DESPITE THE OPPOSITION ENCOUNTERED AT THE 1967 SYNOD,
PAUL VI PROMULGATES A NEW ORDO MISSÆ

     In accordance with the decision of Vatican II to revise the ritual of the Mass³, a new Mass, termed "normative" (intended to serve as a reference), was experimented with in Rome during the episcopal synod of 1967. Father Annibale Bugnini celebrated it in Italian on 24 October in the Sistine Chapel. The Synod members were not unanimous in their support for it. During the voting session on 25 October, the bishops were asked to reply to the following question: "Does the general structure of the so-called normative Mass, as described in the report and the response, meet with the agreement of the Fathers?" To this question there were 71 Placet's, 43 Non placet's and 62 Placet juxta modum's. So a quarter of the Synod members refused to have anything to do with it.

     The normative Mass, organised under the auspices of the Sovereign Pontiff, "had no real newness other than that of savouring strongly of heresy. To opt for it, to choose it in preference to the former rite, to make exclusive use of it", as the Abbé de Nantes will explain, "is therefore to court, to revel in and to ensconce oneself in heresy. I declared at the time that the Mass of Bugnini was unacceptable and heretical. From the one who invented it to the one who gave it his final blessing, its supporters have all been working together to create a tool for protestantising the Church.⁴"

     Alas, neither Paul VI nor Father Bugnini were going to retreat despite the opposition encountered at the Synod. After the presentation of the normative Mass in 1967, the Consilium charged with implementing Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy, continued their activities under the watchful eye of Paul VI. They elaborated a new ordo, which was officially promulgated on 6 April 1969 through a decree of the Congregation of Rites, from which we will quote the opening sentences:

     "The ordo missae, having been renewed in accordance with the decisions of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and having received the approbation of the Sovereign Pontiff through the Apostolic Constitution Missale romanum issued on 3 April 1969, this Sacred Congregation promulgates the said Ordo Missae through a special mandate of the Holy Father, decreeing that it begin to take effect on 30 November of this year 1969, the first Sunday of Advent." This same decree also spoke of the publication of the Institutio generalis Missalis romani and set out the intentions of the legislator.

THE REACTION OF THE TRADITIONALISTS

     Very rapidly the traditionalists, such as the Abbé Dulac, rose up against this new ordo. They rejected it. The Abbé de Nantes publicised their protests and criticisms, reproducing some of their writings in the Catholic Counter-Reformation for August 1969. Article 7 of the Institutio generalis Missalis romani⁵, presenting a definition of the Mass that was totally Lutheran or, worse still, modernist, was vigorously denounced in these articles. For example, in an article taken from the Italian periodical Lo Specchio for 1 June, one might read the following:

     A THEOLOGICAL SCANDAL. Article 7 contains this official description of the Mass: "Cena dominica sive Missa est sacra synaxis seu congregatio populi in unum convenientis, sacerdote præside, ad memoriale Domini celebrandum, the Lord's Supper or the Mass is the sacred assembly or gathering together of the people of God, under the presidency of a priest, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord". The Mass is thus simply likened to the Last Supper, a view which is repeated continually (nos 2, 48, 55-56). Furthermore, such a Last Supper is characterised by the congregation, under the presidency of the priest, and by the celebration of the memorial of the Lord, the repetition and reminder of what He Himself did on Holy Thursday. All of which makes as few demands as possible on anyone, dispensing as it does with the Real Presence, the sacramental character of the consecrating priest, and the intrinsic value of the Eucharistic sacrifice which is renewed independently of the presence of the congregation. It does not imply any of the essential dogmatic values of the Mass, and any protestant could subscribe to it wholeheartedly.

     The second part of the same article aggravates the dramatic omissions and the grave equivocation. It is states in fact that Christ's promise consequently applies to this assembly  in a special manner: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Mt 18.20). Now, as this promise exclusively concerns the spiritual presence of Jesus and His grace, the "special manner" of His presence in the congregation during Mass is placed on the same qualitative plane, the only difference being its greater intensity which is dependent on the special commemorative value of the Last Supper. This plane is radically different from the substantial and physical plane of the Eucharistic sacramental presence.

