“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

The Papacy and
Sedevacantism
On the Church and the Pope
A False Dilemma
The Crisis of Collegiality

July - August 2017

Can a pope fall into heresy? At first glance it would seem that this
is an improbable thesis. In fact, the negative answer to this question
is the common opinion of theologians of the modern era. They
say, in effect, that the pope could not become a formal, obstinate
heretic, in other words a deliberate, culpable heretic, although he
could become a material heretic, through non-culpable ignorance
or because of a simple error and not by reason of ill will. The main
advocates of this thesis are the Dutch theologian Albert Pighi (14901542) (author of the treatise Hierarchiae ecclesiasticae assertio),
St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) (De Romano Pontifice, Book 4,
chapters 6-14), and Francisco Suarez (1548-1617) (De fide, disputatio
10, sectio 6, §11, Opera omnia, 2:319). Just before Vatican Council I,
this opinion was held also by the French canonist Marie-Dominique
Bouix (1808-1870).
During Vatican Council I, Bishop Zinelli, speaking in the name of
the Deputation of the Faith, praises this opinion of Bellarmine and
Suarez: according to him it is probable that the pope will never be a
formal heretic:
Since these things have been entrusted to supernatural Providence,
we think it sufficiently probable that they will never come about”
(Mansi, vol. 52, col. 1109).

Letter
from the
Publisher
Dear readers,
Why choose to address the question of the papacy in a Catholic magazine? Aren’t all readers
sharing the same faith? Do they not all believe in Christ’s divinity and in his Church? Do they not
accept the authority of the Pope?
This issue, therefore, aims firstly at extolling the supernatural privileges granted to the pilot
who steers the helm of St. Peter’s boat. The Holy Father, for all his personal shortcomings, is
Christ’s representative on earth and must be venerated as such. He holds the Fisherman’s ring,
with power to open and close Heaven’s gates. In his truly magisterial statements, his sharp
word divides between the marrow and the sinew; he defines truth and condemns fallacy. To the
Church—arguably to the papacy itself—Christ bestowed the promises of indefectibility, that is
to say, that the Church would last till the end time.
On the other hand, along with this faith in Christ’s constitution of His Church, each Catholic is
duty bound to have a lucid and critical mind in the face of the present ecclesiastical landscape.
I am speaking of a multifaceted crisis, shaking firstly doctrine, then the morals, and finally, the
trust in those very people and institutions which we deem to be the paragon of truth, morality,
and stability.
Pope Benedict XVI, a few years ago, alluded to the crisis and compared it to the Arian crisis,
so as to conclude that, as Arianism came and went away, so will it be with the present wobble.
What, perhaps, the Pope Emeritus forgot to mention is that present day doctrinal and moral
apathy is not only peripheral. It has reached the inner veins and vital organs of Church governance. Worse even, the disease seems to be emanating from the heart itself. A band aid will not
do when gangrene has set in so deeply. To recover from such fate, what we need is the famed
reform in capite et in membris, from head to foot, and in this specific order.
As always in Church history but more now than ever, the solution to the crisis rests in Peter’s
hands. Pope Francis, not unlike old St. Peter, seems to be in chains, and the Church’s duty is
to ardently pray for his liberation. What the Church enemies are aiming at is the head. What
they dream of is a pope who sits on the throne but who de facto abdicates his power and leaves
things unruly. Shakespeare, speaking of order in general, offers an arresting insight into what
could then ensue: “Take but degree away, untune that string, And hark, what discord follows!
Each thing meets in mere oppugnancy.”
Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Publisher

July - August 2017
Volume XL, Number 4
Publisher
Fr. Jürgen Wegner
Editor-in-Chief
Mr. James Vogel
Managing Editor
Fr. Dominique Bourmaud
Copy Editor
Mrs. Suzanne Hazan
Design and Layout
credo.creatie
(Eindhoven, The Netherlands)
Mr. Simon Townshend
Director of Operations
Mr. Brent Klaske

		
U.S.
Foreign Countries

Subscription Rates
1 year 2 years
3 years
$45.00 $85.00 $120.00
$65.00 $125.00 $180.00

(inc. Canada and Mexico)

All payments must be in U.S. funds only.
Online subscriptions: $20.00/year. To subscribe visit:
www.angelusonline.org. Register for free to access
back issues 14 months and older. All subscribers to the print
version of the magazine have full access to the online version.

Contents
Letter from the Publisher

4

Theme: The Papacy and Sedevacantism
––On the Church and the Pope
––A False Dilemma
––The Crisis of Collegiality
––15 Answers from the Pope

6
10
13
18

Faith and Morals
––Archbishop Lefebvre and the Bishops
––The Assumption
––Pastor Aeternus

21
26
32

Spirituality
––A Dominican in Time of Crisis
––Faith in the Benedictine Abbot
––Dispute around a Dunghill
––Religious Ignorance

36
42
45
50

“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

The Angelus (ISSN 10735003) is published bi-monthly
under the patronage of St. Pius X and Mary,
Queen of Angels. Publication office is located at
PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536.
PH (816) 753-3150; FAX (816) 753-3557.
Periodicals Postage Rates paid at Kansas City, MO.
Manuscripts and letters to the editor are welcome
and will be used at the discretion of the editors.
The authors of the articles presented here are solely
responsible for their judgments and opinions.
Postmaster sends address changes to the address above.
©2017 BY ANGELUS PRESS. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE
PRIESTLY SOCIETY OF SAINT PIUS X FOR THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA

Christian Culture
––Music and the Papacy
––Harmony Between Parents
––Questions and Answers

56
60
64

News from Tradition
––Church and World
––The Question of Papal Heresy
––The Last Word

68
72
87

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism

On the
Church and
the Pope
by Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P.

Even more now than in times of peace, it has
become useful and salutary for us in the Faith
to meditate upon the trials of the Church. We
might be tempted to limit these trials to the
persecutions and attacks that come from the
outside. And yet the enemies on the inside are far
more to be dreaded: they know the vulnerable
spots better, they can wound or poison when
we least expect it, and the scandal they cause is
far more difficult to overcome. Thus in a parish,
no anti-religious school teacher, regardless of
what he does, will ever manage to harm the
faithful as profoundly as will a self-indulgent and
modernist priest. In the same way, a simple priest
who defrocks, although it strikes everyone as
more serious than the negligence or treason of a
bishop, still produces less harm than that caused
by the bishop.
6

The Angelus

July - August 2017

In any case, it is certain that if a bishop betrays
the Catholic Faith, even without defrocking,
he imposes upon the Church a far more
overwhelming trial than a simple priest who lives
with a woman and stops saying Mass.—Then
we must ask: what type of trial can the Church
of Jesus Christ suffer at the hands of the pope
himself, the Vicar of Jesus Christ in person? The
question itself is enough to make many cover
their faces and all but shout “blasphemy.” The
thought puts them to torture. They refuse to
look a trial this grave in the face. I understand
how they feel. I am not unaware that a sort of
vertigo can possess a soul at the sight of certain
iniquities. Sinite usque huc (Lk. 22:51), said Jesus
to the three apostles during his Agony, as the
soldiers of the high priest approached to arrest
him, to drag before the tribunals and to His

death.— He said it, the One who is the Sovereign
and Eternal Priest. Sinite usque huc: it is as if
the Lord were saying that the scandal can go even
that far, but let it, and do as I say: “Watch and
pray, for the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”
Sinite usque huc: Through my consent to drink
the chalice I merited all graces for you, while you
fell asleep and left me all alone; I obtained for you
especially a grace of supernatural strength that
is equal to any trial; equal even to the trial that
the Holy Church can undergo at the hands of the
pope. I have made you capable of escaping even
that vertigo.

properly religious domain, and we might even
say in the ecclesial domain of Faith and morals.
In fact, the history of the Church tells us that the
Church has indeed known this sort of trial at the
hands of the pope, although it was rare and has
never been a prolonged acute state. The opposite
would be surprising, when we see how few
popes have been canonized since St. Gregory

An Extraordinary Trial
On this extraordinary trial regarding its
popes, we have what the history of the Church
tells us and what Revelation on the Church
does not tell us. For nowhere does Revelation
on the Church say that the popes will never sin
out of negligence, cowardice, or worldliness in
guarding and defending Apostolic Tradition. We
know that they will never sin by directly making
men believe another religion: that is the sin from
which they are preserved by the nature of their
charge. And when they invoke their authority in
matters where it is infallible, it is Christ Himself
who speaks to us and instructs us: such is the
privilege they receive the moment they become
the successors of Peter. But while Revelation
informs us of these prerogatives of the papacy,
nowhere does it state that when he exercises
his authority beneath the level on which he is
infallible, a pope cannot end up playing into
Satan’s game and favoring heresy to a certain
extent. In the same way, it is not written in Holy
Scripture that, although he cannot formally
teach another religion, a pope can never end up
allowing the indispensable conditions for the
defense of the true religion to be sabotaged. This
sort of defection is actually considerably favored
by modernism.
So Revelation regarding the pope in no way
guarantees that the Vicar of Christ will never
inflict upon the Church the trial of certain grave
scandals: I mean scandals that are grave not only
in the domain of private morality but even in the

The Western Schism (1378–1418) divided Roman Catholicism
between two, then eventually three, claimants to the papacy.
Antipope Clement VII lived at Avignon in France, and Pope
Urban VI in Rome. Saint Vincent was convinced that the
election of Urban was invalid, although Saint Catherine of
Siena was just as devoted a supporter of the Roman pope.
In the service of Cardinal Pedro de Luna, Saint Vincent
worked to persuade Spaniards to follow Clement. When
Clement died in 1394, Cardinal de Luna was elected as
the second antipope successor to the Avignon papacy
and took the name Benedict XIII.
Saint Vincent was loyal to Benedict XIII, commonly known as
“Papa Luna” in Castile and Aragon. He worked for Benedict
XIII as apostolic penitentiary and Master of the Sacred
Palace. Nonetheless Vincent labored to have Benedict
XIII end the schism. When Benedict XIII did not resign as
intended at either the Council of Pisa (1409) or the Council of
Constance (1414–1418), he lost the support of the French king
and of most of his cardinals, and was excommunicated as a
schismatic in 1417. Saint Vincent encouraged King Ferdinand
I of Aragon to withdraw his support from Benedict XIII.

7

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism
VII, how few Vicars of Christ are invoked and
venerated as friends of God, as saints of God.
And the most surprising of all is that popes
who suffered very cruel torments, for example
Pius VI or Pius VII, have been invoked as saints
neither by the Vox Ecclesiae nor by the Vox
populi. If these pontiffs, who had to suffer so
much as popes, did not bear their sufferings with
a high enough degree of love to be canonized
saints, how can we be surprised that other
popes, who see their charge with a worldly eye,
could commit grave faults or inflict upon the
Church of Christ a particularly formidable and
harrowing trial? When reduced to the extremity
of having such popes, the faithful, the priests,
and the bishops who wish to live the life of the
Church employ two measures: one, they take
great care to pray for the Supreme Pontiff, who
is a subject of affliction for the Church; and
two, they attach themselves more than ever to
Apostolic Tradition: the tradition on the dogmas,
the missal, and the ritual; the tradition on interior
progress and on every man’s calling to a perfect
love in Christ.

The Mission of St. Vincent
This is where the mission of that Brother
Preacher emerges, he who is, without a doubt,
of all the saints, the one who worked the
most directly for the papacy; this is where the
mission of St. Dominic’s son, Vincent Ferrier,
is particularly enlightening. He is an angel of
judgment, a legate “a latere Christi,” he who had
a pope deposed after showing infinite patience
towards him. Vincent Ferrier is also, and by
the same motion, an intrepid missionary, full of
benignity, a fountain of prodigies and miracles,
who preached the Gospel to the immense crowd
of the Christian people. He bore in his apostolic
heart not only the supreme pontiff, who was so
enigmatic, so obstinate, so hard, but also the
entire flock of Christ; these were the multitude
of little people who were so disconcerted, the
turba magna ex omnibus tribubus et populis et
linguis.
Vincent understood that truly serving the
Church was the least of the Vicar of Christ’s
8

The Angelus

July - August 2017

worries, but that he was above all satisfying his
obscure desire for power. But if, at least among
the faithful, a sense of life in the Church, of living
in conformity with the dogmas and sacraments
received from Apostolic Tradition could be
revived, and if a pure and vehement breath of
conversion and prayer were to sweep over this
languishing and desolate Christendom, then
doubtless would come at last a truly humble Vicar
of Christ, with a Christian consciousness of his
eminent charge. This pontiff would strive to fulfill
his charge to the best of his ability in the spirit
of the Sovereign Priest. If the Christian people
were to return to a life in keeping with Apostolic
Tradition, then it would become impossible for
the Vicar of Jesus Christ, in his maintaining and
defending Tradition, to fall into too deep of a
fault, or to give in to a certain complicity with
lies. It would become necessary for a good pope
and even a saintly pope to succeed the bad or
mistaken pope without further delay.
But in days of great sorrow, when a trial comes
to the Church from her pope, too many faithful,
priests, and bishops wish that things might fix
themselves without their having to do much.
At most, they accept to murmur a few prayers.
They even balk at the daily rosary: five decades
every day to Our Lady in honor of her hidden
life, of the Passion, and of the glory of Jesus. For
their part, they hardly feel like deepening their
fidelity to Apostolic Tradition: dogmas, missal,
ritual, and interior life (progress of the interior
life is obviously a part of Apostolic Tradition).
After consenting to be lukewarm in their own
place, they nonetheless are scandalized that the
pope, in his place, is also not very fervent when
it comes to keeping Apostolic Tradition for the
entire Church, that is to say, faithfully fulfilling
the unique mission entrusted to him.
The more we need a holy pope, the more we
must start by placing our lives, with the grace
of God and in keeping with Tradition, in the
footsteps of the saints. Then the Lord Jesus will
finally grant the flock the visible shepherd they
have striven to become worthy of.
Let us not add our own personal negligence
to the insufficiency or deficiency of the head.
Let Apostolic Tradition be alive at least in the
heart of the faithful even if, for the moment, it

is languishing in the heart and in the decisions
of the one responsible for it in the Church. Then
surely the Lord will have mercy on us.

Hold to our Interior Life
To enkindle that life of Tradition, our interior
life must have Jesus Christ and not the pope for
its reference. Our interior life, which obviously
includes the truths of Revelation concerning the
pope, must have only the Sovereign Priest, our
God and Savior Jesus Christ, as its reference in
order to rise above the scandals that come to the
Church from the pope.
That is the immortal lesson from St. Vincent
Ferrier in his times regarding one of the Roman
Pontiff’s major failures. For us, now steeped
in modernism, our trials are even greater. Our
recourse, then, is pressing even more heavily
upon us: to live the Apostolic Tradition purely in
its every detail—even the capital matter which
hardly anyone has spoken of since the death of
the Dominican Father Garrigou-Lagrange: the
effective tendency to the perfection of love. And
yet, in the moral doctrine revealed by the Lord
and transmitted by the apostles, it is said that
we must strive for perfect love, since the law
of growth in Christ is proper to the grace and
charity that unites us to Christ.
But the dogma on the Roman pontiff, the
universal vicar of Christ who is yet not safe from
even grave faults dangerous for his subjects, is
really only one aspect of the most fundamental
mystery of the Church. We know that two great
propositions introduce us to this mystery: Firstly,
the Church, recruited among sinners (which we
all are) is nonetheless the infallible dispenser of
light and grace, for her Head and Savior infallibly
animates her, sustains her, and governs her from
on high. And secondly, the Church, the Holy
Spouse of the Lord Jesus, must partake in the
cross, even the cross of betrayal by her own. This
betrayal does not keep her from being assisted
strongly enough in her hierarchical structure,
starting with the pope, and from being inflamed
enough with charity; she ever remains pure and
holy enough to be able to participate in the trials
of her Spouse, including the betrayal of certain

members of the hierarchy, while preserving intact
her interior mastery and supernatural strength.
The Church will never give in to vertigo.
If in our interior life we possess the Christian
truth on the pope, and it is situated as it should
be within the Christian truth on the Church, then
we will rise luminously above the scandal of lies
that can come to the Church from the Vicar of
Christ or the successors of the apostles. In this,
at least in regard to the bishops, St. Joan of Arc
presents an incomparable model. In our turn, and
in our meager measure, we shall try to be faithful
to what was one of St. Joan’s particular graces.
Today when we think of the pope, of the
modernism pervading the Church, of Apostolic
Tradition and of perseverance in this Tradition,
we are reduced to being able to consider
these questions only in prayer, in a constant
supplication for the entire Church and for the
one who, in our days, holds in his hands the keys
to the kingdom of Heaven. He holds them in
his hands, but he does not use them. He leaves
the doors of the stable open to the brigands’
approach. He does not close those protecting
doors which his predecessors invariably kept
closed under unbreakable lock and indestructible
key. Sometimes even, and this is the ambiguity
of post-conciliar ecumenism, he pretends to
open what will always be kept shut. At this point
we are reduced to thinking of the Church only
in prayer—for her and for the pope. This is a
blessing. But thinking of the Church, thinking
of the Spouse of Christ in these conditions of
great piety in no way diminishes our resolve
to see clearly. May this indispensable lucidity,
this lucidity without which all strength would
unwind, be penetrated with so much humility and
gentleness that we force the Sovereign Priest to
hasten to our assistance. Deus in adjutorium
meum intende, Domine ad adjuvandum me
festina. May it please Him to charge His most
holy Mother, Mary Immaculate, with bringing us
the efficient remedy most speedily.
Editor’s Note: Translated from the Brève Apologie pour
l’Église de toujours pp.112-118 (Éditions Difralivre 1987).

9

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism

Magisterium or Living Tradition?

A False
Dilemma
by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX

Editor’s Note: During a conference entitled
“Magisterium or Living Tradition” given on
January 25, 2012, in Sion, Switzerland, Fr. JeanMichel Gleize, Professor of Ecclesiology at the
Ecône seminary, made several clarifications
with respect to his study, “A Crucial Question”
that appeared in the December 2011 issue of
the Courrier de Rome, which together with the
response by Bishop Bernard Fellay addressed the
Doctrinal Preamble (see DICI, no. 247, 12-23-2011,
and DICI, no. 248, 1-13-2012). Below are the most
significant excerpts from this conference.

A False Dilemma
Their objection to our position, in short, is that
the only living magisterium worthy of the name
10

The Angelus

July - August 2017

is today’s magisterium, not yesterday’s. Only the
magisterium of today can tell what conforms to
Tradition and what is contrary to it, for it alone
represents the living magisterium, the interpreter
of Tradition. And therefore we must choose one
of two things: Either we reject Vatican II, judging
that it is contrary to Tradition, but at the same
time contradicting the only possible magisterium,
the living magisterium, which is today’s [the
magisterium of Benedict XVI], and we are not
Catholics but Protestants. Or else we decide not
to be Protestants and we are obliged to accept
Vatican II so as to obey the living magisterium,
which is today’s, declaring that the Council is in
conformity with Tradition. This is a dilemma—in
other words, a problem with no apparent solution
besides the two that are indicated: if we try to
avoid one of the two horns, we will not avoid the

other. But in reality this dilemma is false. For
there are such things as false dilemmas.
The two alternatives are avoidable, both at
once, for there is a third solution: It is possible
to reject Vatican II without being Protestant and
while obeying the magisterium; it is possible not
to be Protestant and to obey the magisterium
without accepting Vatican II…. The dilemma
is false because an indispensable distinction
is omitted. If we make the distinction, we find
the way out of the dilemma, because we show
that there is a third alternative. Our response
therefore consists in making that distinction.

Living Magisterium Clarified
The expression “the living magisterium” does
not mean “as opposed to the past magisterium”;
it means “as opposed to the posthumous
magisterium.” This living magisterium is the
magisterium of the present, but also that
of the past. The objection to our position
consists of combining ‘living magisterium’
and ‘present magisterium’ and of setting this
‘living magisterium’ in opposition to the past
magisterium. This combination occurs because
they situate themselves exclusively within the
subject’s point of view. They no longer distinguish
between two points of view: that of the office
or function (in which the living magisterium
is at the same time present and past) and the
point of view of the subject (in which the living
magisterium is present only). The two points of
view are confused and thus they reduce the living
magisterium to the present magisterium.
The sophistical argument used against us
consists of confusing the two meanings of the
adjective “living” when it is attributed to the
magisterium. We say that the living magisterium
includes all of the past and present magisterium,
and thus we take the right point of view, which
is the perspective of a constant function that is
always in force, a function whose act is defined
by its object. Those who object take the point
of view of the subject and claim that the living
magisterium coincides exclusively with the
magisterium of an individual who is presently
alive.

The Source of the Confusion
Why this confusion? Why reduce the living
magisterium to the magisterium of the present?
Because since Vatican II they have been trying
to invent a new magisterium. The magisterium
is redefined, because its task [now] is to express
the continuity of a subject and no longer the
continuity of an object. The continuity of a
subject, Benedict XVI tells us in his 2005 Address
to the Roman Curia, “which increases in time
and develops, yet always remaining the same,
the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
For Rome, the living magisterium is precisely
the magisterium of Benedict XVI, as opposed to
the magisterium of St. Pius X or of Pius XII. And
this magisterium is current [actuel] because it is
subjective, because it expresses the continuity
of a subject. This is one of the presuppositions of
the living Tradition in the 2005 Address.
The magisterium is no longer defined in terms
of the eternal, timeless truth of revelation (which
remains the same, whether it is past, present, or
future). This new magisterium redefines itself in
terms of the present authority [Benedict XVI],
who is himself the spokesman of another more
fundamental subject which is the one People
of God journeying through time. The living
magisterium is always the magisterium of this
present time, because it is situated in reference
to the People of God as it lives in this present
time. The role of the magisterium is to assure the
continuity of an experience, it is the instrument
of the Spirit who nurtures communion “assuring
the connection between the experience of the
apostolic faith, lived in the original community
of the disciples, and the actual [i.e., current]
experience of Christ in his Church” (Benedict
XVI, “Communion in time: Tradition,” Address to
the General Audience, April 26, 2006).
(Sources: FSSPX/Ecône—DICI, no. 249, 2-3-2012)

11

14 CDs—STK# 8558 —$39.95

2012 Conference Audio

The Papacy

Available as CD set or
digital download
from angeluspress.org

ANGELUS PRESS is proud to offer our 3rd Annual Conference for Catholic Tradition on the PAPACY. These 14 insightful talks examine the foundations of the papacy, considering it from its historical, doctrinal and cultural perspectives.
Put simply, if you want a better understanding of the Church’s teaching about the Petrine Office, then this conference is
perfect for you.
For the low price of only $39.95 you will receive all of the following talks:
– The Church: Heir of the Roman Empire (Dr. John Rao)
– Scriptural Foundations of the Papacy (Fr. Daniel

–T
 he Society of St. Pius X and the Spirit of Pope St. Pius X
(Bishop Bernard Fellay)

Themann)

– The Pontificate of Pope Pius XII (Mr. Andrew Clarendon)

– St. Catherine of Siena (Mr. Christopher Check)

– The Question of Collegiality (Fr. Albert, O.P.)

– The Great Western Schism & the Lesson for Today

– I s Sedevacantism an Option? A Debate (Frs. Themann

(Fr. Iscara)
– The History of Papal Infallibility (Mr. Joshua Hayes)

and Rutledge)
– Conclusion (Fr. Arnaud Rostand)

– St. Pius X: History and Biography (Dr. John Rao)

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire
books to
and
music.
Pleaseselection
visit our of
website
see
our entire selection of books and music.

