarrigouLagrange, op. cit., p. 27.
9
Op. cit., p. 27.
10
No. 37.
11
If indeed the Cardinal’s position is the proper interpretation of the
Catechism, it shows how wary we must be when we hear modern
churchmen quoting traditional doctrine. As for the remarks about Karl
Barth (a Protestant “theologian”), they reveal a surprising ignorance of
the simplest elements of traditional apologetics. The Præambula fidei
are a foundation of the rational credibility of the faith, not of faith itself,
which is founded on the authority of God who reveals Himself to us.
8

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

18

This does not mean, as we
said, that St. Thomas thinks
that for some men the proof
of the existence of God is
impossible, but rather he just
means that all men are not
capable of understanding all the
philosophical notions used in
the scientific demonstrations of
this truth and that, concretely,
faith can help men to be firm in
their certainty of it.
essence of a thing in order just to prove it exists:
all you have to do is have some idea about what
the thing is (so that you know what you are talking
about 14) and be able to prove that that particular
thing you are talking about exists.”
Another objection attacks even this kind of
argument: “But you can’t prove the existence of a
cause from effects that aren’t proportionate to this
cause, and God is a cause that is infinitely above all
His effects, so there is no proportion.” Response:
“It’s true that you cannot have a perfect knowledge
of a cause by effects that aren’t proportionate to it,
but you can at least know that it exists, and that is all
we are trying to prove for the moment.”
A final objection reflects the position of Cardinal
Ratzinger and says that we can’t prove that God
exists because it is an article of faith. St. Thomas’s
response provides a resounding refutation of the
Cardinal’s opinion that the præambula fidei are
impossible (and shows that they are not at all, as
he pretends, something that comes from “Neoscholastic rationalism”):
The existence of God and other like truths about God,
which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of
faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes
natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and
perfection supposes something that can be perfected.

Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot
grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something
which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and
demonstrated.

This does not mean, as we said, that St. Thomas
thinks that for some men the proof of the existence
of God is impossible, but rather he just means
that all men are not capable of understanding all
the philosophical notions used in the scientific
demonstrations of this truth and that, concretely,
faith can help men to be firm in their certainty of
it. Another passage of Garrigou-Lagrange is helpful
here:
The question is not one of fact, as a note attached to the
schema drawn up by the special commission [at Vatican I]
on Catholic doctrine appropriately remarked: “The question is not whether, de facto, individual human beings derive
their rudimentary knowledge of God from this natural
manifestation, or if they are not rather urged to seek it in
the revelation proposed to them, being made cognizant of
His existence through the revealed teaching given to them.
The point at issue is the power of reason.” The possibility
defined is simply the physical possibility common to all
human beings.15
Fr. Albert Kallio is a traditional Dominican priest ordained by Bishop Fellay
and presently working with the Society of St. Pius X in the United States.

He adds, however:

14

This is what is called the “nominal definition” of something, that is,
what is meant by its name. Thus the five proofs St. Thomas gives all
end with the words: “And this (that is this cause that we have proven
must exist) is what all call God.”

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

15

Op. cit., p. 27. The whole first chapter of Garrigou-Lagrange’s God: His
Existence and His Nature provide a clear exposition of the magisterium’s
teaching on this point and show that the neo-modernist position was
explicitly condemned in advance.

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)

●

November 2010

Reprint #94

I BELIEVE IN “ONE” CHURCH:
Reflections on the Notion of
Ecclesial Communion

Words to express the idea of a “Christian
community” in “less than full communion” with
the Church have definitively entered the Church’s
vocabulary. Numerous ecumenical endeavors
have been justified by this concept. Yet in light of
traditional doctrine this expression appears to us
incompatible with the very nature of the Church.
Among the most significant elements introduced
in the ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council
is the “analogical” notion of communion with the
Church, which admits of union with the Catholic
Church in varying degrees or different levels. Thus
there can be full communion and less than full
communion, which, if we draw from this principle
its logical consequences, can be variously qualified:
imperfect communion, “marginal” communion,
growing communion, virtually existing communion,
and so on.

Far from being of merely academic interest, this
element is in reality indispensable for assuring the
ecumenical movement’s continuation, especially for
giving an ecclesiological basis to the convergences
upon which it is founded and seeks to advance. We
are convinced that this notion constitutes the doctrinal
element most necessary to securing this end. Indeed,
every aspect of Christianity to be found in the false
churches (this definition is obviously incompatible
with the new ecclesiology) is presented as an appeal
to the unity which the Catholic Church possesses in
full. In this sense, these Christian elements are held
to be already at work and positively taking shape
as the foundation of a certain unity: communion is
already present even if it is not yet full; it is unfull
communion, but communion nevertheless.
For example, from this perspective, the sacrament
of baptism administered in Lutheran churches or
19

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

faith in Christ the Savior, being material elements
in common with Catholicism, would establish
a certain unity in the name of which prayer in
common might be offered or ecumenical gatherings
organized. It should be noted in passing that in this
analysis, there is no place for conversion, but only
a supposed common convergence1 which must be
stimulated in order to rebuild the original Unity that
was destroyed by the sin of all. It should also be
noted, somewhat ironically, that the “Lefebvrists”
themselves would be in the state of unfull
communion with the Church, but in communion
nevertheless.
In fact, “Lefebvrists” as well as all other
Catholics find themselves constrained to refuse
the usage of this notion so as to be faithful to the
Church’s unchanging Tradition. Communion with
the Catholic Church is by nature a univocal reality
that does not admit gradation: one is either in
communion or one is not.

Let us not forget that the ecumenical movement
arose and developed in Protestant circles long before
the Council. The acceptance of the rules of the
game after the Council presupposes an intolerable
contempt for the Church of the past, found guilty
in some way, and for the generous labors of a long
line of popes and saints who expended themselves
in calling the “separated brethren” back to the one
sheepfold by conversion to Catholicism.
Let us note also that in this context, the classic
notion of “schism” loses in practice its traditional
significance; the sin against the Unity of the
Church becomes instead the sin of those who
refuse ecumenism and the kind of recomposition it
proposes: but this recomposition tends toward an
absurd form of unity which cannot be proposed to
Catholic consciences. The principle that seeks this
kind of recomposed unity is absolutely indefensible.
On the contrary, everything should be done to
welcome the “separated brethren” within the Unity
which the Church never lost and will never lose.

The New Ecclesiology

The Church Is the
Mystical Body of Christ

Before coming to the heart of our considerations,
it is useful to enlarge upon the present direction
of ecclesiology on this crucial point. It should be
remembered that the analysis of the phenomenon
of divisions among Christians in contemporary
theology is based on purely historicist and naturalist
criteria. The separations are allegedly the fruit of
jealousies, disputes, caprices, and sins, of which
all Christians have been guilty over the centuries.
Consequently, the ecumenical movement seeks
to recompose Unity by starting from a genuine
purification of memory so as to efface the “stains”
of sin still remaining. The Catholic Church is also
in some way stained by this sin like the others: this
first element provides a key to understanding the
scandalous mea culpas we have witnessed in recent
years in which the institution of the Church is
implicated.
Needless to say, this understanding of the
question is unacceptable, especially as it presupposes
a notion of unity that is not Catholic. The sin against
Unity is a sin against the Catholic Church, and it
is inadmissible that the Church should be more or
less directly put in the dock with the accused while
she is the sole victim of all the schisms and all the
divisions between Christians known to history.
The real sin that should be purified for the sake of
Christian Unity is called “schism,” and by definition
it involves a sin the Church cannot commit,2 nor
those who remain members since, when this sin is
committed, separation from the Church occurs. It
is the sin of separation of the “separated brethren,”
and necessarily it can only be theirs.3

Above all, we should not forget that the Church
is essentially a supernatural society in which the
human and the divine are joined and harmonized.
This presupposes a different set of criteria for our
subject than would commonly be employed in
judging a purely natural society. To circumscribe the
problem adequately, we must focus our attention
on the fact that, throughout history, the Church is
the continuation of the work of the Incarnation,
without which it would be unthinkable. Since the
Word assumed a human nature and perfectly united
in His Person two natures, human and divine, the
prolongation of this work in time is effected in
the institution He founded. It alone exclusively
represents Him and in which, and only in which,
men can find all the supernatural elements needful
for their sanctification and their incorporation
in Christ Himself, of whose Mystical Body they
become members by baptism. Once incorporated in
Christ, men, while remaining men, are cloaked with
grace and the gifts of the Holy Ghost, that is to say,
purely supernatural realities: it is in this sense that
the Church is the continuation of the Incarnation in
history.
We should especially note that the union of
two natures in the Person of the Word represents
the most unique, inseparable and indivisible unity
possible, and this for a specific reason. The person
is “unrepeatable,” to employ a term dear to modern
philosophy. This means that no unity can exist that
is more one than that of a person’s, for the apogee
of unity is attained in the person. This oneness is
so absolute that every person represents a unique

20

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

reality, perfect and complete. If in creation multiple
cats or horses can exist, there can be but one Julius
Caesar or one Robert Bellarmine: the person is
an unrepeatable and incommunicable unicum.
Consequently, a person who was divisible into his
essential parts (soul and body), or who (reductio
ad absurdum) was repeatable, as if there could be
multiple Julius Caesars, would simply cease to be a
person.
But if this is true of the human person, is it not
truer still of a divine person and, by analogy, of
His Mystical Body, which continues His mission
through the ages?4 Consequently and analogously,
the members of the Body of which the Head is our
Lord cannot be partially attached to it: either they
are an integral part of the body, or else they are
no longer part of the body; either the members are
incorporated in the perfect Mystical Body, or else
they cannot exist elsewhere, as if there could be
imperfectly attached members.
We observe this in reality: there is no
intermediary state for a member of the body in
which it both belongs and does not belong to our
body. This fact has to be granted absolutely under
pain of losing or diminishing the absolute and
intrinsic perfection of the Church which is called
Unity: Communion with the Church is one because
if the Church’s Unity could subsist in imperfect
modes, it would simply cease to be Unity. For what
is by essence and by definition perfect–and hence
one and absolute–would no longer subsist, that
is, would cease to exist, once it lacked the unique
and irreplaceable perfection that specifies and
characterizes it. In this case, the thing would become
something else with other characteristics.5

Historical Precedents
The contemporary ecclesiology under discussion
is decidedly new. Not new, however, is the root
of the underlying error, which coincided with the
greatest Christological controversy ever known
in history. Indeed, from the first centuries of
the Christian era, the devil sought to attack the
fundamental dogma which is the expression of the
fundamental truth by which he was vanquished: the
Incarnation, that is to say, the union of the divine
and human natures in the Person of the Word.
This historical duel, which underwent numerous
variations, reached its height in the debate between
St. Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius in the fifth
century.
We shouldn’t be surprised that unity, as a unique
and certain prerogative of the Catholic Church, the
Mystical Body of the Incarnate Word, should today
be the dogma most attacked and tarnished by the
new ecclesiological notions. As in the fifth century

unity was attacked in the Person of the Word, so
today it is attacked in His Church.

Conversion Is Not a
Matter of Math
Before going further, we should specify that
our reflections bear upon non-Catholic Christian
groups possessing a certain ecclesiality or at least
a legitimate statute as a constituted community.
Staying therefore on a strictly ecclesial level, we
shall not entertain considerations linked to the
personal paths of conversion which can happen
in individuals belonging to these communities.6
Moreover, we would like to clarify a point to which
we shall return later: it concerns the numerous
elements held in common by Catholicism and the
different Christian confessions. It is undeniable, for
example, that the Church has much in common
with the Orthodox, and consequently an unfull but
important ecclesial communion seems undeniable.7
In reply, it should first be pointed out that this
communion is founded solely upon the presence
of elements in common considered materially; we
intend to focus on the formal value of these elements
in relation to the Church and its particular nature.
The full significance of this distinction can be
shown by a concrete example: common experience
testifies that it is not at all certain that people
materially possessing many elements in common
with the Catholic Church will convert more easily
or rapidly than those who do not. For example,
a non-Christian might convert more easily than
an Orthodox even though the latter certainly has
many more things “in common” with the Church.
The contrary can even be affirmed: those who have
little or nothing in common with the Church can
convert more readily that those who in theory share
almost everything with Catholicism but who have
the preconceived hostility toward the Church which
affects those stained with the sin of schism. History
is there to confirm it: during the last millennium,
the Church has succeeded in converting millions of
pagans, whereas the number of converts from the
Schism of the East has always been small.
That is why basing the “reconstruction” of Unity
on a number of elements held in common between
the different Christian confessions, elements
considered exclusively in their numeric aspect,
means analyzing the problem on a purely material
level and failing to take into account the reality of
the facts and of the true nature of the problem.

