FEBRUARY 1972

ÉDITION MENSUELLE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE DE LA CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE AU XX^e SIÈCLE
Editor : R. P. Georges de Nantes

INSULT TO OUR LADY

AVE, MARIS STELLA – DEI MATER ALMA –
ATQUE SEMPER VIRGO – FELIX COELI PORTA!

O Blessed Mary, ever Virgin, it was not till our own day, when the Church is filled with a crazy pride, ruled over by the men of Belial who are preparing that Great Apostasy and revolution which will come over the world as the Punishment foretold by You at Fatima, if men did not repent in time – it was not till this present twentieth century that, in the land of France, of the "elder daughter of the Church", Your honour had to be insulted even in the very name of religion! We read in the Christmas issue of La Vie Catholique, of which millions of copies are distributed in our parishes to the unsuspecting faithful: "And so, once again there….bursts upon us the certainty that God did indeed come down upon this earth, that Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary and Joseph the carpenter." (Article by G. Hourdin, writing in the Christmas issue of La Vie Catholique)

What a shameful creature must he be who, with an air of sham devotion, can launch such an attack upon Your honour, O ever Virgin Mother. And to think that millions of Christian souls can be thus duped! He must hate You because you foretold, at Fatima, the ultimate defeat of that Satanic Communism in whose service he has placed himself, together with his money, his friends and the whole so-called Catholic press.

Such an insult cannot soil Your purity in any way and it is not on Your account that we weep but on our own; like the women of Jerusalem who had no need to weep for the Lamb Who was being led to the scaffold but rather for themselves and their children who were one day to be destroyed by the just Wrath of God... There are insults which it does a man honour to bear without complaint; even a King may show His nobility by enduring in silence that men should cover Him with blows and spit upon Him, that they should scourge and crucify Him. But to hear the honour of his mother insulted is something no man can endure or forgive. No, not even God Himself – He least of all. Can you expect God not to punish such an insult inflicted on His Mother? If it is not the writer himself who will be struck by the Wrath of God, then it will be those who have read and believed such a blasphemy, the whole nation, the whole Church, which have remained indifferent to it, who will be punished for this.

A few protests were raised in respectable quarters, but these were soon silenced when M. Hourdin complained that he was being attacked and insulted: "I was amazed at being thus misrepresented... especially as we had already published a correction, on realising that the cursory phrase we had used could lay itself open to an interpretation that was contrary to dogma." (Extract from a letter dated 13th Jan.) So he pretends it was all a misunderstanding!

In the so-called "correction" published in the 29th December issue of the illustrated, he does not take back anything at all; he tries, rather, to justify himself and the expression he used. Instead of apologising, he is ready to accuse people of having misunderstood him and of hurling malicious abuse at him. For it is he who is right and with his so-called "correction" the matter has been closed. He has had the last word and we may soon expect to hear the expression invented by him pass into general use in telling the Story of Christmas: -

Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary and Joseph the carpenter.

Here is the supposed "correction" published by M. Hourdin:

"We have received some ten letters protesting against the term used in our Christmas issue, that ‘Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary and Joseph the carpenter.’ We used the term ‘born’ quite naturally and in the same sense in which it is used by the evangelists, when they give an account of the genealogy of Christ based on that of Joseph, or when they write about the Holy Family. Our readers have asked us whether ‘the new theology had penetrated into La Vie Catholique’. The answer is No because we do not question the reality of the virginity of the Virgin Mary or the reality of the Resurrection of Christ. But it is also Yes because it allows us to look for greater riches of meaning in the sacred texts, and therefore to question and challenge their interpretation.

The devotional pages of La Vie Catholique have for the past year been in collaboration with the National Centre for Religious Instruction. They have the aim of teaching the same Christian Faith in a form that makes it as living and accessible as possible. This has been a very positive aspect of our work in 1971."

To this we must reply:

1). M. Hourdin is guilty of an untruth with regard to the Gospels.

They teach quite expressly that Jesus was born only of the Virgin Mary through the Holy Spirit. They take care to avoid any expression which might even suggest that Jesus was the son of Joseph. They mention that this was what was generally believed by those who were unaware of the Mystery – they took Him to be the son of Joseph the carpenter. They refer to Joseph as being His father according to the law, but they are careful in their choice of terms, so as to safeguard the truth of the miracle of His birth: "And Jacob begat Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ." Born of Mary alone...

And so he received, as he tells us, "some ten or so letters of protest". But there are more than a hundred and twenty bishops paid to protect the Faith and to preach the Gospel in France. Where are the other one hundred and ten?

2). M. Hourdin’s thinking shows us Modernism in all its perfidy.

He writes, "quite naturally and in the same sense as the evangelists" (!) that Jesus was born of Mary and Joseph. Is this not a clear-cut denial of the Faith? Is he not discarding belief in the virginity of Mary and in the miraculous birth of Jesus? And is he not, moreover, invoking the Gospels against the express teaching of the Church? Not a bit of it. The matter is much more serious, for Hourdin is a Modernist, which means that he does not deny dogmas, but rather reinterprets them, gives them a different, subtler, meaning than ours. He does not deny the "real virginity" of Mary. He gives it rather, a different, richer, meaning which may embarrass the ordinary reader and shows up our own interpretation as an excessively realistic one. He, like the evangelists (!), views the birth of Jesus as a natural one, to Mary and Joseph. While there is no miracle (as we understand it) he is yet able to reconcile such an event with a "real virginity" of Mary, a virginity which, needless to say, is not to be understood in a biological, but only in a spiritual, mystical sense. [Readers may be interested to turn to the Dutch Catechism (p. 74-77 in the English Edition) where the Virgin Birth is thus "explained away", followed by a brief discussion, as of a matter of indifference, "whether Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus"] It was the Church that for two thousand years was so foolish as to give such legends a literal meaning, thereby adding a misleading, supernatural slant to the Gospel stories which are in truth so simple, so "living" and human...

M. Hourdin belongs to that brand of heretics who, more dangerous than any other, were unmasked by St Pius X as the worst corrupters of the Catholic Faith – the Modernists.

3). The National Centre for Religious Instruction is involved in all this.

