TWO YARDSTICKS
Today, more than ever, we cannot fail to be convinced that the Church is something
divine, for if she were not, how could she be still in existence? But, as she is at the
same time a human institution, suffering and in peril, we are each and every one of us
called upon to do what we can to save her. It is through us that the Holy Spirit would act
to bring about that Counter-Reformation which is so urgently needed.
It is true that the bishops are beginning to react to some extent, for they cannot help
being affected by the increasing disorder.
But their reaction appears to be an uncoordinated one, like that of some decerebrated
animal. It is not however truly random or unbiased, for it is always manifested much more
severely against any attack from the traditionalist quarter, which they look upon as aimed
personally at them, for it questions their ideas, their "pastoral"
inventions. When the progressives, on the other hand, attack not their Lordships
personally but God and His Church whose representatives they are, this is greeted at most
with a gentle reproof.
All this is very human no doubt. It hurts to be accused of error or weakness and the
accusation continues to smart when an insult to God, carefully combined with personal
flattery of the bishops, is readily forgotten. But there is more to it than this:
underlying everything is the unshakeable assumption that the New Reformation of the Church
is the result of divine inspiration, and that it is therefore above all criticism…
OUTSIDE VATICAN II, THERE CAN BE NO SALVATION! It is the duty of all Catholics to aid Pope
Paul VI in carrying out the designs of Vatican II, for is not every change the
implementation of the new divine plan?
Here we have the true reason for the bishops’ hesitation in the face of the
progressives’ onslaughts even when these go so far in denying Christian dogma that
they do feel compelled to issue "warnings". They will express astonishment and
regret, but without naming names.
The aim of the Catholic Counter-Reformation is not to attack the men of the Church; we
are sorry when we are forced to lay the blame upon them in the course of our fight, which
is directed rather against the principle of the Reformation, against the never-ending
series of "reforms" which have led our bishops even to a point where they will
speak and think and act contrary to God whose representatives they are. Indeed, as men we
are no better than they, and we are prepared to stand up in public and say so if need be.
God knows that we are aware of our personal inadequacy.
We read, once again, a "warning" against us, printed in La Croix of
11th March. The article explains that, though the statement by the permanent Secretariat
of the French Hierarchy is not "an official communiqué", it is "a
clear-cut reiteration of the pastoral stand taken by the Hierarchy." A stand which
has become a conditioned reflex. We learn that "the Secretariat has protested against
the attacks made on the Holy Father and the Second Vatican Council by the Abbé Georges de
Nantes. He states for example: ‘The Council turned the hierarchical order upside down
and made the Church stand on its head’, and he has referred to Pope Paul VI as
‘forgetful of his Faith and neglectful of his Apostolic duties.’ (CRC. July
1969)" So they can’t do any better than to quote what I wrote over two and a
half years ago!… But the post-Conciliar Church and the Reformer Paul VI are
sacrosanct against all criticism – while others are free to insult God, and Christ in
the Blessed Sacrament, Our Lady, the Church, the Priesthood…
It is the Abbé Coache’s turn next, who, according to l’Aurore,
"has been condemned (also by the Secretariat of the French Hierarchy) for referring
to the (new) Ordo Missae as ‘tainted with heresy, close to heresy, Protestant in
spirit and form and therefore extremely dangerous’." Again we note how any
attack (and how well-founded it is, though we may find some of his expressions, as well as
some pastoral conclusions he draws, to be too extreme) upon a brainchild of the New
Reformation must be resisted, and the more so when it comes from a priest who remains
faithful to the Catholic religion and has promised to accept whatever decision the Church
should make with regard to himself as soon as he shall be informed of this. Would it not
be quite simple, and how wonderfully in keeping with the spirit of the Gospel, for the
bishops to make their peace with Abbé Coache, and allow him to continue to exercise that
ministry which had been continuously practised in the Church throughout the centuries,
with the approval and blessing of the hierarchy of the entire world? But even if they
should desire to do so, our bishops would not be free to, because the Council…
When they are dealing with the other camp, it is quite different. No names are bandied
about, for they would not wish to hurt any individual. "Warnings" are issued in
a spirit of charity, and due care is taken to lavish praise upon the excellent apostolic
intentions which have led to the errors and false moral teaching that are being spread
everywhere… They will forbid their priests and faithful to attend a mere conference
by the Abbé de Nantes, but not – why not? – the meetings of the renegade
priests of Échanges et Dialogues.
WHO CAN DENY THAT TWO DIFFERENT YARDSTICKS ARE BEING USED, AND ALWAYS TO THE DETRIMENT
OF SOULS?
Read the following paragraphs, by Cardinal Renard on the Eucharist, as a typical
example:
"The celebration of each and every Mass serves to reaffirm the unity of the Pope,
the bishops and the entire People of God. Surely therefore this requires that the same
Mass – the one which is known as that of Paul VI – should be celebrated
throughout the world, using one or other of the four ‘eucharistic prayers’. The
communion of the Faith of the Church must be expressed in the liturgy and especially in
the Canon of the Mass." This "requirement", so-called, is of course aimed
at the last few who have remained faithful to the old Roman Mass. It is surely clear to
everybody that such an argument cannot hold water. We all know that there have always been
different forms of the liturgy, and even Pope Paul himself has "authorised" the
use of the old rite on occasions. But all this makes no difference, for the
traditionalists must be wiped out at all costs.
