|
The Allocution of Pope Paul VI to the Consistory of Cardinals on 24 May 1976 Only those parts of the allocution concerning Mgr. Lefebvre and the Tridentine Mass are reproduced here. The text is that published in the English edition of L 'Osservatore Romano of 3 June 1976.
The Pope's Allocution
In this passage the Pope fails to make a crucially important distinction between the teaching of the Council itself and reforms claiming to interpret that teaching-reforms which in many cases cannot be justified by reference to so much as a single sentence in a conciliar document. See again the comment regarding the Seminary at Econe in the light of the specific teaching of the Council, p. 68-70. This sentence also contains an extremely serious doctrinal error on the part of the Pope or whoever wrote this speech for him. This error is not apparent in the English translation and reference must be made to the official Latin text published in L 'Osservatore Romano (Italian edition) of 24 May 1976. The phrase "the Episcopal Conferences, under Our authority, willed by Christ" is rendered in Latin as follows: "Conferentiarum episcopalium sub Nostra au ctorita te, quae a Christo originem ducunt. " The use of the plural ducunt means that the Pope is claiming that it is not simply his Apostolic Authority but the National Episcopal Conferences which have their origin in Christ. This is totally untrue. The authority of the Pope and the worldwide episcopal college have their origin in Christ-but there is no warrant in Scripture or Tradition for National Episcopal Conferences to be invested with doctrinal or disciplinary teaching authority. This is still true in the strictly legal sense today. National Episcopal Conferences are able to authorize or even recommend a course of action, but each individual bishop is at liberty to decide whether or not to implement these decisions in his diocese. The National Episcopal Conference, having no legal status, has no authority to impose its decisions. But what happens in practice is that individual bishops feel unable to oppose the majority decision and submit to it despite their personal misgivings. Thus one English bishop whom I reproached for allowing Communion to be given in the hand in his diocese, following a decision of the English and Welsh Episcopal Conference to permit this, replied that, although he personally deplored the practice and had done all he could to prevent its acceptance, he now had no practical option but to go along with the majority. This is precisely what Mgr. Lefebvre had forecast during the collegiality debate, warning that collegiality would not give the bishops more power but that the individual bishop would no longer be the ruler in his own diocese. Returning to the subject of the doctrinal error in the Pope’s allocution, the unorthodoxy of this statement was quickly exposed in traditionalist journals (e.g., the Courrier de Rome, No.159 of 15 July 1976). When the allocution was reprinted in the Acts of the Apostolic See (AAS 68, 1976 (6), p. 375) the error was corrected. The plural ducunt had been changed to the singular ducit, referring solely to the Pope’s authority as having its origin in Christ. This provides another instance of the fact that simply because the Pope has stated something it does not follow that it is certainly orthodox.
The Pope here is presupposing that anyone invested with authority.'" must be obeyed simply because he possesses authority. As Appendix II will show, it is the traditional Catholic teaching that even legitimate authority need not be obeyed (and that obedience might be sinful) if it abuses its power or commands anything contrary to or compromising the faith. Thus, according to Pope Paul's thinking as expressed here, when he made the erroneous statement that Episcopal Conferences had their origin in Christ, the faithful had no right to question it; Similarly, the Pope had to correct that notorious Article 7 of the General Instruction to the New Mass which he had approved, and he was also compelled to revise the new rite of Baptism which he had previously approved. In Britain and the USA the bishops have ordered priests to give Communion in the hand to anyone demanding it -in this case it is clear that priests would not sin by refusing to obey their lawful bishops.
This allegation is quite untrue. The opposition to the post-conciliar reforms existed long before most Catholics, particularly in the English-speaking world, had ever heard of the name of Archbishop Lefebvre. The only authority exercised by Mgr. Lefebvre is over the Fraternity of St. Pius X. He and the Fraternity enjoy the support of hundreds of thousands of faithful Catholics because it is Mgr. Lefebvre and the Fraternity who uphold both Tradition and the many traditions to which Catholics are so attached and which, in some cases, could not be abolished or radically modified without compromising Tradition itself. Thus, while it is true to state that Mgr. Lefebvre enjoys the support of the majority of traditionalists, it is not correct to describe him as their leader - a title which he himself has repudiated on many occasions as for example his sermon at Lille on 29 August 1976.
Thus it is now possible to deny any and every fundamental dogma of the faith; to disobey any and every disciplinary law to the Church, even the “Conciliar Church”; to be guilty even of sacrilege; and still not be told that communion with the Successor of Peter has been broken -but remain true to the traditional faith, and one is considered "outside the Church."