We believed ourselves to be dealing only with the one individual M. Hourdin who happens to be a Modernist. But we have now learned that he regards himself as the mouthpiece of the Centre for Religious Instruction – the body responsible for all the new catechetical books and one that has the full approval of the Episcopate of France, which makes it unassailable. Hourdin has now shown the responsibility to lie on all who are concerned with planning the religious instruction given throughout France: the authors of the catechetical books, the "experts" in religious education, all the bishops of the French-speaking world. We must take it that all these men are responsible for teaching that "Jesus of Nazareth was born of the Virgin Mary and Joseph the carpenter", because it is in this form that the teaching comes alive and becomes more readily accessible to the "Christian Faith of today". They have taken our Credo and changed it to make it living and accessible… They are telling the life of Jesus as it really happened, without all the changes which were made in the account by those who saw with the eyes of Faith, before it had added to it its mythical superstructure of the "Message" for which the historical facts served only as the foundation...

On Wednesday, 19th January 1972, the Holy Father had a very severe reproach to make against Modernism. We have just been discussing what is an utterly flagrant, public instance of this. Will Paul VI reproach M. Hourdin? Or the Centre for Religious Instruction in France? or the bishops who have had nothing to say against it and are happy to give its work their patronage?

AND SO, IN THE NAME OF THE CHURCH AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WE PROCLAIM:

There must be an anathema upon all who deny what was solemnly proclaimed by the Council of Ephesus, in order to make the Faith "accessible"!

PREPARING FOR VATICAN III

THE SACRED LITURGY
(Preliminary Schema)

In attempting to define what we mean by Liturgy, we might quote St Paul’s phrase: conversatio nostra in coelis est (Phil 3.20). "Our conversation is in heaven." The Latin word conversatio, itself untranslatable, does not however fully reflect the richness of the Greek politeuma: that our whole life, our heart and soul, is being put into those words and actions in which we take part in church and that by thus doing we are raising them up into Heaven, uniting ourselves to our Heavenly Father. The Liturgy has always been the means through which the Church communicates with God. Without Jesus Christ, there can be no Liturgy, for it is through Him that it acquires its value, a value that is human and divine at the same time. The Liturgy – unlike those "pious exercises" devised by individuals which have come to play a role complementary to it – is the creation of the Church as a whole. The Liturgy is hieratic, and it is necessarily celebrated publicly and in accordance with certain rites which cannot be changed at will, and it is celebrated in the name of Christ Himself and of His Mystical Body.

If one would pick out the most essential thing about the Liturgy, this would be the statement that the aim of the Liturgy is to please God.

The principal elements of the Liturgy are the Mass, the Sacraments and Sacramentals and the Divine Office. Having, in their essentials, being given to us by Christ Himself, and thereafter wonderfully elaborated by the Church, in accordance with Apostolic Tradition, they remain the property of the Church and none except the Church, through her Hierarchy, has the right to touch them in any way. They form also a living and solemn expression of the Faith of the Church: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi. The Liturgy represents also a wealth of teaching material and it is the means by which we continue ceaselessly to reaffirm our Faith.

The Protestant Reformation

Because Lutheranism and Calvinism over-emphasised divine grace – which they interpreted in the context of a rigid system of predestination – at the expense of individual merit through any human works, they abolished the Mass and destroyed the entire Liturgy. When, in response to man’s need to express his faith and homage in some way, they reintroduced public worship, this was a purely human invention, ruled by convention and personal taste – nothing but an empty shadow of our Liturgy. There remained the elements of instruction of the faithful by the pastors, and the people’s own expression of their feelings by means of hymns and psalms and that of the Supper, Christ’s memorial celebrated in a spirit of fraternal union.

Modernism

This takes us a stage further, and views the Liturgy as nothing more than a means for man’s self-expression. The place of the Protestant sermon has been taken by modern man’s "prophetic consciousness", and the Memorial of the Last Supper has been replaced by the "sharing of the bread". Our seminarians today are being taught that "the liturgy is the expression, through the celebration, of man’s conscious experience".

Vatican II

Instruction through the Liturgy was in itself a good thing. The "pastoral liturgy" which developed as a consequence of the Council became, with supposedly the best of intentions, the worst possible corruption of the most heavenly thing ever created by man. To make the mysteries accessible to the humble was an excellent thing, but to bring these down to the lowest possible common denominator of human vulgarity was abominable. Under the pretext of being exclusively concerned with the "pastoral" aspects, the "reform" of the liturgy became the tool of the Modernist reformers. Before long, the liturgy – the rightful property of Christ and the Church, and essentially more divine than human – had become a plaything of man and the instrument of his self-worship. No longer concerned with pleasing God and helping man to obtain divine graces, the post-Conciliar liturgy has become interested only in being a form of art which appeals to man as such and in which he will engage as in some form of sport. Though the seeds of the destruction of the Church’s liturgy, at the hands of her hierarchy, were sown by Vatican II, we must admit that there is little indication of this in the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium which, if you stretch a point here and there in its interpretation, could still pass as a blueprint for liturgical development along traditional lines. However, the maggot was in the fruit already. This, the first of the Constitutions, prepared in 1962, was infected by the philosophy of the New Reformation which would find its expression in the Pope’s own glorification of man at the closure of the Council. It is therefore not surprising that the instructions for the application of the Constitution should have involved essential changes in Catholic worship and ritual.

The state of affairs today is lamentable. The Church is learning at her own cost that you cannot meddle at will with a thing that is so sacred and apart as the liturgy. The Council of Trent had been right in safeguarding it with such jealousy from every intervention by individuals or by secular authorities. For, once it becomes fair game for all and sundry, and dependent on the vagaries of the current taste, involved in human concerns and worldly aspirations, it will soon disintegrate into chaos. A liturgy that is no longer a means for obtaining divine grace or for rendering homage to God, becomes mere play-acting. The mystery is replaced by lifeless platitudes, often in shocking taste. We see the so-called "reforms" taking place one after another, at a relentless speed. While the Pope and bishops may continue to stick to certain transitional forms in which the Modernist influence is still somewhat disguised, others are carrying the matter to the extreme, and creating their own godless "liturgies" which are invalid and sacrilegious. Paganism is on our doorstep.

What of the future? The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th century will be successful only in so far as the next Pope, a truly Catholic one, and the next Council make its principles their own, and undertake the great task of religious restoration. The liturgy must be one of their most urgent concerns. The Protestant and Modernist philosophies currently prevalent in the Church will have to be condemned and their upholders excommunicated if need be. The rift between the Faithful and their Shepherds, which has extended even into the very sanctuaries, will have to be healed. Finally, the great movement of liturgical restoration, which had been in progress from the days of Pius IX until those of Pius XII and which was so rudely interrupted and deflected from its true purpose by Satan’s offensive launched in Vatican II, will have to be taken up again. The whole world will thus once more be enabled to drink from the fount of its salvation.