"There have been reports claiming that there have taken place within the diocese
eucharistic celebrations (sic) in which married priests, and also lay people, have taken
part. I sincerely hope that there has been some misunderstanding here… However, if
the facts should be correct, then it is my duty to point out that they constitute a
serious irregularity, for the former are not entitled to celebrate the Eucharist, while
the latter do not have the power to consecrate, for they have not received the Sacrament
of Orders." So it would be a very serious matter indeed, but the Archbishop is
complacent enough to hope, and pretend, that it cannot be true.
Let us quote another example. La Croix of 12th March carries two parallel
articles, the one dealing with the troubles which H. Kung is having with the Holy Office,
and the other, regarding those of the Abbé Coache.
The Congregation’s attempt to dispose of Abbé Coache in cold blood meets with the
highest approval. It is truly meet and just, right and availing unto salvation that
"he remain suspended and forbidden to celebrate Holy Offices in his own parish or
anywhere else except with the written permission of the Ordinary of the Diocese." The
article then tells us that this priest had judgement passed on him by the Congregation,
but it does not bother to point out that this "judgement" took place without his
having been heard or even duly informed of the sentence passed upon him… [Itinéraires,
No 163 (May 1972, p.248) devotes an article to the documentation of this affair, which
shows the uncanonical confusion typical of the post-Conciliar Church. It would appear
that, canonically, the status of Abbé Coache is that of a priest awaiting the result of
an appeal he made to Rome against his suspension from the position of parish priest.
Though suspended from public functions such as officiating at marriages he was not
canonically forbidden to celebrate Mass. A document now widely quoted in the press as
coming from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes reference to such a
suspension (of which he himself had never been formally notified) as though it had been in
existence for two years or more. The texts quoted refer to certain "doctrinally
false" expressions used by Abbé Coache in his criticisms of the new Ordo Missae. The
examples given include a quotation which appeared in a publication of Pare Barbara and not
of Abbé Coache at all! It all seems to add up to a "state of jungle, rather than
mere anarchy", to quote Itinéraires. (Translator’s note)]
But when it comes to H. Kung, whose books attack the Church, the dogma of the
Pope’s Infallibility, the Catholic Priesthood – all in terms which are
unambiguously heretical – then the same Congregation is making a serious mistake
when, years too late, it does at long last institute an enquiry. Here, La Croix
must defend the poor victim who is being so unjustly treated: "It appears likely that
Hans Kung is not an easy speaker to follow. It is a greater pity therefore that such
defective procedures should have been allowed to remain in existence in spite of repeated
requests (i.e. for their abolition - Tr.’s note) by the Council, the Synod and
by many theologians."!
So it all depends on whether you happen to belong to the winning side or not. Even the
Holy Office itself, which showed itself so willing to "disqualify" me, and is so
ready to condemn the Abbé Coache today, adopts a different approach towards the genuine
heresy-mongers; when, for instance, it publishes its statement "for safeguarding the
faith in the Mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Holy Trinity, which are threatened by
certain errors prevalent today". Just a gentle reminder, without naming names or
mentioning titles!
PREPARING FOR VATICAN III
THE FAITHFUL
(Preliminary Schema)
From the earliest days the Church was conscious of the distinction between the
priesthood on the one hand, whose function it is to act in the name of Christ and bring
Him to the rest of the people, and this people on the other, those who are at the
receiving end, the taught, the faithful. Their condition typifies that which is common to
all creatures redeemed by the Blood of Christ; it is nothing to be ashamed of. It is the
normal Christian state.
Certain individuals become themselves dispensers of divine Grace, through the Sacrament
of Holy Orders, and some undertake to lead a life which is consecrated through specific
vows approved by the Church. Four categories of Christians are thereby distinguished
– priests, who are either secular or regular, and the faithful, who also can be
religious or secular. It was only to the last category that there came to be applied the
term "laity". It refers to those who are neither priests nor religious, but live
a Christian life in the world, receiving the benefits of that Grace which comes to them
through the hands of the Hierarchy. Nevertheless, by virtue of their Baptism and
Confirmation, they too are enabled to a certain extent to play an active part in attaining
their own salvation and that of others, thus sharing in the work of the Church which is
the source of all sanctification.
The lay person’s calling is:
- To strive to attain the Kingdom of Heaven, through the Sacraments, prayer, and the
liturgy. To aid him in this, there exist various pious associations, Confraternities,
Third Orders. Certain, specific ways of rendering service to the Church are also open to
him.
- To respect and obey the Law of God throughout every part of his life in the world and
keep himself pure and untainted in spite of the many temptations to which he is
unavoidably exposed. He has an obligation to practise Christian charity in the service of
the community. There are certain charitable institutions, schools, hospitals, and others,
which help him to fulfil this obligation.
- To defend and promote the Reign of Christ and His Law within the temporal order: to
uphold respect for Divine Law, for the rights of the Church, as well as for the dignity of
individuals, especially the poor and humble.
This threefold "Catholic action" remains centred upon God and the laws of the
Church. It is to the Church’s Hierarchy that the faithful owe their obedience. On
account of the inevitable imperfection of their life in the world they will necessarily
receive more than they can give, but there is nothing to prevent them from rendering the
greatest service to the Church, nor from attaining the highest degree of sanctity.
Protestantism and the Renaissance both led to an "emancipation of the
laity", flattering their pride. The latter exalted the things of this life and the
state of freedom from ecclesiastical subjection and from every concern with things
supernatural. The former led them to believe that all were called to be Kings, Priests,
and Prophets. We dread to think what would have happened if the Catholic
Counter-Reformation in the sixteenth century had not restored the authority of the
Magisterium in all its greatness.
