Newsletter of the District
- April 2007
Blessed Virgin Mary and Ecumenism
the inter-religious ceremony of Assisi in October 1986, a group
of Italian pilgrims presented themselves at the entrance to the
town. They came from the South of Italy and carried on their shoulders
a statue of Our Lady of Fatima. They thought of contributing to
the prayer for peace in seeking the participation there of the ‘Queen
of Peace’, but they were asked to leave the statue at the
entrance to the town.1
Perhaps this gesture
signaled the hostility of the partisans of ecumenism towards the
cult of the Holy Virgin? Or, perhaps it could be construed as a
sign of disapproval by Our Lady of the ecumenical service at Assisi
by refusing to enter the town? Both explanations are equally possible.
The hostility of ecumenical partisans towards the Blessed Virgin
has been sufficiently clear since the Council. Consider this evidence
extracted from the Bulletin ‘Fidélité catholiqué’2
No. 101, January 1985:
The pre-Conciliar Commission
of the Council had prepared a schema on the Virgin Mary as part
of the schema on the Church3.
But the ecumenists and Protestants were on their guard: just before
the Council, the German Lutheran Bishop Dibelius had loudly proclaimed
that the Church’s teaching on Mary was one of the major obstacles
to union between Catholics and Protestants. Other Protestant theologians
had said to Catholic bishops that in approving a schema on Mary
they were erecting a new wall of division. Others again, more moderate,
wished that if the Council were adamant in discussing the Virgin
Mary that it be done within the framework of a schema on the Church,
which would permit them to see the doctrine on the Holy Virgin in
a new manner. What happened?
On 1st December 1962
(the first session) after a difficult debate on the schema on the
Church, Mgr. Carli, an Italian, declared that certain Council fathers
had pushed their ecumenical concerns to such a point that ‘it
was no longer possible to speak about Our Lady’.
On 30th September 1963,
Cardinal Alfrinks, a Dutchman, demanded that all that was to be
said about the Virgin Mary, be included in the schema on the Church:
‘In such a manner as to contribute greatly towards facilitating
dialogue with separated Christians.’ The French prelate, Cardinal
Garrone, supported him: the Church’s theology would be perfected
by the inclusion of teaching on the Virgin in the doctrine of the
Church; and moreover, this would serve as an antidote to devotional
SSPX Asia Newsletter
Jan -Apr 2007 Ecumenism On the other hand, Cardinal Spellman, an
American, protested that the Council should not be able to pass
over in total silence the titles of co-redemptrix and reparatrix
already used in respect of the Virgin Mary, for the simple reason
that non-Catholics had difficulty in understanding them. He added
that the task of the Council was to teach the members of the Church
rather than those outside.
On 27th October 1963,
Mgr Grotti, an Italian, forcefully asked: ‘Ecumenism - Does
it consist of confessing or hiding the truth? To hide the truth
wounds us and wounds those who are separated from us. It wounds
us because it will make us look like hypocrites. It will wound those
who are separated from us because it will make them appear weak
and susceptible to being offended by the truth. Let us make a distinction
between these two schemas, on the Virgin, and on the Church. Let
us profess our faith openly. Let us be doctors to those in the Church
teaching with clarity and not by hiding the truth.’
On 29th October the
following question was put to a vote: ‘Does it please the
Council Fathers that the schema on the Most Holy Virgin Mary be
revised so as to become Chapter 6 of the Schema on the Church?’
The vote resulted in 1114 in favour of merging the two schemas.
The majority required was only 1097. The ecumenists won by 17 votes.
On 30th November, a
month later, at the end of the session we received the following
letter from Fr. Victor Berto who participated in the work of the
second session in the capacity of theological advisor to Mgr. Lefebvre,
then Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers. Here is how Fr.
Berto felt about the results of this vote on 29th October 1963 which
decided to merge the schema on the Virgin Mary with that on the
Church (the italics and parenthesis are ours):
Work has been incredible,
but that’s nothing, it has especially been painful. The number
of times I have wept after the votes of 29th and 30th October on
these simple sheets I was writing on! The chastisement of
God will come from these votes, above all on the first.