BUT WE INSIST, FOR ALL TIME TO COME, UPON OUR RIGHT AND HONOUR TO CELEBRATE THE SACRED MYSTERIES OF THE MASS, THE SACRAMENTS, AND THE DIVINE OFFICE ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF THE OLD AND SACRED ROMAN LITURGY.

THE SACRED LITURGY
Proposed Dogmatic Constitution

The Liturgy is not a science of ritual, nor a form of sacred art, nor a technique of group activity. It is a sacred, spiritual, action: it is the outward manifestation of the Church’s mystical life. Because the Church is a "person" in a mystical sense – the Mystical Body of Christ within which lives His Holy Spirit – therefore her actions are priestly, imbued with the holiness of Our Lord Himself. These actions are in their nature on a different plane from all other human activities – such as work or cultural pursuits, sport or scientific research, quite distinct even from the Christian apostolate. Unlike all the rest, the Liturgy is the anticipation on earth of everlasting bliss in Heaven.

This, the essence of the spiritual life of the members of the Church, belongs to all, regardless of differences of race or condition, and, moreover, it spans across the generations. While it remains the expression of the unchanging Faith of the Church, its form is an ever-living one. Faith and Liturgy are interdependent, so that if Faith disappears, the Liturgy will die in its wake, and similarly, if the Liturgy becomes corrupt then Faith too will disappear.

THE LITURGICAL CORRUPTION WE ARE WITNESSING TODAY HAS LED EVEN TO PARODY AND SACRILEGE

In some parts of the world Faith has changed into madness and the Church has entered a state of anarchy, and the Liturgy has inevitably disintegrated. But elsewhere, where Western Modernism and Progressivism have not yet penetrated, it is the liturgical revolution which has itself led to chaos and loss of the Faith.

We know that the prayers and rites of the Liturgy are assimilated as part of the Living riches of the great community of the Church, which spans both space and time. It is a well-known rule of social science that if you make extensive changes in something that forms part of the world of a given community, then you inevitably destroy the whole entity. When "reform" goes beyond a certain stage it becomes revolution. To replace one Missal with another, one Calendar with another, change the words of prayers and hymns, is a certain way to make people confused in their very Faith. If there is any method in their madness then we must conclude that the rejection of the old forms has its logical counterpart in the rejection of the Faith of yesterday, in a veritable hiatus between the Church of today and the Church of all time. Do we not often hear people saying, "They are giving us a different religion" or "This is not the Church we were brought up in." And so on.

The Revolution is taking place under our very eyes. They have changed the Mass, which is the very essence of all religious practice: the old Missals have been made useless. The elderly have become confused and the children too have no idea of what is going on, and they have been deprived of access to the liturgical wealth respected for the past fifteen centuries. It is inconceivable, in view of such a clean break with the past on the liturgical plane, that there should not be a comparable break on the plane of the Faith. "The new rite of the Mass is so empty", is how people often put it. There is no provision in it for the sacred practice and expression of Faith that were present in the old, so it is sociologically inevitable that these should decline and disappear.

Devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, such as Benediction, Holy Hours, Vigils, Processions, are being allowed to disappear instead of being formally changed. No doubt the Faith of the priests who are giving up these practices will weaken thereby, for they had served to strengthen their devotion. The new generation, both of priests and people are looking towards quite different forms of celebration as an expression of their new and different religion.

Similar changes are being made in the form of administration of the Sacraments as well as in the rules relating to them. Coupled with all this there is the inevitable change in the significance which they have for those who adopt the new customs, while those who hold fast to their former beliefs tend to avoid the novel practices. So we find the general tendency is for everybody to go to Communion because it is the "done thing", but they are not bothered about being in a state of grace. The Sacrament has taken on the form of a simple "sharing of bread", so their beliefs tend to follow suit. Those who still go to confession will tend to avoid the collective "penitential rites", but those, especially the young, who have opted for the latter will not bother to confess secret sins, nor to look upon contrition as a condition for forgiveness. The adherents of the traditional Faith have their babies baptised soon after birth, in order to rid them of the demon and turn them into the adopted children of God; the Christians of the New Faith, on the other hand, regard the Sacrament as some sort of initiation ceremony of the child into society, and so they are quite happy for baptism to take place "in stages". The new rite for marriage stresses the mutual love of those who are giving themselves to each other at the expense of its primary, higher, meaning. There is a similar stressing of the human aspect in the new form that is soon to be used for Holy Orders. It is but a natural step in the same direction to look upon marriage as a temporary union, or upon the priesthood as a temporary occupation. We find that without there having been any deliberate change in the beliefs and moral rules associated with the sacraments, such a change has nevertheless followed naturally upon the change in the rites. Thus, when Extreme Unction becomes the Sacrament of the Sick, with a new set of prayers, the traditional Catholics are put off because it smacks to them more of some sort of medicine intended to restore bodily health, while the new breed of Catholics are not really concerned about dying a Christian death when there is nothing to remind them and help them to achieve it. The result is that the new type of priest prefers to keep clear of the sick altogether, because he has nothing to offer them.

With regard to the changes in the liturgical cycle, the Calendar, and the breviary, the gap between the generations has been made so great that the younger Catholics brought up in the new ways will not have any idea even of the most solemn Feast Days in the Calendar. The Immaculate Conception, the Visitation, Ash Wednesday – will mean nothing to them. They will not know what Lauds is and they will never have heard Vespers... They will not know what it is to honour the saints – even the Blessed Virgin. Can it be that the Hail Mary has not been "updated" simply because it is already condemned to disappear?

When profane ritual has replaced those that were sacred and sacral, then this will easily become open to parody and sacrilege, and it is the Mass which, being the centre of Catholic worship, is the most vulnerable.

Let us quote but one, well attested, example among many that are known. The article below is from the December 1971 issue of MIRROR (Aid to the Church in Need).

When a Liturgy exists no longer for God but for man and his fun and games, is it surprising that it can so easily turn to sacrilege, either for "ecumenical" reasons, or "pastoral" or even "artistic". It is as if the liturgy of the post-Conciliar Church had nothing whatever to do with God!

There is thus a chasm, a state of mutual excommunication, between those whose faith is in God and for whom the Liturgy is something divine, a thing coming from Christ Himself and the Holy Spirit, and those, on the other hand, who have made it into something purely human, with the retention of some vague references to Christ and to a "Spirit", both painted according to their own ideas and without regard to the teaching of the Church.

The question we must answer is how and where this chasm originated, who are those who bear the guilt for the sacrileges, and what is the aim of the plot. To find the answer, we must turn back to Vatican II.