Catholic Action. The Revolution with regard to the laity had its beginnings in
the appeal made by Pius XI in 1922, calling upon them to play an integral part in the
Church’s Apostolate. The laity had thus, as it were, suddenly become endowed, by the
mere virtue of their Baptism and Confirmation, with a share in the bishops’ ministry
which was barely granted to the priest! The layman was being placed on a higher level than
the priest, and the culmination of this is the chaos which we are witnessing today.
From this time on, the Apostolate was to replace progressively the three
functions proper to the laity that we detailed above. Devotion to the Sacraments and the
liturgy, the seeking after moral perfection, and finally even the defence of the Church in
the world would all move into second place.
The Apostolate of the Laity was increasingly boosted as a function which is
specific to the laity, different from, and even more worthwhile than the ministry of the
priest who comes to be looked upon as incompetent in this sphere. We see the development
of methods and organisations particularly suitable for the laity and finally it is a lay
– anti-clerical – philosophy that takes over. The "Apostolate from
within" takes on a character more and more distinct from that by the Church’s
Hierarchy and leads on to a new form of Christianity – a religion of dialogue,
witness, friendship, joy, liberty, etc. A religion of human development is being put into
the place of the dogma, worship, and moral law of the Church.
This form of Catholic Action has been an evident failure, in spite of the support it
received from the Hierarchy for the past fifty years, becoming eventually the prisoner of
bureaucratic superstructures – in the form of specialised movements – which
it had itself created.
Vatican II and the "Advancement of the Laity". Because the Conciliar
Revolution turned the entire Catholic order upside down, it managed to elevate the laity
to a "priesthood" at the same time as it downgraded the true priesthood to a
secular level. So we see how, under the guise of "mission",
"evangelisation", the descent from the sacred to the profane has advanced a
stage further, in the direction begun by Catholic Action. The mission of the laity no
longer pretends to be, even to the slight extent to which it originally was, to preach
genuine Christian Revelation in conjunction with the Hierarchy. It is today the
proclamation of the Gospel in an entirely unrecognisable guise, that is by the
"Christian witness" borne in one’s own, day to day life in the world. To
"preach the Gospel" means to live one’s own life successfully! Not only
does the priest, in accordance with this philosophy, lose the religious nature of his
calling; the layman loses his very identity as a Catholic. All that remains is a form of
humanism.
The "Consecration of the World". This is the newest fad of all. The
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, which stands by right at the very centre of the priesthood,
has already been pushed aside. And now, in order to honour fully the "priesthood of
the laity" a new concept of "oblation" is being elevated into a position of
honour. The new (lay) priests shall "consecrate" the world, by the work of their
hands. As God’s plan consists in man’s earthly success, so the new priests must
work to this end. The world shall be their sanctuary, the machine their altar, the worker
the priest, and the objects made by human hands and for the use of men shall be the altar
breads for this new cosmic liturgy.
While in theory it is the laity who have been promoted, in practice it is the priest
who has thereby been deposed. It means the ruin of the Priesthood, the closure of
seminaries, the disappearance of the liturgy. Priests themselves have become the willing
victims of the post-Conciliar secularisation; they offer less resistance to it than the
laity. Because someone has to do their work, we see lay people distributing Communion
today, conducting funerals tomorrow, and, who knows, presiding before long at
pseudo-masses.
The moral which we make so bold as to draw from all this is that everyone should
remain at his own post. Let Priests remain Priests, and the laity remain the Faithful!
THE FAITHFUL
Proposed Dogmatic Constitution
As we continue our study, it begins to look more and more as if Vatican II were
attempting to combine, artificially, two different religions – the old and the new.
We watch how the Reformation is destroying, stone by stone, the High Altar facing East,
upon which stands the Cross, and building in its stead a new altar facing the people, upon
which homage is paid to the world and its development.
Our old Faith teaches that it is the Church that instructs us in the Divine Mysteries;
she is the source of all sanctification; through her we obtain life and are guided to the
Father. It is through the Liturgy that we learn to partake in the Church’s
supernatural life, which comes to us at the hands of the priest, the mediator between God
and man, who stands to his people as a father or a spouse, or as a shepherd to his flock.
The priest is the captain of the ferry that carries the faithful from the shores of
this world to those of life everlasting. For they, whose salvation has been made possible
by the Cross of Christ, and begun already through their Baptism, have nevertheless a long
way to go in order to achieve that holiness in the sight of God without which they cannot
be definitively saved. Their task, which is not an easy one, is to pass from this world,
in which they live, to which, not being "religious", they are bound by many
ties, towards God. For this they need the Sacraments, as well as the teaching and
direction which they receive from another, the priest, who is entrusted with this function
by virtue of the Orders he has received.
In this supernatural activity, the priesthood is the active principle, the priest, he
who sows the seed, and the faithful people are the substrate which is activated, the soil
which receives the seed. From the earliest days, Christ, whose representative was the
Bishop, was likened to the Bridegroom, and the Church, to the Bride, made fruitful through
her Spouse. "I am the vine and you are the branches", said Our Lord.
The difference between priest and people is one of condition rather than of kind, for
in his inmost being the priest himself, like the bishop or even the Pope, remains one of
the faithful, in the sense that he too receives grace from above, brought to him through
others than himself. Moreover, the passive state which is normal for the faithful can be
associated with activity of various kinds and degrees – even to the carrying
out of quasi-priestly functions by lay people in certain cases, by the African catechists
for example. There have always been the exceptional cases – secular priests leading
the life of religious, women who have, in the name of God, carried out missions more
appropriate to men, such as St Joan of Arc, St Catherine and St Theresa. Such
extraordinary vocations have been accepted by the Church without causing any particular
theological difficulties. Was it not in this way that the great Religious Orders arose, in
the very bosom of the people?