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

21

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

The Church Is the
Spouse of Christ
The analogy adopted by St. Paul in defining the
Church as the Bride of Christ is well known.8 In fact,
our Lord already used the theme of the marriage
banquet in the Gospel to present the mystery of the
Church. This recurrent image finds its most solemn
and definitive expression in St. John’s Apocalypse,
where the blessed eternity is illustrated by the image
of the wedding of the Church and the Lamb.9 This
analogy has a special place in the New Testament
among many other figures. Marriage signifies first
and foremost a stable, definitive union, exactly
what our Lord wished to achieve with His Church
and through her, with the souls belonging to His
Mystical Body. Clearly the two figures of the Bride
and the Mystical Body overlap: where a genuine
conjugal union exists, the spouses become one. To
be valid, a marriage must above all be vowed to
perpetuity and absolute mutual fidelity: without
these presuppositions, there simply is not a true
marriage.
It should also be noted especially that the
commitment to absolute mutual fidelity expresses
and protects the sacredness of the conjugal bond,
such that even the slightest offense against this
commitment seems incompatible with it. Here more
than in any other element we find expressed the
nature of the bond Christ wishes to have with His
Church.
This bond is unique for two kinds of reasons.
First of all, it can only exist validly in one case:
just as communion between two spouses cannot
exist except in one unique and specific case, such
that an existing marriage is an impediment to a
second marriage, so also union between Christ and
the Church can only exist in a specific case. In the
second place, this bond where it exists cannot be
varied or diluted in different forms: it only exists in
one absolute, perfect mode.
Just as a true and legitimate union between
spouses exists only in marriage and cannot exist
between two false “spouses” who refuse, for
example, the obligations of marriage, so also union
between Christ and the Church exists only in its
perfect form, that is to say, in the one Church willed
and founded by Him.10 In simpler terms, a marriage
is either valid or invalid; if it is valid, it is necessarily
perfect.11
From this perspective, which is the only one
admissible, the notion of partial unity, of the unfull
communion of false churches or communities,
appears rather as an attempt at legitimating an
illegitimate union or a false marriage: still more

22

absurd is the attempt to validate this type of union
as a positive element and intrinsically valid for
attaining perfect union with Christ in the Church.
We can never repeat it enough: whether considered
theologically or historically, a false church is not
a means of attaining “full communion,” but an
effective instrument for keeping souls away from the
one true Church.12
The outlook created by the notion of unfull
communion pretends especially to impose on our
Lord “spouses” of an inferior rank whom He did not
choose and whom He cannot accept as such.
Once again, only the ecumenical ideology
could produce an error of this scope with the result
of provoking confusion and a decline of faith in
the Unity and Unicity of the Catholic Church and,
consequently, of eclipsing in the eyes of those who
are in error the absolute need to belong to the
Catholic Church or to convert to it.

The Unity of the Church
Based on Supernatural
Adherence to the One Truth
We must now examine the elements that
guarantee the Church’s unity and then apply
the logical conclusions to the problem under
examination.
As classical doctrine teaches, in the Church
there are three factors for unity: unity of faith, of
government, and of worship. This means that in the
Church there must be one faith, one government,
and one liturgy with the sacraments and with
substantially equivalent rites. These three factors
obviously represent a unicum, and it is not possible
to choose among them or exclude any.
Nonetheless, faith logically takes priority over
the other two elements as the basis of Christian life,
the door and fundamental presupposition of all the
other supernatural virtues. It is not by chance that
faith is the first thing the candidate for baptism asks
of the Church. Faith procures eternal life: this is the
second affirmation of the baptismal candidate. The
sacraments do nothing else than fructify the germ
of faith sown by baptism, and the government of
the Church has no other end than to lead souls to
eternal life. In this unicum, faith has consequently a
logical priority. We shall concentrate our attention
on the profession of Catholic faith understood as
a fundamental factor of unity: this will allow us to
dissipate some serious equivocations already alluded
to and which we shall subsequently explain.
If there is unity in the profession of the same
faith with all its dogmas, then it would seem that
a certain unity really exists with the profession
of Lutheran faith (for example), insofar as both
Catholics and Lutherans believe in some of the
same dogmas: the divinity of Christ, eternal life,
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

the necessity of baptism, hell, etc. The promoters
of ecumenism maintain that it is on these essential
elements held in common that we should focus
in order to rebuild the unity lost because of sin.
In this sense, the Lutherans would be in a certain
communion with the Church. The Anglicans would
be even more so, and the Orthodox still more so in
that they share with us almost all the dogmas.
This outlook is, alas, erroneous; it reduces faith
to a body of affirmations more or less shared by
the different confessions. It involves a resolutely
“horizontal” and material vision of the givens which
should be considered at a supernatural level that
respects the intrinsic nature of the theological virtue
of faith: it is “faith” as seen by those who no longer
have faith or are in the process of losing it.
Formally considered, the unity that characterizes
those who profess the true faith is not based merely
on a sum of more or less identical dogmas held
in common, but on the fact of submitting to the
authority of God who reveals and who speaks
through the Church: such is the fundamental
motive of Unity for whoever professes the Catholic
faith. Now, the authority of God who reveals can
only be One because God is One (obviously with
such premises, the dogmatic content can only be
absolutely identical).
Consequently, whoever believes in something
or even in almost all the Catholic dogmas could
not do it for the reason we have indicated, but
on the basis of personal convictions of another
nature, which excludes any type of communion in
the formal sense of the term. All that remains is a
more or less extended community of a material,
phenomenological type.13
In simpler terms: someone who shared all the
truths taught by the Church except one would not
believe all these truths by obedience to the Church
but by obedience to his own reason. Thus while
having a great number of things in common with
Catholicism on the quantitative and material level,
on the level of faith (which as we have seen is the
basis of all the others) he would be substantially
indistinguishable from someone who refused all the
dogmas.

The End of the Church Is
the Salvation of Souls
Lastly, we must consider the specific finality of
communion with the Church. Indeed, on this point a
number of serious equivocations exist: membership
in the Church is often reduced to a simple sign of
cultural or religious identity, legitimated especially
by the local tradition of Catholic countries, which
in fact justifies all sorts of alternatives.
The problem is in fact much more serious
and should be considered in relation to the

mission of the Church, outside of which there is no
salvation. Membership in the Church thus is related
to this dogmatic truth, and in terms proportionate
to the scope of this same dogma. Now, salvation
as such represents both the ultimate end of every
man’s life and the purpose for the Church’s
existence. It is a reality that cannot be qualified
or diluted: formally speaking, it is not possible to
be in a state of quasi-salvation, of unfull salvation,
of partial salvation; and it would not make sense
to offer imperfect salvation to someone as good
for his soul. Unfortunately, the only alternative to
salvation is damnation, without any intermediary
nuance. Consequently, the bond with the Church
(communion), through which salvation is conveyed,
can in no instance be partial without being at the
same time absurd and hence nonexistent.

Jesus’ Prayer for Unity
We wish to conclude our reflections by a few
considerations on the famous prayer of our Lord
for Unity.14 It occurs in the well-known passage of
St. John’s Gospel (17:11-21) in which Jesus prays to
His Father to give the gift of unity to the apostles
and believers. The famous passage is systematically
used to justify the ecumenical movement, which
certifies that it is the faithful response to the teaching
and explicit will of Jesus expressed in this prayer.
In reality and paradoxically, it is precisely this
prayer of Jesus that demolishes and condemns the
ecumenical movement.
Indeed, when Jesus asks His Father for
something, His prayer is always infallible, that is to
say, He always gets what He asks for.15 Jesus is the
Sovereign Priest and hence the Sovereign Mediator,
established as such by the Father. This is always and
necessarily true, unless the prayer is conditional as
at Gethsemane, when Jesus submitted the outcome
of His petition to His Father’s will. In the prayer
for unity, this is not the case: Jesus asks for unity
for His Church as an absolute and necessary good.
Consequently, He can but obtain it, and His Father
can but grant it to Him. It is question of absolute
unity, a built-in, irremovable prerogative, of which
we have treated, which the Church can never lose
and which can neither exist nor be sought nor be
recomposed outside of her.
Don Davide Pagliarani, FSSPX
La Tradizione Cattolica, No. 2, 2010
1

“Convergence” is the term used by Teilhard de Chardin–and adopted

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

23

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

by many contemporary theologians–to replace the traditional notion
of conversion, considered obsolete. Briefly, it would involve making all
the Christian confessions “converge” by highlighting what they have in
common rather than what separates them, thus bypassing the problem
of conversion with all that it implies.
2
Cf. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, condemned Proposition 38: “The
Roman pontiffs have, by their too arbitrary conduct, contributed to
the division of the Church into Eastern and Western.”
3
We do not mean to hide the fact that linguistic, historical, and human
issues came into play, but none of these things, even taken as a whole,
can be considered a sufficient motive for an act as serious as separation from the Apostolic See. For both the ancient Eastern Churches
and the Orthodox Churches, contemporary historiography minimizes
the dogmatic problem and emphasizes the linguistic misunderstandings and a mutual tendency to prevarication. The essential problem,
on the contrary, remains the following: “…it is not enough to accept
willingly the ancient pronouncements of the teaching office of the
Church, but…it is also necessary to believe humbly and loyally all that
is subsequently enjoined upon our faith by the Church in virtue of her
supreme authority” (Pius XII, Orientalis Ecclesiæ). In evidence, there
is the fact that after the Common Christological Declaration between
the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Eastern Church, signed in 1994
by John Paul II and Mar Dinkha IV, the Assyrian Church persists
in schism, a clear sign that it is one thing to accept a definition, and
another to accept it in virtue of the authority of the Holy See.
4
The Church, to be precise, is not a person but a societas; however, like
a person, the Church is one.
5
This conclusion can easily be supported by a simple philosophical argument. When something is in motion towards its ultimate perfection, it
necessarily is in a present state of imperfection. More precisely: when
there is potentiality to a perfection, it means that it is not perfectly in
act. If the unity of the Church could subsist in imperfect forms progressively in motion toward perfection, it would mean attributing to the
unity of the Church an inadmissible imperfection.
6
Consequently, the question of baptism of desire will not figure in our
study.
7
It is helpful to dwell for a moment upon this point. The Vicar of
Christ on earth, that is, the legitimate successor of St. Peter, is not an
“added element” with or without which the Church stays the same.
The Sovereign Pontiff is the visible bond of unity, as the head is of
the body. That is why, this bond being removed, there is no longer
a body, but a heap of headless members. Pius XII clearly affirmed
as much: “They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who
believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while
not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the
visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical
Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who
are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find

it.” (Mystici Corporis, §41) Analogously, to maintain an ecclesiology that
explicitly refuses the Petrine primacy means not only denying a point
of doctrine, but also of disfiguring the doctrine of ecclesiology in its
entirety. The fact that the Orthodox do not perceive the doctrine of
the Petrine primacy (in his successors) as belonging to the teaching of
our Lord has repercussions on the entire body of Church doctrine.
Historically, this has led them to an advanced state of caesaropapism
and to the real problem of harmonizing the different patriarchates.
8
Cf. I Cor. 6:15-17; II Cor. 11:2.
9
Cf. Apoc. 22:17; Eph. 1:4; 5:27.
10
The development of the analogy may corroborate this notion. The two
spouses, after their marriage, are one flesh (Mt. 19:6). On the ontological level, then, between the moment before and the moment after
the marriage, there is an abyss. Reciprocally, during the engagement,
there is a development in the relationship from the beginning of the
engagement to the end of the period immediately preceding the marriage, which brings the fiancés to a better mutual understanding on the
human level. But on the ontological level, nothing changes. Whether
the couple scarcely know each other or whether they know each other
perfectly well (on the day before the wedding), their conjugal union,
so long as they are not married, is ontologically always the same, that
is, null: it simply does not exist; observe especially that the two fiancés
are not bound by any bond.
		An analogous distinction can be applied to the relationship existing
between non-Catholic communities and the Church. Between a Calvinist community and an Orthodox “Church” there is certainly a great
difference materially, but there is none ontologically: both have no
formal union with the Church; just as the two fiancés have no conjugal
bond a year before as the day before their marriage: they cannot be
“imperfectly married” or in a state of “unfull marriage”! Ontologically,
therefore, either the union subsists in its complete form, or else it does
not subsist.
11
Our reasoning is naturally on the ontological plane, where what
constitutes validity is the totality and the perfection of the required
characters, prescinding from the human and psychological limits and
difficulties affecting the personal and phenomenological sphere.
12
It is superfluous to repeat that this is true for the false religions as such,
prescinding from the subjective dispositions of those who belong to
them. As such, as a matter of fact, they can never be instruments of
salvation, an attribute of the Catholic religion alone, by divine institution.
13
It must be noted also that as regards faith, the subjective intensity of
the act of faith is unimportant. It is true that an Adventist or a Mormon
can have a “faith” more intense (or fanatical) than a Catholic, who may
be lukewarm, as often happens: what we are analyzing is the intrinsic
nature of the act of faith understood as such, and the characteristics it
must necessarily have in order to exist.
14
Cf. on this subject Pier Carlo Landucci’s excellent article, “La vraie
signification de ‘Ut unum sint’ ( Jn. 17:11-21)” in Renovatio, Vol. XVII,
No. 1, 1983.
15
Summa Theologica, III, Q. 21, art. 4.