     In article 2 and elsewhere there are passing references to the "Eucharistic sacrifice". But such fleeting words are of themselves quite inadequate. In what does this sacrifice consist? The text continues: this sacrifice is the "memorial of his passion and resurrection". Here we have the reappearance of the particular term "memorial" that we saw in number 7. But of the true and unbloody renewal of His passion there is not the slightest indication. Furthermore, the effect of levelling the two events of the passion and the resurrection by placing them side by side in the same memorial would seem to exclude this truth. In reality, the sacramental and unbloody sacrifice is, on the contrary, the mystical renewal of the redemptive death alone. The resurrection is its fruit. By associating the passion and the resurrection like this – and the ascension should also have been included!– the memorial is defined, not as the sacrifice considered in its own right, but as the whole redemptive cycle viewed in all its successive phases as a source of merit. ⁶" 

     The Abbé de Nantes had the prudence not to reproduce any passages from the article by the Abbé Dulac, which appeared in the Courrier de Rome for 25 June 1969, claiming to prove that the new rite was heretical and, what is more, invalid. In the conclusion of his study, this priest formulated a firm Non possumus⁷. Nevertheless, his criticisms of the new ordo were of an unrivalled quality, as the Abbé de Nantes will come to appreciate over the following months. But at the time, they disturbed him. We notice this change of perception if we read the CRC for October 1969:

     "On 30 November next", he wrote, "should God tolerate it and should the bishops go along with it, we will have a new postconciliar Mass, a reformed Last Supper, which will take its place, through this second Reformation, alongside the first, that of Luther, Zwingli and Calvin. The Courrier de Rome has demonstrated without a shadow of doubt, beyond any argument, that the suppressions, additions, modifications and liberties applied to the Eucharistic action and prayers, had one common aim: that of facilitating equivocation, ambiguity and an opening to heresy. In this way its authors seek to reduce the Catholic liturgy to the ecumenical level of a fraternal meal, without offertory, without sacrifice, without any genuine priestly function, and therefore without the Real Presence⁸."

     The big question was "whether the bishops would go along with it". For, in promulgating the new ordo missæ, the Pope had taken personal responsibility for it and had proposed it to the whole Church, but it was possible that the Church might still reject it. And should the hierarchical Church refuse to use it, Paul VI's decision would have no force in law and would simply serve to bring his personal heresy to everyone's attention.

THE PETITION OF CARDINALS OTTAVIANI AND BACCI

     In September 1969, the Italian episcopal conference decided to postpone for at least two years the implementation of the new ordo. At the same time, the traditionalists had just started to distribute amongst key figures in Rome a study in Italian: "Breve Esame Critico del Novus Ordo Missæ, A Short Critical Study of the New Ordo Missæ", principally written by Father Guérard des Lauriers. Subsequently Cardinal Ottaviani, under pressure from members of the association Una Voce, finally agreed to sign a petition to the Holy Father, dated 3 September, requesting the abrogation of the constitution Missale Romanum or at least an exequatur between the old and the new Missals (that is, authorisation to use either one or the other). The Abbé de Nantes very quickly received the text of this petition and he was informed by friends taking part in the Una Voce congress at Rome that only Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci had agreed to sign it. The bishops present at the synod, as well as all the cardinals who had been approached, such as Siri, Cicognani and Larraona, had refused to sign. Under these circumstances, although the lay supporters of this petition were advising all their journalist friends that they were extending the ban on publishing it until 30 October, the Abbé de Nantes prematurely threw it into the public arena, on 15 October! If he disregarded this embargo, it was to forestall any retraction by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci and to prevent them from withdrawing their signatures when they realised that they were the only ones to support the petition.

     The October edition of the Catholic Counter-Reformation had already been printed and was just about to be posted when the brothers added to it, as a supplementary page, the letter written by the cardinals, which was printed at the last minute in red ink on the Gestetner at Maison Saint Joseph. Let us quote this supplement in extenso. The petition to the Holy Father was presented in the following introductory note by the Abbé de Nantes:

     "On 3 September, the Feast of Saint Pius X, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, former Prefect of the Holy Office, sent the Holy Father a letter relating to the new form of the Mass as well as a critical study of the latter which had been drawn up by a group of Roman priests. No doubt because nothing was to be achieved by waiting, the Cardinal decided to publish both documents on 15 October. It is a milestone in the history of the Counter-Reformation."

     The circulation of twenty thousand copies of this petition immediately had a considerable effect! Scarcely had it been published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation than Cardinal Ottaviani sent it himself to Pope Paul VI. And on 22 October, the Pope wrote personally to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, passing the Short critical study of the new "ordo missæ" on to them and asking them to give it a "severe examination"¹¹.