The use of the word "pretext" here is very unjust. A pretext (Latin, praetextu) is an ostensible reason given to hide the true one; in other words, it denotes a lack of sincerity, and while it is legitimate to argue that traditionalists may be mistaken in their attitude, there is no justification for claiming that they are insincere. It is also unfair and inaccurate to claim that they are working for the preservation of the Church in their own way-they are attempting to preserve the faith in a form which has a tradition of centuries behind it.
This is a difficult statement upon which to comment. Who had affirmed this and in precisely what terms? And what does the Pope mean by "the Second Vatican Council"? Presumably he is referring to the doctrinal teaching of the Council. I have discussed the authority of the Documents of Vatican II in detail in Chapter XIV of Pope John's Council. Briefly, the position is that they are not binding in the same way as the documents of previous General Councils, which were promulgated with the authority of the Church's extraordinary Magisterium, under pain of anathema. As the Pope himself has stated specifically on a number of occasions, the documents of the Council come to us with the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium of the Church. The teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium does not at all carry the same authority .It is explained excellently in the Approaches supplement by Dom Paul Nau, The Ordinary Magisterium of the Church Theologically Considered. This study shows clearly that the authority of the Ordinary Magisterium increases even to the point of infallibility depending upon the frequency with which a particular teaching has been repeated. On the other hand, Dom Paul explains that a novelty taught by the Ordinary Magisterium could be erroneous if it conflicted with previous teaching. This certainly seems to be the case with certain passages in the Declaration on Religious Libeny, which contradict previous authoritative (and possibly infallible) teaching (see Appendix IV). As Mgr. Lefebvre made clear in an interview which he granted me on 16 November 1976, and in his letter to the Pope dated 3 December 1976 (which will both be found in their correct chronological sequence), he accepts everything in the teaching of the Council which is in conformity with Tradition. This is the correct Catholic attitude, to the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium, bearing in mind that the normal presumption must be that the teaching of the Ordinary Magisterium will be in conformity with Tradition and that instances where it is not will be rare in the extreme.
It is quite clear that any faithful Catholic who understands the nature of certain post-conciliar directives and the manner in which they have been implemented must certainly repudiate them not simply to preserve his faith but to show that he takes his faith seriously.
The unfortunate truth is that it became clear in practice that neither Pope Paul VI nor the Bishops were prepared to take practical steps to uphold the basic norms of faith, apart from issuing pious exhortations which they made no effort to implement. Even those many orthodox Catholics who feel unable to support Mgr. Lefebvre must testify to the truth of this. Instead of prohibiting publication of that veritable textbook of Modernism, the Dutch Catechism, Pope Paul VI, allowed it to be circulated with the addition of an appendix which no one need read. This is equivalent to the father of a family allowing his children to drink poison providing an antidote of doubtful efficacy is ready. Where is there a country in the West in which priests who have publicly dissented from the Encyclical Humanae Vitae do not occupy important teaching posts in Catholic education institutes? What could possibly be a greater cause of a diminution in reverence to the Blessed Sacrament, and an occasion of sacrilege, than the practice of Communion in the hand? It was condemned by Pope Paul himself in Memoriale Domini. Nonetheless, he authorized its introduction into almost every country in the West. With all the respect due to a Vicar of Christ, it must be said that the faithful could not assume that Pope Paul VI and his Bishops could be relied upon to uphold those traditions necessary for the preservation of the faith.
This again is quite untrue-Mgr. Lefebvre does not challenge the nature of papal authority (no one has done more to uphold it) or question the fact that it exists by divine will. What he has done is to question certain specific acts of a particular Pope, and, equally important, the failure of this Pope to act in defense of the Faith. In doing this the Archbishop is acting in accordance with approved theological principles (cf. Appendix II).
This is perhaps the most astonishing statement in the entire allocution. It is the post-conciliar liturgical reform which has totally destroyed the unity of the Roman rite. We have been presented not so much with a new form of Mass (however inferior to the old) but with an ongoing liturgical revolution, in which anything is tolerated but the traditional Mass. In the face of this liturgical anarchy, traditionalists wish to adhere to a form of Mass which in all essentials dates back more than a millennium, for which they are accused of promoting liturgical disunity!
In practice, where the New Mass is celebrated strictly in accordance with what rubrics there are, it is so oppressively dull and insipid that no one could possibly participate in it with fervor. This explains the increase in the so-called Folk Masses, the introduction of dancing and audio-visual effects, and the liturgical antics of the Pentecostals, as an effort to infuse some form of life (however depraved) into what is no more than the corpse of the vibrant, noble, and dignified liturgy of the Roman Mass. Pope Paul must have realized that the liturgy in its present form is a source of misery and even revulsion to countless thousands of the faithful, and that even where they accept it as an act of obedience to expect them to do so with fervor is to ask the impossible.