HOW VATICAN II INITIATED THE DESTRUCTION OF THE LITURGY

To know the mind of Holy Mother Church, before the Council, on liturgical matters, it is necessary only to re-read Mediator Dei of Pius XII, written in 1947. To find out what those who took part in the Council intended to do, we must turn first to the Constitution Sacrosancturn Concilium (on the Sacred Liturgy – which we shall abbreviate SL) which was promulgated in the Second Session, on 4th December 1963, and also to the Decrees for its application and the various discourses which followed.

The question we have to answer is whether the liturgical "reforms" of Vatican II can be regarded as part of that process of restoration begun by Dom Guéranger and pursued by St Pius X and Pius XII. Or are they a fraud aimed not at restoring but at corrupting the Liturgy?

Two French authors, both equally opposed to the new Mass and to the liturgical extremes we see today, have come to opposite conclusions – in their respective books both written with remarkable logic and clarity: Louis Salleron, in La Nouvelle Messe, expresses the view that the Council itself had sound intentions, but that these were betrayed by the "post-Conciliar Spirit"; while M. Vaquié in his recent work La Révolution Liturgique, traces the evil back to the Council itself. This difference of opinion is reflected among Traditionalist Catholics today, throughout the world. The answer to this question is important, for those who follow the first view will tend to accept the principle of Reformism upheld by the Pope and Council, while the adherents of the latter will reject it and insist on the need for a Counter-Reformation to oppose the movement led by the Hierarchy and held by them to be divinely inspired.

Our own attitude was decided long ago and it has remained the same. Writing in January 1964 in Lettres à mes Amis 162-3, I expressed sincere admiration for the beauty and even for the boldness of the Constitution which had just been promulgated – but with this reservation: "Let us not be afraid of things because they are new and let us help them to succeed. But only on condition that the changes are in line with Tradition… Were false theories to interpose themselves between the Church and the masses, for whose welfare she is so maternally concerned, then… the freedom granted to the episcopal conferences might prove to be a dangerous weapon for subversion that could easily fall into the hands of false brethren." We had already seen the three great principles of this revolution at work in France from 1945-50. I would not wish to change anything in what I wrote at that time. My conclusion was: "There is indeed cause for alarm. Unless the Church is first set free from the revolutionaries who are holding her to ransom… we have to fear that they will know how to exploit the Acts of Vatican II for their own, subversive ends."

The position taken by Vaquié today, eight years later, seems to be identical to our own. We agree with him when he writes that, while the general principles expressed in SL are entirely in line with Tradition but are without any practical effects, the detailed decisions made by it on a practical plane are nothing short of revolutionary. This made possible the unanimity of voting, for the desire of an active minority to make revolutionary changes remained hidden from the conservative majority of bishops.

The Constitution, we must recall, dates from the beginning of the Council (which explains why Salleron takes the line he does). So we find even the Pope himself appealing to the "Spirit of the Council", rather than to its letter and even against this (in justifying certain later Acts).

And so it is this Spirit of Vatican II that we must understand in order to prepare our reply to it, which is a necessary preliminary to the Liturgical Restoration to be carried out by Vatican III.

The Council’s Great Ambition

The first impression on reading the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium is that the general principles which form the chapter headings are on the same lines as those of Mediator Dei. There always follow a series of "buts" which prepare the way for practical decisions which promote change – "progress" and "reform" in the liturgy. The rites will be "revised", the Liturgical texts "restored". Later, on 29th October 1964, Paul VI spoke about "reviewing, renewing, or entirely recomposing the liturgical prayers"! And this "even more radical adaptation of the liturgy" (SL 40) appears to be a matter of urgency.

Our second impression therefore, is that such an eagerness on the part of the Council Fathers to "adapt" the Liturgy must derive from their conviction that the Church’s Liturgy, as it was at that time, was in some way, wrong, unsuitable! To give a random example: "The minds of the faithful must be directed primarily towards the feasts of the Lord (sic) whereby the mysteries of salvation are celebrated in the course of the year. Therefore the proper of the time must be given the preference which is its due over the feasts of the saints, so that the entire cycle of the mysteries of salvation may be suitably recalled." (SL 108) Are we, then, to conclude that before the Council "the mysteries... " were not being "suitably recalled"?

Had we not been alive at the time, we might have come to believe that the Council had taken place at a time when, through some exceptional disaster, there were no liturgical books available, or that these had become corrupt in some way, that it was a time when liturgical celebration was invalid or superstitious or defective in some manner. But we know that the state of affairs at the time of the opening of the Council was the very opposite of this. The books in use in 1962 were of an extremely high standard of accuracy, the liturgy was being celebrated with fervour and intelligence, and the devotion of the faithful was anything but blind. Liturgical life generally was in a healthy state. It would seem that this fact had been deliberately overlooked by the Council, in their eagerness to go one better. "Zeal for the promotion and restoration of the liturgy is rightly held to be a sign of the providential dispositions of God in our time, as a movement of the Holy Spirit in his Church. It is a distinguishing mark of the Church’s life, indeed of the whole tenor of contemporary religious thought and action." (43) Today, ten years later, this will hardly bring forth a smile…

What then could they find to reproach this liturgy whose validity was beyond dispute, and which was free from all error and superstition, which was polished to perfection? What imaginary fault could they find with it to give them an excuse for "reforming" it? Only this: that it was inaccessible and incomprehensible to the "people". The word we were to hear over and over again was "participation". "Pastors of souls must therefore realise that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration – it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects." (11) "Enabling the faithful to participate intelligently, actively and easily" has been elevated into one of the "basic principles" (79) by Vatican II!

Will the people be asked to make any effort? Not a bit of it, for it will be the liturgy that must be adapted in order to facilitate such a participation. With this end in view, the Council decides that everything is to be revised – the Mass, the Sacraments, the Divine Office, church art and architecture – so as to "suit the people’s powers of comprehension". (34) Ease of understanding, brevity – we read again and again that these must form the guidelines of liturgical reform. A modest beginning that was to go a long way!