The Crisis of
Collegiality
by Gabriel S. Sanchez

Following the promulgation of the exhortation
Amoris Laetitia in 2016, a great deal of
critical attention has been paid to how that
document, and Pope Francis himself, works
to destabilize the Catholic Church’s teaching
on the sacraments, particularly marriage and
the Eucharist. Overshadowed by the fallout
over this document has been another papal
prerogative, namely the expansion of synodality
into the governance of the Church. In a 2015
speech given on the anniversary of Pope Paul
VI’s motu proprio Apostolica Sollicitudo,
which established the Synod of Bishops for the
Universal Church, Francis stated the following:
“A synodal Church is a Church which listens,
which realizes that listening ‘is more than
simply hearing.’ It is a mutual listening in which
everyone has something to learn. The faithful

people, the college of bishops, the Bishop of
Rome: all listening to each other, and all listening
to the Holy Spirit, the ‘Spirit of truth’ (Jn 14:17),
in order to know what he ‘says to the Churches’
(Rev 2:7)…. Synodality, as a constitutive element
of the Church, offers us the most appropriate
interpretive framework for understanding the
hierarchical ministry itself.”
For in Pope Francis’s mind, the “path of
synodality [is what] God expects of the Church
of the third millennium.” The problem with these
words, as with many of the current pontiff’s
statements, is that they lack precision, leading
many to speculate what revolutionary changes
he may be seeking to introduce. For liberals, the
pope’s praise for synodality dovetails with their
desire to see the Church further democratized
and decentralized in order to “meet the
13

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism

14

needs” of particular countries or regions. Those
Catholics with a more traditional orientation
worry that Francis’s zeal for synodality is an
outgrowth of the teachings of the Second Vatican
Council on collegiality (more on that below),
with the pope’s standing and authority over the
Church being diminished.

problems that a synodal model may pose for the
Catholic Church at this time while also criticizing
the ecumenical ambitions behind the push for
synodality. It should be noted, however, that
synodality has been the historical governance
model for the Eastern churches, including those
in communion with Rome. But just because that

Given the complex historical, doctrinal, and
theological issues surrounding both collegiality
and synodality, this brief article cannot hope
to cover them all. Instead, after offering a brief
synopsis of both concepts as they emerged from
Vatican II, this article sheds light on some of the

is so does not mean that synodality doesn’t raise
serious problems for the life of the Universal
Church, especially given the dominance of
liberalism and neo-Modernism within the Roman
hierarchy.

The Angelus

July - August 2017

The Advent of Collegiality
Before the 1950s, the term collegiality was
all but absent from the Catholic Church. At the
time of Vatican II, the monarchical constitution
of the Church was widely accepted with the
pope, as the Vicar of Christ, as its head. This
monarchical constitution was also seen in the
role of every bishop over his respective diocese.
In the discussions at Vatican II, however, this
monarchical constitution was challenged, with
the idea that the college of bishops (of which the
pope is a member) exercise full authority over
the Church. Some hoped that the introduction of
collegiality would upend the standing doctrine
of papal primacy, allowing for a deepening of
ecumenical ties with the Eastern Orthodox and
certain Protestant sects which had long objected
to the pope’s universal jurisdiction over the
Church.
With the promulgation of Lumen Gentium
at the Council in 1964, collegiality was
officially introduced, albeit with some crucial
clarifications. Following the attachment of a Nota
Praevia to the document by Paul VI, collegiality
“is not taken in the strictly juridical sense, that
is as a group of equals who transfer their powers
to their chairman, but as a permanent body
whose form and authority is to be ascertained
from revelation.” Although the college of bishops,
according to Lumen Gentium, is “the bearer
of full and supreme power over the Universal
Church,” the Nota clarifies that this is the case
only where the college acts with the pope as its
lawful head. While the monarchical constitution
of the Church was distorted by Lumen Gentium,
it was not abolished, for the document did not
give the college express authority over the pope.
The following year, when establishing the
Synod of Bishops, Paul VI made it clear that “the
Synod of Bishops has, of its very nature, the
function of providing information and offering
advice. It can also enjoy the power of making
decisions when such power is conferred upon
it by the Roman Pontiff; in this case, it belongs
to him to ratify the decisions of the Synod.”
Again, despite the wishes of certain liberals and
ecumenists to see the pope’s powers diminished,
that has not exactly been the outcome. Synods,

at least in the Roman Church up to this point,
serve a consultative role; they do not legislate
independent of the pope.
This conception of synodality, it should
be noted, is distinct from the type practiced
among the Eastern churches, both Catholic and
Orthodox. Although there is no “one size fits all”
model of synodality in the East, those synods
typically exercise legislative authority over their
respective churches, sometimes with a lead
bishop or patriarch at the helm. What is distinct
about these synods, though, is that their lead
primate cannot withhold the synod’s regular
authority. In other words, unlike the pope, an
Eastern patriarch cannot reduce a synod to
being merely a consultative body even if, as
patriarch, he exercises considerable influence
over the direction of the synod and the life of his
respective local church.

The Problems of Synodality
If both Lumen Gentium and the legislation
introduced by Paul VI still recognize the authority
of the pope over the bishops, then what is at
issue? It’s not as if the College of Bishops can
legislate a new Code of Canon Law on their
own or begin electing new bishops without the
consent of the pope.
While that is true now, it doesn’t have to be
that way. Pope Francis, for instance, is free to
modify the legislation of the Synod of Bishops
by granting them more direct power over the
Church. More troubling is Francis’s idea of a
“listening Church,” one where the voices of the
people (not just the bishops) are heard, perhaps
for the purpose of introducing changes and
novelties into the Church herself. The rightful
worry here is that the Church’s divine mandate
is clouded over, that she is no longer seen as
“the pillar and ground of Truth” (1 Tim. 3:16),
but rather a religious governing body that should
shape and mold Christianity in accordance
with “the times.” If certain moral teachings are
perceived as too difficult to follow or out-of-step
with the tenets of secular liberalism, should the
“listening Church” hear the people and change?
As for the consultative role of the Synod of
15

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism
Bishops itself, there are also present dangers
which cannot be ignored. Given the liberal
bent of many of the bishops, their message to
the pope will also be reformist in nature. For
proof, one needn’t look any further than the
recently concluded Extraordinary Synod on the
Family where, in the process of “discussing”
and “consulting,” liberal bishops seeking to
undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage,
sexuality, and the sacraments promulgated draft
documents and made media statements implying
that great changes were on the horizon. Instead
of the Synod coming together with the intention
of reaffirming what the Church has always taught
while addressing the degrading effects secular
liberalism has had on humanity, they opted
instead to bandy about ideas that would have
been condemned in any earlier age of the Church.
It should be clear at this sorrowful juncture
in history that a synod needn’t have express
legislative powers in order to engage in doctrinal
mischief. Simply by injecting confusion into
the Church through open discussions and draft
documents creates de facto changes in how
Catholics live their lives. Add to that the fact
these discussions lend language and credibility
to bewildering papal documents such as Amoris
Laetitia—and what remains is not a Church held
together by synodality, but torn apart within by it.

The Ecumenical Dimension
In concluding, a few words are in order on
the ecumenical dimension of collegiality and
synodality. For more than 50 years the idea
has existed that if the Roman Church were
to reorganize itself along synodal lines with
actual reductions to the pope’s authority, then it
would be easier to bring the schismatic Eastern
Orthodox back into the Catholic fold. These
claims are often bolstered by romanticized
notions of how synodality actually works in
the Christian East, with nary a mention of the
reality that the synodal model, by itself, has not
helped the Orthodox maintain clear doctrinal and
moral teachings, particularly on matters such as
marriage and contraception. While local Eastern

16

The Angelus

July - August 2017

synods can, in limited circumstances, address
internal questions such as modifying local
liturgical calendars, elevating patriarchs and
metropolitans, and other practical matters, the
Orthodox Church as a whole is fractured along
jurisdictional lines. Indeed, it is not uncommon
for one or more Orthodox Patriarchates to
break communion with one another, typically
over jurisdictional matters. More recently, the
Orthodox Church’s “Holy and Great Council” held
in Crete, which was supposed to bring together
all of the local Orthodox churches, fell apart
before it even began, with representatives from
a majority of Orthodox jurisdictions refusing to
attend.
Given the longstanding historical, cultural, and
doctrinal differences that are yet to be resolved
between Catholics and Orthodox, it is highly
doubtful that a “more synodal” Roman Church
will bring the Orthodox much closer to restoring
communion with Catholicism. Indeed, the
presence of synodality was never a precondition
for the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Greco-Catholic
churches to rejoin Rome in the 16th/17th
centuries, nor for the Melkites to also enter
communion in the 18th century. Moreover, there
are Orthodox churchmen, such as Fr. Patrick
Reardon, who have stated that reducing papal
authority and going to a synodal model would
be a disaster for the Roman Church precisely
because there are so many liberal bishops who
would use a full synodal model to take apart the
moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
While it is never possible to be sure what
Pope Francis truly envisions when he delivers
a speech, pens a papal document, or gives a
perplexing airline interview, let us pray that the
“listening Church” which his particular model of
synodality contemplates doesn’t become a reality.
Gabriel S. Sanchez is an attorney and Assistant Editor of
Angelus Press who resides with his family in Grand Rapids, MI.

352 pp.—Softcover—24 pp. of illustrations—STK# 6768✱—$21.95

Saint Pius X
Restorer of the Church
Yves Chiron
Read the definitive story of the poor boy who eventually ascended to the highest throne
in this world, Pope St. Pius X. This biography details the struggles of St. Pius X against
modernism, his reformation of the Church from Canon Law to Gregorian Chant, and
overall, his great program to restore all things in Christ. A must read for anyone interested in the modern history of the Catholic Church.

327 pp.—Softcover—Illustrations and photos—STK# 8126✱—$21.95

Pope Pius IX
The Man and the Myth
Yves Chiron
Blessed Pius IX was one of the most interesting and complex individuals ever to become
Supreme Pontiff. His pontificate included the proclamation of the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility, the convocation of the First Vatican Council, the
publication of the Syllabus of Errors, the beginnings of Catholic Action, and the development of the foreign missions.

SET:

Saint Pius X,
Blessed Pius IX
STK# 6769✱ $39.95

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism

Fifteen Questions from Men,

15 Answers
from the
Pope
by Fr. Phillipe Toulza, SSPX

Christ said to Pope Francis, as to St. Peter:
“Confirm thy brethren” in the Faith. And yet,
so many unsettling acts and declarations!
Here is an overview of some of the scandals of
these first three years of his pontificate, and in
conclusion, an invitation to humble prayer.
Does the Sovereign Pontiff have a right to
judge?
On July 28, 2013, speaking of the Church’s
attitude towards morals that go against nature,
the pope threw out there: “If a person is gay and
seeks out the Lord and is willing, who am I to
judge that person?”

What Path for the Jews?
On November 24, 2013, in his encyclical
18

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis wrote:
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard
because their covenant with God has never been
revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of God are
irrevocable.’ The Church, which shares with Jews
an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks
upon the people of the covenant and their faith
as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian
identity. As Christians, we cannot consider
Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include
the Jews among those called to turn from idols
and to serve the true God[.]”

Did the Blessed Virgin Ever Feel Like
Sinning?
On December 20, 2013, Pope Francis described
the scene of Mary’s presence at the foot of the

Cross in the following terms: “She was silent, but
within her heart how many things she said to the
Lord: ‘On that day you told me he would be great!
You told me he would be given the throne of
David his father and that he would reign forever!
And now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human!
And perhaps she had the urge to say: ‘Lies! I was
deceived!’”

Does the Koran Do Good?
On January 20, 2014, the pope declared to
an audience partially composed of Muslims:
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross,
to expel the illness within our hearts, which
embitters our life: it is important that you do this
in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with
the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the
Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you
will always help you move on.”

What to Think of Traditional Catholicism?
On February 14, 2014, Francis gave his opinion
on the traditional Mass: “When I search more
thoroughly, I find that it is rather a kind of
fashion. And if it is a fashion, therefore it is a
matter that does not need that much attention.
It is just necessary to show some patience and
kindness to people who are addicted to a certain
fashion.”

What is the Secret to Happiness?
On July 27, 2014, the pope gave his ten tips
for happiness to the Argentinian weekly Viva:
live and let live; be giving of yourself to others;
move with kindness and humility; play with your
children; Sunday is for family; help young people
find jobs; take care of creation; let go of negative
things quickly; respect others’ beliefs; work for
peace.

Are There Any Limits to What the Pope
Can Do?
On January 24, 2014, the pope received a
Spanish “couple” for a private visit; one member
of the couple had transformed-his-body-to-

give-himself-the-(mistaken)-impression-thathe-henceforth-belonged-to-the-other-half-ofhumanity. “He” (actually a “she”) goes by the
name of Diego Neria Lejarra and is 48 years old.
The other member of the couple is a woman, a
real one.

Is it Ok to Interrupt Mass?
Pope Francis voiced the following desire on
April 21, 2015, in a video message: “How I wish
that parish communities in prayer would fall to
their knees in veneration when a poor man enters
the church, as if it were Our Lord entering!”

Does Being Lutheran Deprive One of
Catholic Communion?
On November 15, 2015, when a Lutheran
expressed the suffering it caused her not to be
able to receive communion with her Catholic
husband, the Vicar of Jesus Christ told her: “It is
not easy for me to answer.” “I make your question
my own, and I ask myself.” “I leave that question
to the theologians, to those who understand.”
“To your question, I can only respond with a
question.” And he ended with: “Life is bigger
than explanations and interpretations. Always
refer back to baptism. ‘One faith, one baptism,
one Lord.’ This is what Paul tells us, and from
there take the consequences. I would never dare
to give permission for this, because it’s not my
jurisdiction. One baptism, one Lord, one faith.
Talk to the Lord and then go forward. I don’t dare
to say anything more.”

Is Living Outside of Wedlock a Source of
Grace?
On June 16, 2016, speaking on free union,
the pope said: “I’ve seen a lot of fidelity in these
cohabitations, and I am sure that this is a real
marriage, they have the grace of a real marriage
because of their fidelity.”

Did Luther Understand Grace?
On June 26, 2016, on his way back from
Armenia, Pope Francis declared in a press
19

Theme The Papacy and Sedevacantism
conference: “I think that the intentions of Martin
Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer….
He protested. Then he was intelligent and took
some steps forward justifying, and explaining
why he did this. And today Lutherans and
Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the
doctrine of justification. On this point, which is
very important, he did not err.”

Can Divorced and Civilly Remarried
Persons Receive Communion?
After the Apostolic exhortation Amoris
Laetitia, the bishops of Buenos Aires sent the
priests in their diocese a letter presenting the
“basic criteria for the implementation of chapter
8 of Amoris Laetitia.” In this letter, they claim
that Amoris Laetitia allows for the divorced and
“remarried” to receive the sacraments of penance
and the Eucharist. The pope wrote to thank them
for this letter on September 5, 2016, saying: “The
document is very good and thoroughly specifies
the meaning of chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia.
There are no further interpretations.”

Can Jihad and Peace Go Hand in Hand?
On July 27, 2016, the pope spoke to some
journalists on his flight to the WYD in Krakow.
He told them: “When I speak of war, I speak
of real war: there is war for interests, there is
war for money, there is war for the resources
of nature, there is war for the domination of
peoples. Someone may think: ‘He is talking about
a war of religion.’ No! All the religions, we want
peace.”

Is the Violence of Catholics Comparable to
the Violence of Islam?
On July 31, 2016, the pope answered some
questions from journalists after the WYD,
explaining to them: “I don’t like to speak of
Islamic violence, because every day, when I
browse the newspapers, I see violence, here in
Italy: this one who has murdered his girlfriend,
another who has murdered the mother-in-law…
and these are baptized Catholics! There are
violent Catholics. If I speak of Islamic violence,
20

The Angelus

July - August 2017

I must speak of Catholic violence. No, not all
Muslims are violent, not all Catholics are violent.
It is like a fruit salad; there’s everything.”

What should we do?
The pope gave us the answer to this question
on the evening of his election when he said to
the people of Rome: “Before the Bishop blesses
his people, I ask you to pray to the Lord that he
will bless me. Let us make, in silence, this prayer:
your prayer over me.” And to the youth in Rio de
Janeiro: “Pray for me, do not forget!” And one day
he said: “I sense that if the Lord does not help
in this work of assisting the People of God to go
forward, it can’t be done… I am truly conscious
of my many limitations, with so many problems,
and I am a sinner and I have to ask for this….I ask
Our Lady, too, to pray to the Lord for me.”

Fr. Phillipe Toulza was ordained in
1996. He taught theology at the seminary
at Ecône, and has been the editor of the
French District’s magazine Fideliter and
of Éditions Clovis, the French Angelus
Press, for about ten years. He resides at
the French district house near Paris.

Faith and Morals

Archbishop
Lefebvre and
the Bishops
by Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s attitude towards the bishops and episcopates varied depending on
the circumstances and time period. What follows is an account of the various shifts and nuances in his
attitude and relationships with them.

A Future Bishop among
other Future Bishops:
Rome 1923-1930
As a student at the French Seminary in
Rome, Marcel Lefebvre was close to and even
friendly with several future bishops. He enjoyed
reminiscing about Pierre Lebrun, his predecessor
as head Master of Ceremonies at Santa Chiara,
and the future bishop of Autun. He never spoke of
Louis Ferrand, although they had been very close
friends: together they used to recite by heart the
theses of their doctorates in theology in the little

streets of Rome! The difference in his attitude
between the two was due to one fact: Pierre
Lebrun died shortly after Vatican II, whereas
Louis Ferrand, Archbishop of Tours, complained
about Archbishop Lefebvre coming into his
diocese to confirm children without asking his
permission.
In fact, several of his former Roman
classmates went over to liberalism with the
Second Vatican Council. Archbishop Lefebvre
used to lament that “several fellow seminarians,
who had been enthusiastic disciples of Fr. Henri
Le Floch (the director of Santa Chiara), often
21

Faith and Morals
even more so than myself, completely abandoned
the fighting spirit during the Council”: “For me,”
he added, “this was my greatest cause for sorrow
during the Council!”
He found it unbelievable, “unthinkable” (as
he liked to say), that after having been imbued
with the love of principles and having lived these
principles during their early years as clerics,
these priests who had become bishops had
not remained faithful to that “first love” that
he, Marcel, had profoundly lived and strongly
sustained: this “living fully on principles.”
This first love remained for him, as it did for
his friend—who remained a priest—Joseph
Tailhades, superior of the great seminary of
Perpignan. The memory of Father Taihades was
his most dear of all of his venerated masters in
Santa Chiara.
Marcel Lefebvre was away from the seminary
on military service in France when the “dear
and venerable Fr. Le Floch” resigned on Pope
Pius XI’s own orders. But he was certainly full of
gratitude towards the young Bishop Le Hunsec,
Superior General of the Spiritans, who dared to
stand up to the pope and defend the rector of
Santa Chiara. That was in 1927. From this time
on, the condemnation of the Action Française
became a cause of division in the French

episcopate and even among the Romans; there
were the “traditionalists,” the “ultras,” and the
“liberals”: the latter were those who, under the
cover of obedience and submission to Rome, had
abandoned the fight for Christ the King, whom
the above-mentioned condemnation seemed to
exclude and deny in the public episcopal opinion!
Independence was a trait of Marcel Lefebvre’s
character that his brother Michel Lefebvre loved
to recall: “We Lefebvre’s were not like all those
posh employers in the Northern French industry;
we were independent-minded!”
In Santa Chiara, his young fellow seminarians
already noticed in Marcel a certain anticonformism that made him despise certain
fashionable theological theories and adhere
doggedly to the philosophy of St. Thomas
Aquinas in spite of all opposition.
“During the discussions there were usually
diverse opinions. In those cases Marcel would
only accept what St. Thomas had taught.
Sometimes it would be to such an extent that the
other theology students called him the ‘petrified
dogmatician.’ He kept the name and rather
enjoyed it! He always stayed very faithful to
St. Thomas, durch und durch!” (Fr. Jerome
Criqui, Letter of February 25, 1997).
Behind this attitude was the mischievous

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre with Bishop Bonneau, of Douala
22

The Angelus

July - August 2017

twinkle of a superior and playful mind, as well
as a personality trait that several of his fellow
seminarians would speak of later:
“He seemed a bit stubborn already in
seminary,” said one of them. And another (a
“future bishop,” Bishop Jean de Cambourg, Santa
Chiara 1926-1934, bishop of Valence in France)
declared:
“Admirable and formidable–that’s how the
figure of Marcel Lefebvre appears to us after so
many years. We admired his care for the truth
such as it appeared to him, according to St.
Thomas Aquinas. But he was formidable: he took
no account of the opinions of those who did not
agree with him! His faith put to flight those who
loved theological distinctions. It was not in his
nature to be ‘conciliatory.’ That’s how the Lord
made him!” (Bishop Jean de Cambourg, Letter of
December 3, 1996).
A hard-necked, stubborn Marcel Lefebvre is
a classic legend among the liberals. Men like
Criqui and Cambourg saw only the surface, what
appeared to be an obtuse and close-minded
temperament. But Marcel Lefebvre was and
would prove to be the very opposite: firm in his
principles, ready to defend them “tooth and nail,”
but gentle and even conciliatory on the practical
level, full of a sagacity that tempered what could
have been imprudent in an absolute application of
the principles.
His future disagreements with many bishops
were the fruit of Fr. Le Floch’s warnings to his
seminarians against liberal tolerance that quickly
forgets the principles and banishes them to the
domain of cloudy abstractions, thus becoming
nothing more than purely liberal pragmatism.
That was not Marcel Lefebvre!

As Apostolic Delegate,
Wary of the Bishops
Later, but already in Africa where he was
Pius XII’s Apostolic Delegate from 1947 to 1958,
whenever there were “squabbles” among bishops,
he was immediately on his guard: but let us quote
Archbishop Lefebvre:
“I was always very suspicious later on,

especially when I was a bishop, of all those
people who wanted to compromise the Church
with modern errors. It taught me to be very
vigilant and to keep my eyes open when priests
visited me or when I visited dioceses and heard
reports of this or that; straight away I thought:
Aha! They may be opposed to one another
because there are some liberals.”
Apostolic Delegate Lefebvre very quickly
noticed just such an opposition in Cameroon
between Archbishop Graffin, Archbishop of
Yaoundé and Bishop Bonneau, bishop of Douala.
Sometimes Catholic Action was a special bone
of contention between the bishops according
to their traditional or liberal mentality. In these
clashes Archbishop Lefebvre could clearly see
a battle between two attitudes of mind. Those
with strong personalities had more influence
in the discussions and tended to “direct the
manoeuvres.” Fortunately,” said Archbishop
Lefebvre, “some non-liberal archbishops such
as Bishop Strebler of Lomé, and even more so
Bishop Graffin, expressed the same reservations
as the Apostolic Delegate about certain types of
apostolates. For example, while Bishop Bonneau
eagerly welcomed the Little Sisters of Jesus
(founded by Fr. Voillaume), Bishop Graffin did
not understand their form of religious life, and
found Sister Magdeleine “very neurotic.” That was
in 1951. This did not stop Archbishop Lefebvre
from welcoming the help of these sisters in a
poor quarter of Dakar in 1958, even though he
considered it imprudent for them to live at such
close quarters with the population.
The Archbishop of Tananarive, Monsignor
Sartre, a Jesuit, gave a good description of the
Delegate’s attitude in the course of discussions:
“Despite the differences in our ways of
looking at ‘social issues,’ we could exchange
views without conflict or hostility.” Besides,
“Archbishop Lefebvre did not impose his own
opinions on the bishops of Madagascar” because
the Delegate “respected the opinions of other
people,” and he did not go beyond the limits of
his powers. However, he knew how to “underpin
his instructions by relying on the authority of the
Holy See.” In other words, without hiding his own
views that were founded on very clear principles
in his mind, Archbishop Lefebvre attempted to
23

Faith and Morals
advance what he knew to be the thinking of the
Holy See, that is to say the thinking of the Sacred
Congregation de Propaganda Fide, and of Pope
Pius XII, with whom he met at least once a year.

Early Dangers of Collegiality
In the instructions given for the foundation of
these bishops’ assemblies, Archbishop Lefebvre
made it clear that they were not meant to have
more authority than the bishops since that would
have undermined the bishops’ authority and
hampered their freedom in their own dioceses.
On the contrary, they were meant to foster
mutual help between bishops in establishing
inter-diocesan foundations, or coordinating
Catholic Action or the Catholic Press.
There was no question of establishing those
“permanent secretariats” which would later come
to govern the bishops. In Madagascar, where the
bishops were already in the habit of meeting,
Archbishop Lefebvre said that he encountered
some difficulties:
“The Jesuits, who are organizers, had already
created various commissions for the press,
schools, Catholic Action, etc. I reminded them
that these should be consultative rather than
decision-making commissions. The bishop was to
remain master in his own diocese, and was free
to accept or reject their suggestions” (Fideliter,
N. 48, p. 29; N. 59, p. 23).
At Vatican Council II, Archbishop Lefebvre
very firmly opposed the false doctrine of
episcopal collegiality:
“On this subject tradition is crystal clear.
To assert that, in communion with the pope,
the bishops have, by divine right, customary
jurisdiction over the universal Church, one has
to distort the texts and deny the facts. How can
the doctrine of the supreme and universal power
of the pope be confirmed save by affirming in
accordance with all tradition that he alone has
these prerogatives, and that bishops have authority
only over particular churches, a power proper to
them and by divine right, but one which may be
exercised only by the authority of the pope.”