The Christian Life and Truth
In 1949, Jacques Maritain (1882-1973) asked
whether our faith can be practiced without its first
being well known. Today, many live, or, rather, think
they are living the faith by doing good deeds, often
in the service of others, with some prayers to the
good Lord, but without bothering about whether they
profess the Truth and live it–the whole Truth as God
in Christ Jesus, His Son made man for our salvation,
revealed it to us. This kind of conduct is now so

24

widespread that it has become a mentality, a manner
of behaving for some if not the majority. At the
limit, thinks Maritain, such a faith would be but the
acceptance of certain values. What then becomes of
the theological virtue of faith? Today in the midst of
the disorder and devastation caused by aggiornamento
and by ecumenism at any price, it behooves us to
make a thorough examination of conscience on the
following points:
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

As a good Catholic, do I accept Jesus Christ
as the Man-God, sole Lord and Saviour, and do I
accept all the truths of faith He revealed and which
the Catholic Church proposes to my faith? Are these
truths the soul of my life? Are my prayer life and my
relationship with God enlightened by the dogmatic
definitions of the popes and councils, from Nicaea to
Trent, on the mysteries of the most Holy Trinity and
our Lord Jesus Christ?
Is my attitude toward non-Christian religions
informed by the unqualified words of Christ on the
necessity of faith in Him and in Him alone to attain
eternal salvation and on the duty to be a missionary
by promoting in prayer and in deed the conversion of
unbelievers?
Am I certain and have I the courage to confess
openly as Jesus taught that “whoever believes and is
baptized will be saved, and whoever refuses belief
will be condemned” (Mk. 16:16)?
Is the way in which I approach the Eucharist,
the Real Presence and Sacrifice of Jesus, informed
by Jesus’ discourses at Capharnaum ( Jn. 6: 1-70)
and during the Last Supper (Mt. 26:26-29; Mk.
14:22-26; Lk. 22:19-20; Jn. 14-17) on the offering
one’s life for Him and on unity with Him, and is it
sustained by Eucharistic dogma as the Church has
defined and proclaimed it in the Council of Trent, in
the Encyclical Mediator Dei of Pius XII, and in the
Encyclical Mysterium Fidei of Paul VI?
Is my relationship with my brethren–in parti­cular
the poor–inspired by the presence of Jesus in them as
He explained in the discourse on the Last Judgment
(Mt. 25:31-46)?
Is my position regarding truth and lies that of a
child of light inspired by the Gospel’s “Yes, yes, no,
no”?
Or else:
Is my faith but a sentiment of confidence in
God without a body of precise truths; a romantic,
sentimental, undogmatic Christianity; a Christianity
that surely does not come from Christ? Have I a
fideist attitude that neglects the harmony between
faith and reason? Have I an “aesthetic” conception
of faith which is content to leave to others the task of
engaging the culture in order to transform it in the
image of Christ’s Gospel, to uphold its primacy over
all things, and its spiritual, Eucharistic, and social
royalty over the world?
Under the influence of the prevailing
utilitarianism, is my morality such that a good or
pious end justifies the use of dubious or bad means
(in which case I would be a Machiavellian and not a
Catholic)? Does a purported discretion–an erroneous
discretion–take the place of real Catholic witness
when it suits me?
These questions are addressed firstly to myself,
which is why I formulated them in the first person,
and in asking them, it is myself I reproach; yet every
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

Catholic today, beginning with the mitered heads
and scarlet shoulders, should ask himself these questions
at this singular moment in history, at this time of
devastation and of the Church’s unprecedented “selfdestruction” (as Paul VI said).
Voluntarism considers faith as a “pure obedience”
to things to be done before being adherence to the
immutable Truth that must be believed, defended,
kept, and confessed. In another connection, novelties
abusively introduced and presented as the Church’s
positions have been introduced. Paul VI himself told
Jean Guitton:
There is great unrest at this time in the Church and what
they are questioning is the faith. I am alarmed, when I reflect
on the Catholic world, that non-Catholic thinking sometimes
seems to prevail within Catholicism and it could happen that
this non-Catholic thinking within Catholicism will become
stronger in the future. But it will never represent the Church’s
thinking. (Paul VI Secret, 1976)

Today a certain kind of speech prevails in which
the values of modernity are exalted and individual
creativity is absolutized, tending toward a subjectivist
mentality that spins itself a fashionable “credo,” or
rather a creedless one: not God, still less Christ, but
man alone is the measure of all things. Incredible but
true, a “theology without God” has spread in parishes,
seminaries, theology faculties, and in mitered heads.
Even children, even my mother, who only know the
Catechism of St. Pius X, have noticed. Many have
noticed except those for whom it is more convenient
not to notice.
That there have existed and still exist “men
without God” and men “without Christ” we have
known for decades if not centuries, at least since the
French Revolution. Today a “theology without Christ”
has spread as if it were normal. Cardinal Siri said:
“The most dangerous one is Karl Rahner, who writes
very well and gives the impression of being upright
(he even spreads devotion to the Sacred Heart), but
he has always maintained that a new theology was
needed, a theology that sets aside Jesus Christ and
suits our world” [B. Lai and A. M. Scavo, Giuseppe
Siri: Ses Images, Ses Paroles (Genoa: DeFerrari, 2008)].
That is why Rahner today has a myriad of disciples
among bishops, theologians and other doctors. Rahner
is the prince of heretics. And the ones who follow him
are guides leading souls to perdition. Assuredly,
Rahner’s thought is not the thought of the Church,
“Mother and Mistress of Truth,” and the Church in its
highest authority has the duty to unmask Rahner as
the wolf who slaughters the shepherds and the lambs.
(When Karl and Hugo Rahner were students
with the Jesuits, a young Christifidelis laicus from
Turin stayed with them on a trip to Germany, where

THE ANGELUS ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTICLE REPRINT

25

This space left blank for independent mailing purposes.

his father was the Italian ambassador: Pier Giorgio
Frassati… The mother of Karl and Hugo, seeing Pier
Giorgio’s living faith and intimacy with Jesus, said to
her sons: “You see, Pier Giorgio is a layman, yet he is
much better than you, seminarians!” Mama Rahner
was very perceptive.)
Today’s climate of secularization makes this
attitude which the ancients with reason identified
with “heresy” natural and spontaneous. But it is not
enough to say “heresy,” because heresy can conserve
a common ground with truth. It is rather a matter
of apostasy–the apostasy of churchmen–the worst
apostasy and greatest chastisement that can befall a
Christian people.
For authentic evangelization, a return to the
fundamental certitudes of the unchanging Catholic
Credo in accordance with genuine Catholic
Tradition and to “the charity of Truth,” which is the
greatest charity, is today absolutely necessary. It is
indispensable and urgent; it must be now and not
tomorrow: the Truth, the whole Truth. “…[T]that
which has been believed everywhere, always and
by all: That is truly and properly Catholic,” wrote
St. Vincent of Lerins. On this solid foundation, we
should work at every level–formation of the clergy,
catechesis, education in truly Catholic schools,
defense of life, the life of prayer–for the return of an
appreciation of the exact role of the truths of faith
in the Christian life. There must be a return to Jesus
Christ in full, to Him and to all that comes from Him:
the Creed, the moral law, doctrine, the sacraments,
the Church, the life of sanctifying grace in souls, flight
from sin, eternal life, the salvation of souls.
The Christian people and the world today have
no need of aggiornamento, dialogue, ecumenism, or

26

$2.00 per SISINONO reprint. Please specify.

SHIPPING & HANDLING
USA

5-10 days

2-4 days

For eign

Up to $50.00$4.00
$50.01 to $100.00$6.00
Over $100.00
FREE

25% of
subtotal
($10.00 minimum)

Up to $50.00$8.00
$50.01 to $100.00$10.00
Over $100.00$8.00

FLAT FEE!

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

a mendacious ministry without Truth. The stillbelieving Christian people and the world today need
only Jesus Christ. But today quite often we can but
lament like the prophet Jeremias in his Lamentations:
“Our children asked us for bread and there was
no-one to give it them.”
Holy Father, Reverend Lords, give us the Bread
which is none other than Christ, were it at the price
of martyrdom, as it was for the young Tarcisius (d.
250) who brought the Bread of Life to fortify the
Christians awaiting martyrdom!
Candidus
Translated from Courrier de Rome, No. 3, June 2010.

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 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

THE AUTHORITY OF

VATICAN
II
QUESTIONED

PART 11

Operation Survival (continued)
After the episcopal consecrations and the establishment of
the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, Archbishop Lefebvre
spoke about the fundamental reasons for his position and the
Society’s resistance. The goal is not just celebration of the
Tridentine Mass. The errors of Vatican II have to be rejected.
All those who agree to deal with the Ecclesia Dei Commission
lose a genuine sense of the fight for Tradition. Excerpt from
an interview with Fideliter, Sept.-Oct. 1988.–Fr. Gleize

Fr. Gleize is a professor of
ecclesiology at the seminary of
the SSPX in Ecône and now
a member of the commission
involved in the doctrinal
discussions with the Holy See.
In 2006, he compiled and
organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II.
It was published by the Institute
of St. Pius X, the university run
by the SSPX in Paris, France.

Fideliter: Cardinal Oddi recently declared, “I’m
convinced that the division shall not last long, and that
Archbishop Lefebvre shall soon be back in the Church of
Rome.” Others say that the Pope and Cardinal Ratzinger
feel that the “Lefebvre affair” is not closed. In your last
letter to the Holy Father [ June 2, 1988] you declared that
you were waiting for a more propitious time for the return
of Rome to Tradition. What do you think of a possible
re-opening of the dialogue with Rome?
Archbishop Lefebvre: We do not have the same outlook
on a reconciliation. Cardinal Ratzinger sees it as reducing
us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We see it as a return
of Rome to Tradition. We don’t agree; it is a dialogue of
death. I can’t speak much of the future, mine is behind me,
but if I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a
renewed dialogue, then I will put conditions. I shall not
accept being in the position where I was put during the
dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do
you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who
preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius
IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis
of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

28
XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes
and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire
Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social
reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept
the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk!
As long as you do not accept the correction of the
Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these
Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It
is useless.”
Thus, the positions will be clear.
The stakes are not small. We are not content
when they say to us, “You may say the traditional
Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What
opposes us is doctrine; it is clear.
This is what Dom Gérard did not see, and
what confused him. Dom Gérard has always seen
the liturgy and the monastic life, but he does not
clearly see the theological problems of the Council,
especially Religious Liberty. He does not see the
malice of these errors. He was never too much
worried about this. What touched him were the
liturgical reform and the reform of the Benedictine
monasteries. He left Tournay saying, “I cannot
accept this.”
Then, he founded a community of monks with
the liturgy and with a Benedictine spirit. Very well,
wonderful. But he did not appreciate enough that
these reforms which led him to leave his monastery
were the consequences of errors in the Council itself.
As long as they granted him what he wanted–
this monastic spirit and the traditional liturgy–he
has what he wants and is indifferent to the rest. But
he has fallen into a snare: the others have given up
nothing of their false principles.
It is sad because there are around sixty monks,
twenty priests, and thirty nuns. There are nearly one
hundred youth there, bewildered, whose families are
worried or even divided. It is a disaster.1
1

Rev. François Laisney, ed., Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican, 2nd edition
(Kansas City: Angelus Press, 1999), pp. 223-24.

The New Profession
of Faith (1989)
During a sermon given at Ecône on May 14, 1989,
Archbishop Lefebvre showed that the new 1989
Profession of Faith1 imposes allegiance to conciliar
errors. Every priest, even if he has leave from Rome
to celebrate the Mass according to the Tridentine
rite, must submit to the teachings of the new
magisterium in continuity with Vatican II. That
is why, so long as Rome imposes the conciliar
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

errors, a state of necessity remains in the Church,
necessitating the Society’s resistance.–Fr. Gleize
When we are accused of being against the Pope,
it isn’t true. We resist the Pope when he no longer
echoes the Holy Spirit in truth and holiness. But we
are not against the Pope, the successor of Peter, when
he really presents himself as the successor of Peter,
faithful to his charge. This is what we must reply.
Consider a still recent example, which makes us
doubtful of an imminent return to tradition by the
current Roman authorities. You know that recently,
at the beginning of the month of March, a decree
was issued at Rome inaugurating a new Profession
of Faith. In this new profession of faith, which in
a way replaces St. Pius X’s Anti-Modernist Oath,
the Creed is included and three articles follow. The
first two are perfectly in keeping with the traditional
faith: they simply state that we are in union with all
the truths proclaimed by the popes during the old
dogmatic Councils. But the third paragraph, which
is explained in the preamble of the Profession of
Faith, requires those who sign it to assent to what
the teaching authority of the Church today–that is,
the bishops throughout the world in union with the
Pope–profess in their faith. The preamble clearly
states: [the reason for the revised profession of faith
and oath of fidelity] is so that everyone accepts
what was said and done during and after the Second
Vatican Council. To a profession of faith that would
have been quite normal up to the last paragraph, a
paragraph is added obliging us to accept the Council
and its consequences, which are contrary to what is
affirmed in the preceding paragraphs when they state
that assent to the traditional doctrine of the Church
is required.
This is the profession of faith that is mandatory
for all those who submit once again to Rome’s
authority. Since this profession of faith is destined
to all those who exercise any office and all those
who are going to enter into holy orders and
receive ordination, they are going to have to sign
this formula. It is a way, therefore, to require that
henceforth all those who are reunited to the Roman
authorities in all points submit to the Council and its
consequences. We see in this the intention of those
currently in authority in the Church to subject us
to the spirit of the Council, which is a modernist,
liberal spirit, which has destroyed the Church and is
continuing to do so. It is inadmissible.
We cannot accept their saying we are against
the Pope. We are not against the Pope as pope, but
we are against a pope who would teach us things
condemned by his predecessors. Either we are with
his predecessors who proclaimed unchanging truth,
who are in accord with the Church from the Apostles
to Pope Pius XII, or else we are with the Council
and against the predecessors of the current popes.
(Continued on p. 31.)