The essential character of the Liturgy, as is emphasised in Mediator Dei, is that it must be God-centred. Vatican II echoes this, but the one essential is fast becoming a mere secondary quality, pushed aside by the "basic principle" of participation. "Although the sacred liturgy is above all things the worship of the Divine Majesty, it nevertheless contains much instruction for the faithful." (33) Now read the following paragraph (59) of the Constitution, paying special attention to the use of but and therefore: "The purpose of the sacraments is to sanctify men, to build up the body of Christ and finally to give worship to God – because they are signs they also instruct. They not only presuppose faith, but by words and objects they also nourish, strengthen and express it; that is why they are called ‘sacraments of faith’. They have indeed the power to impart grace, but in addition, the very act of celebrating them effectively disposes the faithful to receive this grace fruitfully, to worship God duly and to love each other mutually. It is therefore of the highest importance that the faithful should easily understand the sacramental signs, and should frequent with great eagerness those sacraments which were instituted to nourish the Christian life." Here we can pinpoint the two qualities, the one which is essential and existed before the Council and the other, secondary, which the Council exalted into another essential. And so everything must be revised to fit the new scale of values, beginning with the Mass itself, so that it may, "even in the ritual forms of its celebration, become pastorally efficacious to the fullest degree." What do they mean by this "efficacy"? Is it to be put on the same plane as the supernatural efficacy of the Mystery? In practice, indeed, it will come to overrule the latter, as becomes apparent in the Instructions for the application of the Constitution. The forms and texts must be changed and at the same time the people must be trained in a new attitude which sees in the liturgy both the origin and the aim of every pastoral effort. But what is the ultimate aim? To turn the liturgy into the life and soul of man’s daily life?

Only the First Stage of the Reforms…

And so the liturgy is to be wonderfully restored, in a manner that will allow a full, conscious, active participation in the sacred mysteries. How was this to be carried out in practice? To read all the little details which they mention, you would say that the mountain had gone into labour only to bring forth a mouse! There are plenty of pious hopes, exhortations of the clergy, plans for the creation of commissions consisting, obviously, of the very best people. In this way, it appears, everybody will be seized with new enthusiasm!

What does seem somewhat incongruous is that in practice the tendency is always towards reducing effort at the same time as lip service is paid to the raising of the level of spirituality in the church. The "reform" of the Divine Office, for example, seems to consist for the most part in dispensing priests from their obligation to say it, or in giving them an option regarding which parts they say. But they are quite certain all the same that this would not lead to any slackening of devotion on the part of the "sacred ministers" who, one could be certain, were united to God throughout the day as the very result of their ministry. (Motu Proprio Sacram Liturgiam, No 6, 7) Would it not have been more honest to say that the real aim of Vatican II was to allow the liturgy – as a means of worshipping God – to disappear and be replaced by its modern equivalent of social and "apostolic" activism?

The various changes actually decreed by Vatican II have this in common: they appear to be too insignificant to shock anybody, though the far-seeing may have had reason to feel worried by them. They are nothing like bold enough to satisfy the progressives, but then, as far as they are concerned, these changes were only a beginning – the first stage. For instance, the demand for the "participation of the people" in the Mass "by offering the immaculate victim not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him" (48), is as yet a very limited one There is nothing here to show that the "Celebration of the word" was to be raised to the level of the Mass itself. The use of the vernacular also is as yet a very restricted one (36; 54; 63; 101) As far as the modifications of the Ordinary of the Mass are concerned, these consist only of minor simplifications and suppressions and it would not have entered your head that these were the forerunners of a "complete restoration" as was authorised by the subsequent Instruction.

The recommendation that Hosts consecrated at the same Mass should be distributed to the people would appear puerile, but it does in effect make an easy opening for the heresy of "transfinalisation". (SL 55) Distribution under both kinds, and the practice of concelebration, are made to appear wise returns to the custom of ancient times. But we find a little note (57, Par. 2) which really does seem a bit pedantic, for surely no one can have thought of belittling the importance of private Masses!

"It is for the bishop, however, to regulate the discipline of concelebration in the diocese. But each priest shall always retain his right to celebrate Mass individually…" Who was thinking that private Masses should be encouraged to decline and disappear? The same could be said of certain other little matters, for instance (125) that the number of statues and pictures "should be moderate and their relative positions should exemplify right order". Yes, we know they are talking only about statues and pictures, but, all the same…

Had the Council Fathers but foreseen where all this would lead! But they should have foreseen it. If you desire the end, you desire the means. Compared with the great ambitions professed by the Council, the actual decisions it made on the practical level were ludicrous, but it was prepared to give carte blanche to all who wished to proceed further "in the Spirit of the Council", and make things easier, simpler to understand, etc. – in other words, to humanise the liturgy. The product of the Constitution was not the creation of a state of equilibrium but rather a state of constant flux." (Rev. Gy, Unam Sanctam, 122) Thus was the way cleared for turning the liturgy from a divine thing into a purely human one.

How was the Plot Prepared?

Ever since 1588, the Holy See, through the Sacred Congregation of Rites, had guarded the Liturgy with a jealous hand and now we find it suddenly abandoned to anarchy! This could not have been done unless a carefully laid plan had been prepared by someone who knew what he wanted. This someone was neither the Pope nor the bishops but a fifth column who, as the first stage of seizing power, decided to achieve control over the Liturgy. It had been simple for the bishops to believe themselves free and powerful in their new-found collegiality, emancipated from the control of the Curia, and thus to act generously and, together with the Pope, allow a similar "freedom" to those who desired certain liturgical innovations without wishing to impose a "rigid uniformity"! "Even in the liturgy, the Church has no wish to impose a rigid uniformity in matters which do not implicate the faith or the good of the whole community... Provision is to be made, when revising the liturgical books, for the legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions, and peoples, especially in the missions, provided always that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved…" (37-38)

The Modernist fifth column were ready to make sure that they were present on every Commission, etc, and have their own way, thanks to the noble generosity of the Pope and bishops in yielding some of their own authority!

So we come to that sinister Article 22:

Para.1 reaffirms the traditional teaching: "Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church – which means the Apostolic See and, as Laws may determine, the bishop."

Para. 2 makes a new addition: "In virtue of authority conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of local bishops’ conferences legitimately established."

Para. 3 recalls: "Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority."

What is quite unheard of about all this, is that at the time that the Council voted on the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, and gave authority to regulate the liturgy to… "local bishops’ conferences", the Council had not yet recognised the existence of these hitherto unknown entities! The voting on the Constitution was thus based on a foregone conclusion with regard to these conferences, whose establishment was yet to form the subject of heated debates before being eventually accepted by the later Acts Lumen Gentium and Christus Dominus! Yet these, as yet non-existent, assemblies are referred to again and again in the present Constitution and in the subsequent Instructions. So we see already, from 1964 onwards, the establishment of "parallel hierarchies", in the form of the special commissions – beginning with the Consilium for the application of SL – ruled by Lercaro, Bugnini, and so on. Their rise to power was the direct result of the Council, which in effect gave them carte blanche to suppress, change or replace whatever they cared to, without being answerable to the Congregation of Rites, which they had in effect superseded, for we all know that it is not the episcopal assemblies as such, but the various secretariats and commissions composed of "experts" who actually make the laws. Bureaucracy, that bane of our democratic society, had crept unnoticed into the Church. Its first victim was the liturgy, which thus fell straight into the hands of the professional revolutionaries, who would know just when to call a halt to the newly granted "liberty" under whose cloak they had crept in.