It is extremely significant that Pope Paul makes no reference at all to his Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum of 3 April 1969 which authorizes the introduction of the New Mass. If the traditional Mass has been prohibited this is the only document which could have done so. Not even the most fervent apologists for the New Mass have ever claimed Missale Romanum contains one word explicitly prohibiting the old one; the most they dare claim is that it is prohibited implicitly or that the Old Mass lapsed automatically with the introduction of the new one. The most useful summary of the legal position of the traditional Mass is available in Father Bryan Houghton's book Mitre and Crook. 1 The In struction of 14 June 1971 was, in reality, a Notificatio originally published without either date or the author's name and of very dubious authority .It was examined in detail in ltineraires, No.159 of January 1972 (p. 16 ff.) and in The Remnant. The claim that a form of Mass which has provided the basis for Catholic spirituality for a thousand years can now be celebrated only by aged and infirm priests, and then only if they do it behind closed doors as if they were celebrating a Black Mass, is a fitting epitomization of the "Spirit of Vatican II."
At no time did the Fathers of Vatican II ever authorize the composition of a new order of Mass, Novus Ordo Missae, "to take the place of the old"! They did no more than authorize minor modifications to the existing Mass and insisted that no changes should be made unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly required them and that all existing rites were to be preserved. I have demonstrated in Chapters XV and XVI of Pope John's Council that there is no relationship whatsoever between the reform which the council authorized and that which has been imposed upon the faithful in practice.
This attempt to compare the reform undertaken by Saint Pius V and that authorized by Pope Paul VI is so totally incredible that it could not possibly be dealt with within the context of this commentary .2 The official Latin text of Pope Paul's allocution, published in L' Osservatore Romano of 24-25 May 1976, does not refer to the Missal "reformed " under the authority of St. Pius V but of the Missal "recognized " by his authority ("Missale auctoritate sua recognitum "). The Latin verb recognosco can have a stronger sense than simply to "recognize." With regard to a written document it means that it has been examined with respect to its genuineness and value and is certified or authenticated as genuine.3 This is precisely the action taken by St. Pius V with respect to the existing Roman Mass which was examined diligently by the best scholars and then codified in its existing form with a few modifications which would not have been noticed by the ordinary worshipper. An Italian translation of this allocution which appeared in the same edition of L 'Osservatore Romano translated recognitum as riformato, "reformed" - a mistranslation carried over into the English edition. Leaving aside the question of this mistranslation, Pope Paul's claim that what he had done in his reform was what "in no different way" ("baud dissimili ratione ") St. Pius V had done, is so at variance with historical fact that it forfeits all claim to credibility. If something is untrue the fact that it is stated to be true by the Pope cannot alter the fact that it is untrue. The Pope is not inerrant, he can be mistaken on matters of fact. It is probable (though not certain) that if pressed, the editor of The Wanderer or the President of Catholics United for the Faith would admit that the Church does not require us to believe that the Pope is inerrant. On a practical level, they insist that he is and accuse any Catholic who points out papal errors of being schismatic.
Once again, anyone with experience of the new liturgy in practice will know that a faithful Catholic who loves the Mass and loves the Church has no alternative but to try to obstruct a reform which, with all due respect to Pope Paul VI, does not proceed from mature deliberation. Communion in the hand is now part of this official reform in dozens of countries where it has been sanctioned by Pope Paul himself, even though it began not as a result of mature deliberation but as an act of calculated rebellion against papal authority. The Pope consulted the Bishops of the world, who voted overwhelmingly against the innovation; it is still prohibited in Italy. The Pope insisted upon the retention of the traditional method but has none the less given way before the fait accompli technique of the Liberals. Yet where it has been made official, Catholics who oppose the abuse are classed among those who "cause the Church serious damage." By asking us not to oppose innovations which our personal experience has proved to be harmful, the Pope is asking us to dehumanize ourselves, to become robots. It is not a case of opposing something simply because it conflicts with personal taste or established habits. In this instance it is the honor and reverence due to the Blessed Sacrament, the avoidance of sacrilege which is at stake. Our objections to the innovation, and our adherence to the traditional practice, are based on the very reasons put forward by Pope Paul VI himself in Memoriale Domini. With all due respect, it must be said that as Christ's Vicar upon earth it was his duty to safeguard the Blessed Sacrament from the sacrilege to which this practice inevitably leads. He failed to do so and, not for the first time in the history of the Church, the faithful found that their Catholic duty was not to follow the example of the Pope.