The essential principle underlying the dispensation of grace remains however that it is
the priest who gives, and the faithful who receive. If they nourish the seed thus received
they will be able to return it a hundredfold – but the "Catholic action"
which they must undertake for this consists in frequenting the Sacraments and the liturgy,
striving for moral perfection, in the exercise of charity, in serving the Church. But all
such action is dependent on divine grace received.
This fundamental principle has been turned upside down in our day, to match the new,
perverted philosophy which has replaced the traditional way of thinking. Instead of the
priest’s relationship to his people being likened to that of a father to his
children, a husband to his wife, a shepherd to his flock, it has been perverted into the
master/slave relation of Hegelian dialectic. The pride and jealousy of the subordinate
thus aroused, he turns against the superior on whom he is dependent for everything,
justifying himself with the pretext that this superior has himself received from others,
and is in his turn oppressed by them. The "advancement of the laity" is,
remarkably, always accompanied by "women’s liberation", for "there is
a constant interaction between the relation of woman to the world and the relation of the
Church to Christ" (M.J. Beccaria).
The new catch phrase was as simple as it was dangerous: All are called to action.
This is of course true, in the sense that all are called to work for their own
sanctification and for that of those in their charge – but not in the new
sense that all are endowed with a "mission", an "apostolate". An
ordinary lay person who has made no attempt to seek the state of perfection in the
priestly or religious life, is considered to be, through the mere fact of his baptism and
confirmation, qualified to work upon others, to be entrusted with a
"mission". This was the principle of that "Catholic Action" which came
into the Church fifty years ago, under Pope Pius XI. In spite of the project’s
manifest lack of success, this same principle was again adopted by Vatican II under the
title of the Advancement of the Laity. It was utterly unrealistic to endow the laity with
such a false dignity that would make them rate themselves worthier than the priests, and
more useful to the Church than the religious, who are the professionals in the service of
God. Thus to exalt the supernatural character of the lay state, which is only too closely
bound to the natural, could not but destroy the meaning of the Apostolate and, eventually,
of the Christian life itself. While pretending to exalt the layman to a state of
pseudo-priesthood, it can succeed only in taking away the supernatural character of the
Apostolate, converting it into political activity, carried on in the name of a humanistic
religion, which it is hypocritical to refer to as "Christian".
Catholic Action, under Pius XI
The "aggiornamento" with regard to the laity began long before Vatican II. It
was between the years 1922 and 1929 that the religious activities of the faithful
underwent a fundamental change along the same lines that marked the total upheaval forty
years later. We may find it difficult to understand the enthusiasm shown by priests in the
1930’s for Catholic Action, but it was just the same in the case of Le Sillon in 1905
and of the Conciliar Reformation at the present time.
The new idea which came into the Church at this time was made out to be an addition to,
and not a substitute for, those already established as the essentials of the Christian
life. But, just as at Vatican II, which adopted the same approach, so here too we find the
novelty, thanks to careful propaganda and dictatorial methods applied in its favour,
taking pride of place over all the rest. The inventors of Catholic Action, just like the
Reformers at Vatican II, were infatuated with their brainchild and could not conceive of
its being anything but the greatest success. "Catholic Action marks the opening of a
new era, the establishment of a Christian order in the midst of a pagan world, the
beginning of a Catholic social order, the culmination of a divine plan already mapped out
in God’s infinite wisdom. We can, at this stage, see only a glimmer of the
potentialities of this vast design conceived by the Popes, and given a definitive shape by
Pius XI when he instituted Catholic Action… The Church is about to live a new and
glorious phase of her eternal destiny…" (Quotation from Guerry, 1936, writing on
Catholic Action) Note the diplomacy, typical of the Reformer, which flatters the reigning
Pope for his invention at the same time as it imputes to his predecessors just enough
share in this to make it look like a new development along the lines already hallowed by
tradition!
What exactly was the new concept? It was essentially, that of the "Apostolate from
within."
The "Apostolate" has become one of the tasks appropriate to the laity, over
and above the classical ones of personal sanctification, advancement along the road to
moral perfection, and the defence of the Faith. In practice, the importance assigned to
this new function was such that it came to oust the rest. Moreover, all were called to
this "apostolate", regardless of their own faith and of the part which their
religion played in their lives. Expected to run before they could walk, they were being
called upon to convert others before themselves.
A whole system of specialised organisation was built up in the name of Catholic Action
– and this was to smother all the other, pious and charitable associations. Invidious
distinctions crept in, between Catholics who were "active" and those who were
not. Thanks to the support it received from the Hierarchy, Catholic Action became a One
Party rule.
The Apostolate from Within, carried out in friendship, on terms of equality, by the
laity and for the laity may have remained nominally part of the true Apostolate, which
belongs to the Hierarchy, but in practice it destroyed it, replacing the sacred with the
profane. Going to church, obeying the divine law, upholding the Church’s teaching in
civil society – all dwindled in importance by comparison with the new form of
witness to Christ which consists in living one’s own life and ascribing to it a
propaganda value. What unlimited scope for human pride!
The movement did not really catch on as far as the faithful were concerned, except
where pressure was applied to them, or in those cases in which it provided a convenient
way of avoiding their genuine obligations. Priests who acted as chaplains to Catholic
Action groups acquired a privileged position, and a say in the running of the Church,
which they used to install their own form of Christianity, a new religion which flattered
man’s pride and all his instincts.