A Revolutionary Tyranny

It is thanks to the readiness of the Pope and bishops to delegate their authority, that it is now vested in the revolutionaries. They exercise a tyranny which is unparalleled by anything ever seen in the Church before. Without attempting to give their decisions any form of legal authenticity they are suppressing the old Roman liturgy and persecuting those who insist on remaining faithful to it. This is not only against the divine constitution of the Church, but it is also in conflict with the formal pronouncements of Vatican II itself, which we are given to understand form its justification.

If you read the letter of the Constitution (on the Sacred Liturgy) at its face value, you will find it inexplicable that it should have led to such persecution. For the Council spoke only about changing certain details, adding new elements to what was excellent already. The urgency of change referred surely only to making it more attractive to modern man. Nowhere was it stated that the Liturgy as such – i.e. as a means for rendering homage to God – was in any way defective. There is nothing in what we read which could in any way justify forbidding the old Liturgy, derived from Apostolic tradition.

The very fact that such a prohibition was de facto imposed, suddenly and implacably, is evidence that the reformers desired the disappearance of the essential riches of the Liturgy and the substitution of something entirely new. But we are certain, in the name of our very faith in Holy Mother Church, that such an act of wickedness cannot triumph over our opposition to it. In the very nature of things, it was impossible to admit such an aim openly, so the hierarchy have in fact been living, acting a daily lie on a grand, collegial scale, for the past ten years. I discussed this in my Lecture given in Nancy in June 1970, FORBIDDING THE HOLY ROMAN MASS (June 1970, English edition). The Bishop had no reply to make to our arguments.

How the Pope and bishops can continue living in such a state of contradiction seems incomprehensible, but it is a fact. They have not attempted to say that the age-old Roman Mass is in any way evil or valueless; they have even maintained the opposite. And yet, they have for all practical purposes forbidden it, in the name of the Council. Can one help thinking that they are hiding the reason for their action, because it involves the furthering of something that is evil? Read what the Pope had to say –perhaps it will help to cast a light on this so-called Spirit of the Council: "It will be necessary to change people’s habits… Good people will be disturbed in their habits of devotion… Many do not pray as they should… They must be instructed concerning prayer and worship, and this means teaching them new gestures, customs, formulas of prayer… a new religious attitude which to many of them is not yet familiar. The people of God must be made to associate themselves with the priest’s liturgical action… This is a great event, great things are at stake, divine truths… and this method is the true, the only efficacious one, to kindle in the heart of modern man the love of God and of his fellow, for giving him the opportunity of an authentic religious dialogue, that shall be consoling and redemptive." What does he mean by all this? That the liturgy was formerly a priestly action, celebrated for the spiritual good of the people, and that it must now become, instead, a dialogue and communal celebration? "Evangelisation" to replace "sacramentalisation"? The worship of man to take the place of the worship of God?

THE RESTORATION OF THE LITURGY BY VATICAN III

The schisms and periods of decadence experienced by the Church in the past were followed by restoration and further advance, so there is every reason to be hopeful. Moreover, we know by Faith that the Holy Spirit continues to live within the Church and her members continue to receive sanctifying grace through the Sacraments.

The first period of liturgical restoration was that which succeeded the Protestant Reformation and, following the decision of the Council of Trent, culminated in the splendour of the first Counter-Reformation. A further period of restoration followed from the days of Pius IX even to our own day, the resulting liturgical forms finding definitive expression in the Code of Rubrics promulgated by… John XXIII, in 1960! It is from here that the future Vatican Council will proceed, taking it up again at the stage at which it had been brutally interrupted. This process must be prepared, most of all, by prayer and by the practice, to the highest possible standard, of the liturgy and devotions.

The truly Catholic spirit in which this is to be carried out should be just as far removed from complete rigidity as it is from that which seeks change for the sake of change. While, in the case of dogma, there cannot be any "change or halfway house between truth and error, in the liturgy a certain adaptability is possible, in total respect for doctrine and Tradition. The aim should not be a mere systematic reconstruction in all details of the liturgy as it existed in 1958, but rather, we expect our Pastors to use their authority in deciding upon a restoration that will respect legitimate development. The essential is that, as Martimort said of the Council of Trent, the restoration of truth and discipline should precede that of liturgical texts.

Vatican II erred in considering the Liturgy before the truths of the Faith which must form its basis; therefore Vatican III must concern itself first with these, in a manner which effectively counteracts the modern "evangelical" humanism. The future Constitution on the Liturgy must begin by reasserting the divine orientation of every liturgical act.

Hence the first and absolute consideration is that Liturgy must conform to revealed truth. Pastoral and didactic considerations, while legitimate, must remain secondary. It must be acknowledged that the liturgy is necessarily mysterious, and cannot be fully understood "by the people", or by the priests, or by the liturgists! This fact is enough to justify the use of a sacral language and music, of vestments, and of a special place for its celebration.

The Church’s prime concern is to keep intact the forms and formulae which have come down to us from Apostolic times, and thus from Christ Himself. Lex credendi, Lex statuat supplicandi. Vatican II changed the liturgy and, having made it into the expression of a New Faith, it tried to make us accept also this new philosophy, on the pretext that the Church’s Rule of Faith is reflected in the liturgy. Those who sought to change the liturgy in the past were condemned by the Church as heretics and our present Reformers will not escape the same fate.

First and foremost, Vatican III must reinstate the traditional Roman liturgy and acknowledge its pride of place over every other less universal or less ancient liturgy. It must also reaffirm the principle of constancy in the liturgy, against the false theory of Vatican II which sought to distinguish between the fixed "kernel" and the rest which was not only changeable but ought to be changed! The only type of change which Vatican III might nevertheless authorise would be such as would truly further the holiness, purity, or riches of our heritage.

As far as the theoretical part of the Vatican II Constitution on the Liturgy is concerned, there is nothing which Vatican III could not accept as being in harmony with Mediator Dei. But it would at the same time have to repudiate any tendency to anthropocentrism, and invoke anathemas against those guilty of this. Proceeding from these principles, the desirability of individual reforms could be discussed in an atmosphere of calmness and objectivity, without rousing the resentment of the traditionalists, who, before they became disgusted as the result of recent events, were always perfectly loyal in following the Church’s leadership.