24

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Letter to Jean Ousset
and Rupture with the
French Bishops
Archbishop Lefebvre was still archbishop
of Dakar when, in March 1960, a memorandum
reserved for the French bishops attacked the Cité
catholique founded by Jean Ousset to promote
the policy of Christ the King according to Pius
XI’s 1925 encyclical Quas primas. So thirtyfive years after this magisterial text by Pope
Pius XI, the French bishops—or their handful
of leaders—were reproaching Jean Ousset for
his “simplistic understanding” of the encyclicals
and even his “way of interpreting” the acts of
the pontifical Magisterium. Archbishop Lefebvre
entered the fray straightaway, and declared
war on the national secretariat of the French
episcopate by writing a letter of support to Jean
Ousset.
“Are you criticized for your thinking on the
temporal power of the Church and her authority
over society? The direct and indirect power as
explained in your pamphlets is exactly what
is taught in the Roman universities and in the
documents that come from the Holy See.”
“Nothing is missing from this lucid and hardhitting defense: there is a well-aimed arrow for
La Croix, the ‘newspaper rightly or wrongly
considered as the voice of the Church in France’
that used its columns ‘in this odious campaign,’
and as a parting shot: you are criticized for
not wanting to put up with ‘the sight of your
children growing up in a climate of materialism,
secularism, and atheism.’”
“While this atmosphere is ruining the
supernatural spirit, i.e., the spirit of prayer and
self-denial, and consequently the birth of priestly
vocations, they want to stop you rechristianizing
society. Your initiatives are crucial and only
strengthen Catholic Action.”
Upon reading these timely but unwelcome
truths, the French bishops were seized with
horror. Marcel Lefebvre’s attack on the
secularism of the State school programs, which
the bishops wished to accept in order for Catholic
schools to receive State subsidies, deeply
disturbed an episcopate that no longer dared

to be apostolic or conquering and preferred to
hole themselves up behind secular laws as if
defending their last trench, to save from financial
ruin their so-called Catholic schools that had
already become Modernist.
In answer to the challenge put to them by
their far-too-independent-minded colleague,
Archbishop Liénart, president of the Assembly
of Cardinals and Archbishops, wrote a letter
to Archbishop Lefebvre on March 22, 1960,
expressing his “surprise” and the “pain” of the
members of the ACA, and their desire for a “more
prudent and brotherly attitude.”
And his nice brother bishops, along with the
director of La Croix, even went so far as to
complain to Pope John XXIII about the terrible
Lefebvre’s separatist and uncharitable attitude.
The good Pope John received the naughty
archbishop on May 7, 1960, and spent an hour
scolding him:
“You see,” John told him, “when I was professor
of Holy Scripture at Bergame, I defended the
theories of Fr. Lagrange and I was labeled a
‘modernist.’ That has dogged me throughout
my life. I’ve seen my files: they read ‘modernist
tendencies.’ I’m not a modernist. That is why I
was never given an appointment in Rome. I was
always kept at a distance from the Roman Curia
because I was—so it was said—a modernist. So,
you be careful not to declare yourself such an out
and out conservative!”
What he was implying was: If you want to
make a career for yourself!
Archbishop Lefebvre cared little about making
a career for himself. However, seeing good Pope
John trustingly and naively relating the setbacks
of his own life gave him an insight into this
easy-going Pontiff’s liberal personality. “You be
careful,” John had warned him, but Marcel would
take no notice since he was quite resolved to
state the undiminished truth at all times.

The Good Fruits of Archbishop
Lefebvre’s Firm Attitude

views. Many priests rallied to his support, seeing
the former Archbishop of Dakar as a sign of hope.
Fr. Bénéfice, parish priest of Malaucène,
Vaucluse, wrote to him: “At last, the voice of a
bishop who sounds like a bishop!” “Your voice,
which is unique among the French bishops, is so
full of courage that the sons of the Church are
beginning to hope again,” confided Fr. Lacheteau,
a priest at St. Léger-de-Montbrillais, in the
diocese of Poitiers; Fr. Collin, parish priest of St.
Cloud near Paris, wrote to express his “thanks
to the brave bishop who, while all others were
silent, has had the courage to take up the defense
of excellent Catholics who have been unjustly
discredited.”
It was with the same non-conformist courage
and refusal of resurgent modernism that
Archbishop Lefebvre, relieved of his episcopal
obligations in Tulle then of his responsibility
as Superior General of the Spiritans, went on to
found, on foreign soil, in Freiburg, Switzerland,
a seminary for candidates to the priesthood
who were refused by the French bishops: the
Seminary of St. Pius X in Ecône. And when
these same bishops, worried at Ecône’s success,
labelled this retired archbishop’s foundation
the “Wildcat Seminary,” Archbishop Lefebvre
shrugged his shoulders in disdain: “My seminary
was approved by the bishop of Freiburg in 1969,
and it is the home of formation for my Priestly
Society of Saint Pius X, established by the same
bishop, and it is recognized by the bishop of Sion,
Switzerland, Bishop Nestor Adam. So I do not
need the permission of the bishops of France!”
The resentment of the French bishops
and their hatred for this traditional work of
preparation for the priesthood would obtain in
1975 the so-called “suppression” of the Society of
St. Pius X and its seminary by Bishop Mamie of
Freiburg, with the support of the Holy See, that
is, of Pope Paul VI.
“I shall carry on, the bishop of Ecône told his
seminarians soberly. Closing my seminary would
mean taking part in the self-destruction of the
Church. I do not want God to reproach me with
destroying a work He clearly blessed!”

Archbishop Lefebvre’s contribution to this
debate drew others openly to express their own
25

Faith and Morals

Feasts of Our Lady

The
Assumption
by Fr. Christopher Danel

“To her the Apostles render their holy
allegiance, the Angels their song, Christ His
embrace, the clouds their transport, as her holy
Assumption renders Paradise” (Bobbio Missal,
VII century)
The Assumption of Our Lady has many titles
in ancient liturgical texts, such as the Depositio
and the Transitus; in the East the title is the
Koímesis (Dormition). While it is certain that the
body of Our Lady did not undergo any corruption
due to death, the received Tradition regarding
death itself is less certain, and theologians over
the centuries have varied on this point. While
there has been a tendency in the East to assert
her exemption from physical death (thus the
term “Dormition,” meaning “repose”), the West
more closely unites Our Lady with her Son, Who
suffered death on the Cross, Whose sacred body
26

The Angelus

July - August 2017

likewise knew no corruption, and Who rose
from the Holy Sepulcher victorious. In fact, her
death would be due to union with Jesus alone
rather than due to sin, as she was preserved
from sin, both original and actual. St. Epiphanius
comments, “No one knows what was the earthly
end of the Mother of God,” deducing that this
remains hidden in God like so many of the
discreet details of her life.

Dogmatic Definition
The knowledge of Our Lady’s Assumption
is the fruit of Tradition, meaning in its strict
sense that it is something received, something
which has been handed on. Some liturgical texts
and apocryphal writings led to a preference in

Dormition Abbey, Jerusalem

past centuries to reticence about it, and one
may even sense that this reticence was due to a
hesitancy to tread too boldly on sacred ground.
Nevertheless, the Assumption is mentioned by
theologians including St. Thomas Aquinas. It
was at the dawn of the pontificate of Bl. Pius
IX that the movement towards a dogmatic
definition took shape, with requests from the
ecclesiastical hierarchy being submitted to the
Holy See beginning in 1849. In the only dogmatic
council to have been held at the Vatican (1869-70),
two hundred bishops advocated for a dogmatic
definition of the Assumption. Pope Pius XII,
of blessed memory, made inquiries among the
hierarchy close to a century later, in 1946, and
having received an almost unanimous response,
the holy pontiff made the dogmatic definition
on November 1, 1950, with the Apostolic
Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.
In the Apostolic Constitution Pope Pius XII
stated, “[T]he outstanding agreement of the
Catholic prelates and the faithful…, since it
shows us the concordant teaching of the Church’s

ordinary doctrinal authority and the concordant
faith of the Christian people which the same
doctrinal authority sustains and directs, thus by
itself and in an entirely certain and infallible way,
manifests this privilege [viz., the Assumption]
as a truth revealed by God and contained in that
divine deposit which Christ has delivered to his
Spouse to be guarded faithfully and to be taught
infallibly[.]
For which reason, after we have poured forth
prayers of supplication again and again to God,
and have invoked the light of the Spirit of Truth,
for the glory of Almighty God Who has lavished
His special affection upon the Virgin Mary, for
the honor of her Son, the immortal King of the
Ages and the Victor over sin and death, for the
increase of the glory of that same august Mother,
and for the joy and exultation of the entire
Church; by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ,
of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by
our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and
define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the
Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary,
27

Faith and Morals
having completed the course of her earthly life,
was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
With the manner of expression used in this last
phrase, Pius XII did not include physical death
in the dogmatic definition itself. He alluded to it,
however, earlier in the Apostolic Constitution:
“…St. Francis de Sales, after asserting that it
is wrong to doubt that Jesus Christ has himself
observed, in the most perfect way, the divine
commandment by which children are ordered to
honor their parents, asks this question: ‘What son
would not bring his mother back to life and would
not bring her into paradise after her death if he

could?’ And St. Alphonsus writes that ‘Jesus did
not wish to have the body of Mary corrupted after
death, since it would have redounded to his own
dishonor to have her virginal flesh, from which he
himself had assumed flesh, reduced to dust.’”

The Place
Sacred Scripture provides only the briefest
glimpse into the life of Our Lady and St. John: “ex
illa hora accepit eam discipulus in sua—and
from that hour, the disciple took her to his own”
(Jn. 19:27). It is nevertheless certain that the

Church of the Sepulchre of Saint Mary, also called Tomb of the Virgin Mary, is a Christian tomb in the Kidron Valley—at the
foot of Mount of Olives, in Jerusalem—believed by Eastern Christians to be the burial place of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

28

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Apostle and the Blessed Virgin resided at Ephesus
for some years, in the holy house on Mt. Koressos.
But the site of the Assumption is identified as
being either Ephesus or the place in Jerusalem
known as the Tomb of the Virgin. There is indeed
mystical support for Ephesus, but historical
sources and tradition along with other mystical
sources support Jerusalem. It is cited in most
of the ancient pilgrimage itineraries, including
that of Antonino of Piacenza from AD 570 which
adds “de quo dicunt sanctam Mariam ad
coelos fuisse sublatam—from which it is said
that St. Mary was taken into heaven.” This is
also asserted in a well-regarded sixth-century

Greek text known as De transitu Mariae, or
Joannis liber de dormitione S. Deiparae (On
the Transitus of Mary, or the Book of St. John
on the Dormition of the Mother of God), which
was influential on many of the eastern Fathers,
including St. John Damascene.
Furthermore, a second site on Mount Zion
lends support to the Jerusalemite tradition: the
Cenacle, adjacent to Dormition Abbey. There is a
longstanding tradition that Our Lady’s passing or
dormition took place in the holy aedicule of the
Cenacle, and that her virginal body was then laid
in the Tomb across the Kedron before she was
assumed into heaven.

The Tomb of the Virgin
The Tomb of the Virgin venerated in Jerusalem
lies at the foot of the Mount of Olives, only
a few yards from Gethsemani and the place
of the Agony. It lies therefore at the Valley of
Josaphat, the place traditionally assigned to the
Last Judgment based on the third chapter of the
Prophecy of Joel.
The sepulcher is similar to that of Christ in
that the surrounding rock has been carved away
from the tomb so that it may be venerated on
its own and within a church structure. The first
such church built upon the Tomb of the Virgin, an
octagonal church with a dome, was built between
431 and 451. It was destroyed by the Persians,
except for the tomb itself which remained
untouched. With the arrival of the Crusaders,
a monastery called the Abbey of the Valley of
Josaphat was built on the site, and Godfrey de
Bouillon entrusted it to the monks of Cluny.
The Saracens later razed the monastery, but the
church itself built in 1130 was spared and is the
current shrine visited by pilgrims.

Liturgical Origins
The feast of August fifteenth originates
precisely in Jerusalem. It was a feast of the
glorification of Our Lady, even if not yet
specifically commemorating her Assumption. It is
found in the Lectionary of Jerusalem from the
29

Faith and Morals
time of St. Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem from 422
to 458, which was kept in use by the Armenians
of the city. It lists Psalm 131:8, “Surge, Domine,
in requiem tuam, tu et arca sanctificationis
tuae—Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou
and the ark, which thou hast sanctified,” which
in a Marian feast alludes quite clearly to her
Assumption in union with Christ’s Resurrection.
This feast originates in the era of Ephesus (431),
when the Divine Maternity of the Theotokos was
vigorously defended and dogmatically defined.
The feast becomes more clearly a feast of the
Assumption in the sixth century in Palestine
and Syria with references in the Sees of
Jerusalem and Sarug. At the end of the century,
the Byzantine Emperor Maurice (582-602), a
contemporary of St. Gregory the Great, decreed
that the feast of the Koímesis (Dormition) would
be celebrated on August fifteenth in all of the
churches of the Empire.

Development in the West
Among the non-Roman Latin rites (Ambrosian,
Mozarabic, Gallican), the primary feast of Our
Lady was on the eighteenth of January, without
reference to the Assumption. Their adoption of
the August feast came from Rome during the
ninth century. There is, however, a much-studied
fourth-century sarcophagus in the church of
Santa Engracia in Saragossa, Spain, which
depicts a woman standing between the Apostles
St. Peter and St. Paul, while a hand from above
grasps her wrist as if to lift her up to heaven. It
has long been interpreted as a depiction of the
Assumption, which would certainly attest to a
devotion to this privilege of Our Lady many years
before the introduction of the liturgical feast.
In Rome, the principal feast of Our Lady
coincided with the Octave day of the Nativity.
It was Pope Sergius I (687-701) who brought
the feast of the Assumption into the Roman
liturgy, as he was of a Syrian family which had
settled in Sicily. The feast took the place of the
January commemoration and was fixed to August
fifteenth with the title in adsumptione sanctae
Mariae (On the Assumption of St. Mary). At the
end of the eighth century the feast was celebrated
30

The Angelus

July - August 2017

with a nocturnal vigil and was later enriched
with an Octave. Pope Nicholas I compared it to
the feasts of Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost in
an apostolic instruction in 863.
The Gelasian Sacramentary of the eighth
century later assigned an eloquent Preface for the
feast, which extolls the heavenly choir of virgins,
“among whom the blessed and unblemished
Virgin Mary Mother of God shined forth, whose
assumption day we celebrate with all the
devotion of the present Sacrifice.”

The Festal Mass
The year following the dogmatic definition of
the Assumption by Pope Pius XII, a new Mass
formulary was composed to enrich the feast.
Previously, the Mass was Gaudeamus from the
11th century, with the Epistle from Wisdom and
the Gospel pericope about Martha and Mary, which
was often used in past centuries for Holy Virgins.

The 1951 composition has its Introit from the
Apocalypse: “A great sign appeared in heaven:
a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon
under her feet, and on her head a crown of
twelve stars.” The three orations are drawn from
various liturgical texts honoring Our Lady, with
the collect underscoring the close connection
of the dogma of the Assumption with that of the
Immaculate Conception.
The Epistle has the saving heroine Judith as a
type of the Virgin Mary: “The Lord hath blessed
thee by His power, because by thee He hath
brought our enemies to nought. Blessed art thou,
O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above
all women upon the earth. Blessed be the Lord
who made heaven and earth, who hath directed
thee to the cutting off the head of the prince of
our enemies. Because He hath so magnified thy
name this day, that thy praise shall not depart out
of the mouth of men, who shall be mindful of the
power of the Lord forever.…” The Gospel is that
of the Magnificat, wherein Our Lady proclaims:

“My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit
hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he hath
regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold
from henceforth all generations shall call me
blessed.”

Conclusion
When the feast was introduced into the Roman
Rite, it was initially given the collect known
as Veneranda, which neatly ties together the
Feast’s themes: “May it avail us to eternity, O
Lord, to venerate the Feast of this day on which
the blessed Mother of God underwent temporal
death, but could not, however, be oppressed by
the bonds of death, she who had given birth to
Thy Son, our Incarnate Lord.”
“Tu gloria Ierusalem, tu lætitia Israel, tu
honorificentia populi nostri—Thou art the glory
of Jerusalem, thou art the joy of Israel, thou art
the honor of our people” (Epistle).

The Basilica of Santa Engracia is located at Plaza de Santa Engracia. It was constructed in the 15th and 16th
centuries and has the Renaissance style. The façade is the only part conserved from the old Monastery of Santa Engracia.

31

Faith and Morals

Pastor
Aeternus
Excerpts from Pastor Aeternus by Pope Pius IX, Council Vatican I, Session 4, July 18, 1870

1. The eternal shepherd and guardian of our
souls (1 Pet. 2:25), in order to render permanent
the saving work of redemption, determined to
build a Church in which, as in the house of the
living God, all the faithful should be linked by the
bond of one faith and charity.
2. Therefore, before he was glorified, he
besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but
also for those who were to believe in him through
their word, that they all might be one as the Son
himself and the Father are one (Jn. 17:20-21).
3. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he
chose out of the world (Jn. 15:19), even as he had
been sent by the Father (Jn. 21:20), in like manner
it was his will that in his Church there should be
shepherds and teachers until the end of time.
4. In order, then, that the episcopal office
should be one and undivided and that, by the
32

The Angelus

July - August 2017

union of the clergy, the whole multitude of
believers should be held together in the unity of
faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over
the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the
permanent principle of both unities and their
visible foundation.
5. Upon the strength of this foundation was to
be built the eternal temple, and the Church whose
topmost part reaches heaven was to rise upon
the firmness of this foundation (Leo 1, Serm.
(Sermons), 4 (elsewhere 3), ch. 2 for the day of his
birth (PL 54, 150)).
6. And since the gates of hell trying, if they
can, to overthrow the Church, make their assault
with a hatred that increases day by day against
its divinely laid foundation, we judge it necessary,
with the approbation of the Sacred Council,
and for the protection, defense and growth of

the Catholic flock, to propound the doctrine
concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence,
and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy,
upon which the strength and coherence of the
whole Church depends.
7. This doctrine is to be believed and held by
all the faithful in accordance with the ancient
and unchanging faith of the whole Church.
8. Furthermore, we shall proscribe and
condemn the contrary errors which are so
harmful to the Lord’s flock.

On the Institution of the Apostolic
Primacy in Blessed Peter
6. If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle
was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince
of all the apostles and visible head of the whole
Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor
only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction
that he directly and immediately received
from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be
anathema.

On the permanence of the primacy of
blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
5. If anyone says that it is not by the institution
of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine
law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual
successors in the primacy over the whole Church;
or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor
of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be
anathema.

On the Power and Character of the
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff
9. If anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has
merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction
over the whole Church, and this not only in
matters of faith and morals, but also in those
which concern the discipline and government
of the Church dispersed throughout the whole
world; or that he has only the principal part, but
not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power;
or that this power of his is not ordinary and
immediate both over all and each of the Churches

and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

On the Infallible Teaching Authority of
the Roman Pontiff
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman
Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the
prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme
power of teaching. This Holy See has always
maintained this, the constant custom of the
Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical
councils, particularly those in which East and
West met in the union of faith and charity, have
declared it.
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of
Constantinople, following the footsteps of their
predecessors, published this solemn profession
of faith: The first condition of salvation is to
maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that
saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt.
16:18), cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken
are confirmed by their consequences. For in the
Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always
been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine
been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire
to be in no way separated from this faith and
doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain
in that one communion which the Apostolic See
preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength
of the Christian religion (from Pope Hormisdas’s
formula of the year 517).
What is more, with the approval of the second
Council of Lyons, the Greeks made the following
profession:
“The Holy Roman Church possesses the
supreme and full primacy and principality over
the whole Catholic Church. She truly and humbly
acknowledges that she received this from the
Lord himself in blessed Peter, the prince and
chief of the apostles, whose successor the
Roman Pontiff is, together with the fullness of
power. And since before all others she has the
duty of defending the truth of the faith, so if
any questions arise concerning the faith, it is by
her judgment that they must be settled” (from
Michael Palaeologus’s profession of faith which
was read out at the second Council of Lyons).
33

Faith and Morals
Then there is the definition of the Council of
Florence:
“The Roman Pontiff is the true vicar of
Christ, the head of the whole Church and the
father and teacher of all Christians; and to him
was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord
Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling
and governing the whole Church” (Council of
Florence, session 6).
3. To satisfy this pastoral office, our
predecessors strove unwearyingly that the saving
teaching of Christ should be spread among all
the peoples of the world; and with equal care
they made sure that it should be kept pure and
uncontaminated wherever it was received.
4. It was for this reason that the bishops
of the whole world, sometimes individually,
sometimes gathered in synods, according to the
long established custom of the Churches and the
pattern of ancient usage referred to this Apostolic
See those dangers especially which arose in
matters concerning the faith. This was to ensure
that any damage suffered by the faith should be
repaired in that place above all where the faith
can know no failing (Bernard, Ep. (Letters) 190
(PL 182, 1053)).
5. The Roman pontiffs, too, as the
circumstances of the time or the state of
affairs suggested, sometimes by summoning
ecumenical councils or consulting the opinion
of the Churches scattered throughout the world,
sometimes by special synods, sometimes by
taking advantage of other useful means afforded
by divine providence, defined as doctrines to be
held those things which, by God’s help, they knew
to be in keeping with Sacred Scripture and the
apostolic traditions.
6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the
successors of Peter not so that they might, by
his revelation, make known some new doctrine,
but that, by his assistance, they might religiously
guard and faithfully expound the revelation or
deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.
Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced
by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and
followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for
they knew very well that this See of St. Peter
always remains unblemished by any error, in
accordance with the divine promise of our Lord
34

The Angelus

July - August 2017

and Savior to the prince of his disciples: I have
prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and
when you have turned again, strengthen your
brethren (Lk. 22:32).
7. This gift of truth and never-failing faith
was therefore divinely conferred on Peter and
his successors in this See so that they might
discharge their exalted office for the salvation of
all, and so that the whole flock of Christ might
be kept away by them from the poisonous food
of error and be nourished with the sustenance of
heavenly doctrine. Thus the tendency to schism
is removed and the whole Church is preserved in
unity, and, resting on its foundation, can stand
firm against the gates of hell.
8. But since in this very age when the salutary
effectiveness of the apostolic office is most
especially needed, not a few are to be found who
disparage its authority, we judge it absolutely
necessary to affirm solemnly the prerogative
which the only-begotten Son of God was pleased
to attach to the supreme pastoral office.
9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the
tradition received from the beginning of the
Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior,
for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and
for the salvation of the Christian people, with
the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach
and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when, in the exercise of his office as
shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue
of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a
doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held
by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine
assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that
infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his
Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning
faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the
Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the
consent of the Church, irreformable.
So then, should anyone, which God forbid,
have the temerity to reject this definition of ours:
let him be anathema.

Particularly frequent in the period between the fourth and sixth centuries is the scene of the
delivery of the Law to Peter, which occurs on various kinds of monuments. Christ hands St.
Peter a folded or open scroll, on which is often inscribed Lex Domini (Law of the Lord) or
Dominus legem dat (The Lord gives the law). In representations on fifth-century sarcophagi
the Lord presents to Peter (instead of the scroll) the keys. In carvings of the fourth century
Peter often bears a staff in his hand (after the fifth century, a cross with a long shaft, carried
by the Apostle on his shoulder), as a kind of sceptre indicative of Peter’s office. From the end
of the sixth century this is replaced by the keys (usually two, but sometimes three), which
henceforth became the attribute of Peter.