It was not till 1961 that a young priest, a disciple of Mgr Suenens, dared to publish a
work entitled Has Catholic Action been a Failure? (by Rev. Joseph Comblin) In it he
indicates that, while "phenomenologically" – that is to say, from the
objective point of view – it had indeed been a failure, it was nevertheless a
success from the "theological" point of view! But this did not make the disciple
of Suenens doubt the soundness of the philosophy on which CA was based. No, he came
instead to the conclusion that it had not gone far enough. Together with Suenens and the
avant-garde of the Reformers, he calls for the creation of an entirely different kind of
lay apostolate. This was the thesis which Vatican II finally adopted. As for Fr Comblin
himself, he wrote a book that was to become famous – The Theology of Revolution
– and then proceeded to put his ideas into practice, in Latin America.
Vatican II and the Advancement of the Laity
The advancement of the laity would have been expected to form something like a landmark
in that "catechism of our time" represented by the Acts of Vatican II. The
Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem (The Apostolate of the Laity, abbreviated AL)
follows upon Lumen Gentium, which explains the new role of the laity in the Church
and it prepares the way for Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the World of Today),
which defines the tasks of the Christian in the modern world. The experts however look
upon AL as inferior to both these two documents, and as the most out of date of all the
Acts of the Council. It is in their view too conservative, and they attribute this to the
influence which the principles of Catholic Action were still exerting upon the bishops,
who therefore did not realise the need for a much bolder approach.
The discussion was confused and ended in a text of compromise. What else can you
expect, when error begins to invade the Church, whose very nature is to speak the truth
clearly and consistently? Such error can persist only with the help of vagueness and
ambiguity. In the case of Catholic Action itself, a certain vagueness had persisted: no
one had ever defined who were to be regarded as its members, nor what were its aims and
methods. The only one who seemed to have grasped the ideas which were to form its
foundation was… Pius X! They form the subject of an encyclical, Il fermo proposito,
dated 20th June 1905. Certainly he considered the Apostolate to be something quite
different, a religious task directed by the Hierarchy, not a pastime of lay people carried
out as part of their worldly tasks.
The Council had "to start afresh from the beginning"; that was its excuse for
not making a better job of it, according to the commentators. As if this in itself should
not have alerted them that there was something suspicious going on! It was the first time,
so Congar explains, that "a Council had formulated teaching which dealt explicitly
with the lay members of the People of God". The questions to be discussed certainly
have a novel and strange ring about them: "The royal Priesthood and devotion in the
life of Christians", "How an attitude of spiritual sacrifice can find concrete
expression", etc. These vague questions did not receive any decisive answers. The
text that was adopted is couched in "paternalistic terms". So now we know…
Vatican II was so up to date that it could no longer find any use for Pius XI’s
Catholic Action, but now, only seven years after the Council, we have advanced to such an
extent that it in its turn has become outdated!
Let us however try and analyse these developments and find out where they seem to be
leading. There are two concepts involved in the Apostolate of the Laity. The first, which
we have already discussed in connection with Lumen Gentium, is to view the Church,
or rather the People of God, as directly assembled by Christ through His Spirit. In such a
democratic concept of the Church, the layman becomes simply one member of a community of
equals and no longer one of the "faithful" subjects of a hierarchy who have
authority over them.
Gaudium et Spes deals with the Church’s mission in the world, which is to
serve its human development and success. If this is so, then the lay person’s role
must indeed be in the fore, and even more important than that of priests or religious, for
is he not more familiar with the problems of this world than they?
The Decree on The Apostolate of the Laity does apparently not go far enough on either
of these questions, and therefore the experts regard it as merely a transitional document,
already outdated.
We know that terminology played a very important part at Vatican II. It is significant
that the word Laity was replaced by the Faithful, in the name of the ad hoc
commission, only for it to reappear again later. Admittedly, the term the Faithful
is less precise than the Laity, for the latter specifically excludes all members of
the Church who are priests or religious. But it was on account of its new, revolutionary
connotation that the leading progressives hung on to the term Laity. They wanted to
destroy at all costs the impression of a state of passive submissiveness suggested by the
term the Faithful. The designation of Laity would surely rouse the Christian
people to a consciousness of their rights and dignity, and show them that they were not
dependent on anyone!
Congar regards it as too negative, at first sight, to define the laity by exclusion, as
we read in Lumen Gentium, 31: "The term laity is here understood to mean all
the faithful except those in holy orders and those in a religious state sanctioned by the
Church." But almost immediately the definition is qualified, and we read as follows:
"They are in their own way made sharers in the priestly, prophetic, and kingly
functions of Christ. They carry out their own part in the mission of the whole Christian
people with respect to the Church and the world. The secular quality is proper and special
to laymen." These words show us what Vatican II understood by the term Laity.
But who would notice that this implies a colossal onslaught against those very
activities which the Church has always regarded as an essential part of the life of the
faithful? Their personal sanctification and that of those over whom they have authority.
Vatican II seems unaware of the fact that the first duty of all who are baptised is their
own conversion, which indeed is never fully accomplished. As if this task were not enough
in itself, the faithful should take part in the liturgy, listen to sermons, practise the
moral teaching of the Gospels, support the Church’s charitable institutions, etc, as
well as play their part in defending the Church in temporal society. These activities are
all, however, centred upon the Church, and carried out in due submission to the Hierarchy,
and in humility before God. Is that why they have been left out?