29
F r .
T h o m a s
J a t z k o w s k i ,
F S S P X

“THE LORD’S
PRAYER”
Part 7 of 10
1) Introduction
2) Our Father
who art in heaven,
3) hallowed be
Thy name;
4) Thy kingdom come;
5) Thy will be done,
on earth as it is
in heaven!
6) Give us this day
our daily bread
7) and forgive us
our trespasses,
8) as we forgive those
who trespass
against us,
9) and lead us not into
temptation, but
deliver us from evil.
10) Amen.

“And forgive us our trespasses as we
forgive those who trespass against us”
Man likes to point to others to find out who is guilty. This
was already the case with Adam and Eve. Every day in the
media tribunals and show trials are held. While the hasty
accusation is published beyond the court room in great form as
a cover story, the possible innocence of the accused will later
be published under “Miscellaneous” in perhaps three to five
lines.
Paradoxically, it is very difficult for the modern individual
to admit guilt or to take responsibility for his own guilt. It is not
at all surprising that, because of the general loss of the sense of
guilt, people are less and less aware of the need for forgiveness
of our trespasses by God. Many smile at the sacrament of
Confession. Many claim they have nothing to confess, they
have done nothing wrong because they were constantly trying
to live as an honest citizen. Often there is a narrow perception
of human behavior, considering only human responsibilities,
while the responsibility of man towards his Creator is
forgotten.
The increasing inability of recognizing guilt is the
downside of the “Fun Society”; when insatiable pleasure is
sought, responsibility and recognition of one’s own guilt are
not popular. Virtually omnipotent mechanisms of suppression
in modern entertainment and media in society provide a
marginalization of responsibility and an inability to accept
guilt. Every part of society is significantly affected. It is
becoming increasingly difficult to find people who are willing
to take responsibility. Egocentrism in modern society seems
to grow infinitely. Taking responsibility might one day mean a
situation of having to admit error! It’s easier criticizing others
than having to take responsibility.
A significant contribution to the inability of admitting guilt
comes from science; guilt is replaced by “a bad childhood,”
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

30
“environment,” “education,” “social milieu,” but
also–listen to this–by “genes” and thus actually
declared exempt from any personal accountability.
Unfortunately, preaching and pastoral ministry
in the Church have their share in the exorbitant
increase in the inability to admit one’s guilt
insofar as we have been confronted for decades
with a deformed idea of God. It is too easy to
talk exclusively of God’s love and mercy without
mentioning the conditions for the mercy of God.
After all, a “God for the Fun Society” does not exist.
Where do they still talk of the Ten Commandments?
Conscientious people, however, who are suffering
from guilt of the past cannot cope with it alone
and often feel abandoned by the Church and look
for other ways of “guilt management” outside the
Church, such as in the over-abundant possibilities of
the New Age.
Then there is the inflationary usage of the term
“sin,” for example “traffic sinners” or “sinfully
expensive dinners” or “sins of calories.” This usage
promotes the minimization of original sin and the
increasing dissolution of guilt and consciousness of
sin.
Along with the inability to acknowledge guilt
there is the problem of intransigence and the
inability to accept granted forgiveness. Often no
attempt is undertaken to solve a conflict without a
lawyer and court. Often guilty perpetrators do not
want the forgiveness of their victims, even if they
offer reconciliation.
1. The petition’s position
It is remarkable that the request for forgiveness
follows after the request for bread. Between those
two requests there could be an intrinsic sense,
logically related, insofar as one of the effects of Holy
Communion is the forgiveness of all venial sins. But
in any case, this sequence shows the incompatibility
between a life of grace through Holy Communion
and the adherence to sin.
2. “Forgive us our trespasses”
The fifth request in the Lord’s Prayer shows
clearly that the sinner must ask for forgiveness.
There is no salvation of everybody and no
anonymous mechanism for salvation, but God grants
only the penitent and supplicant mercy–and this in
abundance. The petitioner is a sinner before God, a
debtor to his creditor and not an equal partner. This
is where the sacred majesty of God meets the sinful
creature, who has to ask for forgiveness, not in an
arrogant and self-conscious attitude of a Pharisee,
but in the attitude of an honest publican asking for
the mercy of God.

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

3. Our “guilt” or responsibility
for the sins of others
Man is a part of a sinful humanity and is
responsible for the sins of others. Even in Original
Sin the human race is concerned collectively. No
worshiper should claim that he can rise above a
sinner.
4. Forgiveness “as we forgive those who
trespass against us” as a prerequisite
The fifth petition in the Lord’s Prayer contains a
condition under which alone God forgives a sinner,
a condition that is important and whose implications
and sustainability are often easily overlooked.
If we were willing to forgive our debtors, only
then should we ask God to forgive our sins. From
the study of the original text of both readings
(Matthew 6:12 and Luke 11:4), it is quite clear that
the supplicant before God should have forgiven his
fellow men in the past all their debts before he can
approach God and ask for forgiveness.
In the Sermon on the Mount the necessity of
forgiveness is mentioned as well: “If therefore thou
offer thy gift at the altar, and there thou remember
that thy brother hath anything against thee; leave
there thy offering before the altar, and go first to be
reconciled to thy brother: and then coming thou
shalt offer thy gift” (Mt. 5:23-24). The service of God
begins even before Holy Mass.
5. “As we”: God forgives us
according to the measure of quality
and quantity of our forgiveness!
Just as God forgives us–even if we apologize
only halfheartedly and often relapse into the same
sins—we should forgive our fellow men with all our
heart. “For with what judgment you judge, you shall
be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall
be measured to you again” (Mt. 7:2). We should
be merciful, “as your Father also is merciful” (Lk.
6:36). Truly a high standard of both quantity and
quality! How many times do we have doubts about
the sincerity and durability of the apologies put
forward by our fellow human beings? This sense for
forgiveness is only possible if we learn to love our
neighbor as God loves all sinners for their salvation.
A truly divine virtue of love is required of us. To
love in such a way and to forgive is only possible for
men who share in the charity of God.
In this fifth request of the Lord’s Prayer for
forgiveness we can see the complexity of love of
God and love of neighbor, the relationship between
the grace of God and the generosity of man. The
relation between man and God determines our
relation to our neighbor and vice versa. If man is
redeemed only by the mercy of God, he himself

31
has to be merciful. In this perspective the parable
of the merciless servant, who found mercy and
did not give the same to his fellow man, should be
seen as an explanation of the necessary virtue of
forgiveness.
Whoever is petty and calculating in dealing
with his fellow man cannot expect magnanimity
from God. Peter asked Jesus: “Lord, how often shall
my brother offend against me, and I forgive him?
till seven times?” Jesus answered him: “I say not to
thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven
times” (Mt. 18:21-22). According to the Eastern way
of speaking, this means “at any time” or “without
any restrictions.”
6. About “beams” and “motes”
How wonderfully this prayer for forgiveness
transforms the one who is praying, teaching him the
right attitude toward the sins of his fellow men. A
humble attitude and relentless look at the truth of
everyone’s sins is practiced.
How fast and easily we realize the sins of others,
yet how difficult this is with our own sins. How
quickly and gladly we find excuses for our sins,
whereas the sins of others are horrendous. Jesus asks
all of us: “And why seest thou the mote that is in
thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in
thy own eye?” (Mt. 7:3). The praying person must
learn to think differently. He must look in his own
heart, see the beam in his own eye, and generously
overlook the mote in the eye of the others. At least
we should excuse the sins of others as readily as our

own. We can only expect mercy if we are merciful,
and we should not condemn others: “Judge not, and
you shall not be judged....Forgive, and you shall be
forgiven” (Lk. 6:37).
7. Totally subject to injustice?
Some could rightly argue: does this request
for forgiveness mean that we have to endure from
now on every injustice in silence and with full
forgiveness? Christians always have the right to
defend themselves and to avoid ill-intentioned
people. Important on our part is a generous
forgiveness that leaves nothing undone to bring
about a reconciliation. If these attempts fail,
however, due to lack of willingness on the other’s
part, it is necessary to leave it at that. God knows
our hearts and intentions.
The fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer, for the
forgiveness of trespasses, has for the indispensable
condition of forgiveness “as we forgive those who
trespass against us.” God forgives us according to
how much and how often we act similarly towards
our fellow men. No one can claim the mercy of God
if he is ruthless himself. In general, this petition for
forgiveness in the Lord’s Prayer is an important
lesson for the weak sense of guilt in modern man.
(To be continued.)
Fr. Thomas Jatzkowski, FSSPX, was ordained in 2004, and is currently prior
of St. Teresa of Avila Priory, Hamburg, Germany.

THE AUTHORITY OF
(Continued from p. 28.)

VATICAN
II
QUESTIONED

One must choose; there is a choice to be made.
Obviously, Tradition lies with the 250 popes who
came before Pope John XXIII and Vatican II. It’s
clear; or else the Church has been mistaken.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves.
We must be firm, lucid, and resolute. We want
to be with the Virgin Mary. We want to be, as at
Pentecost, with the Apostles and the Virgin Mary in
the Spirit of truth and the Spirit of holiness, which is
the spirit of the Church. We do not want to change.
Whatever may be the authority that wants to make

us change this spirit, we refuse. We do not want to
become liberals, modernists, or Protestants.
Fr. Gleize is a professor of ecclesiology at the seminary of the SSPX in Ecône
and now a member of the commission involved in the doctrinal discussions
with the Holy See. In 2006, he compiled and organized Archbishop Lefebvre’s
thinking about Vatican II. It was published by the Institute of St. Pius X, the
university run by the SSPX in Paris, France. Although slightly edited, the
spoken style has been preserved.
1

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Profession of Faith: On Assuming an Office to Be Exercised in the Name of the Church, Effective March
1, 1989 (online at www.defensoresfidei.com/professionoffaith.html).
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

32

“Dante and Shakespeare
divide the world between
them; there is no third.”
–T.S. Eliot

DANTE

Dante’s Paradiso : Reading and Commentary

PART 7

D r .

D a v i d

As we begin to discuss the third and final part
of Dante’s Divine Comedy, the Paradiso, I want to
begin with some thoughts on inadequacy. These
considerations will, oddly enough, lead us into the
poem. The Paradiso is the part of the trilogy which
is least read. (The Inferno is the most read.) Very
few venture into the highest part. It is not any more
difficult than the others. The poetry is not worse
here; in fact, most acknowledge that the poetry of
the Paradiso is the most magnificent of the three. It
is not that there is a failure of imagination. Dante,
in reaching to describe what Heaven is really like,
outdoes himself.
The problem is our inability to grasp what he is
doing and the fact that we prefer the more grotesque
images of the Inferno. Somehow we feel closer to the
sufferings of Purgatory than to the images of Heaven
as they are presented to us; we have difficulty
grasping Dante’s idea of Heaven. I have always
found the Paradiso very difficult to talk about. Dante
himself lays out the problem in the beginning of
the poem. Afterward, we will consider where this
peculiarity, this sense of failure, comes from.
Let us go to the beginning of Canto 1, the very
beginning. We are about to soar upward. We have
climbed Mt. Purgatory, gone through the earthly
paradise, and crossed the streams. The Purgatorio
ends with us soaring upwards towards the stars; this
is where the Paradiso begins. Canto 1:
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

A l l e n

W h i t e

The glory of the One Who moves all things
penetrates all the universe, reflecting
in one part more and in another less.
I have been in His brightest shining heaven
and seen such things that no man, once returned
from there, has wit or skill to tell about;
for when our intellect draws near its goal
and fathoms to the depths of its desire,
the memory is powerless to follow;
but still, as much of Heaven’s holy realm
as I could store and treasure in my mind
shall now become the subject of my song.