Spirituality

A Dominican
in Time of
Crisis
by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX

Rev. Roger-Thomas Calmel, O.P. (1914-1975)
was born in Southern France and would become
one of the leading French intellectuals during
the neo-Modernist era and, especially, after the
conciliar revolution. He came from the Languedoc
peasant stock and much of the virtues of the
terroir, reflected in him, were explained thus by
his father: “Work, pray, always very much love the
little ones and the humble. I am sincerely happy of
your calm at work. That is what you need. I know
it by experience: calm, patience, perseverance,
tenacity, absolute confidence in God.”
He is 17 years old and at the minor seminary.
He reads a book on spirituality and takes life
seriously. “What Augustin could accomplish,
could not Calmel do it? It will be hard, but
together with Jesus, could we not do it?” This
indicates a striking maturity, which truly shows
36

The Angelus

July - August 2017

that one’s whole life depends on a few “yea’s” and
“nay’s” pronounced at age fifteen.

A Short Biography
This slow maturing vocation, which normally
would have led him to the secular clergy,
suddenly takes on a definitive turn. It leads
him to knock at the door of the Dominicans
of Toulouse in 1936, and five years later, he is
ordained priest in Toulon, on which occasion he
meets for the first time the teaching Dominican
nuns of St. Pré, who are going to play an
important part in his apostolic life. Later on
when temporarily stationed in Spain (1956-7),
he will write something about this change of
vocation: “I am certain that my sudden entrance

into the Order, at the end of the summer of 1936,
is the fruit of the martyrdom of some unknown
Spanish Dominican, martyr of the ‘Reds’ during
the summer of 1936.”
At the same time, Fr. Roger Calmel was
horrified to discover the defection of prominent
French intellectuals, like Mounier, Bernanos, and
Maritain, who criticized the Catholic insurrection
against the pro-Communist Spanish government.
His eyes had already been opened as to the
ravages done by the modernist infiltrations in
the religious orders, led by the sinuous Jesuit
Teilhard de Chardin, whose surreptitious
heresies were passed under the table. Fr. Calmel
saw firsthand the troubles coming from the high
Dominican echelons, including the publishing
house Cerf, with its magazine the Scholasticate
under Fr. Chenu, who formed Congar and
Schillebeeckx. Fr. Calmel was especially
shocked by the defection of great Thomists and
complained that, although they were clearly for
the truth, they were too shy to denounce error.
And, faced with the Teilhardian effect, they were
weak because they did not appreciate the devious
character of modern myths.
Because of his recurring poor health, but more
so because of his coldness toward any innovation
on liturgical or doctrinal issues, Fr. Calmel was
sent from one convent to another in Southern
France: Toulouse, Marseille, Sainte-Baume,
Montpellier, Biarritz, Sorèze, Prouilhe, and
finally, Brignoles near Toulon.
It is just after his return from Spain in 1957
that he started a long collaboration with the
traditional intellectual magazine Itinéraires of
Jean Madiran. Fr. Calmel wrote the impressive
sum total of 150 articles. Madiran explains: “We
worked together for 17 years. His contract was
simple. I had requested him to be a priest of
the Order of St. Dominic for the magazine. His
answer was that he could not and would not wish
to be anything else.” One year into the “contract”
Madiran recalled:
“Marcel Clément, after Jean Ousset, repeated
the sentence of St. Pius X: ‘There could be no
sanctity where there is disagreement with the
Pope.’ Fr. Calmel put much energy to reject
this proposition. The authority invoked could
not shake his certitude. St. Pius X is St. Pius

X, and he venerated him with all his heart, but
this was a private opinion which wasn’t right.
The history of the Church shows canonized
saints who disagreed with popes who were not
canonized. Fr. Calmel invoked theology as well
as common sense on his side. St. Pius X, in the
same discourse to the priests on December 2,
1912, declared: ‘One must not limit the field where
the pope can and must exercise his will.’ If this
means that the field has no limit or only the limit
which any Pontiff wishes to grant it, abstracting
from any objective criterion, Fr. Calmel argued
that we are falling into an obvious error. He
spoke in vain. The error was not evident. We had
Pius XII. The subsequent events would suffice to
better teach us.”
Against the ceaseless Teilhardian barrage
of heretical books and pamphlets, Fr. Calmel
would use his pen to bring a public voice
to Tradition. His articles are little jewels of
doctrine and observation. Some of them saw a
wide diffusion, being published as books which
became beacons of light and harbors of peace
in those times of diabolical disorientation. They
reflect the mystical realism of a soul living in
the supernatural realms and yet very conscious
of the need for armed resistance to the forces of
destruction prevalent about him. Here is a list of
such works, largely not translated, the latter titles
being more polemical: According to the Gospel;
If Your Eye is Simple; School and Sanctity;
Renewed Christian School; On our roads of
Exile; Theology of History; The Grandeurs of
Jesus Christ; Brief Apology for the Church of all
Times; The Mysteries of the Kingdom of Grace
(2 volumes).

Champion of Truth in the 1960s
In the thick of the Vatican II, Fr. Calmel6
explained how much he resented the language
“moll, viscous or fleeting, which can be drawn in
all the senses, which anyone can use at will…I
dread them so much the more as they are covered
with ecclesiastical authorities. Especially, these
expressions seem to me a direct insult to Him
who said: ‘Let your word be yes, yes, no no’.” The
blurred language avoids any type of definition.
37

Spirituality
For, to define is to delimitate, to distinguish
true from false. Yet, today, there is no room
for anathemas. As if the Church had no more
enemies, as if the world had become reconciled
with Christ. “They pretend to reduce us to
formless tadpoles or ectoplasms with no heart
and no passions.”
After 1965, he would describe the Conciliar
texts with vivid imagery: “On the whole, we have
the impression of being buried under a pile of
pillows. Pillows cannot be refuted. And, if they
want to stifle you under their piling up, you draw
your knife, you give a few strokes and let the
feathers fly to the wind. In this case, the knife
represents the definitions of the Councils anterior
to Vatican II.”
Rather than a reform in the Church, what we
are assisting at is a revolution, a robbery.” His
meditation on the French Revolution gave him
to offer a mature judgment of Vatican II. “As
I was thinking over the Revolution, I came to
the conclusion that it presents three distinctive
characters: no remedy to the abuses but an
attack against the very nature of things; no
effective results of the noble and wise aspirations
to renewal but poison them and divert them to
the pursuit of destruction; no domination by a
visible authority, be it tyrannical, but reduce into
slavery through a hidden authority, against which
any recourse is virtually impossible because it
resembles a poison spread throughout the whole
social tissue.” And his conclusion was that “If we
consider the council as enjoying the particular
authority of the Councils, Vatican II did not take
place.”
His attack on Vatican II extended also to the
nefarious liturgical reform of the late 1960s. “Paul
VI has introduced revolutionarily a permanent
reform which multiples the ambiguities and leads
to Protestantism. He who sees this—and many
priests see it—cannot become an accomplice.” To
the Ecône seminarians, in the Holy Week retreat
of 1974, he explains that modernism is a virus
which is highly contagious. One must flee from
it. Likewise, “The testimony is an absolute. If I
render testimony to the Catholic Mass, I must
abstain from the others Masses. It is like the grain
of incense offered to the idols: either one little
grain or nothing at all. Hence, it is nothing at all.”
38

The Angelus

July - August 2017

To those who object that his refusal of the
Novus Ordo Missae goes against the virtue
of obedience, he retorts with the principles of
Christian obedience, which do not dispense one
from “opening his eyes” and resisting orders
which contradict those of Christ. This time
prefigures that of the Antichrist, and God’s people
are being deceived, abused, and betrayed by their
leaders. We need to know how to become saints
while the precursors of the Antichrist govern,
dominate the City, and hold the Church in chains.
Among those conservative priests who preach
an unconditional obedience, he sees “a sort of
idolatry of the person of the pope.” One can, alas,
sin by obedience.
The Church is in no way a gigantic religious
administration where one would be asked only
to conform without further ado. No! She is the
Mystical Body of Christ, His holy Spouse. It is
this transcendence which allows the obedient
souls to oppose a respectful but firm refusal to
the decrees of the hierarchy when they obviously
hurt the most certain Tradition. He explains
simply: “It is the Church which has taught me to
do as I do: never compromise with what destroys
the faith.”
It is the ABC’s of Modernism to force the
faithful to bow down by the blackmailing of
virtue and by throwing away, in the name of
virtue, those indispensible means of formation.
Modernism leads its victims in the name of
obedience, thanks to the suspicion of pride
placed upon any criticism of the reforms, in the
name of the respect due to the pope, in the name
of the missionary zeal, of charity and unity.

Give us a Bishop
In the aftermath of the Council and the next
decade, initiatives were numerous where simple
faithful and isolated priests set up defenses,
bastions and dikes to resist the modernist
tsunami ravaging the Catholic landscape. With
time, these isolated initiatives showed their
limits. As the modernist vice was tightening up
and the betrayals multiplied, it became clear to
Fr. Calmel that the solution to the crisis could
only be a bishop.

He had met Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in
1963 in Brittany. From 1967 on, he kept up a
regular correspondence with him. Then, he wrote
Fr. Dulac of his conviction that only this prelate,
superior general of the Holy Ghost Fathers, could
unite forces in this combat for the defense of the
faith: “I am eager to write again to Archbishop
Lefebvre. Of course, he risks much if he takes
publicly a position against the present reformism.
But, if he did not, it seems to me that he would
risk much more and, especially, especially,
the security of conscience which many are in
need of, and the lack of a unifying would not
be granted us… Then, how could we escape
the chaos? The day we can say: “A bishop has
taken a position; our resistance to the liturgical,
dogmatic, disciplinary turmoil is not a matter for
plain lay folks and priests, but we have a bishop”;
on that day, things will be cleaer, we shall rally
the hesitant, other bishops will follow suit.
Daily I pray to Our Lady and St. Dominic that
Archbishop Lefebvre may speak loud and clear. I
see only him.”
A few weeks later, he was jubilant, certain
as he was that the Archbishop would break the
silence. Through his contacts, Fr. Calmel could
appreciate not only his doctrinal rigor and love
of Tradition, but also his profound modesty. In a
private letter, he said: “Archbishop Lefebvre, of
the Holy Ghost Fathers, writes me a good letter.
He, for one, belongs to the species—rather rare—
of those guardians of the faith who do not get
reckless.”
He received with enthusiasm the news of the
foundation of a seminary by his Archbishop.
“Everything is ready. Finally, a bishop is
speaking!” But what surprise awaited him when,
the founder, forced to start a seminary which was
to open in Fribourg, Switzerland, set his mind to
invite him to become its first superior. Fr. Calmel,
placing himself before God, believed he could
only refuse the honor. The relations were very
amicable however and, after a conference given
in Toulon in 1970, Fr. Calmel was most impressed
by the doctrinal solidity, the supernatural
spirit, the prudence and serenity of the prelate.
He concluded: “Rarely did I see a bishop less
reckless and more solid than Archbishop
Lefebvre. This confirms my first impression of

1963 when we met for a long time in Brittany. I
saw more clearly that it would be unjust to ask
this bishop to compose books or even write
articles. He is foremost a man of government,
a man of God who fulfils as a saint a charge of
governor in the Church.”

Faithfulness Unto Death
The trust between the two men would last
until death, which came to Fr. Calmel on May
3, 1975, only one year after he had given strong
signals of unflinching fidelity to tradition to
the Ecône seminarians. At that juncture, Fr.
Calmel had taken residence over a year before,
cum permissu superiorum, as chaplain of
the teaching Dominican nuns of St. Pré. These
sisters, in close contact with him and with
his spiritual support, had made a move from
the mother house in order for those faithful to
tradition to stay together, free from the troubles
brewing in the other houses. Brignoles was
founded and well guided by their beloved Father.
He is buried there as a herald of resistance in
troubled times. A memento, inspired from the
Mass of St. Dominic, depicts his legacy:
Son most loving and valiant of St. Dominic,
Ardent disciple of St. Thomas Aquinas,
Filled with the fortitude and light of his order,
Devout Preacher of the Immaculate Heart of
Mary,
Faithful and unflinching witness of the Holy
Mass,
Father and director for all those who had
recourse to him,
Novus Athleta Domini
As his brothers sing of St. Dominic,
Let his intent prayer plead ceaselessly before
the Court of the High King,
The cause of the flock he left behind.

Fr. Dominique Bourmaud has spent the past
26 years teaching at the Society seminaries
in America, Argentina, and Australia. He is
presently stationed at St. Vincent’s Priory,
Kansas City, where he is in charge of the priests’
training program.

39

May the Lord clothe thee
with the garment of salvation
and the vesture of gladness, and
may the dalmatic of justice ever
encompass thee. In the name
of the Lord.
Prayer at the vesting of the deacon

Spirituality

Faith in the
Benedictine
Abbot
by a Benedictine Monk

“An abbot who is worthy to rule a monastery should always remember what he is called and realize in
his actions the name of a superior. For he is believed to be the representative of Christ in the monastery.”
- Rule of St. Benedict ch. II

Seeing Christ in the Abbot
St. Benedict, when describing the abbot in
a monastery, lifts his monks to a supernatural
level. The superior is “believed to be the
representative of Christ.” Accepting this simple
phrase, the monk is obliged to make an act of
faith every day for the rest of his religious life.
His superior must be seen as Christ commanding
him in all of his activities. The monk is told to see
Christ and he sees a man that makes mistakes,
has human defects, and goes to confession like
all the others in the community. He sees a man,
but believes that Christ is in this superior.
42

The Angelus

July - August 2017

It is this mixture of the human and the divine
that makes faith sometimes very difficult and at
the same time meritorious. When we physically
see something, we know it is true, and therefore
faith is not necessary. The virtue of faith is to
believe something to be true that we do not see.
The Most Holy Trinity can only be known on
earth by faith. To try and see “the hidden God”
in the soul of our superior is above the capacity
our human nature and that is why we need the
“eyeglasses” of faith.
Faith is that theological virtue infused into
our soul on the day of our baptism. Depending
on the use we make of this gift, it remains sterile

or it bears fruit. If we want our soul to bear fruit
we must use the “talents” that God has confided
to us by making acts of faith. We make an act of
faith in the presence of Our Lord at the moment
of consecration at mass. We see the appearance
of bread and wine and we believe, through the
light of faith, that it is the body and blood of
Our Lord. Our Lord’s desire to be with us is so
strong that He has accepted to be humiliated in
many ways that we cannot understand. Dwelling
in the tabernacle, the Host is often profaned by
sacrilege, insulted by the wicked, despised by
the indifferent, and simply ignored by the vast
majority of mankind, and yet He still chooses to
dwell with us. In order to be with those that love
Him, he willfully undergoes all of this reproach.
This great mystery is above our comprehension
and tests our faith

The Trial of St. John
St. John the Apostle must have been tried in
his faith in a similar way. He saw the miracles
and heard the beautiful doctrine preached by
Our Lord. He believed that Jesus was the divine
Messiah and yet at the foot of the cross he saw
a man in agony, nailed to the wood. He saw Our

Lord suffer and die. “He is God, but He is dead; He
is dead, but He is God.” He could not understand
how this could be and his faith was shaken to
its very foundation by this terrible storm. A few
days later, before an empty tomb, he was once
again able to fully believe. “He was dead, He is
God and He now lives. I do not understand, but
I do believe.” In like manner the monk can be
confronted with a similar dilemma. “My superior
is a man like all others, but at the same time he
takes the place of Christ in my life. He is not
perfect, he does make mistakes, but he manifests
God’s will for my soul. I do not understand, but I
believe.”
What about the soul of the superior? He knows
that he has been invested with the authority that
comes from God, but he can see himself making
many mistakes and even committing sins. He is
not perfect and yet he is called to govern others,
representing Christ in their lives. He too is
obliged to make an act of faith in the presence of
God concerning his authority. Perhaps his act of
faith is even more demanding for him than for his
monks because he knows his frailty better than
they do.

Respecting Authority
Everyone in this life is in a position of either
commanding or obeying: parents and children,
employers and employees, abbots and monks,
all the way to the pope and the faithful of the
Catholic Church. Each one in a position of
authority has received this grace from on high
and yet he remains a poor sinner. He is confided
with a divine mission and yet he remains human.
In the same way that the Blessed Sacrament
can be profaned, outraged, and despised, the
presence of God in the superior can be mocked
as well, either by the inferior or by the superior
himself. God nevertheless wishes to dwell with
us in the person of our superiors. Parents just
as easily as popes can neglect their duties, but
both remain invested with the authority that
God has bestowed upon them. Parents as well
as popes need our most instant prayers in order
that they live their faith profoundly and govern
us as Christ, “[f]or he is believed to be the
representative of Christ in the monastery.”
43

425 pp.—Color Softcover—Illustrated—Index—STK# 8481—$31.95
Ebook version—$19.95

The Pilgrim’s
Guide to Rome’s
Principal Churches
A guided tour of fifty-one of the most important churches in Rome. Includes a history of each church, descriptions of the interior and exterior,
a numbered floor plan, photographs, and details of the church’s spiritual,
architectural, and artistic treasures. Whether you plan on visiting Rome
and using this as a guide or reading it to learn about the “Eternal City,” this
book offers the modern pilgrim essential information on the fifty-one most
significant churches in the city. Special treatment is given to St. Peter’s
Basilica, St. John Lateran, St. Mary Major, St. Paul Outside-the-Walls, and
St. Lawrence Outside-the-Walls.
Joseph N. Tylenda, S.J.,
has spent a good part of his
professional life in Rome. He
earned a doctorate in theology
from Rome’s Gregorian University in 1964 and taught at
the same university from 1970
to 1973, while doing editorial
work at the Pontifical Biblical
Institute. He was appointed to
Rome again in 1985 as a member of the Historical Institute
of the Society of Jesus.

Also available in
ebook format
from angeluspress.org

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Dispute
around a
Dunghill
by Fr. Dominique Bourmaud, SSPX

A surgeon friend of mine brought up the
typical question he faces ten times a day from
anguished parents: “Why does my child of five
have to undergo brain surgery for this huge
tumor, which may keep him paralyzed for life?”
The problem of evil is one of the few topics
which throw people off track regarding their
understanding of who God is. In an asepticized
society which shuns any sign of rot, whether in
the kitchen, the buildings, or the parking lot,
the average Joe cannot come to grips with the
problem of evil. The problem of an effeminate
civilization becomes virtually insoluble when
it is compounded spiritually by an emasculated
Church which purposely refuses to preach the
full Gospel of Christ, with its shining light amidst
dark crevasses. Christ certainly did not mince
words about pardonable and unpardonable sins

or about suffering—physical and moral, temporal
and eternal—with fire and brimstone.

Various Scriptural passages
Among all references to the problem of evil,
without a doubt, the book of Job holds the
preeminence. Other scriptural passages allude
to it in pointed ways, and we might as well go
through them before delving into Job’s labyrinthlike dispute. Tobias’s book, for one, gives us a
quasi New Testament reply to the sufferings
undergone by Tobias senior. Though God fearing,
he went through many setbacks before recovering
his health and his family. It was then that the
angel explained to him: “Because you were
faithful, it was necessary that temptation assail
45

Spirituality
you.”
Other interesting passages are found in the
Psalter. Psalms 48 and 72 deal specifically with
the issue of divine retribution with regards to
man.
The latter psalm is particularly poignant in
its narration, as it gives the viewpoint of the
sacred writer, Asaph, assailed with doubts as he
witnesses the sinner’s lot. How can we reconcile
the prosperity of the wicked with the justice
and goodness of God? Ready to confess some
doubts which had risen formerly in his soul on
the mysterious work of Providence, the psalmist
needs to condemn them ahead of time with an
act of love… After this, he can confess his old
worries: I was scandalized and almost felt “my
footing slip”—losing my faith—when I saw the
tranquility of the wicked… This is the crucial
temptation. But I soon understood this mystery
when I entered the sanctuary of the Lord, when
I saw the end He had prepared for the culprits.
Asaph’s conclusion focuses on the perspective of
the happy eternity, but he also plunges into God’s
love which helps him bear joyfully all temporal
sufferings. “How good is God to those of right
heart.”

The Perspective of Evil in Job
The author of the book of Job, writing
sometime in the era of the first Temple (between
950 and 600 BC), is describing the viewpoint
prevalent in the Old Testament, and very much
alive among the Pharisees in Christ’s time. St.
John (ch. 9) describing the cure of the man born
blind, brings it to the forefront. This will serve as
the perfect introduction to the topic of Job.
The question of evil is introduced by the
apostles thus: “Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man,
or his parents, that he should be born blind?” The
question of the disciples is based on the popular
Jewish prejudice, that sickness is the punishment
of sin. At first reading, it does seem odd to hear
the apostles suggesting that a man born blind
could have sinned before his sickness! But the
same idea is taken again by the Pharisees when
they curse the recently cured man: “Thou wast
wholly born in sins, and dost thou teach us? And
46

The Angelus

July - August 2017

they cast him out.” Both verses from the apostles
and the Pharisees may be an implicit reference
to original sin, from which all diseases fell upon
us. In any case, the presupposition is clear: if
someone suffers, it is because of some previous
sin, either personal, parental or original.
At the outset, the viewpoint of the book of
Job is also Jewish—pre-Christian—in character.
God’s blessings are upon the just. They act
primarily as witness and sign of sanctity. Next,
they are the normal and just reward of virtue.
Looking at it from the opposite side, the reason
why one lives poor and wretched, it is the fruit
of sin. His misery is the obvious sign that he is a
sinner who, having abandoned God is abandoned
by Him too, being paid in kind. In the Old
Testament, all consolations promised by God
were temporal, as He was dealing with the rude
and sensual race of the Hebrews. Within this
framework, there is hardly a place for spiritual
rewards, the merits of souls in God’s grace, and
not even for the sanctions of the soul after death.
We are on the horizontal plane of “give and take”:
give God His due by your obedience to His Law,
and God returns the “favor” by showering his
blessings, purely temporal at that.
This model was perfectly illustrated by Job’s
early life, with his immense patriarchal fortune,
living just east of present day Israel, with his
thousand of camels, and oxen, and large family.
He was successful and prosperous because he
was a man blameless and upright, fearing God.
Later on, we hear him defend his innocence: “I
made a covenant with my eyes, how then could
I look upon a virgin? What would my portion
be from God above, or my inheritance from the
Almighty on high? Does not calamity befall the
wicked and misery those who work iniquity?”
This question runs through the excruciating
debates between Job and his friends who, knowing
of his sickness, had come to pay him a visit, but
became absolutely dumbfounded by grief when
they saw the sorry state of their former colleague.
Job reasons things based on the testimony of
his good conscience: “I am without sin, and
therefore, I deserve God’s blessings, and not his
curse.” But his friends take the other side and
prove him wrong since his sorry state is so acute.
The two camps are well entrenched and make no

Gonzalo Carrasco
Job on the Dunghill

advances. Even when a fourth person enters the
arena to debate with Job about God’s mysterious
workings of Providence, the lines are not moving
much. Suffering and calamity are the punishment
which sin inflicts on one, although, sometimes, God
may also allow one to suffer as a remedy against
further sin. All in all, the connection between sin
and suffering is that of cause and effect. Where
suffering is, there must be hiding some ugly sin.