From the word go, the Council looks upon all lay people, by mere virtue of their
baptism, as prophets, priests and kings! It would ascribe to them an authority and power
equal to that which belongs to priests by virtue of their orders, or to religious because
they are living in a state of perfection! The layman, being already perfect in himself, is
to go out into the world and busy himself with his fellowmen. "The Christian calling
is by its very nature a calling to the Apostolate… It is the Lord Himself who
entrusts the laity with their apostolic mission." This is Congar’s summing up of
the situation, from which he draws two conclusions:
1). Every Christian is sent on his mission directly and immediately by Christ Himself,
by virtue of his "baptismal mandate". The power thus belongs to him as of right,
even more so than that conferred upon the priest through Holy Orders.
2). It is the Holy Spirit who, through "charisms" bestowed upon him, directs
the carrying out of the layman’s mission which is thus characterised by a
"perfect liberty" – unlike the power of jurisdiction of the priest, which
is closely dependent on the bishop!
"Thus we can leave behind the narrow, juridical concept of the Church, which
looked upon the faithful as fit to exercise only one single virtue – that of
obedience and submission (what a lie and caricature!)… The Church of Vatican II is
the People of God and the Body of Christ, an organic reality… within which all play
an active part, all have responsibility, and which is governed not merely by human rules
and human authority, but in a sovereign manner by the spirit of the Lord. Lumen Gentium
has defined the condition of the People of God as a state of liberty, by virtue of the
Holy Spirit."
The keyword of this advancement of the laity is no longer "participation" of
the faithful in the apostolate of the hierarchy, but rather "co-operation" with
them in the mission of the Church. Being sent directly by God, they may still work
together with, but definitely not under the direction of their priests!
So the emancipation of the laity which began fifty years ago, now sees its culmination
in the end of that curious arrangement, known as the "hierarchical mandate", for
(in Congar’s words) "the laity consider that the title of their baptism, or
‘sacramental mandate’ makes the addition of a hierarchical mandate
unnecessary." Here he hesitates and would effect a compromise, as we have it in Lumen
Gentium 37, between the two "mandates" which entitle the layman to play his
part in the Church’s mission – the one which belongs "ontologically"
to every member of the People of God, and the juridical one, which was given directly to
the Apostles, and hence has passed to the Hierarchy. What it seems to mean is that the
laity’s submission to the Hierarchy is secondary to the mission which comes to them
direct from God through baptism. For to reject the "hierarchical mandate" would
be to challenge the nature of Catholic Action as it was defined by Pius XI. The Council
has, therefore, "extended the limits" by acknowledging that "the apostolic
work of the individual is always and everywhere beneficial; in some circumstances it is
the only sort suitable or even possible. All lay people, no matter who or what they are,
have this call and this responsibility even if they have no chance or possibility of
working together in a society." (LG, l6)
A Mission that is Secular and Profane
The laity having thus been raised into this new exalted position, they had to be given
a "special sphere", a "role (which) is both indispensable and peculiarly
theirs as lay people." (AL, 1) It is evident that this approach must lead to a
conflict between the ministry of the priest and the role of the laity "both inside
the Church and out in the world".
Here the objects of the laity’s apostolate are still expressed in terms similar to
those used by Catholic Action: "They carry out this apostolic work by their efforts
to evangelise and sanctify men. They carry it out as they labour to infuse the whole range
of things belonging to this world with the spirit of the Gospel and so bring them to their
full development. This labour of theirs in the affairs of this world is therefore a clear
witness to Christ, and a service rendered for the salvation of mankind. Lay people, in
virtue of their position, live at the very centre of the world and its activities; God
calls them to work as apostles in that world, to act upon it as a leaven as they
themselves are alive with the spirit of Christ." (AL, 2) Their apostolic work,
therefore is, first and foremost, one of "evangelising and sanctifying". (AL, 6)
We can see, now, the reasons for objecting that AL was too "clerical" and
old-fashioned, too much taken up with matters of a religious nature. For should the laity
not be more concerned with the things of this world?
Gaudium et Spes was to follow up this new concept, looking upon the apostolate
of the laity as extending beyond the bounds of religion, as a "mission"
embracing the world and all the things which belong to it. We find that this idea is
already foreshadowed in AL, 5: "Christ’s redemptive work has as its main
objective the salvation of men, but it involves as well a reconstruction of the whole
temporal order. Therefore the Church has been sent not only to tell men about Christ and
bring them his grace, but also to fill every corner of our world with the spirit of the
Gospel and so bring it to its full perfection. The lay people, as they set about
accomplishing this mission of the Church, work as apostles both in the Church and out in
the world, among spiritual realities and among the things of our world. For even if there
is a difference between these two, the spiritual and the transient, in the one and only
plan of God they are so bound together that it is the whole universe he intends to bring
back to himself creating it afresh in Christ. The beginnings of this new creation are here
and now on earth, its final achievement awaits the last day. In both spheres, spiritual
and transient, the layman who is simultaneously a believer and a man in the world should
be guided by a Christian conscience which is at one with itself."
To look upon the layman’s task as one of "evangelising" or
"sanctifying" the world is a heritage from the days of Catholic Action, but
working for progress in the temporal sphere, however much you may talk about infusing into
it the spirit of the Gospel, cannot be classed as a "religious", or even
"apostolic"’ undertaking. The conservatives could perhaps still pretend
that all it meant was that "if you evangelise the peoples, their development will
follow", but its true meaning is that ‘"if you work at the rebuilding of
the world, you are thereby paying honour to God."