So it begins. Most of the major themes of
the poem are presented here. You will notice
immediately, however, the sense of inadequacy.
Dante essentially tells us that he is not up to the task.
In his words, no man who has had this vision and
returned “has wit or skill to tell about.” Curiously,
then, as the Poet begins his ascent into Paradise,
what he is most aware of is the distance between
what he wishes to do and what he is able to do. The
poem is thus, in some way, about the inadequacy
of man in the face of God. He does this poetically
by talking about the inadequacy of the Poet in
attempting to describe God’s glory and His dwelling

33
place, which is what defines the very nature of the
Paradiso.
In entering the Paradiso, we are entering
perfection. God is all-perfect. The Poet has been
granted a vision of perfection. He has gone and seen
what very few have ever seen. The fact that he will
have this experience and meet all the souls there is a
great and extraordinary victory. If the Inferno shows
immense failure on the part of human souls within
the context of all that exists, and if the Purgatorio is
the place of immense suffering where souls begin to
understand their own inadequacy and are climbing
towards Heaven, the Paradiso is perfection itself,
the perfection of victory. The souls in the Paradiso
have finished their journey. They dwell with God.
In coming back down to describe this, however,
the Poet admits defeat. If the vision he has seen is
perfection, he must now attempt to render it through
the mirror of language. And language, even the
greatest poetry ever written, is inadequate in the face
of God. Thus, we begin with a certain failure. The
Poet admits he cannot do it. Of course, he goes on
to write magnificent poetry. All the way through,
however, ringing throughout the entire poem, is this
sense of inadequacy.
Let us return to the very first line, “the glory
of the One who moves all things.” This unity is
everywhere in the poem. I have mentioned before
how everything in the Divine Comedy is rendered in
threes. There are three sections to the poem: Inferno,
Purgatorio, and Paradiso. We have thirty-three cantos
in each, in addition to the introductory canto. We
have the form of the poem itself in three-line stanzas.
The Inferno itself is divided into three sections, as is
the Purgatorio. Curiously, the Paradiso is also divided
into three, though we don’t notice it the same way.
We can find this rendering, but the threeness has
become one. The wholeness is now apparent and,
as we soar up through the heavens, we are given a
vision of unity, the glory of the One. And once we
enter that One, the dwelling place of the Three-inOne, the Oneness is emphasized, the wholeness. We
will look more at this structure later. It is as complex
as the other parts, but difficult to see.
As we soar upward, we eventually reach the
Empyrean where the Trinity dwells. First we move
through the nine spheres. At the top, the ninth
sphere, or ninth heaven, we find the Primum Mobile,
that which moves all things, that perfect sphere
which causes the other inferior spheres to move.
Notice that Dante, in devising the entire Divine
Comedy, took that which was known in his own time.
There is a sense in the Inferno that we are delving
deep into the bowels of the earth. Think of the fire,
the stone, the dangerous sense of climbing downward
into the earth until we reach the core of ice. Then we
climb Mt. Purgatory, on an island in the Southern
Hemisphere. When we get to the Paradiso, we soar

upward through the heavens as they were known to
the medieval mind. What Dante uses as his model of
the heavens was the known astronomical model of
his day. We begin with the earth and soar outward
from there. What is moving all of these heavens is:
The glory of the One Who moves all things
penetrates all the universe, reflecting
in one part more and in another less.

This is the central theme of the Paradiso, the way
in which God’s grace works throughout the universe.
Let us begin with the first sphere, the first heaven.
This is in Canto 2. If we begin on earth—and we
are still on earth even in the earthly paradise at the
end of the Purgatorio—Beatrice makes it possible to
soar beyond the earth instantly. At the end of Canto
1, she turns her gaze upward as they are about to
move. They are on the verge of the first heavenly
sphere, which is the moon. So we begin at the moon.
But before we get there, we have a very curious
astronomical discussion. I sincerely believe one of
the main reasons people never make it through the
Paradiso is because of Canto 2. It is tremendously
peculiar, and many people are intimidated or
puzzled; they simply give up there.
So let me explain Canto 2. Dante begins
ascending; he and Beatrice are taken into the sphere
of the moon, and the first question he asks, having
entered Paradise, is a basic scientific one. It was
something that had puzzled mankind for centuries,
and Dante decides now to ask: what are the spots
on the moon? Anyone looking at a full moon in the
night sky could see them. Some even refer to them
as “The Man in the Moon” since the dark patches
seen together can resemble a face. They appear to
be areas of shade and light. This is the first question
Dante asks. And Beatrice explains it to him at length,
comparing it with other spheres, explaining where
the light comes from, and then tells him he has
misunderstood: they are areas of light and darkness.
Dante had been assuming there was something
there which caused this, whereas, in reality, what is
seen is the nature of light itself. This is the end of
her explanation, which has hitherto been filled with
puzzling medieval science:
And now, mark well the path that I take up
to reach the truth you seek, so that henceforth
you will know how to take the ford alone.
The power and motion of the sacred spheres
must by the blessed movers be inspired
just as the hammer’s art is by the smith.
That heaven whose beauty shines
with countless lamps
from the deep mind that turns it takes its stamp
and of that image makes itself the seal;
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

34
That is, the moon receives light from the source of
light.
And as the soul within your living dust
diffuses through your body’s different parts,
adapted to its various faculties,
just so does this Intelligence unfold
its bounty which the stars have multiplied
while turning ever in its unity.

We have in us a living soul, a kind of light. This
light permeates our being, but it shines differently
in some areas than others. My fingernail reflects less
light in this sense than my eye does. My fingernail
would not be on my finger if the Divine light had not
permeated my being. That fingernail would not grow,
or would not exist at all, if I were not infused with
light by the Creator. At the same time, no one doubts
that the eye is a much better gateway to larger truths.
It might be possible for a great mystic to meditate
on the beauty of the fingernail. It is possible. But for
most of us, we need to look into the eye of another
human being to see that light, or we can attempt to
grasp and understand the light contained in our own
eyes. The glory is reflected more and less; less in the
fingernail, though it is still glory, and more in the
eye.
Different virtues mingle differently
with each rich stellar body that they quicken,
even as the soul within you blends with you.
True to the glad nature from which it flows,
this blended virtue shines throughout that body,
as happiness shines forth through living eyes,
and from this virtue, not from dense and rare,
derive those differences of light we see:
this is the formal principle that gives,
according to its virtue, dark and light.

Dante was assuming there was something on the
moon itself causing darkness and light. He thought it
was part of the make-up of the moon. Beatrice tells
him he was wrong. The modern scientific account is
that huge craters on the moon’s surface cast shadows.
Beatrice says it has more to do with the source of
the light and how much is given: some areas receive
more light and some areas receive less.
But why have this discussion at all? We are
beginning to ascend the heavens and it is the vision
of the entire Paradiso. Remember the first Canto
tells us that God’s glory “penetrates all the universe,
reflecting in one part more and in another less.” We
are going to be soaring up to the Empyrean where
we will receive the final vision at the end. First we
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

will see an unfolding rose, where all the saints with
God surround Him in an opening rose forever,
spending eternity in contemplation of this mystery.
They are one; you can take a petal from a rose
and find it unique and beautiful in itself, but you
see something more beautiful in the entirety of the
rose. For eternity, this rose is constantly expanding
outward, forever unveiling. There is a place there for
all the souls who are intended ever to be there. Each
one has a special seat. We find this out when Beatrice
leaves the Pilgrim; she goes to her assigned seat.
She must go back to it. According to Dante, there is
assigned seating in Heaven. This is the vision.
These souls are there constantly. They are always
there. But in order for Dante to understand where
he is going, and the differences in grace possessed
by those souls, the light of God shines downward
through the universe, projecting those souls
downward. Thus, those souls with the least amount
of grace appear in the first sphere. They appear on
the moon. They are visually distant from God, but
they are not really there on the moon’s sphere when
Dante encounters them. When the Pilgrim talks to
them, they are still in their place on the rose, in the
highest sphere of Heaven, but as they are in the
farthest place from the Godhead, on the outermost
petals of the rose, they appear on the most distant
sphere, the moon. God is granting the Pilgrim a
vision, and for Dante to understand this vision, he
must meet these souls in the nine ascending spheres,
the spheres representing degrees of grace, as we
move with him up through the heavens.
For this reason, you will find that the Paradiso is
the least physically substantial of the poems. It is,
appropriately enough, all light, all motion, all dance,
but not graspable in palpable physical imagery like
the other two poems. This is a difficulty. It is easier
for us to grasp the fire or the river of boiling blood
in Hell, or the souls with heavy rocks on their backs,
than it is for us to understand a dancing light out of
which a voice comes. It is less substantial; our minds
can’t quite get a hold of these images. But those lights
we do see, and the intensity of them, has to do with
the amount of grace in the blessed souls.
Does this mean that there are souls somehow
separated from God that are lesser? Are they so far
removed from God, even in Heaven, that they are
at all unhappy? This is dealt with instantly in Canto
3. It is an objection that has to be resolved to avoid
problems or possible complaints from the Blessed
Souls, such as “I only made it to the moon” or “The
amount of grace in my soul only got me to the first
sphere of Heaven” or “I know for a fact there are
souls higher up in the ninth sphere.” He resolves
this by introducing to us to a young woman named
Piccarda. This is the third time the Poet has met a
young woman early in each part of the poem: it was
Francesca in the Inferno and La Pia in the Purgatorio.

35
Piccarda explains what happened to her. Those
on the moon are the breakers of vows. These are
souls who made vows but did not keep them.
Each of the spheres in heaven also has an angelic
order overseeing it. Here, the breakers of vows are
overseen by the angels. It is thus an angelic sphere.
Piccarda admits that she was in the convent. But she
was stolen out of the convent:
From the world
I fled, as a young girl, to follow her,
and in her habit’s rule I closed myself,
and pledged to always follow in her practice.
Then men, acquainted less with love than hate,
took me by force away from that sweet fold,
and God, alone, knows what my life became!

She explains that later in life she could have
gone back, but she did not. She stayed in the world.
Nevertheless, her soul was in the state of grace. God
knows how it happened to her. But she is on the first
sphere. Dante asks openly:
But tell me: all you souls so happy here,
do you yearn for a higher post in Heaven,
to see more, to become more loved by Him?

Basically, he is saying: “Yes, you’re in Heaven,
but you’re at the very bottom. Wouldn’t you like to
be higher?” Please remember that this is the Pilgrim
speaking, still possessed of enough worldliness and
a hint of pride. He is certainly not making the gross
mistakes he made in the Inferno. But the Pilgrim
obviously still has more to learn.
She gently smiled, as did the other shades;
then came her words so full of happiness,
she seemed to glow with the first fire of love:
“Brother, the virtue of our heavenly love,
tempers our will and makes us want no more
than what we have—we thirst for this alone.
If we desired to be higher up,
then our desires would not be in accord
with His will Who assigns us to this sphere;
think carefully what love is and you’ll see
such discord has no place within these rounds,
since to be here is to exist in Love.
Indeed, the essence of this blessed state
is to dwell here within His holy will,
so that there is no will but one with His;
the order of our rank from height to height
throughout this realm is pleasing to the realm,

as to that King Who will us to His will.”

The very next passage is what many believe to be
the key to the whole Divine Comedy.
“In His will is our peace—it is the sea
in which all things are drawn that it itself
creates or which the work of Nature makes.”

The whole function or purpose of our being
is to place our will in accord with God’s will and
thus find peace. “In His will is our peace.” It is a
glorious moment; the question is gently answered.
The Pilgrim learns he is going to be soaring upward,
meeting various souls in various spheres and they
will all be happy, content and joyful. Remember that
in one sense they are all perpetually around God in
the unfolding rose. Dante is just seeing them in terms
of the amount of grace God has chosen to give them.
Here is something interesting: there is very
clearly presented in the Paradiso a sense of
predestination. If, throughout the Inferno and the
Purgatorio, we have seen free will in operation, what
we see in the Paradiso is the mystery which we cannot
understand on earth–free will and predestination
both exist. There is a dividing line somewhere and
Dante seems to find this as we soar upwards through
Paradise. Once we hit Paradise, these souls have
been given grace by God to get them where they
are. They have all been given a specific amount of
grace. That grace increases as we move up through
the nine spheres. There is a varying capacity among
the blessed souls for taking in that grace. God also,
however, bestows this grace in different degrees.
There is a kind of perfection of order here also.
Let us take a look at the structure of the entire
Paradiso before going further. There are three
sections. The first is the lower heavens, made up
of the first three spheres: the moon, Mercury, and
Venus. On the moon reside the breakers of vows,
those who led good lives, who died in the state of
grace, but at some point had broken a vow. On
the second sphere, Mercury, reside the lovers of
glory. We will meet some of them and see a hint of
pride, but it is no longer sinful pride; that has been
washed away. Of course, Venus, the third sphere, is
for lovers, those who were filled with love on earth.
The three orders of angels overseeing them are the
Angels for the moon, the Archangels for Mercury,
and the Principalities for Venus. What these three
spheres have in common comes through the angels.
Those angels are constantly singing the praises of
God in the person of the Holy Spirit. In a sense,
these three spheres of the lower heavens are bound
together insofar as these angels sing the praises of the
Holy Spirit.
The next section is the middle heavens. The
fourth sphere is the sun itself, and here we find the
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

36

has fashioned all that moves in mind and space
in such sublime proportions that no one
can see it and not feel His Presence there.

no one seeing clearly can deny the presence of the
Creator. Thus the call: “Look up, Reader!”
It is a medieval vision, but it is part and parcel
of the greatness of the medieval mind. To the
medievals, everything speaks of God. Everything that
surrounds us speaks of Him. And if we cannot see it,
or do not recognize it, the inadequacy is in us. The
problem is ours.
All throughout the Paradiso that order which was
often disguised in the other realms is made clear. It
is an order of great beauty. As we come to the Sun,
we meet the theologians who dwell there, the souls of
the wise and learned. Suddenly, Dante and Beatrice
are surrounded by circles of lights spinning around
them. It is a growing problem for Dante because, as
he goes higher, he has greater difficulty seeing. The
light is intensifying and growing brighter as he goes
higher in the realms; his sight is failing because his
eyes are simply unable to take it all in. Finally, when
he hits the top, he will be so dazzled that he cannot
see without great difficulty. There is an image of light
being reflected in mirrors: the orders of the angels
are depicted as mirrors that reflect God’s light. But,
just as if you filled a room with mirrors and then
added floodlights, the result is unbearable. It is just
too intense. Some of you might have the experience
of walking outside on a sunny, snow-covered winter
day. The brilliance forces you to close your eyes for
a moment. As Dante is surrounded by twelve lights,
he is almost blinded, yet the lights do not even stand
still. They keep whirling around.
In Canto 11, St. Thomas himself speaks. Thomas
is one of these whirling lights. At this moment,
St. Thomas, the Dominican, tells the life story
of St. Francis. In Canto 12, St. Bonaventure, the
Franciscan, tells the life story of St. Dominic. This
is a wonderful example of unity. It is a complement
that, having gotten to Heaven, the Dominican
understands perfectly the glory of St. Francis and
vice versa. Let us briefly look at this beautiful scene.
In Canto 11, we get a sense of the glory of
created nature. St. Thomas places St. Francis in a
beautiful earthly landscape:

Look up now, Reader, with me to the spheres;
look straight to that point of the lofty wheels
where the one motion and the other cross,

Born on this slope where steepness breaks the most,
a sun rose to the world as radiantly
as this sun here does sometimes from the Ganges;

and there begin to revel in the work
of that great Artist who so loves His art,
His gaze is fixed on it perpetually.

thus, when this town is named let none call it
Ascesi, for the word would not suffice–
much more precise a word is Orient.

theologians. The angels overseeing them here are the
Powers. The fifth sphere is Mars, where we find the
martyrs and the crusaders. Here the Virtues oversee
them. The sixth sphere, Jupiter, is inhabited by the
righteous rulers, overseen by the Dominions. These
sets of angels, overseeing the middle heavens, are
constantly singing the praises of God the Son.
Finally, there are the upper heavens. The seventh
sphere is Saturn, where the contemplatives dwell.
Saturn is overseen by the Thrones. The eighth sphere
is the fixed stars, the unmoving stars, which is the
sphere of the triumph of Christ. The Cherubim
oversee this. The ninth and final sphere is the Primum
Mobile. This encircles all and makes all move. This
is where the nine orders of angels themselves reside,
the angelic sphere, the perfect sphere. The Seraphim
here rule. The angels of the upper heavens are all
united in singing the praises of God the Father.
Now, these are in reality more united than separate,
certainly more so than the other realms. There is
union and perfection here.
After these spheres, but before we get to the
vision of God Himself, in the Empyrean we see the
unfolding rose. This is just outside the ninth sphere
in the realm of God Himself.
Let us look at some of these spheres in depth.
But let us first look at one other passage that is often
considered to be an explanation of the whole idea
behind the poem. Canto 1 begins with praise of “the
glory of the One who moves all things.” The first
nine cantos take us through the lower heavens. At
the opening of Canto 10, we are about to reach the
Sun and the middle heavens. The Pilgrim is not even
aware that he has been rising, but, as he moves, he
begins to think about the Sun. Canto 10 begins:
Looking upon His Son with all that love
which each of them breathes forth eternally,
that uncreated, ineffable first One,

This is the vision of God the Creator looking at
His work. But, of course, He first looks upon His Son
Himself. He has fashioned all that moves, and loves
it. We go from the Creator, through the Son, the
Word, from which all creation proceeded, and then
we are suddenly there. Everything is in such sublime
proportion, and makes such sense that the Poet says
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

St. Thomas himself finds human language
inadequate to tell this story, down to the naming of
towns. “Orient” also contains the notion of a pearl,
something precious and beautiful, something white
and circular.
Only a few years after he had risen

37
did his invigorating powers begin
to penetrate the earth with a new strength.

He is describing St. Francis as a sun. All
of these things become interchangeable as the
image of Francis as sun is used by St. Thomas,
the whirling light. This is a scene where one
recognizes the power of the imagination. This poem
is sometimes too much to take in. It is much more
complicated than souls in a river of blood trying
to come to the top while centaurs keep them from
doing so. That is a quick, understandable image. In
the Paradiso, there are too many levels for the mind
to absorb it all. It is why poets love this final third
of the poem the most. Dante’s imagination is most
evident here. It is something exceptional.
While still a youth he braved his father’s wrath,
because he loved a lady to whom all
would bar their door as if to death itself.

This weird description seems first to refer to a
love affair. It is bewildering for Pilgrim and reader
both. We are getting love, the love that fills the
heavens. And only pure love fills the heavens.
Before the bishop’s court et coram patre
he took this lady as his lawful wife;
from day to day he loved her more and more.
St. Francis taking a wife? What is he talking about?
Bereft of her first spouse, despised, ignored,
she waited eleven hundred years and more,
living without a lover till he came,

The confusion seems to grow even greater. St.
Francis seems to have married a very old lady. Of
course, the Pilgrim is listening with human ears
and we are listening with human intelligence. We
are again confronted with failure. The sense of
inadequacy returns, even greater.
alone, though it was known that she was found
with Amyclas secure against the voice
which had the power to terrify the world;
alone, though known was her fierce constancy
that time she climbed the cross to be
with Christ, while Mary stayed below alone.

St. Thomas must see the puzzlement on the face
of the Pilgrim, for he says:
Enough of such allusions. In plain words
take Francis, now, and Poverty to be
the lovers in the story I have told.
Their sweet accord, their faces spread with bliss,

Dante and Beatrice speak to the teachers of wisdom:Thomas
Aquinas, Albertus Magnus, Peter Lombard, and Sigier of Brabant
in the Sphere of the Sun (fresco by Philipp Veit), Canto 10.

the love, the mystery, their tender looks
gave rise in others’ hearts to holy thoughts.

The union of St. Francis with Lady Poverty
is discussed further. There is a sense, as we soar
upward, that the saints themselves become symbols
of large ideas. Individual lived lives are important
but, once they are in Heaven, the vision is greater:
what is to be learned from their lives? The life of
the saint becomes representative of something much
greater.
After the story of St. Francis, something curious
happens. St. Thomas turns back to the Dominicans
for a moment and begins criticizing:
Think now what kind of man were fit to be
his fellow helmsmen on Saint Peter’s boat,
keeping it straight on course in the high sea–
and such a steersman was our Patriarch;
and those who follow his command will see
the richness of the cargo in their hold.

The Patriarch is St. Dominic, the founder of
their ship, their order.
But his own flock is growing greedy now
for richer food, and in their hungry search
they stray to alien pastures carelessly;
the farther off his sheep go wandering
from him in all directions, the less milk
they bring back when they come back to the fold.
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

38
True, there are some who, fearing loss, will keep
close to their shepherd, but so few are these
it would not take much cloth to make their cowls.
Now, if my speech has not been too obscure,
and if you have been listening carefully,
and if you will recall my former words,
your wish will have been satisfied in part,
for you will have seen how the tree is chipped
and why I made the qualifying statement:
‘where all may fatten if they do not stray.’

Here again there is the sense of inadequacy:
Thomas lays a heavy obligation on the Pilgrim
to understand, listen, and remember, and even
then, “your wish will have been satisfied in part.”
St. Thomas’s critique of his own order is not fully
understandable to the Pilgrim.
Let us leap forward to the end of Canto 12.
Near the end, there is something very similar. St.
Bonaventure has given us the life of St. Dominic,
but, near the end of the Canto, he criticizes the
Franciscans. It should be mentioned that St.
Bonaventure is not one of the original twelve lights;
he is part of a second group of twelve that comes
later. So we have the Pilgrim and Beatrice in the
middle, surrounded by two groups of twelve lights,
whirling in opposite directions. St. Bonaventure is
speaking from the outer circle of whirling lights:
I will admit that if you search our book
page after page you might find one that reads:
‘I still am now what I have always been,’

In other words, you might still find a dedicated
Franciscan.
But such cannot be said of those who come
from Acquasparta or Casal and read
our rule too loosely or too narrowly.

There are too many Franciscans not faithfully
following the Rule. This is a theme running
throughout the entire Paradiso: the sense of failure.
These great saints, members of the famous religious
orders, look down and see failure and collapse
on earth. Once again, the poem presents a sense
of inadequacy. Part of this is Dante’s own social
criticism. He does this throughout the poem. But
as we rise through the heavenly spheres towards
the vision of God Himself, as the pilgrimage ends,
the poem and the Poet and those saints he meets
become obsessed with beginnings.
There is a seeming contradiction here. But it is
also logical if you look at the principal poetic images
that underlie the poem. From the beginning, we had
THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

the vision of the divine light coming from the source
of light, permeating everything in all creation.
This phrase from the first canto, “penetrates all the
universe, reflecting” is crucial: penetra e risplende.
Translation is always tricky. Risplende does mean
“reflecting” but, more literally, it means “to glow
again” or “to offer new splendor.” The vision is
one of divine light going from the Creator to all
creation. Then, if the creation fulfills its purpose,
if its will is God’s will, that light will come back
to heaven, glowing more intently. Hence, it is the
very light returning which should draw all things to
God. So the divine light pours into the multiplicity
of creation, seeking to return the creature to its
Creator.
This is why there is an obsession with
beginnings and endings in this poem. The beginning
and source of the light is God Himself. But the
creature grasps this reality and seeks to return to
its Creator. This is why the theologians discuss the
founding of their orders and the lives of St. Francis
and St. Dominic. The recognition is that, from
these glorious starting points, great souls returned
to God in splendor since their will was His will;
but there has been deterioration over time. What
is there now? Whatever it is now, it is not as great.
Now we have compromise, failures, inadequacy
and human error. We get both social criticism and
the recognition of the inadequacy of man who will
settle and who is not willing to return to his Creator.
It is interesting and appropriate that, whereas St.
Thomas tells the tale of St. Francis, he criticizes the
Dominicans. On the other hand, St. Bonaventure
criticizes the Franciscans. Later in the poem, St.
Peter looks down in Rome and we have a similar
situation.
It is more than mere social criticism. It has to
do with the struggle by which our will becomes His
will. Being human, our tendency is to turn away
from the light. We do not understand the source of
the light. We usually do not allow this light in us to
“re-glow” back toward the Creator, as it is supposed
to, and as it has in the great saints the Pilgrim meets
as he rises, sphere by sphere, through these orders.
(To be continued.)
Dr. David Allen White taught World Literature at the Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland, for the better part of three decades. He gave many
seminars at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona, Minnesota, including
one on which this article is based. He is the author of The Mouth of the Lion
and The Horn of the Unicorn. All quotes from The Divine Comedy are taken
from Mark Musa’s translation, published by Penguin Books. Illustrations by
Gustave Doré.

Church and World
The Bishop of
Evreux Participates
in Women’s
“Ordination”
Suresnes, September 15, 2010
Feast of Our Lady of Sorrows
Since the Council, Catholic
bishops have stood at the side of the
ministers of false religions so often
that one loses track. The main effect
of their relativist attitude is to keep
souls away from Christ and the
one Church He founded. Rather
than our becoming indifferent to
a routine that culminates in “silent
apostasy,” we ought to manifest our
profound indignation when we consider that increasingly scandalous,
compromising meetings are taking
place at the instigation of those who
hold themselves to be “in full communion” with the Apostolic See.
At the beginning of summer,
Msgr. Christian Nourrichard, head
of the Diocese of Evreux since 2006,
visited the Anglican “bishop” of
Salisbury, Dr. David Stancliffe, the
father and grandfather of a British
family, whose sacerdotal and episcopal status lacks any sacramental
reality because of his adherence to
the schism and heresy which have
affected England since the 16th century. The Church made a definitive
pronouncement on the invalidity of
Anglican orders with the Bull Apostolicae Curae of September 18, 1896.
But on Saturday, July 3, Bishop
Christian Nourrichard wore ecclesiastical garb (alb, stole, cope, mitre,
and pectoral cross) in a non-Catholic sanctuary during a ceremony
presided over by Dr. Stancliffe.
At the side of two reformed “bishops,” who were also invited, he
took part in the procession and in
a travesty of ordination. The gravity of the scandal is increased by
the fact that 13 women, dressed in

chasubles, were among the “ordinands.” Far from deploring the
participation of its head in such a
dismaying parody, the Diocese
of Evreux related the facts in its
magazine without even mentioning
the invalidity of Anglican orders,
the impossibility of women becoming priests, or the danger of the
Anglican heresy to souls. Dialogue
appears to have become a matter of
importance while the truths of faith
and concern for souls have become
a matter of indifference.
How can the faithful understand
that it is impossible for women to be
ordained when a reigning bishop
dignifies such a ceremony with his
presence? How can they realize that
Anglican ordinations are invalid
when Msgr. Nourrichard takes part?
How can they grasp that one ought
not to adhere to schism and heresy
when, vested in clerical garb, he
attends the ceremonies of those
who profess these things?
The moral persecution of those
who, opposing the incoherencies
which place rabbis in cathedrals
and bishops in mosques, strive to
confess the faith, to celebrate worthily the sacred mysteries, and to
proclaim the Church’s tradition
concerning the way of salvation,
is something they can rightly be
proud of.
In response to the calls to find
“a more perfect communion” and
to consider that the situation of
the Church in France is reportedly
improving, we can but reiterate the
simple observation made by Archbishop Lefebvre during the episcopal consecrations of 1988: “We find
ourselves in a state of necessity.”
On this Feast of Our Lady of
Sorrows, let us pray that the most
Blessed Virgin Mary fortify us
and protect us in the midst of the
Church’s Passion. Despite the outrages of men, Christ vanquished
sin. Likewise, despite the unwor-