A Key to the Debate
If Job and his friends, butting heads for
thirty long chapters, are at a loss to find out the
solution of their deadlock, the reader however
is in a better position as he has the perspective
from on High. Before entering the maze of the
long and passionate debates, he is warned by
the anonymous writer of the divine decree
47

Spirituality
concerning the fate of Job. Satan came and
asked God, who had only praise for his faithful
servant, to be permitted to temp Job. “Doth Job
fear God in vain? Hast not thou made a fence for
him and his house, and all his substance round
about, blessed the works of his hands and his
possession hath increased on the earth? But
stretch forth thy hand a little, and touch all that
he hath, and see if he blesseth [i.e. curseth] thee
not to thy face.”
We are all familiar with the series of
misfortunes which took away all his substance.
Job cursed not God but, on the contrary, showed
his patience saying: “Naked came I out of my
mother’s womb, and naked shall I return thither:
the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as
it hath pleased the Lord so is it done: blessed be
the name of the Lord.” Satan came back charging
again and asked for Job’s skin. Job was then
afflicted with an ugly ulcer and lived lying on his
dunghill, and his own wife asked him to curse
God and kill himself rather than “continue in thy
simplicity” blessing God.
The patience of Job had been tried once and
twice by Satan tempting him in his own flesh and
then again, by his foolish wife, and he had come
out victorious. But, when his three “comforters”
silently saw the horrid spectacle of their old
friend turned so much like his dunghill, they were
appalled and mute. After a long week of such
silent staring, Job could not resist and cursed the
day he was born (ch. 3), before his friends came
to the attack defending God’s Providence, just
and holy, against Job whose soul had to be filled
with a sore similar to that of his body. We know
of Job’s repeated answer up to the last moment,
protesting his utter innocence and requesting
that God Himself come to vindicate his cause. In
the thick of his refutation, he makes his stirring
appeal to God as the blood avenger of old (ch. 19):
“For I know that my Redeemer liveth, and in the
last day I shall rise out of the earth. And I shall be
clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall
see my God. Whom I myself shall see, and my
eyes shall behold, and not another: this my hope
is laid up in my bosom.”

48

The Angelus

July - August 2017

The Happy Conclusion
of Job’s Drama
The last chapters of the book bring out God’s
manifestation to all protagonists. Job, who
had requested God’s witness, sees his prayers
answered. Out of the majestic whirlwind comes
God who simply gives proof after proof of his
unfathomable mysteries of nature. If man cannot
understand God’s working in his creation,
how much less can he fathom the decrees of
Providence towards man. Job could only answer
in words of humble surrender: “I know that Thou
canst do all things, and no thought is hid from
Thee. Who is this that hideth counsel without
knowledge? Therefore I have spoken unwisely,
and things that above measure exceeded my
knowledge… therefore I reprehend myself, and do
penance in dust and ashes.”
Applying His sentence, God shows Himself
most lenient towards Job, happy enough to see
him humbled before His designs, but very upset
with the three friends who passed judgment
without knowledge of Job’s case. Job has to
intercede and offer sacrifices to obtain the
pardon of their faults. Job is restored in his
wealth and large family life which he enjoyed till
the fourth generation. The book concludes thus
on this happy note.
And, after all is said and done, we the readers,
as well as Job, have learned a goodly lesson from
the suffering undergone by innocent souls. They
are a test imposed by God to try his holy ones
and turn them into pure gold. But, above all, it is
important to never question the hidden purpose
of God who remains all knowing, all merciful,
even if His hand is heavy upon us. Lastly, we
Christians, after all the questioning Jobs of earth,
should not forget that the mystery of suffering
has its ultimate answer under the shadow of the
Cross of the Innocent One.

DVD—90 minutes—STK# 8599—$14.95

Archbishop Lefebvre:
A Documentary

For the first time ever, the life of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre is available in a feature-length documentary. This film examines the entirety of the Archbishop’s life: from his childhood in France
to his seminary days in Rome, and from Rome to the missions all the way through his role as
Apostolic Delegate, Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers, the Conciliar period, and, finally,
his great work of Catholic Tradition—the Society of St. Pius X. Drawing heavily on new interviews
conducted with his family, friends, priests who worked with him in Africa, as well as many who
knew him, this telling of Archbishop Lefebvre’s life is like no other.

Visit www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Christian Culture

Religious
Ignorance
A Lenten sermon by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre

“The Lord has looked down from heaven upon
the children of men, to see if there be any that
understand and seek God. They are all gone
aside, they are become unprofitable together…”
These words of the psalmist are echoed by St.
Paul: “…they are inexcusable, because that, when
they knew God, they have not glorified Him as
God or given thanks; but became vain in their
thoughts; and their foolish heart was darkened.”

Giant Scientists and
Spiritual Dwarfs
How relevant these passages still are! How
many people there are in our own day who
care nothing for God or the things of Heaven,
or who know nothing of the Christian religion
50

The Angelus

July - August 2017

and the mysteries of Christ! Worse yet, many
baptized Christians still know little or nothing
of their religion, and cannot even recite the
most basic prayers. How many there are, some
even university graduates, who are unable
to distinguish between the true religion into
which they were baptized and heresies and cults
invented by men.
This ignorance may be excusable in those who
have been brought up in a pagan environment and
who are making praiseworthy efforts to escape
from it, but there is no excuse for those who
live in a Christian milieu and who, along with
a certain degree of education, have everything
which makes of man a creature truly made in the
image of God.
Our Holy Father Pope Pius X said: “Those
who are still zealous for the glory of God seek

to know why things divine are being held
in less esteem. Some give one reason, some
another, and according to his opinion each
proposes a different means for the defense or the
reestablishment of the Kingdom of God on earth.
For Ourself, without wishing to disparage the
opinions of others, we concur wholeheartedly
with the judgment of those who attribute today’s
spiritual laxity and weakness and their attendant
grave ills, mainly to ignorance of the things of
God. This is precisely what God spoke through
the mouth of the Prophet Osee, saying: ‘Cursing
and lying and killing and theft and adultery
have overflowed: and blood hath touched blood.
Therefore shall the land mourn, and every one
that dwelleth in it shall languish.’”
How many there are who think they can
make do with a religious education received
before they were eleven years old, an age when
one is nowhere near capable of mastering a
secular science. It may be true that religion
comes naturally to man, and that at an age
when passions have not yet overshadowed
intelligence the raising up of the heart and mind
to God is easy and spontaneous, but at that
stage of a human life, the true knowledge upon
which conviction is based, and which will make
it possible to resist the internal and external
assaults of the devil and the world cannot be and
have not been acquired.
What a crime is committed, albeit
unknowingly, by those parents who can see no
point in continuing their children’s religious
education, once they have made their Profession
of Faith [Editor’s note: at age 12 in France]. And
how wrong are those folk who think religious
knowledge is only good for children, that the
adolescent and the adult should not be expected
to learn anymore, and that a minimal religious
observance—a late Sunday Mass and annual
Easter Communion—is sufficient for living a
good Christian life!

The Dazzling Lights of the City
Small wonder if in the future we find
Christians fulfilling only the strict minimum
of obligations imposed by the Church, and

otherwise living in the world like everyone else,
without faith or morals. To quote Pius X again:
“Human will, led astray and blinded as it is by
wicked passions, has need of a guide to show

What a crime is
committed, albeit
unknowingly, by those
parents who can see no
point in continuing their
children’s religious education, once they have
made their Profession
of Faith.
And how wrong are
those folk who think
religious knowledge is
only good for children, that
the adolescent and the
adult should not be
expected to learn
anymore.

it the way and to bring it back into the paths
of righteousness whence it has mistakenly
wandered. We do not have to seek this guide
outside ourselves, for it is given to us by nature,
it is our own intelligence. If that is not truly
enlightened, that is, if it lacks the knowledge of
the things of God, then we shall be back to the
situation of the blind leading the blind: they will
both fall into the ditch.”
51

Christian Culture
Worse yet, more often than not, an adolescent
will give up the practice of his or her religion
entirely and will soon abandon all moral
standards, much to the distress of the priests
and nuns who have tried everything to keep
such young souls on the path of duty and eternal
salvation. Alas, if it is true that adults are more
than ever fascinated and captivated by all those
inventions of modern science which are drawing
the world into such a state of feverish activity;
if it is true that the human spirit is ever more
attracted by all that enslaves the senses, then
how are the young to resist if there is not deep
in their hearts and minds a still more powerful
attraction towards God?
And such an attraction requires a more prefect
knowledge of the unfathomable riches of God’s
mercy, of His omnipotence, and the infinite love
He has shown for us by making His Divine Son
both our brother and our food. For does not Our
Lord teach that “this is eternal life: that they may
know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ,
Whom Thou hast sent?” Are we going to cast
away eternal life through ignorance of things
divine just so that we may follow the attractions
of this decaying and transitory life?
Modern man is displaying an almost
pathological agitation, brought on by a sensual
activity out of all proportions to the physical
strength which God has given him. Radio, the
cinema and a whole host of modern inventions
are largely to blame for this, but these things
would do less damage if people knew how to
use them with moderation. This is not the case,
however, and wherever we turn, we are faced
with the spectacle of humanity rushing avidly in
pursuit of intense sensual experiences. The effect
upon the intelligence, whose activity depends
so largely upon the nervous system, is all too
evident. Children and young people have great
difficulty concentrating at school, and adults find
it hard to sustain any intellectual effort, or to give
their minds to any one thing for long.
What are we to expect, then, when it comes to
religious matters, where the senses have only a
very small role to play, and where one has to rise
above their limited perceptions if one is to grasp
spiritual realities?
Nonetheless, there is no denying, as our Holy
52

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Father Pope Pius XI put it, “that man created in
the image and likeness of God has his destiny
in Him Who is Infinite Perfection and, although
modern material progress has brought with it an
abundance of worldly goods, he is today more
than ever aware of their inadequacy to bring true
happiness to individuals and to nations. Thus,
he feels more insistently within himself that
aspiration towards a higher state of perfection
which the Creator has implanted in the heart of
rational nature.”

The Ordinary Channels
of Wisdom
How, then, are we to overcome the ignorance
of God and of the divine mysteries which prevent
the realization of this noble aspiration to which
Pope Pius refers?
First, we have to desire true wisdom, that is to
say, understanding of the things of God.
Next, we must seek this knowledge at its
authentic source, and that is the Church.
Finally, and above all, we must give ourselves
over to prayer.
It is not enough for the priest to speak and
write: the faithful must also attend to him with a
genuine desire to learn.
“My son,” says the prophet, “lean not upon
thine own prudence…seek wisdom…take hold
on instruction, leave it not: keep it, because it is
thy life…O men, it is to you that I say; hearken to
me, for I have wondrous things to tell.” Thus he
exhorts the faithful to pay heed to his words and
gives himself as an example: “I desired wisdom
and it was given to me; I have loved it and sought
it from my youth.”
Let us beware of stifling in ourselves, and
especially in the souls of our children, this desire
to know and love God which is within every
human being. As St. Augustine puts it, “Thou, O
Lord, hast made us for Thyself, and our hearts
are restless till they find their rest in Thee.” “As
the heart panteth after the fountains of water”
where it may slake its thirst, let us go, thirsting to
the fount of wisdom.
All knowledge and all wisdom come from Our
Lord Jesus Christ, the Splendor of the Eternal

Father. It is of Him that the Old Testament speaks
when it says: “Come over to me, all ye that desire
me, and be filled with my fruits; he that harkeneth
to me shall not be confounded…” and He Himself
has said: “My sheep hear My voice, and I know
them, and they follow Me. And I give them life
everlasting…He that receiveth Me receiveth Him
that sent Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth
Me…” The college of Apostles, with St. Peter at its
head, is the Church, and the Church continues to
speak by the mouths of its bishops and its priests.
So he who would come to the knowledge of God
must heed the priest, who teaches in the name of
the Church.
Now, the priest teaches in many ways. On
Sundays and Holy days, he preaches; in Lent he
gives special courses of instruction, and in his
conversation and when making pastoral visits he
gives advice, refutes errors, and points out the
way of truth. It is to be deplored that some of the
faithful have, without reasonable cause, got into
the habit of fulfilling their Sunday obligation by
attending a Mass at which there is no sermon.
A priest also teaches by catechizing both
children and adults. In this connection, parents
must be mindful of their grave obligation to send
their children to catechism, even in addition to
their secular studies. Religious instruction is no
less essential for children in state schools than
for those attending Catholic establishments. It
is one of the most vital of parental duties to do
everything possible to supply whatever may be
lacking in one’s children’s schooling.
It has been a source of great joy to see the
dedicated laity offering to assist the Fathers in
teaching catechism. I can assure them that their
zeal is most pleasing to God and the Church, and
that heaven will bless them for that.
Another way in which the Church teaches is
through the printed word, whether in books,
magazines, newspapers or other publications
designed to nourish and enlighten the intellect
and to inform it regarding the things of God.
The book par excellence for anyone wishing
to know about God is, of course, the Holy Bible.
His Holiness Pope Pius XII has written: “Let the
bishops lend their support to every initiative
undertaken by zealous apostles with the laudable
aim of promoting and nurturing among the

faithful the knowledge and love the Holy Books.
Let them therefore support and smooth the way
for those pious associations whose purpose is
to disseminate among the faithful copies of the
Sacred Scriptures, especially the Gospels, and
which encourage the devout reading of them
each day in Christian families…as St. Jerome
says, “Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance
of Christ,” and “if there be one thing in this life
which keeps a man virtuous, and convinces him
to maintain the equanimity of his soul amid
all the sufferings and torments of this world, I
believe that thing to be the meditation and the
knowledge of the Scriptures.”
With all my heart, I encourage you, the faithful,
to adopt this excellent practice, recommended
by Our Holy Father the Pope, of reading together
as a family each day some passage from these
inspired books.

Concluding Exhortation
Dearly beloved brethren, neglect nothing
which can bring you to a greater knowledge of
our holy religion, and of the Giver of all graces,
Our Lord Jesus Christ.
What strength and consolation, what hope
in trials and tribulations is this Christian faith
of ours, which transports us to the realities of
eternity even while we are yet here on earth!
But our desire for the knowledge of God, our
longing to draw from the wellsprings of Truth,
must be accompanied by prayer, the prayer of
the blind man on the road to Jericho. When Jesus
asked him what he wanted he replied, “Lord, that
I may see.” Imagine how that poor blind man
must have uttered those words: “That I may see”
even though he was asking only for the sight of
transitory things. May we take up these words
with a persistence and a longing which will
touch the merciful heart of God. Let us make an
effort to pray with greater humility, with greater
contrition. A humbled and contrite heart God
will not despise, and so the light of wisdom and
knowledge will rise upon our souls, a dawning of
peace and benediction, until the full day of the
Lord shall shine on them forever in the eternity of
the Blessed.
53

5. Now God has willed that the Blessed
Virgin Mary should be exempted from this
general rule. She, by an entirely unique
privilege, completely overcame sin by her
Immaculate Conception, and as a result she
was not subject to the law of remaining in
the corruption of the grave, and she did not
have to wait until the end of time for the
redemption of her body.
6. Thus, when it was solemnly proclaimed
that Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, was
from the very beginning free from the taint
of original sin, the minds of the faithful
were filled with a stronger hope that the
day might soon come when the dogma
of the Virgin Mary’s bodily Assumption
into heaven would also be defined by the
Church’s supreme teaching authority.
Pope Pius XII, Munificentissimus Deus
Baroque fresco of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary in Chiesa
Nuova (Santa Maria in Vallicella) by Pietro da Cortona (1659 1660), Rome, Italy

Christian Culture

Cultural Patronage

Music and
the Papacy
by Dr. Andrew Childs

Throughout the history of Western civilization,
no institution has provided more meaningful
patronage of the arts than the Catholic Church,
often under the personal direction of the pope,
visible and actual leader of the Church. As the
world sorted through the rubble of the collapse
of the Roman Empire, the early Church provided
not only for truth and light, but artistic beauty
as well. During the first millennium, She
represented, in the words of musicologist Donald
J. Grout in A History of Western Music, “the
principle—and oftentimes the only—bond of
union and channel of culture in Europe…When
after a terrible century of wars and invasions
the last Western Emperor finally stepped down
from his throne in 476, the foundations of Papal
power were already so firmly laid that the Church
was ready to assume the civilizing and unifying
56

The Angelus

July - August 2017

mission of Rome.” What follows will consider
briefly the musical aspect of this “civilizing
mission,” and some historical examples of papal
influence and patronage.
Ours is a musical faith; praise proper to God
himself at times transcends the capacity of
speech and must be sung, whether by men or
angels. Isaias (6:2-3) tells of the two angels crying
to each other: “Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of
Hosts, all the earth is full of his glory.” According
to St. Luke (2:14), the angels sing at the birth of
Christ: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth,
peace to men of good will.” Our Lord prepares the
apostles for the Passion with song: “And having
sung a hymn, they went out to Mount Olivet”
(Matt. 36:30; Mark 14:26).
We may consider our first musical patron as
not a pope, but rather a king. As author of the

Psalms and superior harpist, King David provides
numerous examples not only of singing, but of
instrumental playing: Psalm 70 “In te Domine”
(“Let my mouth be filled with praise, that I may
sing thy glory...For I will confess to thee thy truth
with the instruments of psaltery: O God, I will
sing to thee with the harp”); Psalm 97 “Cantate
Domino” (“Sing joyfully to God, all the earth:
make melody, rejoice and sing. Sing praise to the
Lord on the harp and with the voice of a psalm:
with long trumpets and the sound of cornet.”);
Psalm 104 “Confitemini Domino” (“Sing to him,
yea sing praises to him: relate all his wondrous
works.”); and most extensively—at least
regarding the orchestra—in Psalm 150 “Laudate
Dominum in Sanctis” (“Praise him with the
sound of the trumpet: praise him with psaltery
and harps. Praise him with timbrel and choir:
praise him with strings and organs. Praise him on
high sounding cymbals: praise him on cymbals of
joy: let every spirit praise the Lord. Alleluia.”)

antiphonary”—hardly definitive proof that
Gregory composed extensively. Yet two important
facts remain: first, that no one disputes the
extent to which Gregory reformed the Roman
Liturgy, and music clearly played an important

The Popes and the Church’s
Musical Patrimony
In considering popes as important musical
patrons, we turn first to Pope St. Gregory I, “The
Great” (r. 590-604). Though he lends his name
to Gregorian Chant, little hard evidence exists
to connect Gregory directly with music. The
legend of his inspiration by the Holy Ghost relates
originally to his dictation of homilies on Ezekiel:
his scribe would hear Gregory speak from behind
a screen that separated them, and then fall silent
for long periods. Puzzled by this, the scribe
peeked through the screen to see a dove seated
on Gregory’s head with its beak in his mouth:
when the dove withdrew its beak, Gregory spoke.
Later versions imply that the same process took
place with chant melodies.
Unfortunately for the legend, no dependable
music notation existed at the time of Gregory’s
reign: though chants from the earliest days
of the Church persisted, music remained an
almost entirely oral tradition. Gregory’s most
dependable biographer, John the Deacon (c.
872), states simply, “antiphonarium centonem
compilavit”—“he compiled a patchwork

Pope Gregory the Great

part here. And second, that beyond this—and
given Gregory’s recognized importance as a
reformer rather than an innovator—the timing
of his reign indicates the chants had likely
existed for centuries, so by codifying existing
chant, he could hardly have contributed more to
the musical heritage of the Church through any
amount of original composition.
Gregorian chant represents not merely
something musical, but something holy, and in
preserving it, popes have served not only as
cultural promoters but also guardians, charged
to protect the religious integrity of the liturgical
experience. From the earliest days, a dichotomy
existed in music between sacred and secular.
As Grout puts it, “Above all, the forms and
types of music connected with the great public
spectacles such as festivals, competitions, and
dramatic performances...were regarded by many
as unsuitable for the Church, not so much from
57

Christian Culture
any dislike of music itself as from the need to
wean the increasing numbers of converts away
from anything associated with their pagan past.”
Before and after the development of a reliable
notational system (thanks in large part to the
work of the Benedictine monk Guido d’Arezzo, d.
1050), faithful transmission and dissemination
of chant remained a crucial concern, necessary
to accomplish the “unifying mission” of Rome as
it related to the Liturgy. In this regard, another
Pope Gregory, Gregory II (r. 715-31) played a
pivotal role. In an age where multiple dialects of
chant—Gallican, Celtic, Ambrosian, Mozarabic—
threatened either to supplant Roman chant
or create disunity, Gregory II sent his Schola
Cantorum throughout Christendom to teach
and reinforce the Roman tradition. Rather than
destroy them outright, the Roman authorities
took whatever of these various regional variants
they felt could enhance the official liturgy; the
rest remained on the vine to wither. (If the
tiny fragments that remain of Mozarabic and
Ambrosian chant give any indication, this may
represent the greatest cultural loss in history,
yet the Church clearly chose the preservation of
unity over cultural variety.)

Promoting Music from the
Renaissance Onwards
Numerous Renaissance popes worked
actively to promote music, both by reinforcing
the primacy of the Roman tradition, and by
promoting the greatest musicians of the age in
service of the Church not only to refine Gregorian
Chant, but to provide masterpieces in the rapidly
developing polyphonic style for liturgical use.
Though not always heroic in their virtue, these
pontiffs, many of them highly educated Italian
noblemen, did much to enhance the cultural
and intellectual interests of the Church. Sixtus
IV (r. 1471-84) established the Vatican Library
and constructed the Sistine Chapel, installing a
professional choir of 24. Innocent VIII (r. 1484-92)
and the Borgia Pope Alexander VI (r. 1492-1503)
promoted the career of Josquin (ca. 1450-1521),
first as a singer then as a composer. Known
primarily as a patron of visual arts, particularly
58

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Michelangelo and Raphael, Julius II (r. 1503-1513)
reconstituted the choir of St. Peter’s Basilica.
Three Counter-Reformation popes bear
mention for their direct or—in the case Pope
Marcellus II, who reigned for 22 days (April 9 to
May 1 1555)—nominal patronage of Palestrina
(1525-1594), perhaps the greatest liturgical
composer of any age. Pius IV (r. 1559-1565)
presided over the closing of the Council of Trent
(1545-47; 1551-52; 1562-63), and the 22nd Session
of that Council, under the supervision of no less
than St. Charles Borromeo, stated regarding
music:
“In the case of those Masses which are
celebrated with singing and organ, let nothing
profane be intermingled, but only hymns and
divine praises. The whole plan of singing in
musical modes should be constituted not to give
empty pleasure to the ear, but in such a way that
the words may be clearly understood by all...
They shall also banish from church all music that
contains, whether in the singing or in the organ
playing, things that are lascivious or impure.”
A modest admonition, especially considering
the now ineradicable myth that Palestrina had to
save polyphony from banishment at the Council
due to excesses that had overtaken liturgical
composition. Abuses surely existed, and they
were excessive enough for one Roman Bishop,
Cirillo Franco, to write in exasperation: “In our
times they put all their industry and efforts into
the composition of fugues, so that while one
voice says “Sanctus,” another says “Sabaoth,” still
another “Gloria tua,” with howling, bellowing
and stammering, so that they more nearly
resemble cats in January than flowers in May.”
By 1629, the dramatic third-hand account by
Lodovico Cresllio went thus:
“Pius IV, a most serious-minded pontiff of the
church, had noticed for some time that music
and singing in sacred places was very little else
than an abundance of delicate diminutions and
vain adornments...He then determined to set
the question of banishing sacred music from the
church before the Council of Trent. When word
of this came to the ears of Giovanni Palestrina,
he quickly set himself to compose Masses in such
a way that...all the words should be plainly and
clearly understood. When the pontiff heard these

works...he changed his mind and determined not
to banish sacred music but to maintain it.”
High drama indeed, and surely some truth in
it. And yet, Palestrina created a “champion” so
sublime—the Missa Papae Marcelli, composed
in honor of Marcellus II in 1562—that he would
have succeeded in “saving sacred music” had
the blackest of these rumors been pure fact.
Finally, in 1577, Pope Gregory XIII (r. 1572-1585),
entrusted to Palestrina a comprehensive revision
of Gregorian chant, stating: “And thus we give
you the responsibility of revising, purging,
correcting, and reforming these books of chants,
and any others that may be used in the churches
according to the rite of the Holy Roman Church.
And over all this we give you full jurisdiction
and the free exercise thereof by virtue of our
apostolic authority.”