Although the second
vote, more grievous ut res ( in reality) than the first, was less
awful ut signum (as a sign). The fate of the session was
settled that day in heaven where reigns a Son who wills that no
one insult His Mother. The chastisement is this awful mess.
I accuse myself
and want to accuse myself before the whole world for having doubted,
doubted of the love of Our Lord for His Mother, and doubted the
action He would take to avenge her honor. Vengeance has
been prompt: the Council has been going mad for six weeks, and it
will be a mild vengeance if it stops there.
The grievous vote
of 29th October 1963 apostatizing the Gospel of the Wedding Feast
at Cana, far from inviting the Virgin Mary, had signified to her
to leave. She hampered! The Virgin Mary hampered the Council
which invited her to leave. Oh, she wasn’t asked
twice. The earth did not tremble, lightning didn’t strike
St Peter’s. The Virgin Mary left discreetly in profound silence,
only so discreetly, in a silence so profound, that the words ‘Vinum
non habent’ (They have no wine) remained unsaid, and the fate
of the second session had been sealed.4
When you are an
ecumenical Council from which you make the Virgin Mary leave, you
should at least remember that she only asks to withdraw, that much
is known, but that that she could withdraw too far. The
Blessed Virgin having nothing to say, Jesus has done nothing.
The water remained water, not even potable water, but wash-water
just as at Cana...
I think that the
Blessed Virgin, on her part, would have been content to leave the
council wade in all this not-so-clean water. Rather than demanding
on their knees in solemn supplication that she pronounce the ‘They
have no wine’ they have formally declared her annoying, embarrassing,
a hindrance before her Son, she the Spouse of the Holy Spirit.
We should know that
to show the Blessed Virgin the door at an ecumenical Council is
an act that can have consequences, and may not be ratified by Him
Who has opened the gates of heaven to her. One has to see further
than the end of one’s nose and should not expect to have a
right to the Holy Spirit, on demand, from the moment one is a Council.
During this time, the Holy Spirit Who comes not from the Father
but by the Son too, ‘Quem ego mittam vobis a Patre’
(Whom I will send you from the Father) waits in Paradise. What is
he waiting for? He awaits the Council being celebrated in the manner
of the Cenacle ‘cum Maria matre Jesu’ (with Mary the
Mother of Jesus).
Dame du Laus
Here lies the mystical
history of the Council: the only true history. I have lived it without
at first understanding it, my heart in a vice; ‘Nondum venit
hora mea’ (My hour has not yet come). Jesus has not advanced
that hour because the Holy Virgin did not ask it of Him.
As for the disapproval
of ecumenism by the Blessed Virgin we can refer to two historical
examples. The first occurred at Laus, France, when Benoîte
Rencurel (16471718) a modest shepherdess and a Dominican tertiary
enjoyed apparitions of the Most Holy Virgin Mary for some 50 years.
These apparitions have been recognized by the Church and Laus has
become a fairly important place of pilgrimage up to our time. The
Holy Virgin granted many graces of conversion there.5
In Abbé Roger
de Labriolle’s book, Benoîte, La bergère de Notre
Dame de Laus6,
on page 7, we may read the following account of an event which occurred
One of the punishments
suffered by Benoîte merits being underlined in our ecumenical
era. She was taking a child to be baptized at Remollon, where some
Huguenots (i.e. Protestants) asked her if she believed that they
were able to save themselves in their religion. ‘I leave that
to the judgment of God’, she replied.
The Virgin - Gaillard
affirms - corrected her saying that she had too much human respect
and that she had not told the truth, because, if she had said no,
some of them would have been converted. This they have not done.
As a penance she
did not appear to Benoîte for a month. It was no doubt a matter
of pastoral tact which did not involve a truth of the faith.
We will leave the responsibility
for the last sentence with the author. On page 190 of the book,
Notre Dame de Laus et la vénérable Soeur Benoîte
d’après les manuscrits authentiques conservés
au pieux sanctuaire,7
we find the following explanation:
One day she went
to Remollan to have a child baptized. She met some Huguenots who
asked her if they could be saved in their religion. ‘I will
leave that to the judgement of God’, she responded. The Mother
of God soon corrected her afterwards and said to her: ‘My
child because you have had too much human respect and have been
afraid to speak the truth, you will not see me for a month.’