If such admonitions have been made they have not been public. The first admonition of a genuinely doctrinal nature given by the Pope to Mgr. Lefebvre was that he should accept the totally false proposition that Vatican II has as much authority as Nicea, and more importance in some respects (the letter of 29 June 1975).
Firstly, does this imply that traditionalists are no longer in good faith? Secondly, while traditionalists naturally look to the traditional liturgy and devotional practices with a nostalgia which is both right and fitting, their opposition to the "Conciliar Church " and to the liturgical reform in general is based not upon sentiment but on a determination to uphold the faith which these reforms compromise. Examine the prayers which Cranmer removed from the traditional Mass (set out in detail in Cranmer's Godly Order) and compare these with the prayers removed from the Mass with the authority of Pope Paul VI. By what possible stretch of the imagination can it be clain1ed that it was absolutely essential to remove these prayers "for the good of the Church, Her progress in the world, and Her unity"? And can it truly be possible that Pope Paul VI really believed that the Church is making progress in the modern world -the devastation which has followed in the wake of the conciliar reform must surely have been evident even from the windows of the Vatican? And as for the unity of the Church, what has done more to destroy that unity than the post-conciliar liturgical reform?
On the contrary , the wounds in the Church and the damage to her unity have not been caused by the stand made by the traditionalists. The traditionalists have taken their stand as a reaction to these wounds and this disunity.
In other words, traditionalists will only become acceptable if they abandon all that they most love and revere and believe to be essential to the well-being of the Church and accept the entire post-conciliar revolution without reservation. The price is unacceptable. The Pope then goes through the motions of what has become a standard procedure whenever traditionalists are attacked, and delivers generalized admonitions to those at the opposite end of the spectrum who are guilty of doctrinal and liturgical error. These individuals are never named nor are these admonitions ever reinforced with action. Referring to these Liberal Catholics, the Pope makes yet another astonishing statement:
Virtually every position of importance in the entire Catholic establishment throughout the West is in the hands of these Liberals; they control all the official commissions, catechetical, liturgical, and ecumenical; all too frequently Conferences serve only to act as their mouthpieces, and yet Pope Paul himself claimed that they are few in number but make much noise. Outside
of Which Church? As a reaction to the papal allocution of 24 May 1976, Jean Madiran wrote the following article which first appeared in the Supplément-Voltigeur of Itinéraires of 15 June 1976. The following translation was made by Father Urban Synder and appeared in The Remnant of 21 July 1976. "In his allocution to the Consistory of 24 May 1976, where he mentions Archbishop Lefebvre several times by name, Paul VI seems to cut him off and yet he doesn't. He accuses the Archbishop of 'putting himself outside the Church.' But which Church? There are two. And Paul VI has not renounced being the Pope of these two Churches sirnultaneously. Under such conditions, 'outside the Church' is equivocal and does not cut off anything. That there are now two Churches, with one and the same Paul VI at the head of both, is not our doing, we are not making it up, but simply stating the way things are. Many episcopates, which declare themselves to be in communion with the Pope, and whom the Pope does not reject from his communion, are objectively outside the Catholic communion. The episcopate of Holland, in an official document, has explicitly called into doubt the virginal conception of Our Lord, but they have not been summoned by the Pope to retract or to resign. On the contrary-they have spread through-out the whole world their 'Dutch Catechism' which doesn't contain the things necessary to know for salvation, and which inspires all the new catechisms. The French episcopate since 1969 subjects the faithful, 'as a reminder of faith', to the false teaching that in the Mass 'there is question simply of a memorial.' None of our protestations or supplications has succeeded in bringing them to deny or even explain this. It is in the name of the Council, of the Pope, and of the bishops in communion with him that now, for ten years or more, and without any efficacious denial, there is imposed on us all the discourses and, decisions which install the immanent apostasy, the permanent auto-demolition, the capitulation before the world, the cult of man, the opening to Communism. There is no question here of some handful of marginal dissidents, as the Pope insinuates in his allocution. There is question of the greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession. Legitimate holders? Yes, but prevaricators, deserters, impostors. Paul VI remains at their head without either disavowing or correcting them. He keeps them in his communion, he presides over their Church also. Archbishop Lefebvre is not in his present situation through any fault of his own. He didn't innovate anything, he didn't invent anything, he didn't overturn anything; he has simply preserved and transmitted the deposit which he received. He has kept the promises of his baptism, the doctrine of his catechism, the Mass of his ordination, the dogmas defined by Popes and Councils, the theology and the traditional ecclesiology of the Church of Rome. Just by his existence, by his very being, and without having willed it, he is thus the witness of a crisis which is not of his making, but that of an uncertain Pope at the head of two Churches at the same time. Cardinal Suenens declared in 1969: 'We could draw up an impressive list of theses, taught in Rome yesterday and before yesterday as sole truths (seules valables), and which were eliminated by the Council Fathers.’ A formidable doctrinal revolution! Cardinal Suenens is happy about it. The greater part of the actual holders of the apostolic succession think and speak on this point like Cardinal Suenens. Neither he nor they are disavowed. Paul VI remains at their head and keeps them in his communion; a communion where they profess that the Church, yesterday and before yesterday, was mistaken. But on all these points where they teach that the Church was mistaken, who or what can guarantee to us that it is not they themselves who, today, are mistaken and are misleading us? It doesn't help at all to reassure us that the Council is badly interpreted and the Pope badly understood. If the Council has been constantly interpreted the way it has, it is with the active or passive consent of the bishops in communion with the Pope. Thus there is established a Conciliar Church, different from the Catholic Church. And no bishop, however scandalous his post-conciliar excesses, has received from Paul VI the severe public rebukes which he has reserved for Archbishop Lefebvre alone, and for the sole reason that the Archbishop remains unshakeably faithful to the Catholic religion such as it was until 1958. If the Catholic religion, such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII, contained some things optional, variable, which (let us suppose) have become anachronistic in 1976, to remain attached to them does not, all the same, constitute a crime. Anachronism is not necessarily in itself something which puts you 'outside the Church.' If we are going to talk about anachronisms, pure, simple, and unlimited, they are in the new catechisms from which the things necessary for salvation have been excised; they are in the vernacular Masses, accompanied by Marxist chants and erotic dances; they are in the falsification of Scripture imposed by the episcopate, such as where a (French) liturgical reading proclaims that 'to live holily it is necessary to marry'; they are in all the other infamous things of like kind of which none, for the past ten years, has been either retracted by those guilty , or condemned by higher authority. There are indeed crimes really going on in the Church, those just mentioned, but they are considered less criminal than preserving the Catholic religion such as it was in 1958 at the death of Pius XII. All this presupposes a new religion, another ecclesial community, which nevertheless is installed in the posts of command of Church administration, and boasts of communion with Pope Paul, having at the same time, to put it mildly, the consent of Pope Paul. Archbishop Lefebvre 'outside the Church'? Out of the one just mentioned, certainly. But it surpasses belief that a person 'puts himself outside' the Catholic Church, without budging, or by simply remaining in the Catholic religion such as it was at the death of Pius XII in 1958. There are two Churches under Paul VI. Not to see that there are two, or not to see that they are strangers the one to the other, or not to see that Paul VI thus far is presiding over both, partakes of blindness and in some cases perhaps of invincible blindness. But when one has once seen it, not to say it would be to add complicity by silence to an enormous monstrosity. Gustave Corcao in the review ltineraires for November, 1975, and then Father Bruckberger in L' Aurore for 18 March 1976, remarked in print: The religious crisis is not like that in the 14th century, when you had, for one single Church, two or three Popes simultaneously; today, rather, there is question of one single Pope for two Churches, the Catholic and the post-conciliar. But to belong simultaneously to two such contrary Churches is impossible. It is impossible even for a Pope, by the very definition of his office. If Paul VI doesn't disengage himself, there is going to be an inevitable blow-up (choc en retour) as a result." Footnotes 1. Published in 1978 by Airlington House (USA), also available from The Angelus Press. Available in Britain from Augustine Publishing Co. this is certainly one of the most important books written on the liturgical revolution and, although in the form of a novel, contains much factual information. A summary of all the legislation relative to the traditional Mass is available on pages 87-101. Two very useful articles by the French canonist, Father Raymond Dulac, does the Novus Ordo Have the Strict Force of Law? and The Legal Status of Quo Primum are available from the Remnant Press in the USA and Augustine Publishing Co. in great Britain. See also footnote to p.447. 2. I must refer readers to my pamphlet The Tridentine Mass, which describes the reform of Pope Saint Pius V, and my pamphlets The New Mass and The Roman Rite Destroyed, which describe the reform of Pope Paul VI, and suggest that they decide for themselves whether there is any difference in the nature of the reforms enacted by the two pontiffs. This will be dealt with in greater detail in my book Pope Paul's New Mass. Available from the Augustine Publishing Co. in Great Britain and from the Angelus Press in the USA. 3. "Haec omnia summa cura et diligentia recognita. " Cicero.
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Regina Coeli House |