The Role of Pope St. Pius X
Lastly, we consider Pope St. Pius X (r.
1903-1914). Though perhaps best known for
his promotion of the Holy Eucharist, Marian
devotion, and relentless anti-modernism—
made explicit in his 1907 encyclical Pascendi,
perhaps the most important document of the
20th century—the Pope supported the herculean
efforts of the Benedictine Abbey of Solesmes,
officially adopting their revision of the Liber
Usualis begun in 1896. (Pius X did not himself
commission the work as it had begun seven years
prior.)
He also penned definitive and binding
guidelines for sacred music in his motu proprio,
Tra le Sollectitudini (1903), notable more for its
balance than its vitriol. He states his purpose
elegantly but firmly: “We deem it necessary to
provide before anything else for the sanctity
and dignity of the temple.” He adds with poetic
subtlety the nonetheless ominous admonition: “It
is vain to hope that the blessing of heaven will
descend abundantly upon us, when our homage
to the Most High, instead of ascending in an odor
of sweetness, puts into the hand of the Lord the
scourges wherewith of old the Divine Redeemer
drove the unworthy profaners from the Temple.”
He broke no new ground. Rather, seeing clearly

from the very outset of his reign the universal
corrosive potential of the errors of modernism,
he insisted on the continued viability of tradition
and principle, and applied these to sacred music:
Gregorian chant maintains pride of place; the
more polyphony seeks to imitate the “movement,
inspiration, and savor of the Gregorian form, the
more sacred and liturgical it becomes”; modern
music has a place, but the more that modern
polyphony sounds like Palestrina the better; and
as for the “unworthy profaners,” though he never
actually named the theatrical menace, he made
it very clear that the liturgical operatic curtain
had closed for good. Deo gratias. The reader
of Tra le Sollectitudini must take musicalhistorical context into consideration: with all due
respect to Bishop Franco, cats in January recall
the contemplative solitude of the monastery in
comparison to the full-throttle ululating of an
Italian opera chorus unleashing the verismo
fury of a late 19th-century liturgical musical
monstrosity. Coming to the aid of the gentle
Mother, the father must occasionally exhibit a
firm resolve.
The pope—as singular leader of the Church
of God, defender of Faith and doctrine, patron
of thought and culture, all of which are essential
tools in the “civilizing and unifying mission
of Rome”—remains essentially paternal. As a
good father, he provides for, protects, teaches,
admonishes, and loves his children; as Holy
Father, these roles assume a further spiritual
component. Papal musical patrons throughout
history have additionally safeguarded the
integrity of the liturgy, and ensured proper
formal and stylistic development. When we take
in the enormity of the duties of the papal office,
we recognize the necessity of praying for the
pope. When we see loving benefice— in this
case through musical patronage—we should be
inspired to give thanks as well.

Dr. Andrew Childs lives in St. Marys, Kansas, with his wife
and four children. He serves currently as Associate Dean and
Humanities Chair at St. Mary’s College, Head of the Department
of Music at St. Mary’s Academy, and as an assistant to the
Director of Education for the US District of the SSPX. He has
taught at Yale University, the University of California at Irvine,
Connecticut College, and Missouri State University.

59

Christian Culture

Harmony
Between
Parents
by SSPX Sisters

Just like every other evening, Claire’s mother
is supervising the homework of the little lady
who has a tendency to laziness, especially when
it comes to concentrating on schoolwork. So
her mother makes a firm decision to help her
overcome her ugly defect: “Now that you have
understood, Claire, you are going to finish your
math exercises all by yourself, and you will not go
outside to play until they are done and well done.”
Claire sighs, yawns, scribbles a few numbers on
her scrap paper, sighs again… Her mother holds
strong: “Come on, Claire, you can do it; I am going
to get Peter’s bottle ready and when I come back
I want the first exercise to be finished.” As soon
as her mother leaves the room, Claire gets up,
heads straight to the living room, climbs on her
father’s lap, cuddles up and asks: “Dad, my math
exercises are so hard, can’t you help me?” Her
60

The Angelus

July - August 2017

little blond curls, her charming smile, his favorite
daughter’s cute little face: “Go get your notebook,
I’ll help you.” When her mother comes back it
is only to discover to her discontent that once
again, Claire did not do her work on her own.

Lose, Lose
Who won in this little story? Certainly not
Claire: she passed up a good opportunity to grow
in virtue by fighting against her predominant
fault. Not her mother: her authority was
demolished by her husband allowing what she
had just forbidden. And definitely not her father:
his weakness—or imprudence—certainly did
him no credit in his daughter’s eyes; she knows
how to take advantage of it, but in the end,

she has less esteem, less true affection and
admiration for her father, who was not severe
enough.
Children are quick to figure out which of their
two parents is less demanding or more inclined to
give in to their desires…and they take advantage
of it! Yes, but to the detriment of their education.
So it is of the utmost importance for spouses to
harmonize their educational demands, otherwise
they will diminish or even undermine each

guessed some secret sorrow, the father, who is
more direct, will not be taken in by it. The whole
family profits from this harmony: the parents are
more united in their great work of education, the
children are surrounded with unfailing affection,
and everything works together for their greater
good.
“Mom, I’m riding my bike down to Louis’s. Is
that fine?” “Strange, thinks his mother, usually
Dad decides on the bike rides, why is he asking

other’s authority. The best way to do so is to take
the time to talk about their children and their
education (when the children are not around,
obviously!). What is the goal, what is each
child’s predominant fault, what is the best way
to help him overcome it, what efforts should be
demanded and what should be let go for the time
being? These are a few of the essential questions
that need to be answered together ahead of time.
And that way each of the spouses can share with
the other what he has noticed in the children:
the mother, who is more intuitive, may have

me?” Prudently, she asks: “Did you ask your
father?” Vianney blushes a little: “Um, no, not
really.” Very strange indeed. “Well then, go
ask him, whatever he says, I’ll say the same.”
Vianney drops it and his mother mentions it
to her husband that evening. She learns that
Vianney had been told by his father to help rake
the driveway, and that he was trying to get out
of it; and that his father finds that Louis is a very
bad influence on his boy. Thanks to the harmony
between his parents, Vianney was kept on the
right path, at least this time.
61

Christian Culture
The Important Questions
This harmony between the parents, which
is already so important for the little details of
daily life, is even more vital when it comes to
the fundamental subjects: religious convictions
and general views on life. An example: a mother
does not practice regularly or, when she goes to
Mass, it’s the New Mass because “it’s closer, you
can understand everything, and I mean, we don’t
want to stand out in our family.” When the father
is there, of course, he brings the children to Mass
at the priory, but his work keeps him away from
home a lot. So the children go sometimes to one
Mass, sometimes to the other; sometimes they do
not even go at all. Will it not be difficult or even
very unlikely for these children to end up with
firm convictions on religious practice and the
right position in the crisis of the Church? When in
such a situation, one has to do one’s best, but the
task of education becomes far more delicate.
Another example: a father tries to stay on the
right course, and the boys at least need to go to a
good school, since it will be helpful to them in the
practice of their religion. But their mother cries:
“Boarding school? Don’t even think about it!” To
avoid another conflict, the father gives in…yet
again, just as he gave in about sending them to
a mediocre summer camp and allowing them to
go to the beach with their cousins, and so many
other things. He does what he can, but how can
he help taking the path of least resistance every
time?
Today, their children have grown up: John,
the eldest, lives with a young lady without being
married. Alice is civilly married to a Jewish man.
Adrian, at least, had a Catholic marriage, but
it was the New Mass; they both practice pretty
regularly, but their two children go to the parish
catechism classes, and it is doubtful whether the
Faith and the practice of the Faith will survive
another generation. Besides praying, what can
their parents do about the disaster? They can
only weep. They have one consolation: Henry,
the youngest, who was always very close to
his father. He suffered throughout his entire
childhood from the lack of harmony between his
parents. He has remained faithful to the Tradition
of the Church, and he has sworn to marry only a
62

The Angelus

July - August 2017

girl who fully shares his convictions, in order to
found a solid and radiant home that will transmit
the essential.

The Two People Children Love
Even when parents share the same ideal, it is
not always easy to get along: The force of habit,
the friction caused by the differences between
the masculine and feminine psychology, and
defects that are not fought can all come to
destroy the freshness of their first love. And
their children are the first to suffer from the
misunderstandings and even disputes that doors
and walls do not contain; they quickly pick up on
the gestures of impatience or anger, the silences
laden with resentment or threats. Anxiety,
sleeping disorders, and poor schoolwork betray
the suffering in their hearts that see a threat to
the stability and safety they need so much as
they grow up. The two people they love the most
in the world no longer get along. Fortunately the
grace of matrimony is there to help parents live
according to the sacrament they have received,
to sustain them in the inevitable and necessary
sacrifices that alone can maintain conjugal
harmony. Frequent Confession and Communion
repair the hitches and give new strength for
building a united home day after day.
“Mom and Dad are the same”: when children
can say that of their parents, it is a source of
pride, joy, and strength for them all throughout
their lives.

Please join us for our eighth annual Angelus Press conference

2017 CONFERENCE FOR CATHOLIC TRADITION
OCTOBER 13-15, 2017
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

Fatima:

Our Lady’s
Answer to Three
Revolutions
1517: Protestantism
1717: Freemasonry
1917: Communism

Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais: Archbishop Lefebvre
on the Three Revolutions
Fr. Jürgen Wegner: Introduction and Conclusion
Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara: Martin Luther: The Man Behind
Protestantism
Dr. John Rao: The Counter-Reformation is the Church’s
response to the Protestants
Dr. Louis Shwartz: The Many Rotten Fruits of Protestantism

Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara: Freemasonry: the anti-Church
John Salza: Is Freemasonry Still a Danger Today?
Fr. Mark Stafki: St. Maximilian Kolbe,
the Militia Immaculata, and Communism
Fr. Bertrand Labouche: Fatima and the Mass
Andrew Clarendon: The Story of Fatima
Fr. Jonathan Loop: Communist Principles
Still Alive Today

Debate: Is the Third Secret Entirely Revealed?
Kevin Symonds vs. Christopher Ferrara

Space is limited. Make your Reservation today!
Visit www.angeluspress.org/conference — 1-800-966-7337

Christian Culture

by Fr. Juan-Carlos Iscara, SSPX

Should we go to confession
frequently, even when we have
not committed any mortal sins?
“Frequent confession” is the practice of
receiving the sacrament of penance more than
once a year (as required by ecclesiastical law)
or even when we do not have mortal sins to
confess. This practice, inspired in the Church
by the Holy Ghost, is one of the more efficacious
means to advance in perfection, for it is a law
64

The Angelus

July - August 2017

of the spiritual life that the closer we come to
God, the more we realize how far our thoughts,
words and deeds stray away from His will for us.
The Saints give us a striking example of how a
greater holiness of life makes us grow in humility
and acknowledge our need of God’s mercy. This
growth and acknowledgement is greatly helped
by the frequent reception of the sacrament of
penance. This is because confession demands
that we thoroughly examine our conscience,
grow in knowledge of ourselves, regret our sins
for what they are—offenses against our loving

Father in Heaven—and take responsibility for our
actions by confessing them, while at the same
time expressing our firm purpose of amendment.
The salutary effects of frequent confession
have been taught in many ways by the Saints and
great spiritual authors. Pius XII, in his encyclical
Mystici Corporis (1943), opposing the opinion of
those who say that frequent confession of venial
sins is not necessary, while acknowledging that
venial sins can be expiated in other ways, states
that frequent confession is one of the best means
for a rapid progress in virtue. Consequently, he
proceeds to describe the fruits to be obtained
from it.
–– Genuine self-knowledge is increased. Usually,
while very prompt to see the sins and faults
of our neighbors, we are very shortsighted,
when not decidedly blind, to our own
weaknesses and failings. Frequent confession
and the frequent and thorough examination
of conscience that should precede it make us
confront the reality of our spiritual and moral
state, dispelling the mists of confusion and
self-deception that often cloud our judgments
about ourselves.
–– Humility is acquired. Frequent confession,
by exposing to our own eyes our misery, our
fundamental condition of sinners, removes
any justification for our pride in ourselves
and what we like to consider our own
accomplishments—a pride that is the root of
all sins.
–– Bad habits are corrected. Our vices are bad
habits that we have acquired by the repetition
of certain sins. The fact that they have become
“habitual” means that we are usually inclined
to commit them when the temptation appears;
thus, it also means that eradicating them
will demand effort on our part. Frequent
confession helps us to identify our habitual
weaknesses, find their causes, and discern the
best way of opposing and overcoming them.
–– Spiritual tepidity is resisted. By becoming
the frequent recipients of God’s mercy, we are
filled with an ardent love for Him.
–– Our conscience is purified. “Conscience” is
a practical judgment of what has to be done
in a certain situation and how to do it, while
conforming to the will of God. But because

our reason is often clouded by our passions or
our ignorance or negligence, we sometimes do
wrong without realizing what we are doing.
Frequent confession helps us to acquire a
greater clarity of judgment regarding our own
actions.
–– Our will is strengthened. We need courage
to change, to overcome our weaknesses and
temptations, but our repeated failings and
falls discourage and weaken us. Frequent
confession reassures us of God’s mercy and
gives us the strength to persevere, to keep
fighting, to resist our self-love and submit to
God’s will.
–– Self-control is acquired. By frequent
confession we gradually learn how to exercise
restraint, self-denial, and acquire mastery over
our impulses, emotions and desires, bringing
them into conformity with the will and design
of God. We learn, sometimes painfully, that not
everything that we want is according to God’s
will, and that not everything that we dislike is
opposed to it.
–– Grace increases by virtue of the sacrament
itself.
St. Francis of Sales encourages us to this
practice by summarizing its salutary effects:
“By frequent confession, you not only receive
absolution from venial sins you confess, but
likewise strength to avoid them, light to discern
them well, and grace to repair all the damage you
may have sustained by them.”

Do we have sufficient contrition
when we confess a sin,
knowing that, in all likelihood,
we will fall again into it?
An important distinction must be made,
between “expecting to fall again” and “wanting
65

Christian Culture
to fall again”.
Undoubtedly, the penitent who wants to fall
again into sin—who is determined to renew
his fault at the first possible occasion—is not
“penitent.” He does not have any contrition;
he does not regret having offended God and is
willing and decided to offend Him again. He
abuses the sacrament. He may perhaps think that
he will receive an efficacious absolution, but he
is utterly wrong, for the absolution cannot erase
a sin unless it is repudiated by he who committed
it, which implies the will not to offend again. But,
thank God such extreme cases are not common.
Most penitents sincerely confess their sins,
while having at the same time an acute feeling of
their weakness, a feeling justified by the unhappy
experience of their relapses. They fear—they are
almost sure—that their good intention, when
tested again, will not be more effective in the
future than it was in the past. And they conclude:
I do not have the contrition necessary to receive
validly the absolution—but they are wrong.
Indeed, in confessing their sins they acknowledge
them as evil; they wish both to have never
committed them and not to fall again into them.
In fact, that is a real contrition! To forgive us,
God does not demand our certainty that we will
not fall again—on our part, such certainty would
be presumption, given our fallen nature. He only
demands from us the intention of doing what we
can, with the promised assistance of His grace, to
avoid sinning again.
If the penitents have such an intention, they
should not fear any hypocrisy or insincerity on
their part. Their dark predictions do not modify
the intention they have at present. They must
reject having a blameworthy distrust regarding
the grace of the sacrament. If the sacrament of
penance is a means of spiritual progress, it is not
so much by the psychological effort it requires
from us—it is because it applies to our sick souls
the true remedy, the expiatory and meritorious
Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus grants us
not only the forgiveness that He obtained for us
by his Passion, but He also gives us graces of
healing and strength for the struggles to come
precisely in regard to the sins for which we have
sought absolution. Our trust should be put in
these graces, not on the problematic capacities of
66

The Angelus

July - August 2017

resistance of our good will.
Thus, the penitents should not worry about
“tomorrow.” Tomorrow’s grace will suffice for
tomorrow, provided that they remain in trust
and prayer. For today, they have today’s grace, a
grace of contrition. To carry in their imagination
the temptation of tomorrow is to carry a
burden for which they are not helped now and,
therefore, they should not be surprised that it
appears to them far too heavy, unavoidable, and
overwhelming.
But all this should not be taken as an invitation
to negligence or recklessness. Their accusation
must be completed by a resolution—a resolution
whose fulfillment will be entrusted to the divine
aid, but that they will work hard to hold. For it to
be efficacious, this resolution must be clear-cut,
bearing on a particular sin to avoid, not on the
whole of the faults accused, not even usually on
several faults. Better still, they should endeavor
to foresee, according to past experience, the
circumstances that could bring them to the
fall, the “occasions” into which, if they put
themselves, they are likely to fall. The resolution
must be concerned with these occasions to be
avoided. They may know that a certain person
involves them with gossip, that certain readings
lead them to impurity, that a certain topic of
conversation excites their anger: the resolution
will be to avoid that person, those readings, that
topic of conversation…
For penitents to act in this manner is to
be realistic, to take themselves as they are:
capable of giving way and falling into sin where
somebody else would perhaps remain strong
and resist the temptation. They take measures
not to expose themselves presumptuously to
temptation. Nothing of this is inconsistent with
their contrition.
From time to time, it would be good to
guarantee their resolution by submitting it to the
confessor at the end of their accusation. That
would certainly help them in better keeping it.

Is there a simple, commonsense answer to the Protestant
objection against the
Catholic prayer asking for the
intercession of the Saints?
Indeed, there is such an answer.
If it is lawful for a man to ask for the prayers of
his fellows while they are on this earth, weighed
down by all the disabilities attaching to man’s
fallen nature, why should it be unlawful to ask
the prayers of the same persons when they have
won their crowns and entered into the joy of
Heaven? If it is an obligation of Christian charity
for men to pray for one another, even for their
enemies in this world, are we to suppose that this
obligation ceases with entrance into the next? If
the continual prayer of a just man availeth much
(Jas. 5:16), it may be presumed that the prayers
of a just man made perfect in Heaven gain much
more. In short, if it is lawful to ask for the prayers
of a man still affected by the weaknesses of his

fallen nature, it is lawful to ask for the prayers of
a Saint.
The objection that the invocation of saints
and Angels interferes with the office of Christ
as sole mediator between God and men is
founded on a confusion of ideas. Our Divine
Lord is the sole Mediator of redemption between
God and man, but everyone who prays for his
fellow men, be he a Saint in Heaven or still a
sinner upon earth, is in a sense a mediator of
intercession, and his prayers are acceptable to
God, not through his own merits, but through
those of the one Mediator, Jesus Christ. So, far
from the invocation of saints detracting from
the mediatorship of Christ, the practice adds a
greater glory to it.
Therefore, let us, who are engaged in spiritual
warfare against the encroaching darkness in
this world, constantly call upon the holy Angels
and blessed Saints who are now reigning in light
and pray with our whole hearts: Holy Angels and
Saints of God, pray for us and protect us.

344 pp–Hardcover–STK# 8343✱–$25.55

The Best of Questions
and Answers
The best questions and the best answers of 30 years of The Angelus. This will be a
family’s heirloom reference book for everyday Catholic living to match the Catholic
Faith we believe and the Latin Mass we attend. Over 300 answers classified under
30 subtitles.
–– Marriage, Parenting, Family Life
and Rearing Children

–– Bible and Biblical Matters
–– Trinity, Jesus Christ, Virgin Mary,

–– Science and Medical Matters

Angels,

–– Life After Death

and Saints

–– Church Practices and Customs

–– Mass and the Liturgy

–– The Papacy and the Church

–– SSPX and the Crisis

Teachings
67

News from Tradition
New President for Pontifical Academy of Sciences
On June 2, 2017, Pope Francis appointed the
new president of the Pontifical Academy of
Sciences. He is 66-year-old German Joachim von
Braun, a specialist on agricultural and economic
development. This appointment is in line with the
encyclical Laudato Sí, which defends the idea of
integral ecology.

Joachim von Braun will replace 88-year-old
Swiss microbiologist and geneticist Werner
Arber, who had held the position since 2011. The
new president was born in 1950, in North RhineWestphalia; he studied agronomics, then obtained
a doctorate at the University of Bonn before
working as a university lecturer and researcher
in agricultural economics in universities in
Göttingen, Kiel, and Bonn.
Joachim von Braun is considered a leading
68

The Angelus

July - August 2017

international expert on the problems of hunger
and malnutrition. He was director general of the
International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI) headquartered in Washington from 2002 to
2009, then Director of the Center for Development
Research at the University of Bonn, where he is a
professor of Economics.
His research fields include international
economic development, economics of natural
resources, poverty, agriculture, and science and
technology policy, as well as international trade:
all fields that are at the heart of the integral
ecology developed in the encyclical Laudato Sí,
and therein doubtless lies the explanation for Pope
Francis’ choice.
The Pontifical Academy of Sciences’ work is
regularly a source of controversy. On April 28,
2015, for example, it organized, with the pope’s
blessing, a symposium on the “moral dimension
of climate change and sustainable development.”
One of the authorized speakers at the symposium
was Jeffrey Sachs, known for his open support of
controlling the birth rate through contraception
and abortion.
More recently, during a symposium on
“biological extinction” which was held from
February 28 to March 1, 2017 (behind closed doors
this time), the Academy did not hesitate to invite
Paul Ehrlich, a scientist who advocates limiting
the number of inhabitants on earth to an ideal
number of one billion.
Unfortunately, this was not just a false step.
In 2015, the Holy See chose Hans Schellnhuber, a
member of the Academy who contributed to the
pages on natural science in the pope’s encyclical,
to present the encyclical Laudato Sí. This
influential scientist, the famous founder of the
Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research,
counselor to German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
and to the European Commission, had the
opportunity of saying on global warming: “It’s
a triumph for science because at last we have
stabilized something—namely the estimates for
the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below
one billion people.”

Relics of St. Don Bosco Stolen
Don Bosco’s relics, stolen on June 2 from
the Salesian Basilica of Castelnuovo in Asti
(Piedmont), known as Castelnuovo Don Bosco,
were found on June 15, 2017.
The urn containing the remains of the holy
priest’s brain had been hidden inside a copper
tea kettle in a kitchen cupboard.
The thief is a 42-year-old man had already
had run-ins with the police. He was arrested
in his home in Pignerol, about two miles south
of Turin, nearly 40 miles from the basilica. He
had been identified by the forensic police of
Parma thanks to the fingerprints he left on the
site of the theft and to the pictures taken by
the basilica’s video surveillance system. After
admitting he was guilty, the man was taken to
the prison of Asti.
The investigation says he did not steal
the relics to ask for a ransom or sell them to
collectors, but because he thought the reliquary
was made of solid gold. The urn was found
in perfect condition and the relics were still
sealed.
The archbishop of Turin, Archbishop Cesare
Nosiglia, expressed his “great joy” at this happy
ending. “I was sure this would be the result,

because the figure of the patron saint of young
people is so loved and honored throughout the
world that nobody, not ever a thief or a brigand,
could have resisted the unanimous prayers,”
he told Vatican Radio on June 16, 2017. He also
thanked the police and prayed that St. John
Bosco would forgive the thief.

Church Tithing in Paris
The Archdiocese of Paris draws a lesson from
the evolution in the collection baskets over the last
ten years. This situation offers some suggestions
for the future. The Archdiocese has just
undertaken a large survey on parish tithing, and
the first results offer two main lessons. First of all,
the number of donors has dropped: the capital now
has 58,000 regular givers, which is 9% less than ten
years ago.
To counterbalance this first number, however,
the survey shows that the tithes have increased by
17%: this means that the average amount given is
higher, 450€, the median amount being 200€.
What factors can explain the decrease in the
number of donors, considering that since the
attacks in November 2015, the average religious

practice has increased throughout the diocese?
Christophe Rousselot, director of financial
resource development, sees it as the fruit of a
“sociological evolution.”
According to him, certain families living on the
territory of certain parishes—such as St. Sulpice
in the 6th arrondissement—can no longer retain
the family apartments they inherited because of
the rise in real estate prices in the neighborhood.
The apartments are often bought by foreigners,
non-Catholics, who do not become parishioners.
“On Rue de Rivoli,” he says, “it’s been ages since
there have been families in the sector. The tithes
of Saint-Germain-l’Auxerrois are left up to a few
parishioners.” Then, pointing to another reason,
he adds, “[O]ther neighborhoods are also very
69

News from Tradition

70

complex because they are inhabited by members
of other religions.”
As for the increase in the amount of the tithes,
it is supposedly due to the efforts made by the
pastors to convince their flocks to be more
generous; the survey also shows that the practice
of direct debit, which makes the process easier
for the donor, has become more widespread and
currently represents 25% of donations.
While the number of practicing Catholics has
increased, there is still a lot of work to be done
to make them more aware, especially the young

itself, “which has created hundreds of automatic
debits.” They are often very small, he adds, “from
one to five euros, but it does create a habit.”
He concludes: “We are now going to see about
young professionals, by appointing someone
from our team who will be in contact with all the
parishes, youth groups, and pilgrimages…”
For the record, ever since the Act of the
Separation of Church and State, the Republic of
France no longer “recognizes, pays or subsidizes
any worship.” Deprived of all public resources, the
bishops and priests had to turn to the generosity

people. Seeing that people from 18 to 30 often
no longer carry checkbooks, some parishes have
innovated in finding ways for them to participate
in the tithes. Thus in the 7th arrondissement,
at Saint-François-Xavier, Christophe Rousselot
explains that a team from the diocese “stood at
the bottom of the steps with a payment terminal,
and were thus able to collect subscriptions and
subscription renewals for automatic withdrawals
after Mass.”
18 to 25 year olds have also been solicited over
the past few years for the needs of the diocese

of the faithful. Thus the “clergy’s tithe” was
established in 1906, and later came to be known as
the “Tithe of the Cult.”
St. Pius X, in his catechism, places the grave
obligation to tithe under the fourth precept of
the Church which orders us to “pay the dues or
making the offerings which have been established
in recognition of God’s supreme dominion over
all things and as a means of providing for the
becoming support of His ministers.”