The pious shepherdess wept for a long time over this fault.
A fault certainly light
indeed compared to that which one can attribute today to a number
of Catholic prelates who never tell the truth to Protestants, to
let them know that they are in peril of losing their souls if they
do not return to the Catholic Church.
Dame de l'Osier
The second account also
occurs in the Alps at another site of apparition by the Blessed
Virgin which is recognized by the Church, Notre Dame de l’Osier,
in the French Department Isère.
On the 25th March 1649,
a Calvinist peasant, Peter Port-Combet was cutting a willow. His
wife, a Catholic had warned him not to work because it was a ‘holy-day’.
Our Calvinist paid no attention. While he was working, however,
‘he saw that his hands were covered in blood’ and his
pruning knife too. ‘The blood fell in great drops from
each of the branches.’ Totally terrified and worried
he appealed to his wife who told a neighbor about the miracle. The
story spread and our Calvinist was fined for having worked on a
feast day. The depositions of Pierre Port-Combet and his wife before
the Judge allow us to see the undoubted evidence from which we have
extracted some extracts. Moreover, our Calvinist did not convert.
The Blessed Virgin was to intervene personally. Here is the account
reported by Fr. Delarue OMI8:
He was working on
the high ground, thinking of nothing, when suddenly, on the ‘mound
of Épinousa’, he saw a ‘maiden’9
appear dressed in white and blue and, ‘on her head, a worn,
black veil’. At first he thought that ‘from Bergerandière’
she had ‘wandered from the willow path...and become lost in
the Épinousa wood’. She was opposite the place where
he stood. And when she saw him it appeared that she wanted to come
over to him across the declivity which separated them.
to himself, as was common among the Huguenots, at the piety of Catholics’
(Huguenot was the description used at that time, and the celestial
visitor was to use it; in itself it didn’t have any pejorative
sense; etymologically the word comes from the German ‘Eidgenossen’
– ‘those who are bound by the same oath, those who are
part of a collectivity ruled by the same oath or vow’)
reaction was open and very natural: as a good Calvinist, he smiled
to see a Catholic maiden going to so much bother to see him and
his willow and whom he believed had become lost. It amused him to
see this city dweller come forward with no regard to the nature
of the terrain. She will have to learn this at her own expense,
she will have to get out of it on her own. He turned his back on
her and recommenced his work. The furrow was not long and he had
quickly reached the end. But surprise, surprise when he turned his
cattle to come back on his line, the maiden ‘of whom he had
daydreamed’ while ploughing, ‘found herself in front
of him; in the place, where today stands a small chapel dedicated
to the Holy Virgin and named by popular acclaim, Notre-Dame-de-Bon-Rencontre’.
Jeanne Pélion gave this last detail when she made her declaration
in 1686. Already puzzled by the rapidity with which this stranger
had moved, Pierre Port-Combet was even more overwhelmed to find
‘that she was beautiful, so brilliant and so majestic in the
way she carried herself that he didn’t know what to think’.
She was not therefore
lost as he had believed, she needed no one to find her path, none
of our earthly slopes were too steep for her. He remained gaping.
It was she who broke
the silence and greeted him; ‘God be with you, my friend.’
Then without appearing in the least disconcerted by the disarray
of the poor man and with regal ease, the stranger continued:
‘What do they
say about this devotion? Do many come here?’
It was really what
he had though all along: she had come for the willow, from afar
Without too much
attention, he vaguely replied: ‘Good day Miss, a fair number
of people go there’.
many miracles there?’
he retorted in a defiant, gruff tone.
Having now regained
control of his senses he sensed the danger: better to cut this meeting
short. He gave his cattle a prod, because he sensed it was him that
she had come so see. But with regal authority she dissuaded him
from carrying on:
your beasts!’ (and) ‘This Huguenot10who
cut the willow, where does he stay? Does he not wish to convert?’