39

thiness of His servants, the Church
will emerge victorious from this
crisis.
Abbé Régis de Cacqueray
District Superior, France
(Source: La Porte Latine)

The Nourrichard
Affair: Déjà Vu in
Canada
On the subject of a Catholic
cleric in attendance at a ceremony
for the ordination of women, it
was reported at the beginning of
the 1980’s, at Sherbrooke, in the
Diocese of Quebec, just a few days
(providentially?) before Archbishop
Lefebvre was to pass through, that
the Catholic archbishop “lent” St.
Michael’s Cathedral to a bishop of
the United Church for ordinations
(four men and two or three women).
At the communion, the Protestant
bishop invited the Catholic archbishop (present in the back of the
cathedral) to come forward and
receive communion from the hand
of one of the “newly ordained”!
A few days later, after Archbishop Lefebvre had brought up
the scandal on the radio, there went
the archbishop on air, explaining
that he had not had time to think it
over before going to receive “communion”…
(Source: La Porte Latine)

Rosary Crusade
Results Sent to
Benedict XVI
It was on the Feast of St. John
the Baptist, June 24, 2010, that
Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior
General of the Priestly Society of
Saint Pius X, addressed a letter
to the Holy Father informing him
www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

40

Church and World

of the total number of Rosaries
recited by the faithful throughout
the world between Easter 2009 and
the Annunciation 2010 for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in accordance
with the message of Fatima. The
correspondence was not made
public; however, it is known that
the number given by Bishop Fellay

was exactly 19,149,525 Rosaries,
although only 12 million had been
requested to correspond with the
twelve stars encircling the Woman
presented in the Apocalypse as
the “signum magnum qui apparuit in
caelo.”
The spiritual bouquet offered
to the Blessed Virgin Mary for the
triumph of her Immaculate Heart

prayed for the victory and the peace
which the Church can only obtain
through her powerful intercession.
Remitted to the Sovereign Pontiff,
it shows the real love animating
the Society of St. Pius X–its priests,
religious, nuns, and faithful–for the
Roman Catholic Church and the
Vicar of Christ.
(Source: DICI)

Bishop Tissier de Mallerais Consecrates
the Society Sisters’ Church at Ruffec

O

n September 11, 2010, His Excellency Bishop Bernard Tissier de
Mallerais consecrated the church of the Sisters of the Society of
St. Pius X’s novitiate at Ruffec. The consecration was attended by
about 30 priests and seminarians of the Society of St. Pius X and
other traditional communities, more than 70 Sisters of the Society coming
from their houses in France, Switzerland and Belgium, and by many nuns from
traditional convents.
The ceremonies began on Friday the 10th in the evening with the “vigil of
the relics” during which the bishop prepared the relics, the Gregorian water,
the crosses, and incense.
The consecration of a church comprises the rite of lustration and the
dedication. It commences with the aspersion of the exterior walls, and then
come the entrance into the church to the chant of the Litany of the Saints, the
aspersion of the interior walls and the floor, the lustration of the altar, the taking
possession, and the dedication.
The second part of the ceremony is the deposition of the relics prepared on
the eve. The procession leaves the church by a side door and returns through
the central nave. The relics are sealed in the altar.
The third part of the ceremony is the consecration of the church and the
altar. The bishop circles the church, stopping at each cross traced on the wall
and anointing it with holy chrism. He does likewise on the altar. He then traces
five crosses of incense on the altar on which are set tiny cross-shaped candles
to ignite the incense. The consecration completed, the bishop goes out in

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

procession. The altar is then adorned with
crucifix, vases, candelabra, and flowers.
The solemn Pontifical Mass then begins. In his
moving sermon, BishopTissier told the history
of the church, which had been abandoned
even before the Revolution and transformed
into a barn, a part of its transept cut off,
but which was acquired by the Society and
returned to true worship and magnificently
restored thanks to generous benefactors, and
in which, as it happened, the New Mass was
never celebrated.
“Let us pray to the Lord that He watch over
this church; may it never again be profaned!”
(Source: La Porte Latine)

F R .

p e t e r

R .

s c o t t

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Am I bound to put money in the
collection every Sunday?

It is one of the six precepts of the Church that
we must all contribute to the support of the Church,
according to our means, under pain of mortal
sin. A person who, although able to do so, would
continuously refuse to contribute to any collection for
the sake of the Church would sin grievously against
the precept of the Church and against the virtue of
charity, which obliges us to give alms, at least some
times, as we are able.
However, the Church’s precept does not
determine in what way a person contributes to the
support of the Church. He can do so by yearly or
monthly donations, rather than every week. He can
do so by contributing to an order of religious or
missionaries or to the support of any religious activity
or charitable work that is properly the work of the
Church and is approved by it. Consequently, a person
who would give all his donations to help a school,
or make donations to help poor students attend a
Catholic school, or to support a convent of religious
or overseas missionaries, fulfills the letter of the law
and does not commit a sin. It may even, in some
cases, be God’s will for him to do so.
However, the Offertory collection is profoundly
symbolic. It signifies our own personal sacrifice of
charity, offered for the Church and the poor, for
whom the Church cares. Consequently, those who
understand the liturgy will make an effort to make a
regular donation in the Sunday Offertory collection,
even if it is only a symbolic amount, knowing that it
represents the gift of themselves to their Creator and
Redeemer. Did Our Lord not praise the widow’s
mite: “Truly I say to you, this poor widow has put in
more than all. For all these out of their abundance
have put in as gifts to God; but she out of her want
has put in all that she had to live on” (Lk. 21:3-4)?
This does not mean that it is, in general, prudent
to give even out of the necessities of life, but rather
that, like the generous widow, we must be willing to
give what it is God’s will for us to give, which is at
least something. It is also the reason why the Church
does not encourage tithing, or giving ten percent.
It is not the question of quantity that matters, but
generosity of the heart.
There are persons who feel that they can use
their Sunday collection donations as a way to vote. If
they like the pastor, they are generous; if he offends
them or makes decisions they do not like, then they
close up their wallets. As natural as this may seem,
it is not generous nor is it the seeking of God’s will

41

that ought to motivate our generosity. While it is
certainly permissible to direct donations away from
specific parish functions, if one feels called to do so
or a special responsibility for a certain apostolate, so
that the funds can be better used for those in special
need, nevertheless one should not do so on the basis
of personalities or of a whim. Moreover, even when
this is done, in general something should still be given
to the parish.
All these variables being considered, it is
important to avoid any rash judgment against fellow
parishioners, as for example when an usher sees that
a person never or rarely contributes to his parish. He
does not have the right to think or say that his fellow
parishioner is breaking this precept of the Church,
but must rather presume that he is contributing to the
support of the Church in other ways. At the most, the
pastor could question his parishioners, to ensure that
they are keeping the commandment of the Church
and to ascertain if there is any reason they do not feel
comfortable contributing to the parish.

Q

Can a Catholic ever exchange valid
marriage vows with a non-Catholic in
the absence of a priest?

Catholics know that the canonical form of
marriage is required for validity, namely that they
must exchange vows in the presence of their parish
priest or a delegate. A Catholic who attempts
marriage, even with a non-Catholic, without the
canonical form, is not validly married in the eyes of
God and the Church.
However, there is an extraordinary form of
marriage (Canon 1098 in the 1917 Code and Canon
1117 in the 1983 Code), in which marriage vows
are exchanged in the absence of the parish priest,
when an obstacle exists to exchanging vows before
the parish priest that lasts for more than one month.
The priests of the Society marry validly those who
refuse to participate in the Novus Ordo preparation and
ceremonies, in virtue of this extraordinary form, and
of supplied jurisdiction. The Canon permitting the
use of the extraordinary form requests the presence
of another priest if possible, or if this is not possible
two witnesses. It would be very imprudent for a
couple to take advantage of this extraordinary form
without the presence of a traditional priest, whose
presence ensures the Church’s blessing and nuptial
Mass, the civil requirements, adequate marriage
preparation, and precise records. However, it would
not necessarily be invalid for as much, in particular

A

www.angeluspress.org

THE ANGELUS • November 2010

42

in mission countries in which traditional priests are
absent for months at a time.
The situation with a mixed marriage is different.
It requires dispensation from the impediment of
mixed religion, which dispensation the couple
manifestly cannot give themselves. Also, the
Catholic who plans to enter into a marriage with
a non-Catholic is entering into a situation that
compromises greatly the raising of children in
the Faith, and is desperately in need of priestly
guidance. If the non-Catholic is not even baptized,
the ensuing marriage will certainly be invalid,
because the impediment of disparity of cult
invalidates a marriage for which no dispensation
is granted. However, if the non-Catholic is validly
baptized, as is usually the case with a Protestant,
the impediment is that of mixed religion. The
absence of the dispensation or authorization makes
the marriage in such a case illicit, but not invalid.
Consequently, it might be theoretically possible for
a mixed marriage in the absence of a priest to be
valid, provided that the objective obstacle to the
exchange of vows before the parish priest within one
month is manifest. Since the Church only tolerates
such marriage, and allows no blessings or nuptial
Mass, there will not always be a serious obstacle to
going to the Novus Ordo parish priest. If this obstacle
does exist, it will be the refusal of the indifferentism
promoted by the post-conciliar Church in the
marriage preparation. However, such a situation
would be inappropriate, highly imprudent, and
illicit. Such a couple would afterwards have to
submit their case to a trusted priest for verification
as soon as possible, and be willing to renew their
vows before him at a later date in case of doubt.

Ought one to make the sign of
the Cross when being blessed?

There are a large number and variety of
different blessings in the Church’s liturgy. All
Catholics are aware of the solemn blessing in the
name of the Most Holy Trinity, which is given at
the end of Mass. However, there are also blessings
in the rites of administration of all the sacraments,
such as when we ask the priest to bless us when we
begin our Confession. There are also very many
blessings in the different parts of the Divine Office,
notably at Matins, Prime and Compline. The more
solemn of these blessings are made in the name of
the Most Holy Trinity, as the blessing at the end of

THE ANGELUS • November 2010 www.angeluspress.org

Mass, such as before Confession, or at the end of
Compline. However, there are many blessings in
the Divine Office that do not specifically invoke the
Holy Trinity, such as those at Matins and at Prime,
in which it is Almighty God who is asked to bless
us and bestow on us such graces as the preservation
from evil and the obtaining of everlasting life.
Finally, there are those blessings in which no words
are said, when the blessing is made with the Blessed
Sacrament, either after the administration of Holy
Communion or during Benediction of the Blessed
Sacrament.
The rubrics do not prescribe precisely whether
or not a person is to make the sign of the Cross
when being blessed. It is consequently governed
by salutary custom. It is the custom that when we
are being blessing in a solemn way in the name
of the Most Holy Trinity that we make the sign
of the Cross, as profession of faith in the Trinity,
but without saying any words. However, it is not
obligatory, nor do the graces of the blessing depend
upon it. Such is the case for the blessings before
Confessions and at the end of Mass and in the office
of Compline. In addition, there are some other
blessings that do not mention the Holy Trinity, such
as at the end of Prime, with which it is customary
to make the sign of the Cross. However, there are
other blessings in the office of Prime and Matins,
which do not invoke the Holy Trinity, in which it is
not the custom to make the sign of the Cross.
What about the silent blessings with the Blessed
Sacrament? There are two laudatory customs. One
is simply to bow one’s head in adoration of our
Divine Savior. This makes sense, since the Trinity
is not explicitly invoked in the silent blessing,
but it is rather a blessing directly from Our Lord
Himself. The other custom is to make the sign of the
Cross as in receiving other blessings. If this latter
practice is equally meritworthy when done in the
spirit of adoration, it is not equally logical and is
consequently not to be preferred.
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.

TheLastWord

43
Fr. Christian Bouchacourt

Crimes and Punishment
God does not impose Himself. If
men do not want to have anything to
do with Him, He retires and abandons them to their own fate. In that
case, however, they must face the
consequences. At Fatima the Blessed
Virgin Mary said the same thing in
the second part of the secret that she
revealed to the little shepherds on
July 13, 1917:
If my requests are heeded, many
souls will be saved and there will be
peace. This war will end, but if men
do not refrain from offending God,
another and more terrible war will
begin during the pontificate of Pius
XI. When you see a night that is lit
by a strange and unknown light, you
will know it is the sign God gives you
that He is about to punish the world
with war and with hunger, and by the
persecution of the Church and the
Holy Father.