When you read No 7 of AL there is no longer any doubt possible that the
"rebuilding of the world" is seen to be part of the Church’s mission:
"God’s intention as regards the world is that men should reconstruct the whole
range of transient realities and equally, by so doing, bring them to their full
perfection, working in harmony with one another for this purpose. Every single item which
goes to the making of this world of ours, the good which is inseparable from life
itself… culture, the field of economics, industrial and professional activities,
political structures set up within the community, international relations and so forth,
these things themselves, their evolution and growth, have a value which belongs to
themselves alone, which God has made a part of them; they are not then merely stepping
stones to man’s ultimate future." To attribute such intrinsic value to these
things in themselves is surely heretical. What else can it mean except that
cultural and technical advances are necessarily, apart from any reference to man’s
eternal destiny, part of God’s design? "Finally, in the last analysis, God has
seen fit to gather all things both natural and supernatural and make them one in Christ
Jesus."
Could the Council Fathers have been thinking that the wheel was coming full circle, and
the Church would again make the world the domain for the exercise of her own
"clerical", God-centred authority? Not a bit of it. For if they had been
thinking along such lines, they would not have entrusted the laity par excellence with the
exercise of this "mission". Important consequences were to follow from the
statement that "the whole Church is committed to pursuing vigorously her work of
rendering men capable of reshaping everything that forms a part of the universe in which
they now live so that all may be directed towards God through Christ." (AL, 7) Is the
Church giving her blessing for the construction of a new Tower of Babel?
Anyhow, the whole field of politics has now been opened up before those Catholic
Activists who could not hope for anything better than to undertake this "reshaping
everything that forms part of the universe". At last they can follow their
interpretation of the signs of the times!
Though AL speaks also about keeping the Law of God in the world, this will pale into
insignificance by comparison with the great new obligation of keeping the Law of the
World. While it may write about charitable activities, these will suggest only the last
vestiges of an ecclesiastical paternalism long past and gone. We are no longer concerned
with charity but with fighting injustice, and the way to fight this is through Revolution!
All Christians – it is no longer customary to speak of Catholics – are sent
by Christ into the world, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and it is through their
everyday work at purely human tasks that they must respond to the challenge which the
world throws out to them and through them, to God and to the Gospel.
The "Consecration of the World"
All that remains, once man has built his own Brave New World as part of his
"Apostolate", is to "orientate this towards God through Christ." This
must not involve any return to the "sacral" form of Christianity, or subjecting
the world in any way to Christ the King and His Law. One must not even try to think in
such terms. The new idea is a "consecration" of the world, by deifying its
human, even sinful nature, and making of it a "spiritual oblation" sanctified at
the priestly hands of the laity. The intention is expressed, admittedly, in the Conciliar
text, that these worldly, "spiritual" offerings be joined to the true offerings
of the Eucharist, that "during the celebration of the Eucharist, these sacrifices are
most lovingly offered to the Father along with the Lord’s body (sic). Thus, as
worshippers whose every deed is holy, the laity consecrate the world itself to God."
(LG, 34)
With the help of this term, "the consecration of the world" and that other
one, already condemned by Pius XII, of the "common priesthood", there has arisen
a new religion whose domain is the world of (revolutionary) politics and whose
"cosmic liturgy" is presided over by the lay "priesthood"… In
this context the true Sacrifice offered by the genuine priest is no longer looked upon as
the Sacrifice of our Salvation, but as a mere symbolic representation of the only true
one, which is the transformation of the earth by the work of human hands.
THE TASKS OF THE FAITHFUL, ACCORDING TO VATICAN III
The number of priests and militant laity who have made their own the extreme ideas
connected with the "advancement of the laity" remains small, and is limited to
certain extremist organisations. It will not be too difficult for the Church to shake off
this philosophy, apart from the personal humiliation which the bishops will have to face
in admitting that they have made a mistake.
On no account must the Restoration by Vatican III involve, or seem to involve, a
"return to clericalism". The concept itself is largely a caricature invented by
the professed enemies of the clergy: there can be no conflict between the work of the
priests and religious and that of the laity which is, rather, an extension of this. The
primacy of the hierarchical priesthood and the influence of the religious orders do not
involve any attack on the dignity of the laity. On the contrary, the work of the latter
can only bear fruit because it is carried out in due acknowledgement of that primacy.
It is the reversal of values – the precedence falsely given to the laity
over priests or religious – which must be condemned, and priorities restored:
The service of God before all else.
What we need is people to work for the conversion of the world – and this
is the priest’s task – not laymen who work for "development" of the
world and pretend they are "consecrating" it with their priestly hands. Men must
be brought back to Christ and into His Mystical Body the Church outside which there is no
salvation, before they can play their part in that "actively passive"
participation which represents, by definition, the state of "the faithful".
There will be those who, seeking greater perfection in serving Christ, will climb to those
higher planes represented by the priesthood or the religious vocation, the two great royal
roads open to those who would take part in a "Catholic action" over and above
that of the rest – for those who desire to "advance" more assuredly
in the ways of holiness and charity.
As for the rest – the great majority – who will never seek to become priests
or religious, they must not be fooled into thinking that it is the existence of priests
which puts obstacles in the way of their serving God! On the contrary, they must be shown
that they have every freedom to share, in their own way and to whatever extent they find
possible, in the life of perfection which is lived by those who are dedicated exclusively
to God’s service. This participation must necessarily take primarily the form of
receiving what those in the more perfect state are able to offer them. But over and above
this, they can also take an active part in the work and service rendered by these.
The Relation of the Faithful to their Priests
The distinction between the Priestly Hierarchy on the one hand, which is endowed with
the power of teaching, consecrating and sanctifying, and, on the other, the faithful who
are necessarily at the receiving end of this ministry, is a permanent and fundamental one.