Where we anticipate much greater difficulty is in bringing back Catholics – lay people, priests and bishops – to a sense of the sacred, and to the practice of virtue and piety, without which the liturgy is nothing but a dead letter or a form of art.

The Liturgy is a function of the Priesthood

Vatican II made a serious error in putting the reform of the liturgy before the discussion of the hierarchical structure of the Church; Vatican III will have to treat matters in the correct order and define first the nature of the Church, its mystical, hierarchical, sacerdotal character. This is important, because the Liturgy derives its essence from the fact that the Church of Jesus Christ is divine. Pius XII had already foreseen the heresies that were to exert their influence, when he emphasised (Mediator Dei, p.34-36) the distinction between the priest and the people. The priest acts in persona Christi, and is endowed with special, divine powers for the carrying out of this task. Next, the responsibility for safeguarding the liturgy rests on the hierarchy and not, as we read in No 22 of the Vatican II Constitution, on "conferences" directed by commissions. Thus, we can restate this as follows: Authority concerning the liturgy belongs:

1). To the Sovereign Pontiff and the Sacred Congregation of Rites acting in his name;
2). To the diocesan bishop as regards his own diocese;
3). To every parish priest in his parish and indeed to every priest who is responsible for the manner in which he celebrates the mysteries, in accordance with the powers delegated by the bishop.

Note that we have omitted the collegial assemblies, and added the priest. Vatican II had apparently forgotten about the ordinary priest. For while the essence of the liturgy remains inviolable, the priest has a certain scope in adapting the non-essential, accessory aspects to the mentality and social structure of the community. The liturgy does have a "pastoral aspect" and in a certain sense, the priest does "preside" over the "assembly". Vatican II put the cart before the horse by suggesting that it is by virtue of this "presidency" that he is priest, but Vatican III can legitimately discuss the manner in which the sacred, sacerdotal character of the part he plays also gives him a certain role as the "president", guide rather, of the community.

We can do worse than to repeat what Martimort wrote in 1961 concerning the secondary, pastoral, aspect of the liturgy:

1). The purpose of the liturgy is the celebration of the sacred mysteries for the people, and aided by them: it has nothing to do with those outside the Church and no good is achieved by adapting it so as to appeal to them.

2). When used as a means of instruction, it must treat the children of God with respect and not with tyranny. They are not to be forced into attitudes or gestures as if they were puppets… The aim must be to teach them a sense of the sacred, a liking for prayer and silence but also for communal prayer…

3). The faithful must be helped to make contact with the Tradition of the Church, to love and respect their liturgical heritage. It is wrong to seek to adapt the latter for the sake of what is reckoned to be the people’s immediate advantage... The smaller, local communities must be integrated into the larger community of the Church as a whole, which is continuous not only in space but also in time.

The Question of permissible Pastoral Reforms

Having first defined its dogmatic guidelines, the future Constitution on the Liturgy can deal with details of liturgical questions and discipline. Tradition must be safeguarded at all costs, but it can be enriched and perfected, and with this end in view it is justifiable to add to it new elements. In practice, this is not done by enforcing the new to the exclusion of the old, but through the inspired initiative of individuals of outstanding religious feeling, whose improvements are then gradually recognised by the Magisterium and come to be adopted voluntarily.

While the feverish activity of the "liturgical movement", active since the beginning of the century, has ended up by turning the Church into a field of ruins, they have left us a wealth of building materials which could be put to better use by the architects of the new Counter-Reformation. While precedence must of course be given to the restoration to the Church of her essential and imperishable treasures which were so wickedly discarded – the Latin tongue, Gregorian chant, the Tridentine Rite of the Mass, Divine Office, devotions to the Blessed Sacrament, etc. – this does not exclude the admission of new elements, such as prayers and practices genuinely salvaged from early Christian days, provided they are really valuable. But we are not trying to tell Vatican III what to do. Provided its decisions are made in the spirit of our sacred traditions and based on Catholic dogma, we are prepared to trust Vatican III and accept its decisions. We are even bold enough to say that we have, over these past two years, maintained an attitude of reserve towards certain ultra-traditionalists ("integrists") precisely because we have tried to think in terms of that reconciliation between Catholics which is to come one day. We have seen how a whole generation has been brutally cut off from our liturgical traditions. We should not like to see the same brutal intransigence used in their reinstatement by Vatican III, which would only alienate those who have grown up with the new customs. Vatican III must of course reaffirm the primacy of the Roman rite and guarantee it every liberty, but if it should decide, in a spirit of charity, to allow also those forms which were promulgated by the Pope or decreed in a legal manner by the Council, we should be prepared to admit this. We can be certain that in as far as these were brought in against the will of God, they will not last; but we would rather not be guilty of the same brutality as was used against us.

If we are guided by Faith it will not prove difficult to maintain generosity towards others and avoid the pitfalls of prejudice. Each question will have to be examined on its own merits, steering a middle course between the die-hard attitude which rejects anything merely on account of its novelty and between that which seeks change for its own sake. We could define our attitude as a "progressive traditionalism" which, while insisting on safeguarding all that pertains to the liturgy, is prepared to admit its genuine enrichment when this results from intelligent piety and zeal. I had some personal ideas on the subject, even before the Council, but this is not the place and time to air them. If Vatican III should be interested in our proposals, we shall be ready to submit them in due course. Here I would draw attention only to certain principles and distinctions:

1). There are reforms of such a nature that they may be acceptable under some circumstances but not others, depending on the reasons and on the spirit in which they are proposed. As an example we might quote the distribution of Holy Communion by women. If, for example, a bishop in the Amazon were to authorise a nun, ordained deaconess, to give the people Holy Communion during the prolonged absence of every missionary, this would be acceptable. There is no comparison with the situation when our parish priests, with the approval of their bishop, have mini-skirted girls carrying round a basket. [This example was quoted in The Voice in a sense opposite to that in which it was intended, i.e. as showing that the Abbé de Nantes favoured the distribution of Holy Communion by women. He was merely giving an example – perhaps unfortunately chosen – to illustrate a change that would be sensible in certain circumstances.]

2). Certain other innovations have too deep a significance in themselves to be considered admissible in any circumstances. An example is the reception of Holy Communion into the hand, or standing. Such a practice must inevitably be regarded as detracting from the respect we owe to God and no amount of "going back to the origins" can justify its adoption today.