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Our Lady of Fatima Honored by Luxembourg
In Luxembourg, a special devotion to Our
Lady of Fatima is practiced in a sanctuary in her
honor. A commemorative stamp has just been
issued for the occasion.
The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is very
involved in the celebrations for the onehundredth anniversary of the apparitions of
Fatima. On every Ascension Thursday, nearly
20,000 faithful—many of whom are Portuguese
immigrants or their descendants—go on
pilgrimage to the heights of Wiltz where a
sanctuary consecrated to Our Lady of Fatima
was built in 1952.
The story of this sanctuary begins with the
vow made by a group of faithful who had taken
refuge in a cellar during the Battle of Ardennes.
On January 13, 1945, under heavy fire and right
when the city was about to be evacuated, a
dozen faithful hiding in the priest-dean Prosper
Colling’s cellar were encouraged by him to
make a promise “to erect a public way of the
cross with images of the Sacred Heart of Jesus
and Our Lady of Fatima,” if they made it through
the ordeal safe and sound. They immediately
began a novena and on January 20, 1945, before
the end of the novena, the German troops left
the city.

The sanctuary of Our Lady of Fatima “Op
Baessent” was inaugurated on July 13, 1952,
and a monumental Way of the Cross was built
thereafter. The first official pilgrimage of
Portuguese families took place in 1968. Since
then, thousands of people have been walking
every year on the feast of the Ascension from
the Decanal Church of Sts. Peter and Paul to the
sanctuary.
The statue of the Pilgrim Virgin of Fatima
began touring the diocese on May 25, 2017, and
on June 25, Archbishop Jean-Claude Hollerich,
archbishop of Luxembourg, presided over
the procession for the Virgin’s departure for
Portugal.
To symbolize the close connection between
the Grand Duchy and Fatima, a commemorative
postage stamp worth 0.95€ has been issued
along with Portugal, Poland, and Slovakia.
The stamp, that shows the statue of the Virgin
overlooking a crowd of pilgrims, was presented
on Sunday, March 13, 2016, in Portugal, in the
basilica of Fatima. The rector of the sanctuary
of Fatima, Fr. Carlos Cabecinhas, and business
representatives from Portugal, Slovakia, and
Luxembourg were present for the ceremony.

71

Theological Studies

The Question
of Papal
Heresy
by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX

Editor’s Note: The following is an abridgement of
Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize’s study of a highly sensitive
theological question concerning the papacy and
heresy. It appeared originally in the January 2017
issue of Courrier de Rome.
Introduction to the Problem
In Autumn of 2014, then again in October 2015,
Pope Francis convened two Synods in Rome to consult with bishops from all over the world on questions concerning “the human family.” The outcome
was, on March 19, 2016, the Post-Synodal Apostolic
Exhortation Amoris laetitia on “Love in the Family.”
Its eighth chapter opens the door to a practical denial of the Church’s traditional discipline concerning
the sacrament of marriage, and consequently calls
into question also the dogmatic presuppositions
underlying it.

72

The Angelus

July - August 2017

On September 15, 2016, the four Cardinals
Burke, Brandmüller, Caffarra, and Meisner sent
to the Supreme Pontiff a private letter in which
they respectfully asked him to clarify the recent
Apostolic Exhortation on five disputed points, using
the traditional procedure of “dubia” [“doubts”], in
other words, by formulating five questions calling
for a clear yes or no answer. The explicit intention
of this step was to verify whether the text of the
Exhortation at the points indicated could be considered in conformity with the moral teaching of the
Church to date.
Since Pope Francis gave no response, the five dubia were made public on November 16. To date,
the Holy See still has not provided the expected
response.
Giving an account of this silence, during an
interview published on LifeSiteNews on December

19, Cardinal Burke declared that there must be a
response to the dubia: “...because they have to do
with the very foundations of the moral life and of the
Church’s constant teaching with regard to good and
evil, with regard to various sacral realities like marriage and Holy Communion and so forth.”
For his part, when questioned by Andrea Tornielli
in the Italian newspaper La Stampa, Cardinal
Brandmüller declared on December 27: “We cardinals are waiting for the answers to the dubia, inasmuch as a lack of a response could be seen by broad
sectors of the Church as a refusal to adhere clearly
and distinctly to defined doctrine.”
Many reflections are coming to light in the wake
of the cardinalatial initiative. Just how far will this
fraternal correction go? Above all, what would be
the consequences thereof, in the event that Francis
refused to take them into account?
For John Lamont, the Pope’s response is still
awaited, but one can from now on assert that
Francis is teaching heresy. This is why, in the event
that the correction proved ineffective, the theological opinion inherited from St. Robert Bellarmine envisaging the dethronement of a pope who had fallen
into heresy could very well be the solution. All the
more so because, in an interview granted to Catholic
World Report on December 19, 2016, Cardinal Burke,
while careful not to say that Francis is a heretic,
presents this hypothesis of Bellarmine as a solid
conclusion and does not rule out the possibility that
the College of Cardinals might be led to draw this
conclusion in view of the facts.
The question about a heretical pope, which is
discussed relatively little in the (Scholastic) manuals
of theology, nevertheless attracted the attention of
some major authors.3 In any case it provides material for a debate, which to this day has never really
been taken to its ultimate conclusions.
The important thing is to go back to the principles
that always remain the same, through all contingencies, even if the application thereof might momentarily cause difficulties. And so it is necessary to ask
three questions:

3. Does a pope who has fallen into heresy lose the
pontificate?

1. Is it possible for the Pope to fall into heresy?;
2. Can the presently reigning Sovereign Pontiff,
Pope Francis, be considered heretical, precisely
because of what he teaches in Chapter Eight of
the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia?; and

The Twofold Argument
The argument of this explanation is twofold, and
it remains invariable in the writings of all the authors
who adopt this position. First there is a theoretical argument that is presented as a matter of

Can the Pope Fall into Heresy?
At first glance it would seem that this is an improbable thesis. In fact, the negative answer to this
question is the common opinion of theologians of
the modern era. They say, in effect, that the pope
could not become a formal, obstinate heretic, in
other words a deliberate, culpable heretic, although
he could become a material heretic, through nonculpable ignorance or because of a simple error
and not by reason of ill will. The main advocates of
this thesis are the Dutch theologian Albert Pighi
(1490-1542) (author of the treatise Hierarchiae
ecclesiasticae assertio, which examines this question), St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) (De Romano
Pontifice, Book 4, chapters 6-14), and Francisco
Suarez (1548-1617) (De fide, disputatio 10, sectio
6, §11, Opera omnia, 2:319). Just before Vatican
Council I, this opinion was held also by the French
canonist Marie-Dominique Bouix (1808-1870).
During that Council, Bishop Zinelli, speaking in
the name of the Deputation of the Faith, praises this
opinion of Bellarmine and Suarez: according to him
it is probable that the pope will never be a formal
heretic: “Since these things have been entrusted
to supernatural Providence, we think it sufficiently
probable that they will never come about” (Mansi,
vol. 52, col. 1109).
In the wake of the Council, Cardinal Billot (18461931) reiterated the same opinion in L’Église, II–Sa
constitution intime, question 14, thesis 29, part 2,
nos. 940-949. Fr. Dublanchy too adopted it after him
in “Infaillibilité du pape,” Dictionnaire de théologie
catholique, 8/2:1716-1717.
Finally, during the reign of Pius XII, the classic
manual by Father Salaverri, De Ecclesia Christi,
thesis 14, §657, mentions this question about the
personal heresy of a pope as a matter for theological debate and presents as probable the opinion of
Bellarmine and Suarez that was praised by Bishop
Zinelli.

73

Theological Studies
convenience: the infallibility of the office promised
in Luke 22:32 would make personal indefectibility
in the faith morally necessary. Indeed, St. Robert
Bellarmine remarks in De Romano Pontifice, Book
V, chapter 6 that the order established by God
absolutely requires that the private person of the
Supreme Pontiff not be able to fall into heresy, not
even by losing his faith in a purely internal way.
For the pope must not and cannot preach heresy;
not only that, but he must also teach the truth always, and there is no doubt that he will always do so,
since the Lord commanded him to strengthen his
brethren. But how can a heretical pope strengthen
his brethren in the faith, how will he always preach
the true faith? No doubt, God is still capable of
extracting the profession of the true faith from the
heart of a heretic, just as he once made Balaam’s
ass speak. But there would be violence in that, and
not an action in keeping with divine providence,
which arranges all things smoothly.”
There is also a second factual argument, following from the first, which logically leads all the
advocates of the theory to prove that never in all the
history of the Church has any pope been formally
heretical (see ibid., chapters 7-14).
The Premodern Opinion
Nevertheless, the theologians of the modern
era are latecomers. And one might object that even
before them, from the 12th-16th centuries, theologians commonly thought that the pope can fall into
heresy. We encounter this idea in the 12th century in
Gratian’s Decretum, specifically Book 1, distinction
40, chapter 6 entitled Si papa. Gratian says that the
pope cannot be judged by anyone else, except in the
case in which he strayed from the faith. This statement is attributed to St. Boniface, Archbishop of
Milan, and it is cited under his name, before Gratian,
by Cardinal Deusdedit and Yves de Chartres. It is the
text that will serve as a basis for all the reflections
of the medieval canonists and will henceforth support a common opinion: “The canonists of the 12th
and 13th centuries,” Fr. Dublanchy says, “...know the
passage from Gratian and comment on it. All admit
without difficulty that the pope can fall into heresy,
as into any other serious sin; their only concern is
to investigate how and in what conditions he can in
this case be judged by the Church” (Dictionnaire de
théologie catholique, col. 1715).

74

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Cajetan again supports this thesis. Albert Pighi
in the 16th century would be the first to break with
a theological and canonical tradition that had been
unanimous until then. But even in the modern era,
the new opinion introduced by Pighi would not be
absolutely unanimous. In fact, Pighi was rather
quickly refuted by Melchior Cano (1509-1560) (De
locis theologicis, Book 6, chapter 8, §§21-23) and
Domenico Bañez (1528-1604) (Commentary on
II-II, q. 1, art. 10, folios 183-212 of the 1587 Venice
edition). The Dominican Charles-René Billuart
(1685-1757) shares the same opinion with these two
theologians in his De fide, dissertatio 5, art. 3, §3,
objectio 2; De regulis fidei, dissertatio 4, art. 8, §2,
objectiones 2 et 6 and De incarnatione, dissertatio 9,
art. 2, §2, objectio 2.
Finally, in the aftermath of the Vatican Council,
Father Palmieri defends this thesis in Tractatus de
romano pontifice, thesis 32, scholion, pp. 630-633.
Lessons from History and Today
Consider also that the facts of history are undeniable. There have been in the Church one or two
popes who favored heresy, and there are today,
since Vatican II, popes who have caused serious
problems for the conscience of Catholics, who are
rightly perplexed. For instance, Pope Honorius I
(625-640) was anathematized by his successors,
Sts. Agatho (678-681) and Leo II (682-684) during
the Third Council of Constantinople in 681 for having
favored the Monothelite heresy. (For more detailed
information, see the article “Une crise sans précédents?” that appeared in the journal of the Institute
Universitaire saint Pie X, Vu de haut 14 (Automne
2008), pp. 78-95.)
On the other hand, it is clear that since Vatican II,
Popes Paul VI, John Paul II. and Benedict XVI have
taught—and Pope Francis still teaches—theological
opinions that would be difficult to reconcile with the
substance of Catholic dogma. But in both cases,
the import is essentially the same. And these facts
have been noted by persons whose judgment has
a certain moral authority, although it lacks juridical
authority.
Consider the words of Archbishop Marcel
Lefebvre, delivered in his sermon at the June 30,
1988 episcopal consecrations at Ecône.
“Indeed, since the Council, what we [the popes

before 1962] condemned in the past the present
Roman authorities have embraced and are professing. How is it possible? We have condemned them:
Liberalism, Communism., Socialism, Modernism,
Sillonism. All the errors which we have condemned
are now professed, adopted and supported by the
authorities of the Church. Is it possible?”
Recent events, no doubt, are more serious than
situations in the past. Here again is the Archbishop,
this time from his March 30, 1986 Easter sermon:
“We find ourselves facing a serious, extremely
serious dilemma that I think has never existed in the
Church: the fact that the man seated on the chair of
Peter participates in the worship of false gods. I do
not think that this has ever happened in the history
of the Church”
And, finally, attention must also be paid to
the comments Bishop de Castro-Mayer made to
Archbishop Lefebvre in a letter dated December 8,
1969:
“This is a very serious matter. We are on the way
to a new Church. Rome is the one driving souls into
heresy. It seems to me that we cannot accept all the
documents of Vatican II. There are some that cannot be interpreted according to Trent and Vatican I.
What do you think?”
All this leads us to think, no more no less, that the
first opinion that regards as improbable the fall of a
pope into heresy is itself improbable. In other words,
the arguments from theological authority along the
lines of a negative answer to the question posed are
insufficient to win adherence. It must still be shown,
therefore, how right reason, enlightened by faith,
could justify an affirmative answer.”
Is Pope Francis Heretical?
Identifying Heresy
Calling one’s adversary “heretical” could be polite
in a certain ecclesial context that is now past. More
precisely, men of the Church too, whether or not
they were theologians, had their repertoire of insults. Invective is found in all times and in all professions. We already find considerable traces of it in the
Gospel, even on the lips of the Incarnate Word. One
may regret that it has become rare, since the last
Council, and deplore the kid gloves and sugar coatings that prevail now in inter-confessional dialogues.
The use of insults ought to remain legitimate, provided that no mistake is made about its significance,

which will always be limited. Very often, it falls short
of its original value and is no more than the last resort of those who have lost all their arguments and
just want to avoid losing face. And we are not talking
about demonization, which is a form of manipulation
on a grand scale. In short, we may be in the middle
of rhetoric here and, if you will, outside of the field of
theology, properly speaking. Rhetoric may possibly
serve as a support to theology, and that is precisely
the basis of its legitimacy, but it could never replace
it, much less mask the absence thereof.
“Heretical” Demands Contradiction to Defined
Truth
It is different with the doctrinal censure “heretical”: the latter is a technical expression, part of the
terminology to which specialists resort in order to
give as precise an evaluation as possible. The designation “heretical” corresponds to this precise language that the theologian uses; in this sense it applies to a person whose acts and words sufficiently
manifest a rejection or a questioning of the revealed
truth that is proposed by the infallible Magisterium
of the Church. It applies also, consequently, or by
extension of its meaning, to a proposition which
demonstrably contradicts dogma.
Applying this type of designation to a person or to
a proposition therefore implies that one has previously verified the rejection or contradiction in question. What matters is not only whether or not there
is a rejection or a contradiction. What also matters is
verifying whether this rejection or contradiction has
any precise bearing on a dogma, in other words, on
a truth that is not only revealed but also proposed
as such by an infallible act of the ecclesiastical
Magisterium. That spells out the whole complexity
of the matter that is hidden behind the word.
The Case of Pope Francis
The question that we are asking ourselves here
is extremely precise: Does Pope Francis deserve
this designation in the eyes of simple theology, as
any member of the teaching Church can practice it
by reason of his real, acknowledged competencies?
And does he deserve it because of what he affirms
in the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia? Fortyfive theologians thought that they were obliged
to affirm it. Four cardinals give us to understand
clearly enough that, unless he gives a satisfactory
75

Theological Studies
response to their dubia, the Supreme Pontiff could
deserve the assignment of such a censure.
What can we say? Let us simply take a look at the
five dubia presented by the four cardinals and also
at the corresponding passages from Amoris laetitia
whose meaning is in doubt. In order to be brief, and
in order to be as clear as possible, we will formulate
the essential idea of each dubium.
The First Dubium
The first dubium poses the question concerning
paragraphs 300-305 of Amoris laetitia: is it possible
to give absolution and sacramental Communion to
divorced-and-remarried persons who live in adultery
without repenting? For someone who adheres to
Catholic doctrine, the answer is no. What exactly
does Amoris laetitia say? The following passage
from par. 305 says this:
“Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating
factors, it is possible that in an objective situation of
sin—which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully
such—a person can be living in God’s grace, can love
and can also grow in the life of grace and charity,
while receiving the Church’s help to this end.”
(A footnote reads: “In certain cases, this can
include the help of the sacraments. Hence, ‘I want
to remind priests that the confessional must not
be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with
the Lord’s mercy’ (Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium, 44). I would also point out that the
Eucharist ‘is not a prize for the perfect, but a powerful medicine and nourishment for the weak’ (ibid.,
47)).
The doubt arises here with the note. There is no
doubt about the fact that non-culpable ignorance of
sin excuses from sin. But to those who are victims of
this ignorance and thereby benefit from this excuse,
the Church offers first the help of her preaching and
warnings, the Church starts by putting an end to
the ignorance by opening the eyes of the ignorant to
the reality of their sin. The help of the sacraments
can only come afterward, if and only if the formerly
ignorant persons, now instructed as to the seriousness of their state, have decided to make use of the
means of conversion, and if they have what is called
a firm purpose of amendment. Otherwise the help
of the sacraments would be ineffective, and it too
would be an objective situation of sin.
We are dealing here therefore with a doubt
76

The Angelus

July - August 2017

(dubium) in the strictest sense of the term, in other
words, a passage that can be interpreted in two
ways. And this doubt arises precisely thanks to
the indefinite expression in the note: “in certain
cases.” In order to dispel this doubt, it is essential
to indicate clearly what these cases are in which the
Church’s sacramental aid proves possible and to
state that this is about situations in which the sufficiently enlightened sinners have already decided to
abandon the objectively sinful situation.
The Second Dubium
The second dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 304: is there such a thing as intrinsically evil acts from a moral perspective that the law
prohibits without any possible exception? For someone who adheres to Catholic doctrine, the answer
is yes. What exactly does Amoris laetitia say? Par.
304, citing the Summa theologiae of Saint Thomas
Aquinas (I-II, question 94, article 4), insists on the
application of the law, rather than on the law itself,
and emphasizes the part played by the judgment of
prudence, which allegedly can be exercised only on
a case-by-case basis, strictly depending on circumstances that are unique and singular.
“It is true that general rules set forth a good
which can never be disregarded or neglected, but in
their formulation they cannot provide absolutely for
all particular situations. At the same time it must be
said that, precisely for that reason, what is part of a
practical discernment in particular circumstances
cannot be elevated to the level of a rule.”
This passage does not introduce any ambivalence, properly speaking. It merely insists too much
on one part of the truth (the prudent application
of the law), to the point of obscuring the other part
of the same truth (the necessary value of the law),
which is altogether as important as the first. The
text therefore errs here by omission, thus causing a
misreading.
The Third Dubium
The third dubium poses the question concerning
paragraph 301: can we say that persons who habitually live in a way that contradicts a commandment of
God’s law (for example the one that forbids adultery)
are in an objective situation of habitual grave sin?
The Catholic answer is yes. Amoris laetitia says on
this subject: “Hence it can no longer simply be said

that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in
a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying
grace.” Two points should be emphasized.
The sentence just quoted posits in principle the
impossibility of making a universal affirmation. It
does not deny the possibility of saying that public
sinners are deprived of grace; it only denies the possibility of saying that all public sinners are deprived
of it. This denial has always been taught by the
Church. There are in fact, in concrete human acts,
what is called exculpatory or “mitigating” reasons
(or factors). Because of them, the sinner may not
be morally responsible for the objective situation of
sin. These reasons include not only ignorance, but
also defects of an emotional, affective or psychological sort, and paragraph 302 provides the details,
relying on the teaching of the new Catechism of
the Catholic Church (1992). Nevertheless, these
mitigating factors (even if they were frequent, which
remains to be proved) exonerate the person but still
do not put an end to the objective situation of sin:
the subjectively exonerated sinner does not cease to
be in that situation objectively. By omitting this key
distinction the passage from Amoris laetitia again
introduces doubt here.
The Fourth Dubium
The fourth dubium poses the question concerning paragraph 302: can we still say, from a moral
perspective, that an act that is already intrinsically evil by reason of its object can never become
good because of circumstances or the intention of
the person who performs it? The Catholic answer
is yes. Amoris laetitia says: “A negative judgment
about an objective situation does not imply a judgment about the imputability or culpability of the
person involved.” That is true, but the reverse is not,
and by neglecting to say that, this passage again
introduces doubt.
If a divorced-and-remarried person sins, he sins
as such, precisely because he is living in an objective
situation of a remarried divorcé, which is an objective situation of grace sin, as such calling for a negative judgment. If the divorced-and-remarried person
does not sin, it is not as such, but rather precisely
for reasons other than his objective situation as a
remarried divorcé, which in itself leads to sin.
The confusion arises here between the intrinsically evil malice of an act and the imputability of this

malice to the one who commits the act. The circumstances of the act and the intention of the one who
commits the act can have the effect of annulling the
imputability of the malice of the act, but not of annulling the malice of the act. This fourth doubt proceeds from the same sort of omission as the third.
The Fifth Dubium
The fifth dubium poses the question concerning
paragraph 303: can we say that conscience must
always remain subject, without any possible exception, to the absolute moral law that forbids acts that
are intrinsically evil because of their object? The
Catholic answer is yes. Amoris laetitia repeats here
the false confusion introduced already by Francis
in his interview with the journalist Eugenio Scalfari,
“Interview with the founder of the Italian daily
newspaper La Repubblica,” in L’Osservatore romano,
weekly French edition, dated October 4, 2013. (For
more on this subject, see the December 2013 issue
of the Courrier de Rome, the article entitled “Pour
un Magistère de la conscience?” [“In favor of a
Magisterium of the conscience?]).
No one can act against his conscience, even if it
is erroneous. Nevertheless, to say that conscience
obliges, even when erroneous, means directly that it
is wrong to go against it; but that does not imply at
all that it is good to follow it. If the conscience is in
error, because it is not in conformity with God’s law,
not following it is enough for the will to be bad, but
following it is not enough for the will to be good.
Saint Thomas remarks that the will of those who
killed the Apostles was bad (Summa theologiae,
I-II, question 19, article 6, sed contra). However, it
agreed with their erroneous reason (= conscience),
according to what Our Lord says in the Gospel (Jn
16:2): “The hour cometh, that whosoever killeth
you will think that he doth a service to God.” This
therefore is the proof that a will conformed to an erroneous conscience can be bad. And this is precisely
what Amoris laetitia does not explain, introducing
here a fifth doubt.
Subjectivism: Root of Five Dubia
The five dubia are therefore quite well-founded.
The root of them is always the same: the confusion
between the moral value of an act, a strictly objective value, and its imputability to someone who performs it, a strictly subjective imputability. Even
77

