« TOTAL DISAGREEMENT »
The « present decree » clearly states that by cancelling the censure of excommunication, it is intended to be a « sign for the promotion of unity in charity of the universal Church ». A journalist asked me for my reaction. It consists in posing a single question: How can unity in charity be obtained outside of the truth?
For this is what is lacking on both sides.
The decree of the Congregation for Bishops, which lifts the excommunications of 1988, begins by quoting the letter of 15 December 2008 that Mgr Bernard Fellay sent to his Eminence Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, which asked for this lifting of the excommunication in the name of « the will » of these four bishops « to remain Catholics and to place all of our strength at the service of the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which is the Roman Catholic Church. We accept all of her teachings with a filial spirit. »
I ask: Does Mgr Fellay include in this teaching the « cult of man » that Pope Paul VI proclaimed on 7 December 1965 as the fruit of the Second Vatican Council?
This is the only question that matters for the unity of the Church, which since then has been torn between two religions that are fighting within her: the age-old religion against the conciliar religion, the divinely revealed religion against the religion that is a human invention.
For my part, this was the question that I asked many years ago to Mgr Re who, at the time, was assessor at the Secretariat of State. Today he is the Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops and, as such, signed the decree that lifts the excommunication.
It was on 1 December 1981. He received me most amiably. I wanted to question him with regards to the « serious theological errors » with which he was reputed to reproach the Abbé de Nantes. « This expression, he answered me, only appeared in a single, unique letter addressed by our dicastery to a private person, under the signature of Mgr Lanzoni. » Although he assumed responsibility for the aforementioned letter, Mgr Re formally stated that he was unaware as concerns the Abbé de Nantes of « any dogmatic, doctrinal, or even simply theological error ».
I can still hear these words firmly pronounced in perfect French, barely tinged with a slight accent.
« Nevertheless, he added, the Abbé de Nantes could be reproached, in a more general manner with an erroneous ecclesial situation. »
– What situation? I asked, reminding him that the Abbé de Nantes scrupulously observed the “suspens a divinis” that had been imposed on him… without cause! As for the “disqualification” about which he had been “notified” in August 1969, it has no canonical value.
– That is true, Mgr Re admitted, however, your refusal of the Council places you in an erroneous ecclesial position.
– This is precisely the question! I exclaimed. Where is the error? The Abbé de Nantes has been asking this question since 1968 to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and he is still awaiting an answer. »
When he reported this audience in his editorial in January 1982, entitled “Total Disagreement”, the Abbé de Nantes underscored the significance or the Roman prelate’s admission:
« Our brother returned from Rome, mission accomplished. An ecclesiastical person of the highest rank retracted the words attributed to him by a secretary. The defamer, having written that I was reproached with “grave theological errors”, has been disavowed, and it has been recognised that we were not in error, neither dogmatically nor morally. The only thing wrong with us is that we are opponents, which is not well thought of at the Vatican, as in any court or party.
« But now the proposition I quietly enunciated above hereby finds itself tragically reversed! If it is recognised that I am not in error, then He whom I contradict and oppose, in matters of faith and morals, is therefore in error, and up to the neck! If that were not so, now that I have obtained a retraction of the defamation which overwhelmed me, reconciliation would be easy and immediate.
« Alas, whitened by the Assessor of the Secretariat of State, I cannot, in exchange for this justice, retract any of my disagreements nor relax my opposition. On the contrary! He, they who commit error upon error in grave matters of dogma and morals, must come out of their error. And let them not count on any flatterer or partisan to ask that of them, but again on us, and always on us for that – a terrible responsibility but a glorious task! For “we cannot not speak” »
Today, Mgr Fellay « considers talks with the Holy See necessary to permit the Sacerdotal Fraternity of Saint Pius X to expound the fundamental doctrinal reasons that it reckons to be the origin of the present difficulties of the Church. In this new climate, he declared, we have the firm hope of soon arriving at the recognition of the rights of Catholic Tradition. »
As for Cardinal Vingt-Trois, he retorts: « There are people who, for the most part, sincerely present themselves as defenders of tradition, giving themselves the Magisterial power of distinguishing between good and bad tradition. But such an act of discernment can only be an act of the Church and not that of a particular group in the Church. »
The lone issue in what already appears to be a dialogue of the deaf is found in the solution that the Abbé de Nantes has advocated for forty years: the appeal to the infallible judgement of the Pope. It is not a question of discussing, it is not a question of the rights of tradition to co-exist despite the hegemony of error, it is a question of knowing whether the conciliar teachings are in accordance with the deposit of the Faith, which is what in conscience the Abbé de Nantes has denied for forty years, while providing countless proofs of his accusations.
I will only hold up as an example here the focal point of these divergences and oppositions, the one that is the centre of everything: religious liberty. It is useless to discuss the point. It has dragged on for a hundred years now, and the parties are unable to convince each other: « This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. » (Dignitatis humanæ, no 2)
The Abbé de Nantes maintains that this “declaration” is insulting to God who wants to save all men, and he « declares » in turn anathema on whoever professes to believe in this wholesale religious freedom.
Nevertheless, only the Pope can settle this question once and for all, not by imposing his opinion as a private theologian, but by answering it in the correct form that guarantees him the infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit. This privilege was granted by Christ to the Successor of Peter precisely to guarantee the unity in the Faith of the flock that is entrusted to his care. We will not cease to repeat it, for it is urgent to see the Pope exercising his own powers.
We read in the following article (to be published on our website sometime in the future) a few pages of the literal commentary on the Second Vatican Council’s “Pastoral Constitution” Gaudium et Spes that the Abbé de Nantes wrote at the end of his exile in the Cistercian Abbey of Hauterive, on the economical and social life. They are brief and call for all the ecology of the 150 Points, but these few remarks are of a richness that contrasts with the sterile clichés of the conciliar text. They cast a brilliant light on the present crisis, which is the end result of the principles that the Council laid down: « In the economic and social realms, too, the dignity of the human person is to be respected and promoted. »(GS 63, 1) What about God? He is ousted by man:« For man is the source, the centre, and the purpose of all economic and social life. » So, do not be surprised by the consequences, if at least you know what is in man (Jn 2.25).
The second article, The alleged invalidity of the Sacraments, an alibi for schism (to be published on our website sometime in the future) provides principles that are capable of enlightening our bishops on the conduct required to perform a work of truth, and therefore unity, as regards the integrists. This account of a conference given during our “summer university” last year touches on current events with consummately providential timing! It is another example of the extraordinary fruitfulness of the Abbé de Nantes’ work. The salvation of the Church will necessarily come about through pontifical authority, but in order to impose pure Catholic doctrine, it will be no less necessary to recognise that our Father was its lone defender and doctor in these times of apostasy.