There just is no such thing as "the Priesthood of the Laity", either
individually or collectively, so there can clearly not be one which would rank even higher
than that of the priest himself. The efficacy of the sacerdotal priesthood is "ex
opere operato", an ontological power belonging to the priesthood by its very
nature and not dependent on the personal merits of the individual who exercises it. The
sharing by the faithful in the Sacrifice offered by the priest is, on the other hand, of
value only if they are in a state of grace – a fact which nowadays is conveniently
forgotten!
The true "Prophets, Priests, and Kings", the teaching Church in other words,
are the bishops and with them we would include the priests, the parish priests in
particular whom it is an insult to include as part of the taught Church, along with their
own faithful when they actually play such an important part in the Hierarchy’s
apostolate. The laity share in this ministry by profiting from the teaching,
sanctification and spiritual direction to which they receive access: their merit is not
lessened because their participation is passive. Most of them are too fully occupied with
their everyday duties and cares to engage in any religious activity over and above this.
There remains, however a type of "Catholic action" which forms part of the lay
Catholic’s duties, to an extent that depends on his position and the authority which
he may have over others. The primary responsibility of any one person is his own
salvation, but his task does not end there. He can and should play his part in teaching
the Faith, to his children for example, and in applying the Church’s moral discipline
in whatever sphere is open to him, the prince in governing his lands, the industrialist in
the factory, the employee who has a say in the management of funds, etc… Just as in
the political field the supposed sovereignty of the masses is associated with the loss of
concrete personal liberties which are far more important, so in the Church, the
Advancement of the Laity, which endows them with the greatest possible authority –
even if it is a mythical one – takes away the modest but genuine personal
responsibility which should be theirs by right. Collegial tyranny rules in the name of
democracy. The sort of "advancement" with which we are concerned – giving
persons individual responsibility in accordance with their state – does not involve
any conflict of authority, for all who exercise it accept themselves the Church’s
discipline. It does not lead to the faceless organisations erected by laity in the name of
Catholic Action spreading their bureaucratic tentacles across the world, intimidating the
bishops. Let authority be personal once more, exercised by parish priests over their
parishes, by bishops over their dioceses, while these in their turn are subject only to
the Pope, and to no one else, least of all to any lay bodies on this earth. And the whole
secular order shall be subject to the Church in all that concerns the spiritual and
apostolic sphere. As regards the laity, far from being in any way the losers, they will
experience rather an unimaginable relief at their deliverance. Many different ways of
serving God and the good of souls in perfect harmony with their priests, will once again
be open to them.
The Relation of the Faithful to the Orders
Vatican III must reassert the Church’s age-old teaching concerning the superiority
of the religious life, dedicated to God by vows, over the life in the world. However good
Christians they may be, people who live in the world, are not able to live solely for God,
to think only of God, to owe Him their sole obedience. Their allegiance is necessarily
divided, and to deny this fact is to lie through sheer pride. Does not the Church teach
that it is the religious life which offers the best possibility for serving God with
singleness of mind, and for teaching the Gospel to the poor?
The laity have no reason to resent the comparison, for the very existence of the Orders
is for them too a source of spiritual blessings from which they are constantly invited to
draw. There is no limit to the extent to which they may profit from the example and the
supernatural merits of the members of the religious orders, be they contemplative,
charitable, or apostolic. That is why the Church has through the ages given her approval
to the various confraternities, pious associations and Third Orders, which exist in order
to help the faithful to model their lives as far as possible on the more perfect one of
the religious, and with the help of the latter.
We discussed how the laity’s passive participation in the work of the priest is
supplemented by an active share in it to the extent that they in their turn are able to
instruct others in the Faith, uphold Christian justice and charity in their work, etc. In
a parallel manner, they can also share actively in the sanctifying influence exercised by
the religious life. This depends solely on the spiritual progress made by the individual
and not on his position in society, for the personal perfection of a soul will necessarily
radiate to those around him.
Paradoxically, the type of apostolate exemplified by Catholic Action and the
Advancement of the Laity can only lead to the "devaluation" and eventually the
destruction of the religious orders. We should not be surprised to see how their great
spiritual influence is being stifled. The Vatican II mentality shared out power and
charisms indiscriminately, on a basis of equality, thus rejecting the need for sanctity as
the first qualification for carrying out an "apostolate". It thus killed that
"sense" of moral and spiritual superiority, which until now the Church had
always recognised. How else could so many lay people, over the ages, who felt impelled to
serve and love God, have climbed to the heights they did, before returning, followed by
others, among their fellows, sent by Him to instruct, console or nurse them? Vatican III
must restore the religious life to its rightful place of honour, whilst calling also upon
all the faithful to share to some extent in the life of perfection led by the men and
women who have consecrated themselves to God, chosen by Him to be the fathers and mothers
of innumerable spiritual offspring.
One Holy Catholic Church
It is the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church – in the original
meaning of the word "Apostolic" – that must be restored by the
Counter-Reformation of Vatican III. Good relations between priests and their faithful must
by restored, so that they can once again work in happy co-operation for the welfare of the
Church. The dignity and effectiveness of the real units of the Church’s hierarchical
organisation – parishes, dioceses, the Papacy itself – shall be restored,
freed from the bureaucratic Monopolies that have held them in fetters…
But what, you may ask, is to become of our own Catholic Counter-Reformation when that
happy day dawns? As far as the Spiritual Third Order is concerned, this will give the
faithful the opportunity of sharing in the treasures of the monastic life of our
orders, both male and female, and of helping these in their missionary activity – for
the world remains to be converted! The Charitable and Apostolic Third Orders will lose
that isolation which has been the result of circumstances, and work, at parish or diocesan
level, for the good of the Church. |