If he had any doubts
about this being just another interview, his eyes had been opened.
The visitor was not in search of original information - this was
much worse. Three days after the miracle, he admitted ‘And
I don’t know what that was about’: Here was the reply.
This prodigy had only one aim: to bring him to ‘acknowledge
himself”, to make him convert.
He thought quickly,
then for a moment an irresistible force riveted him where he was
- better to sidestep the issue, he thought: ‘I don’t
know,’ he said, ‘He lives over there’. But he
was mistaken if he truly believed he had put his interlocutor off
as we would say: you are pleased to have recourse to infantile subterfuge).
‘You imagine that I do not know that ...this Huguenot is you?’
It is noted that
unlike his wife, the ‘Maiden’ had called him by the
familiar French ‘tu’12.
More strongly than ever he had the desire to flee: once more she
commanded him to stop his beasts. He persisted and spurred them
on, but she ‘very quickly’ warned him;
‘If you do
not stop your beasts, I will stop them.’
he replied: ‘Oh, I will certainly stop them myself, Miss’.
It was important that he hear her to the end .... ‘She told
him that the time of his end was approaching and that if HE DID
NOT CHANGE HIS STATE, HE WOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST EMBERS THAT
HAS EVER BEEN IN HELL and that if he did change she would protect
him before God. He was to tell the public that their prayers were
not fervent enough but that if they were more fervent they will
receive many graces and favors from God’. That is all.
‘If he did
not change his state he would be one of the greatest embers that
has ever been in hell’ -
this is what the Virgin thinks of a Protestant who refuses to convert.
This is something which ought to give the partisans of ecumenism
something to think about.
Our Huguenot, despite
such a warning, waited until he found himself on his death bed until
he made the abjuration demanded. His wife explained to us that a
‘panic attack which gave him no respite’ succeeded
the consolation of this visit of the Mother of God. And she stated
that it was a caused by ‘an extraordinary fear of losing
life in some way unknown to the average heretic’. In
his act of abjuration he himself declared ‘that he had
wanted to change his religion for some time but that he was urged
by those of the said so-called religion not to do so’.
This too ought to be reflected upon by the partisans of ecumenism
i.e. the difficulties of a poor soul entangled in a false religion
and who would like to get out. It is advisable to come to his aid
rather than make him believe that he perhaps might save himself
the effort of changing religion.
(This article first
appeared in Le Sel de la Terre, No. 6, Autumn 1993. Translated
by A. S. Fraser, in A Propos, St Andrew 2005, revised by
La Contre Reforme Catholique, n.229, janvier 1987, pp.33-34
B.P. 217, 56402
Auray Cedex, France.
One can thus notice
the interest shown by oecumenists and Protestants to lead the Council
Fathers to renounce from making a separate schema on the Virgin
Mary: Our Lady being considered an obstacle to a rapprochement with
the Protestants, they had to avoid as much as possible to speak
of her. (Note of A. de Lassus, in AFS no. 170)
One might add
that the destiny of the whole Council was undoubtedly sealed that
For a history
of Laus see Louis Pain’s book, La bergère du Laus,
Published by Resiac, Montsûrs, 1988, ( See also http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/archives/archive-laus.htm
note of SSPX-Ed.)
R. de Labriolle,
Benoîte la bergère de Notre Dame de Laus,
published by GAP, 1977
J.C. Richaud, GAP, 1895
O.M.I. Notre Dame de L’Osier. Les origines du pèlerinage
d’après les manuscrits et imprimés du temps
de 1649 – 1686. Published by M. Lescuyer et fils, Lyon
1966 – 1980, pp. 23 onwards.
– Mademoiselle – this is how one would address an untitled
woman, such as marquess, countess, etc.
This Huguenot – Littré (French dictionary) notes that
even in the following century ‘Voltaire did not pronounce
the “H” in Huguenot. Proof that that when the Virgin
appeared she used the language of the place and time.’
in the original sense of the term signified, 1. one who was in misery
or in adversity or 2. pitiable
The use of “tu”
is either used among close friends or between adults and children
– we consider it was the latter sense that was indicated here.