Theological Studies
though it may happen that the moral malice cannot
be imputed subjectively, because the person who
performs the act is excused from it (which remains
to be proved, as much as possible, in each case),
the act always and everywhere corresponds to an
objective malice and consequently is at the root of
an objectively sinful situation, whether or not it is in
fact imputed to the one who finds himself in it. The
Church’s traditional doctrine gives primacy to this
objective order of the act’s morality, which follows
from its object and its end or purpose. Amoris laetitia, by reversing this order, introduces subjectivism
into morality.
Is Subjectivism Negation of Revealed Truth?
Does such subjectivism, as understood in its
principle as well as in the five conclusions that follow
from it here, represent the negation of a divinely revealed truth that is proposed as such by an infallible
act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium? One would
have to be able to answer yes in order to conclude
that Amoris laetitia presents a heresy in each of the
points just singled out and that Francis deserves the
equivalent theological designation.
In order to establish this conclusion, it would be
necessary to verify two things. First, are the five
truths demolished by these five doubts so many
dogmas? Secondly, does Amoris laetitia negate
these dogmas, or at least call them into question
formally and explicitly enough? The answer to these
two questions is far from obvious and certain. For
this new theology of Francis, which extends that
of Vatican II, avoids this sort of formal opposition
with regard to truths already proposed infallibly
by the Magisterium before Vatican II. It sins most
often by omission or by ambivalence. It is therefore
dubious, in its very substance. And it is dubious
exactly insofar as it is modernist, or more precisely:
neo-Modernist.
Does the Pope Intend to Affirm or Deny?
Chapter Eight of Amoris laetitia is defined, like the
others, by the fundamental intention assigned by
the Pope to the whole text of the Exhortation, which
is “to gather the contributions of the two recent
Synods on the family, while adding other considerations as an aid to reflection, dialogue and pastoral
practice” (paragraph no. 4). Therefore we find here
neither more nor less than matter for reflection, dia78

The Angelus

July - August 2017

logue and practice. That is not material for clear-cut
denial or calling into question. Or rather, if Amoris laetitia became the cause of heresy, it would be in an
absolutely unique way, underhanded and latent as
modernism itself. In other words, by the slant of a
practice and an adaptation, more than within the
framework of a formal teaching.
Practical Subversion of Doctrine
The heresy (if there is one) of Pope Francis is
the heresy of a practical subversion, a revolution in
deeds, and we would certainly say that this is what
remained hidden until now behind the new concept
of “pastoral Magisterium.” Now, in this area, it is
difficult to make doctrinal censures. Indeed, censures establish a logically contrary relation between
a given proposition and previously defined dogma.
And this relation could exist only between two
speculative truths, belonging to the same order of
knowledge. The subversion, for its part, consists of
eliciting among Catholics behaviors following from
principles opposed to the doctrine of the Church.
This is how Amoris laetitia, while reaffirming the
principle of the indissolubility of marriage (in paragraph nos. 52-53, 62, 77, 86, 123, 178), legitimizes
a manner of living in the Church that follows from
the principle opposed to this indissolubility (243,
298-299, 301-303): the neo-modernist Magisterium
reaffirms the Catholic principle of marriage while
permitting in practice everything to happen as
though the opposite principle were true. How can
anyone censure that? Would the note of heresy
(understood in the strict sense of a doctrinal evaluation) still retain its meaning then?
Finding the Appropriate Expression
In this matter of censures, it is difficult to find
the most appropriate expression, and not uncommonly theologians differ in their appraisals. Without
intending to state that their insights are false, or
that appraisals contrary to theirs are true, we would
like to draw the attention of perplexed Catholics to
a problem that perhaps is not always sufficiently
taken into account.
The problem of this neo-modernist characteristic
of Vatican II, which proceeds much more by way of a
subversion in deeds than along the lines of a doctrinal heresy in the documents. Conclusive evidence of
this problem, incidentally, has just been given to us,

as though in spite of himself, by the Prefect of the
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
When questioned on Saturday, January 7, by
an Italian news agency, Cardinal Gerhard Müller
declared that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia “is very clear in its doctrine” and that one
can interpret it in such a way as to find in it “all of
Jesus’ teaching about marriage, all the doctrine of
the Church over 2,000 years of history.” According
to him, Pope Francis is: “[A]sking us to discern the
situation of these persons who are living in an irregular union, in other words, who do not observe
the Church’s doctrine on marriage, and asks that
we come to the aid of these persons so that they
can find a path toward a new integration into the
Church.”
Consequently, the Cardinal thinks that it would
not be possible to proceed to the fraternal correction mentioned by Cardinal Burke, given that there
is in Amoris laetitia “no danger to the faith” (see his
remarks reprinted by Nicolas Senèze in La Croix on
January 9, 2017). In reality, the danger is very real,
and Cardinal Burke rightly reacted to this statement
by Cardinal Müller, insisting on the need for a pontifical correction.
Not Heretical but Promoting Heresy
The debate, therefore, is far from useless, but let
us not lose sight of its object: it is not the scandal of
a heresy formulated doctrinally; it is the scandal of a
praxis that clears the way for a challenge to Catholic
truth on the indissolubility of marriage.
To use the words of Saint Pius X himself from
the encyclical Pascendi, the proponents of the new
moral theology proceed with such refined skill that
they easily take advantage of unwary minds. They
promote heresy while giving the appearance of
remaining Catholic. “Promoting heresy”: this corresponds to the theological note that Archbishop
Lefebvre believed he had to use in order to characterize the harmfulness of the Novus Ordo Missae.
“This rite in itself does not profess the Catholic
Faith as clearly as the old Ordo Missae and consequently it may promote heresy....What is astonishing
is that an Ordo Missae that smacks of Protestantism
and therefore favens haeresim[is promoting heresy]
could be promulgated by the Roman Curia.” (Mgr
Lefebvre et le Saint-Office”, Itinéraires 233 - May
1979, p. 146-1-47).

Without prejudice to any better opinion, we
willingly had recourse to it in order to describe the
major problem posed today for the conscience
of Catholics by the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris
laetitia.
[Editor’s Note: Fr. Gleize’s precise distinction will
surprise more than one. In short, it seems that Pope
Francis cannot be considered heretical, since none
of the ambiguous statements in Amoris laetitia constitute “a rejection or contradiction of a truth that is
not only revealed but also proposed as such by an
infallible act of the ecclesiastical Magisterium.”
However, in the popular use of the word “heretical,” one who acts and talks in such a way that he
encourages evil and favors heresy is considered heretical. “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and
quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck!” The popular
expression is not a precise theological judgment; it
is rather a common way of designating persons or
ideas at odds with the deposit of faith.
The theological expression which can be properly
applied to Pope Francis instead of “heretical” is favens haeresim or “promoting heresy.”
That does not change that the fact that the Holy
Father is ambiguous in his declarations, refusing to
clarify them, and —far from correcting evil — promotes it by practical disposition. It is what Fr. Gleize
calls “the scandal of praxis.”]
Can the Pope Lose His Primacy?
The theologians who lived until Vatican Council
II all answered this question in the affirmative. They
are unanimous in declaring this fact: in the person
of a pope, the possession of the supreme pontificate is incompatible with heresy. They are no longer
unanimous when it comes to explaining this fact and
indicating the reason for it.
Cardinal Juan de Torquemada (1388-1468), in
his Summa de Ecclesia, Book 4, Part 2, chapters 1820, writes that in the person of the pope, the papacy
is incompatible not only with external but even with
internal heresy. The mere fact that the pope adheres
in the internal forum of his conscience to an error
contrary to doctrine would result in the cessation of
his papal office.
The common opinion of Medieval theologians is
that a heretical pope in the external (and not just internal) forum must and can be deposed by a human

79

Theological Studies
authority, since there is (they claimed) here on earth
a power above his. This authority is superior to the
pope by way of exception, in the case of heresy. This
could be the authority of the college of cardinals or
possibly of an Ecumenical Council.
Cajetan’s Thesis
Cajetan (1469-1534), in chapters 20-21 of his 1511
treatise, De Comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii, holds that there is an authority that can undo
the investiture, in other words, cause the existence
of the pontifical authority and the pope’s possession of it to cease. But Cajetan tries to differentiate
his view from that of the theologians of the previous period by maintaining in principle that on earth
there can be no authority superior to the pope, not
even in the case of heresy. Indeed, the authority that
is required to cause the investiture to cease would
be exercised not on the pope but on the connection
that exists between the person of the pope and the
papacy.
Cajetan’s thesis is adopted by Domenico Báñez
(1528-1604) (Commentary on the Summa theologiae II-II, q. 1, art. 10, conclusio 2, folios 194-196 of the
1587 Venice edition) and by John of Saint Thomas
(1589-1644) (Cursus theologicus, 5:258-264: De
fide, commenting on II-II, q. 1, art. 10, disputatio
2, art. 3, §§17-29). More recently, Cardinal Charles
Journet (1891-1975) considered the argument “penetrating” (The Church of the Incarnate Word, vol. 1,
Excursus 4). It is made up of two aspects.
First, in De comparatione, chap. 20, §§280 and
281, Cajetan states an authentic principle: the solution to the problem raised must be rooted in the
sources of revelation. Now, divine law is content to
say that, if the pope becomes heretical, the Church
must avoid him. In fact, we can cite at least six
passages of Scripture in which God commands His
people not to relate to a formal, public heretic.
Passages cited by Cajetan in §280 include Num
16:26: “Depart from...these wicked men”; Gal 1:8:
“Let him be anathema,” in other words, separate
yourselves from him; 2 Thess 3:6: “Withdraw
yourselves from [him]”; and 2 Jn 10: “Receive him
not into the house nor say to him: God speed you.”
The most eloquent passage (which Cajetan moreover cites constantly rather than the five others)
is the one from the Epistle of St. Paul to Titus 3:10:
“Hominem haereticum post unam et secundam cor80

The Angelus

July - August 2017

reptionem devita.” [“A man that is a heretic, after the
first and second admonition, avoid.”] Consequently,
divine revelation teaches us no more and no less
than this: the Church must avoid any dealings with
the heretical pope.
Cajetan then proceeds to justify his own theory.
He says that there is only one means of avoiding
having anything to do with the heretical pope, in
keeping with the requirement of divinely revealed
law. This means is the exercise of a ministerial power
that is not a power of jurisdiction strictly speaking,
the use of which implies no superiority over the
pope. Indeed, this power is none other than the very
power that the Church uses to establish the pope in
his ministry: its precise object is not the person of
the man who receives the papacy, nor the papacy (in
other words the pope as such), but the connection
between the two, in other words the relation that
exists between the person who receives the papacy
and the papacy itself (see De comparatione, chapter
20, §§282-297).
This power can be exercised in two directions:
both to undo the connection as well as to make it.
To illustrate this idea, Cajetan turns to an example.
The generation or the corruption of a man is caused
by an agent that has power over the union between
a matter and a form, inasmuch as it disposes the
matter, without thereby having power over the form.
Similarly, the Church has the power to give the papacy to the person who receives it or to take it away
from the one who loses it, inasmuch as she disposes
this person, without thereby having power over the
papacy.
As John of St. Thomas remarks, this explanation
avoids saying that the Church is above the pope as
such. Indeed, the Church acts here only as an instrumental cause or to bring about either the investiture
or the cessation thereof. In the first case, the Church
causes in the person of the pope the disposition required for the investiture, which is the appointment
to the See of Rome.
In the second case, the Church causes in the
person of the pope a disposition that is incompatible
with the office of the pope, which results therefore in
the loss of this office. This incompatible disposition
that the Church causes is, the argument says, the notoriety of the heresy. And the incompatibility between
the notorious heresy and the Supreme Pontificate is
said to be taught by divine revelation in Titus 3:10.

Additional Opinions
Francisco Suarez (1548-1617), in his De Fide,
disputatio 10 De Summo Pontifice, section 6, §§313. Opera omnia, 12:316-318, states, like Cajetan,
that the pope does not lose his pontificate by reason
of his heresy itself, whether it be occult or even notorious. He then presents what in his opinion is the
common explanation of the theologians. A publicly
and incorrigibly heretical (i.e. pertinacious) pope
loses the pontificate when the Church declares his
crime. This declaration constitutes a legitimate act
of jurisdiction, but it is not a jurisdiction that exercises a superior power over the pope. In this case
the Church is represented not by the cardinals but
by the Ecumenical Council: the latter can be convoked by someone other than the pope since it does
not meet to define faith and morals.
The opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621),
which is found in De romano pontifice, Book 2,
chapter 30, and which is followed by Cardinal Billot
(1846-1931) (Traité de l’Église du Christ, question 14,
thesis 29, Part 2, nos. 942-946), is purely theoretical, because his real thesis is that the pope will never
fall into heresy. Assuming nevertheless that, per
impossibile, the pope happened to fall into public
heresy, he would ipso facto lose the pontificate.
As Bellarmine explains clearly, the basis for this
thesis is that a notorious heretic as such is no longer
a member of the Church. Now, the pope necessarily must be part of the society of which he is the
head. This is why the heretical pope, no longer being
a member of the Church, ceases to be her visible
head.
The Archbishop’s Approach
In the period following Vatican Council II,
Archbishop Lefebvre acknowledged the fact of the
liberalism and Modernism publicly professed by the
supreme authority in the Church. And at the same
time, he did not cease to acknowledge until his
death the canonical legitimacy of that authority. “We
do belong to the visible Church, to the society of the
faithful under the authority of the Pope, because
we do not reject the Pope’s authority, but what he
does. We do acknowledge the Pope’s authority, but
when he uses it to do the contrary of the purpose for
which it was given to him, it is obvious that one cannot follow him.” Prudence therefore led the founder
of the Society of Saint Pius X not to consider (at

least practically and provisionally) the modernist
heresy as remaining compatible with the possession
of the supreme pontificate.
What can we say, then? Since the pope’s power is
supreme in the Church on earth, no one has sufficient authority to determine juridically a possible
heresy of the Supreme Pontiff or to draw the penal
consequence thereof by taking away the pope’s
power. To put it another way: the provisions foreseen by ecclesiastical positive law cannot be applied
to the pope. Only divine law can settle this matter.
Now the sources of revelation contain no sufficiently
explicit teaching about this question. This is why
theologians have endeavored to present different
solutions, in harmony with revealed principles. Their
common opinion is that, if the pope comes to profess public heresy, he loses the supreme pontificate.
They differ only in their explanations of how the loss
of this pontificate is brought about. Nevertheless,
the answer that theologians have given until now
remains limited, like the question which it is supposed to answer. First of all, it is a question about
the heresy of the Pope alone, not about a heresy
that had corrupted the hierarchy of the Church as a
whole. Secondly, it is about a heresy properly speaking, not about an attitude favoring heresy. Thirdly, it
is about a public heresy, not about an attitude that
did not seem sufficiently contrary to the profession
of the Catholic Faith.
But things would develop quite differently in
another situation, for example if divine providence
allowed the false ideas of liberalism to subvert the
majority or even a near totality of the Church’s
hierarchy, and of the lay faithful too. Until now, the
theologians’ explanation has not envisaged such
a possibility even for a moment, and this is why it
could not acquire the value of a universal principle
for solving the problem, applicable to all situations
in which the pope might fall into heresy. Therefore
one could not rely on the authority of these older
theologians to establish with equivalent speculative
certitude the theological opinion that the heretical
pope would lose the pontificate, in the presence circumstances as well. This is why prudence may order
us not to draw this conclusion, at least temporarily.
The solution adopted by the Society of Saint Pius X,
following Archbishop Lefebvre, answers a precise
question that is not exactly identical to the one that
the older theologians posed. Here it is a question
81

Theological Studies
of popes about whom one can prove at the very
most that they favor heresy and what is correctly
called “the conciliar Church,” in other words, not
only the pope but the near totality of the hierarchy
and of the faithful, whose minds are overcome by
the false ideas of liberalism and Modernism.
We can therefore pose the question about heresy
of the pope in two different ways. First, as a purely
speculative problem, abstracting from all circumstances. Then we stick to purely theological reasons,
which are supposed to be valid in all cases but are
only probable and remain insufficient to provide
speculative certitude, since only a still non-existent
argument of Magisterial authority could give an
apodictic answer. Secondly, as a prudential problem,
while taking into account the circumstances, the
solution of which could be applied only to a single
case. We stick then not to what is certain, theologically speaking, but to what is surest, given the
circumstances. The judgment of Lefebvre and of the
Society of Saint Pius X on the crisis of the Church is
not a theoretical, purely speculative judgment (as is
a mathematical judgment); it is a practical and prudential judgment. This explains why it could evolve
and be modified by reason of new circumstances.
Would it be prudent then to conclude that, if Pope
Francis refuses to comply with the formal demand
of the four cardinals, then he will have to be considered an anti-pope? This is the whole question: would
it be “prudent”? The question will be posed to the
cardinals after having been posed to Archbishop
Lefebvre and to the Society founded by him. Since
the circumstances are not strictly the same today
as in 1979, and since the Society is not cardinalatial either, the prudent answer could no doubt be
different. But in any case, the answer will be that of
prudence. And whatever course of action is adopted, it will be necessary above all to ask ourselves
whether it offers a serious probability of improving
the situation and of preserving the common good of
Church unity, which is identically a unity of faith and
of government.

82

The Angelus

July - August 2017

Visit the all-new
angeluspress.org

The Council of Trent (Sess. XXIII, can. 3) defined that, besides the
priesthood, there are in the Church other orders, both major and
minor. Though nothing has been defined with regard to the number
of orders, it is usually given as seven: priests, deacons, subdeacons,
acolytes, exorcists, readers, and doorkeepers. The priesthood is
thus counted as including bishops.
Priestly Ordinations, Ecône, Switzerland

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

700pp.—Softcover—STK# 8666—$34.95

True or False Pope?
Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors

John Salza and Robert Siscoe
Foreword by His Excellency, Bishop Bernard Fellay
“A comprehensive and definitive refutation, firmly grounded in ecclesiology, has been
sorely needed. We thus pray that True or False Pope? finds its way to many Catholics of
good will. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe’s book will surely afford much clarity to the reader.”
“True or False Pope? is simply luminous. Covering a vast territory with unique clarity, it
surpasses every work of its kind and is arguably one of the most important books written on the post-conciliar crisis.”—Fr. Steven Reuter, SSPX, Professor, Natural Law Ethics,
St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona

80pp.—Softcover—STK# 8011—$7.00

Sedevacantism
A False Solution to a Real Problem

Sedevacantism presents the origin and history of the sedevacantist movement and its
various schools as well as a demonstration of the ultimately absurd consequences of its
principles. It follows the prudential attitude of Archbishop Lefebvre by avoiding vain and
futile polemics yet simultaneously refusing to shift the problem so far into the theoretical realm that no practical conclusions can be drawn.

152 pp.—Softcover—Photographs—STK# 8699—$12.95

St Thérèse of Lisieux
Letters to Her Spiritual Brothers

Correspondence between St. Thérèse of Lisieux and missionaries Fr. Adolphe Roulland and Fr. Maurice Bellière. They cover the practical and spiritual aspects of religious,
clerical, and missionary life in the 19th century, and offer a unique glimpse into the soul
of one of the most beloved saints in recent history. Although more than a century has
passed since they were written, these letters confront perennial themes familiar to all
Christians. Every Catholic, whether clerical, religious, or lay, will discover immense spiritual benefits in this unique collection.

456 pp—Hardcover with durable sewn binding— STK# 8696—$34.95

NOW AVAILABLE! ORDER TODAY!
GREATLY EXPANDED SELECTION!

The Traditional
Roman Hymnal

As promised, the second edition is greatly improved. This new edition contains over 360 chants
and hymns (50% more than the first edition), with the harmonizations brought into conformity
with what is commonly in use. We have also made vast improvements to the organization of
the materials. It contains all the most commonly-used chants and hymns in traditional communities. Contains: Ordinary chants of the Mass, Asperges, Vidi Aquam, tones for the Mass
responses; Kyriale (Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) in Gregorian notation for ten Masses; five
Credos; hymns and chants for every liturgical season, Feast days, and general use, e.g., Sacred
Heart, Blessed Virgin Mary, Holy Souls, etc. Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Confirmation Service, Marriage Service and Nuptial Mass, Requiem Mass and Burial Service.

www.angeluspress.org — 1-800-966-7337
Please visit our website to see our entire selection of books and music.

Simply the Best Journal of
Catholic Tradition Available!
“Instaurare omnia in Christo”

For over three decades, The Angelus has stood
for Catholic truth, goodness, and beauty
against a world gone mad. Our goal has always
been the same: to show the glories of the
Catholic Faith and to bear witness to the constant teaching of the Church in the midst of
the modern crisis in which we find ourselves.
Each issue contains:
• A unique theme focusing on doctrinal
and practical issues that matter to you,
the reader
• Regular columns, from History to
Family Life, Spirituality and more
• Some of the best and brightest Catholic
thinkers and writers in the Englishspeaking world
• An intellectual formation to strengthen
your faith in an increasingly hostile
world

Subscribe Today
Don’t let another year go by without reading
the foremost journal of Catholic Tradition.

PRINT SUBSCRIPTIONS
Name______________________________________________________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________________________________________________
City______________________________ State______________ ZIP______________ Country_______________________
 CHECK  VISA  MASTERCARD  AMEX  DISCOVER  MONEY ORDER
Card #_______________________________________________________ Exp. Date______________________________
Phone # _____________________________________E-mail_________________________________________________
Mail to: Angelus Press, PO Box 217, St. Marys, KS 66536, USA

PLEASE CHECK ONE
United States
 1 year $45.00
 2 years $85.00
 3 years $120.00

Foreign Countries (inc. Canada & Mexico)

 1 year
 2 years
 3 years

$65.00
$125.00
$180.00

All payments must be in US funds only.

ONLINE ONLY SUBSCRIPTIONS
To subscribe visit: www.angelusonline.org.
Everyone has FREE access to every article from issues of The Angelus over two years old, and selected articles from recent issues.
All magazine subscribers have full access to the online version of the magazine (a $20 Value)!

The
Last
Word
Dear readers,
In his Biographical Memoirs, Don Bosco tells of a little but highly symbolic incident that
happened to him on an Easter Sunday morning in Rome while acting as cappa magna
bearer to a cardinal in St. Peter’s. Due to a moment of inadvertence during the procession,
he got stuck on the very balcony where the Pope was coming to give his Urbi et Orbi blessing. A moment later, feeling something weighing on his shoulder: he was aghast to see that
it was nothing other than the foot of Pius IX, who had just arrived on his sedia gestatoria,
right next to him, and who highly respected him. It was indeed prophetic: Don Bosco was
to be a great pillar and defender of the papacy in the many difficult days during those
times. Pius IX often sought advice and comfort from him.
As paradoxical as it will appear to some, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre too was a pillar
and a defender of the papacy even throughout the storm that he traversed during the last
30 years of his life.
He lived through eight very different popes, from St. Pius X to John-Paul II. He
had learned at the feet of Fr. Le Floch that to be a good Catholic, one had to think like
the popes, study their encyclicals and writings, and conform one’s life to this eternal
Romanità. He was indeed so solid that Pius XII made him his Apostolic Delegate for the
whole of French Africa for eleven years.
When we read carefully his long biography, it is striking to see his constant use of papal
texts to justify his teaching and his actions. We, who have been privileged to study directly under him, can testify to the fact that he gave us a profound love of Rome and of the
popes. We cannot be Catholic otherwise.
His heroism in the defense of the papacy is clearly manifest when we consider that he
maintained his deep faith in and love for the papacy in spite of being censured by conciliar
popes and while opposing their errors, as he did, for instance, in his Episcopal Manifesto in
1983.
In 1975 in a conference to his seminarians he said: “Let us hope that the Good Lord will
inspire us and that (the pope) will understand that far from being against him or against
the Church, we are his best defenders, and that he should lean on us and not condemn us,
that we are totally ready to work with him and for him to maintain the Church, to continue
the Church. We are there for that and for nothing else.”

Fr. Daniel Couture

The Society of St. Pius X is an international priestly society of common life
without vows, whose purpose is the priesthood and that which pertains to it.
The main goal of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X is to preserve the Catholic
faith in its fullness and purity, to teach its truths, and to diffuse its virtues.
Authentic spiritual life, the sacraments, and the traditional liturgy are its
primary means of bringing this life of grace to souls.
The Angelus aims at forming the whole man: we aspire to help deepen your
spiritual life, nourish your studies, understand the history of Christendom,
and restore Christian culture in every aspect.

$ 9.00
RETURN UNDELIVERABLE CANADIAN ADDRESSES TO: THE ANGELUS, 480 MCKENZIE STREET, WINNIPEG, MB, R2W 5B9