3). Lastly, there are those changes which can be helpful when correctly used, and only after serious consideration of their merits in the relevant circumstances. Here I would include the use of the vernacular, provided it is used not to replace Latin, but to aid people in their understanding and appreciation of the latter. We have been using a "bilingual method" for teaching purposes in our own community since 1958, and it is a method which I believe will have its application in the future. [This example was similarly misquoted, the words IN THE MASS being inserted. The author does not favour the vernacular in the Mass, and its use in the Divine Office – as exemplified in his own community – consists in the use of bilingual breviaries by lay brothers not familiar with Latin, and only as a transitional stage, until they have become familiar enough with the Psalms to join in the communal Office, which is always in Latin.] Such a thing need not in any sense mean pandering to the lazy or to the liturgical revolutionaries. However, we can discuss this another day…

I hardly dare mention the Mass in the present context. More than anything else, it has suffered too much damage in the name of the New Reformation – though so have the other Sacraments and the Divine Office – for us to desire anything other than the simple reinstatement of the old Roman rite. That is an absolute must in any case. If, at a later date when one can look at these things more calmly, Vatican III should put forward suggestions for such modifications as would enhance its beauty and devotional character – we might be prepared to consider them – but nothing normative or ecumenical this time, if you please. But never must there be any attempt to enforce any changes in the ancient Roman rite, which is quite good enough for us.

Oh, that God, Who promised that His Church would be indefectible, may hasten to bring about that Counter-Reformation that will put back into its rightful place the worship of God through the sacred Liturgy! May the time come soon when a truly holy and Catholic Pope, together with the whole body of Bishops pay due honour again to the whole magnificent edifice of the Sacred Liturgy which a Pope and Council had razed to the ground during a spell of collective madness.

While awaiting Vatican III…

How soon dare we hope to see it? In 1975? Yes, 1975 might well see its official announcement. It might take place, perhaps, from 1982-85, why not? If God wills it.

For all depends on God who could act through a just punishment, but equally through a miracle of mercy. But we believe that He wills to act through the efforts of men themselves, in the following ways:

First, but not foremost, through the hierarchy, in particular, as the result of a sovereign decision of the Roman Pontiff. The present evil is entirely the result of what Paul VI has done, or encouraged, or tolerated. The greatest good can be expected from a Pope who will make his own the principles of the Counter-Reformation. His first act we expect to be the calling of a Council whose task will be to put right what its predecessor destroyed. How sad to have to watch the "auto-demolition" of the Church bemoaned by Paul VI when he would have but to lift a little finger to call a halt, for "the walls of the edifice remain sound".

Secondly – and this is even more important – depending as it does on the heights to which men can rise through the love of God rather than as a result of their position, comes the action of great Saints. We can even say that it is the failure of these to make their appearance which has delayed the Counter-Reformation. Souls who may have received sufficient grace to stir the heart of the masses have either opted for the easier path of piety in full acceptance of the Reformation, or else they have gone to the other extreme and made attack and controversy their first aim, thereby leading souls astray. In this failure we must accept our own share of the blame, for what the Church needs is Saints who shall convert the people and restore them to true piety, sanctified by the Sacraments. Thus only can the Counter-Reformation become also the Restoration of Catholicism.

Lastly, there is the specific, even if not very large, role which our own Counter-Reformation League can play. We must remember that our first duty is to remain good Catholics, the disciples of Jesus who was meek and humble of heart. We must remain faithful to the Church of all time and continue in the practice of the unchangeable traditions of our Roman and Apostolic Faith, while at the same time we remain in visible unity with the present hierarchy of the Church, recognising that the Pope, the bishops, priests and other Catholics are our fathers and brethren in Christ. Unless we aim in the first place for personal sanctity, we cannot succeed, and if we would concentrate on controversy for its own sake, it would be better to keep quiet.

We have maintained consistently and against opposition from all sides, that such a dual allegiance is possible, desirable, and holy. It would be wrong to deny the Apostolic Tradition for the sake of agreeing with the man who happens to be the reigning Pope. But it would be equally wrong to leave the Church which is to last till the end of time, even if an Angel from Heaven were to invite us to.

Let us therefore continue faithful to the Holy Mass of all time, let us remain true to the Catechism and the Commandments of God and of the Church, but let us maintain also a due respect for the Pope and our legitimate bishops, obeying them in as far as they are exercising their rightful authority. Let our Counter-Reformation remain Catholic at all costs!

We are pleased to find what we have referred to as this "supernatural wisdom" reflected in the views expressed by many of the most intelligent and far-seeing men. On the question, for instance, of the New Mass, we find people whose views have differed on the general principle of the reforms of Vatican II, in basic agreement – and moreover, upon the same standpoint which has always been that of the CRC. Salleron, who has been more favourably disposed towards the Council than we, and Vaquié, who is more radical, are now in agreement in holding that the old Roman rite is the only safe and perfect one, but that the new rite is valid though evil and ambiguous.

Let us read what Vaquié has to say:

"All the traditionalist doctrinal experts who have examined the new Mass in all its details, even those who are most severe on its failings, are agreed that there is nothing in the rite which is strictly heretical. We cannot but agree with their conclusions… The Mass of Paul VI is valid because it is not positively heretical. It is also licit because it was decreed by a legitimate authority. We are therefore not entitled to criticise those who attend it out of obedience, provided at least that they do so without adopting its new spirit. But the dangers to which souls are exposed as a result are nevertheless very real… While it maintains, as a matter of form, the central position due to God, its logic will tend inevitably to lead toward s a worship of man.

We have to tolerate it, because most of the time we have no choice. But we cannot in conscience adopt it wholeheartedly. Our Faith insists that we continue to oppose it…"

This surely is the same line which we defined as that of the CRC in 1969.

Now let us quote the last lines of Salleron:

"We are pleased to know that a certain number of priests have continued to say the Mass of St Pius V. In thus bearing witness to their attachment to the one rite which is guaranteed to protect the truths of the Faith as they were defined by the Council of Trent, by Vatican II, and by Paul VI, they are keeping open the path which must be followed in righting the evil, even if this does not come tomorrow, for one day it must come.

We should not speak about a conflict between the new Mass and the old. The basic problem is that of the Mass. The dictum Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi remains valid. As the Faith is, so is the Mass. When people cease to believe in Transubstantiation, in the Priesthood, in the Sacrifice, then the Mass too will be shaken to its foundations. Similarly, when the Mass is given the form of a meal, a social get-together, then the truths of the Faith which it incorporates, will tend to evaporate.

We are not witnessing the introduction of a new rite of Mass, nor the disappearance of an old one, but the eclipse of the Eternal Mass. Eclipses, however, only last for a while."