Faced with this reality, the comic
explanations that the conciliar clergy
usually give denote irresponsibility:
“God is not mocked.”
It is evident that the deadly laws
which the enemies of God and of
the Church struggle to impose on
all societies will not be without consequences. Abortion, homosexuality, and everything that goes against
the natural law are crimes, as the
catechism teaches us, which cry to
Heaven and God for vengeance.
For the author of natural law is God
Himself. Societies that want to live
under such laws bring down the
wrath of God and will see neither
social peace nor prosperity until
those laws are repealed. Until this
happens, all social and political restoration is impossible. Those nations
would do better to fear divine rage,
since that type of law bears the seal
of rebellion against God. And since
He is Father, He cannot let such
offenses go unpunished.

we thought we could
Consequently, we
tame evil. For a long
ought to consider the
time we have lived
probability that it might
on brilliant fancies. If
not be by chance that
a glimmer shined on
while the previous presthe horizon, its appearident of Chile, Mrs.
ance was received with
enthusiasm. In all, evil
Bachelet, signed an act
continued and the ill
extending the use of the
became more and more
“morning after pill,” a
complicated. In the
terrible earthquake
end, all our delusions
shook the city of…Condisappeared, our hope
ception.
has been frustrated. If
Besides, how can it Fr. Christian Bouchacourt a final, firm conviction
remains in the midst of
be explained that the
the doubt or the pain
Dominican Republic,
that belong to the soul, it is that no
the country consecrated by the bishhuman power exists that can free
ops the year before to the Immacusociety from the countless evils that
late Heart of Mary, remained unhurt
oppress it. Therefore, what can we
by the earthquake that laid waste to
do?…There is no happy medium:
Haiti, the adjacent country, taking
either perish or return to God. Make
your choice!
300,000 persons to their tomb? The
official religion of Haiti is Voodoo.
With faith and trust let us raise
The disastrous effects of the earth- unto God’s presence our supplications,
quake stopped at the border between softened by our penance. Pray He will
both countries… Is that just chance? save and preserve our fatherland and
I don’t think so.
raise up a truly Catholic political and
We must pray in our priories and religious elite! May He provide them
our families that God will not allow with the courage to defend God’s rights
Argentina and other South Ameri- on earth and the desire to work for the
can countries to approve homosex- restoration of the reign of Christ the
ual marriage. We must also demon- King! It is the only reign that can lead
strate our rejection of such laws to us in the practice of virtue and give
our legislators exteriorly and pub- peace and prosperity to our agonizing
licly.
societies.
Finally, I will let Cardinal Pie,
who so greatly inspired St. Pius X,
Christian Bouchacourt is District Superior of
to conclude this editorial. His words, Fr.
South America. Reprinted from the March-April
once again, are very luminous:
2010 issue of Iesus Christus.
Our fathers asked God to depart
from them. God, in fact, did depart,
and to punish us, did nothing more
than leave us abandoned to our own
lot. Immediately, a thousand issues
that had been solved a long time ago
by the Gospel again turned up as
problems. The balance had been disturbed. Society was prey to a thousand
internal sufferings. New obstacles were
presented every day. For a long time

Lk. 13:3.
Is. 60:12.
3
Rerum Novarum, 18.
1
2

www.angeluspress.org THE ANGELUS • November 2010

The Liturgical Year in GREGORIAN CHANT

These recordings were produced under the direction of Fr. Bernard Lorber, SSPX. Technically excellent
recordings let you follow along at home to this great spiritual treasure. Excellent for choirs and individuals
learning to sing Gregorian Chant.

VOL. 1: Advent to Epiphany

Propers for the Sundays of Advent, the
three Masses of Christmas, the Octave
of Christmas, the Feast of the Holy Name
of Jesus and the Mass of Epiphany.
2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6610. $40.00

VOL. 2: Feast of the
Holy Family to
2nd Sunday of Lent

Propers for the Feast of the Holy
Family; 2nd and 3rd Sundays after
Epiphany; Septuagesima, Sexagesima,
and Quinquagesima Sundays; Ash
Wednesday, 1st and 2nd Sunday of Lent.
2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6611. $40.00

VOL. 3: 3rd Sunday
of Lent-Holy Week

Propers for the 3rd and 4th Sundays of
Lent, Passion Sunday, Palm Sunday, Holy
Thursday, and Good Friday. Also Hymns
and Propers for Palm Sunday.
2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6612. $40.00

VOL. 4: Easter Vigil
to the Ascension

Propers for Easter Vigil, Easter Sunday,

Easter Monday, Low Sunday, 2nd-5th
Sundays after Easter, the Rogation Mass,
Feast of the Ascension, and the Sunday
in the Octave of the Ascension.
2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6613. $40.00

VOL. 5: Pentecost-6th Sunday
after Pentecost

Propers for the Feasts of Pentecost,
Corpus Christi, and the Sacred Heart;
Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart and
Masses for the Sundays between
Pentecost and the Sixth Sunday after
Pentecost.

Sunday after Pentecost.

2 CDs with booklet.
TAP# 6616. $40.00

VOL. 8: The Kyriales
and Credos

18 Kyriales include Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus,
Agnus Dei, Ite Missa Est. Also includes
Vidi Aquam, Asperges, and 19 organ
pieces.
3 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6618. $50.00

VOL. 9: Sanctoral I
(Dec. 8-July 1)

Propers for the Seventh Sunday after
Pentecost to the Fourteenth Sunday
after Pentecost.

Includes propers for the major feasts
of the Sanctoral cycle from December
8th-July 1st. Including Immaculate
Conception, Purification of the BVM,
St. Joseph, Annunciation of the BVM,
St. Joseph the Worker, Sts. Peter and
Paul, and the Precious Blood.

VOL.7: 15th-Last Sunday
after Pentecost

VOL. 10: Sanctoral II
(Aug. 6-Nov. 1)

2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6614. $40.00

VOL. 6: 7th-14th Sunday
after Pentecost

2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6615. $40.00

Includes Propers for the Fifteenth Sunday
after Pentecost to the Twenty-Second
Sunday after Pentecost and the Last

THE LITURGICAL YEAR
IN GREGORIAN CHANT
Vols. 1-7
Special price on set of
14 CDs (7 Volumes),
STK# 6620. $265.00

2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6619. $40.00

Includes 10 Masses from August to
November: the Transfiguration, the
Assumption, the Immaculate Heart of

Mary, St. Pius X, the Exaltation of the Holy
Cross, the Seven Sorrows of Mary, St.
Michael the Archangel, the Holy Rosary,
Feast of Christ the King, and All Saints.
2 CDs with booklet. TAP# 6621. $40.00

VOL 11: Requiem
& Nuptial Mass

This recording includes the complete
liturgy of the dead. The musically related
Nuptial Mass is also induded on this CD.
CD with booklet. STK# 6622 $30.00

Square
Notes

Teaches the basics
of Gregorian chant.
Every fundamental of
chant is covered with
a short explanation
followed by written
exercises to be done in the workbook.
118pp. STK# 8001✱ $14.95

The Solesmes Collection
The Monastic Choir of St. Peter's Abbey, Solesmes, has long been acclaimed as “setting the
standard for Gregorian performance” (American Record Guide). This abbey in France was
responsible for the rebirth and preservation of Gregorian chant, and the recordings by these monks
convey the essence of this sacred music.

Gregorian Chant
Rediscovered

on the recording have a corresponding
page number next to the listing that
refers to the Liber Cantualis.

The musical highlights of the Gregorian
church year sung in 1930 under the
direction of Solesmes choir director Dom
Gajard have been digitally remastered.

1 compact disc, 61 minutes.
STK# 8479J $16.95

Gregorian Sampler

The great bell of Solesmes calls the
listener to the complete Office of
Sunday Vespers and Compline. Includes
antiphons, psalms, hymns and the
Angelus.

1 compact disc, 67 minutes.
STK# 8479H $16.95

The monks of Solesmes have selected
a sampling of the “best,” including
Antiphons for Lauds of Martyrs at
Eastertide, Kyrie IX and Gloria IX.

1 compact disc, 64 minutes.
STK# 8479K $16.95

Gregorian Melodies,
Vol. 1

Ideal for those familiar with chant, as a
collection of familiar melodies, as well
as for those wanting to become familiar
with Gregorian chant.

1 compact disc, 58 minutes.
STK# 8479I $16.95

Gregorian Melodies,
Vol. 2

Chants for the Liturgical Year from Advent
to Pentecost, chants devoted to Our
Lady and the Blessed Sacrament, and
the Mass of the Angels. All of the pieces

Vespers and Compline

STK# 8479U $16.95

Learning About
Gregorian Chant

The clear and concise presentation on
this recording will make it a valuable
resource for educators, musicologists,
students of music and those who wish
for a basic understanding of chant.

Christmas:
Midnight Mass
and Mass of the Day

Includes Introits, Graduals, Alleluias,
Offertories, Communions, Responses,
Sequences, Hymns, and Tropes.

1 disc, 41 minutes.
STK# 8479B $16.95

Christmas:
The Night Office: Vigils

In the beautiful chants of Vigils the monks
celebrate the birth of Jesus at the same
time of night he was born in Bethlehem.

1 disc and booklet, 57 minutes.
STK# 8479C $16.95

Maundy Thursday

The moving chants and prayers for the
night before Jesus’ Passion. Includes
Ubi caritas and Pange Lingua.

1 compact disc, 60 minutes.
STK# 8479M $16.95

1 compact disc, 64 minutes.
STK# 8479N $16.95

Christ in Gethsemane

Tenebrae of Good Friday

1 disc and booklet, 68 minutes.
STK# 8479A $16.95

1 compact disc, 67 minutes.
STK# 8479T $16.95

Maundy Thursday–the Office of Tenebræ
and the Ceremony of Foot-washing,
chanted in the dramatic style appropriate
to the night before the Savior’s Passion.

Includes all three nocturnes of the
office of Matins and the antiphons and
psalms of Lauds the Good Friday liturgy
of the hours.

He Was Placed
in the Tomb

The Great Offices for Holy Saturday–
Vigils, Lauds, and Vespers.

1 compact disc, 66 minutes.
STK# 8479L $16.95

Easter

Introits, Graduals, Alleluias, Sequences,
Offertories, Communions, and Hymns
from Easter Mass, and the Mass for the
First Sunday after Easter.

1 compact disc, 40 minutes.
STK# 8479D $16.95

Eastertide

Introits, Alleluias, Offertories,
Communions, and a Hymn from the
Masses of Eastertide, plus the seven
Antiphons of the Resurrection.

1 compact disc, 41 minutes.
STK# 8479E $16.95

Requiem Mass

Introit, Kyrie, Gradual, Tract, Offertory,
Sanctus, Agnus Dei, Communion, and
Alleluias from Mass for the Dead; and
Invitatory, Responses, and Antiphons.

1 compact disc, 49 minutes.
STK# 8479P $16.95

Traditional Rite
PRIESTLY ORDINATION

y
.
,
.

e
d
.

cs
t.
of
h
n
n
k.

–

,
s
e

Our stunning 2011 Liturgical Calendar features professional
photographs by Fr. John Young, FSSPX, taken during the 2010
ordination ceremony at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary in Winona,
Minnesota. Each month presents a different liturgical action from
the ceremony. Detailed descriptions of each step are included at
the front of the calendar.
The 12"x12" dimension gives you plenty of room for notes and
appointment reminders. All the feast days of the year according to
the 1962 Roman Missal are listed with class and liturgical color,
along with reminders of days of fast and abstinence.

12" x 12" Calendar, STK# CAL2011✱ $11.95

,
e
n

Calendar (with Chapel Directory)
STK# CAL2011A✱ $12.95

y,
d
d

Pocket-size US and International Chapel
Directory. AVAILABLE AT A SPECIAL
DISCOUNT WITH YOUR CALENDAR ORDER.
It replaces the US and Canada listing that
formerly appeared inside the calendar.

64pp. 4" x 6¼". STK# 8411✱ $1.95

Fr. Joseph Spillmann’s

Tales of Foreign Lands

Catholic Stories of Adventure in the Mission Lands

Volume
now 3
availabl
e
Fr. Joseph Spillmann was born
in 1842 at Zug, Switzerland.
He joined the Jesuits and
in 1874 was ordained to the
priesthood. His Tales of Foreign Lands series contains 21
booklets, consisting of edifying and tastefully illustrated
stories for the young. They
have been translated into many
languages. Newly reprinted by
Angelus Press.

Three Indian Tales “Namameha and Watomilka”; “Tahko, the Young Indian
Missionary”; “Father René’s Last Journey”

The Yang Brothers The four sons of the old fisherman Yang find themselves
on opposite sides when the eldest joins with the “Large Knife” Society to drive
out the Christians and other foreigners active in late 19th-century China and
the next son, after a decade in a missionary school, aspires to the priesthood.
The uprising begins and the Christians around Lake Talo must mount a defense
against the warring Boxers under the leadership of the Yang Brothers.
The Queen’s Nephew In 1551, the powerful prince Siwan invited St. Francis
Xavier to come to his capital city. A celebrated religious conference took place
in which the Apostle of Japan brilliantly defended the doctrine of Christ against
the attacks of the bonzes. A quarter of a century later, an event occurs that
leads to a powerful struggle at Siwan’s court between the king and his queen,
and the quest of the young noble Sikatora, to know and embrace the truth.
Children of Mary Toward the end of the 1800’s, the Abkasians, a people

dwelling in the Caucasus Mountains, had been struggling to maintain their
liberty against Russian supremacy. The clan of Urban-ok still clings to some
vestiges of Christianity acquired from missionaries long ago and venerates
Mary, the Mother of God. But now Providence, in the person of a young Polish
soldier on the run from the Russians, gives the children Mara and Marjub a
way back to the faith and to a better life.

336pp. Color Softcover. STK# 8478✱ $14.95

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.

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.