     During this crisis, the reformers, and Paul VI in the first place! were very much determined to imposes their own projects and decisions, whereas the members of the hierarchy who were hostile to the new ordo, and particularly those in Rome, did not wish to be seen to be engaging in a vigorous campaign and openly opposing the Pope. Let us listen to the news sent by Jean Madiran to the Abbé de Nantes on 17 October, by which time the petition had already been published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation:

     "Other curial cardinals have privately declared their agreement [with Cardinal Ottaviani's petition], but they have refused to give it their signature. I know through Dom Roy that several abbeys and several 'episcopates' (not including France) have asked for an adjournment of one or two years. It is possible that these postponements may largely be granted, in exchange for the non-publication of Ottaviani's letter. The most widely shared position of those bishops and priests who are against the new ordo is to ask for a postponement that may be renewed; they feel assured that this will be granted to them. They dare not say to the Pope's face what Ottaviani said in his letter, very respectfully but firmly.¹²"

     Then, on 24 October: "Yesterday evening, I had Cristina Campo (alias V Guerrini, one of the co-founders of the association Una Voce) on the telephone. Whence the following information which I rapidly retranscribe for you and which clarifies several previously obscure points: it was hoped to secure the signature of several cardinals, at least eight, who seemed to be in agreement. Ottaviani and Bacci were stupefied (and disconcerted) that they ended up as the only signatories. Several cardinals kept the text for ten or even fifteen days before giving their finally negative reply. Whence the delay in the expected timetable: the letter was only sent to Paul VI on 20 October. It was very badly received and provoked a series of semi-canonical semi-investigative steps against those who were suspected of being its instigators. The Vatican camarilla has just discovered who dealt the blow, as they believed the initiative could not have come from the two signatories... The instigators are crestfallen, unsure of themselves and anxious. They expect a violent reaction from the Vatican and reprisals against the two signatories. The publication of the letter had never been envisaged by the signatories themselves. The instigators always thought that it would become known through a 'leak' (organised by themselves) and not through an 'authorised' publication. That being the case, I have strongly insisted that it immediately be published in Rome, since in any case there is no need to wait for authorisation to be obtained. But Dulac, who is on the spot, disagrees and advises delay, hoping thereby to avoid exposing the persons of the two signatories. Currently neither of the two can be contacted, the first being in a clinic for his eyes and the second away travelling. The fear is that the Pope will get them to withdraw or cancel their signatures.¹³"

     At the end of October, the members of the Comitato internazionale per la difesa della Civilta Cristiana¹⁴ widely distributed Cardinal Ottaviani's petition in Rome, which then led to its being published in the Italian newspapers.

A LOST BATTLE

     Paul VI will finally manage to emerge victorious from this crisis. His intransigence and his numerous ploys will disorientate and disarm those bishops opposed to the new ordo.

     "The Pope and his confederates", the Abbé de Nantes will recount several weeks later, "reacted in an unbalanced and contradictory way, since their only aim was to reach the fateful date of 30 November without their plans being wrecked. On that date the new rite would become a living reality for the sheep-like mass of the faithful, and this fact, they thought, would oblige even the most scrupulous bishops and theologians to recognise it in law. A tried and tested tactic of modernist subversion, that of the fait accompli.

"So policies of appeasement and harshness were both pursued one after another, crushing the spirit and breaking down the moral resistance of the faithful. Falsehood reigned unashamedly at Rome for a month. For its part, the French episcopate precipitated the movement by making the New Mass obligatory on 1 January. Straight away Paul VI announced that the Italian Episcopal Conference had changed its mind and decided to impose it as well, from 30 November. But speaking off the record both the Pope and Bugnini continued to allay suspicion by saying that the new rite was optional!

     In answer to the precise and well-reasoned accusation of a slide towards heresy, Cardinal Garrone, broke out into stupid laughter, played to order, on Radio Vatican: "That would be preposterous". Then, amongst other villainous remarks, he came out with the following: "This means the defeat of a party!" But Bugnini, at that very moment, was admitting the error and promising that he himself would correct the text of the Institution already promulgated. In its turn, the Consilium, hastily reconvened, hypocritically replied to "certain difficulties": "At any rate, in the definitive publication of the Roman Missal it will always be possible to touch up certain expressions of the Institutio to make the text clearer and more comprehensible"! Which is going rather too far for a pontifical Act presented to us as perfect, but not nearly far enough for a text profoundly corrupted by heresy.

     "However, the plan to subvert the Mass has been discovered; the universal Church is alarmed and shudders. The light is going to scatter the darkness...

     "Therefore the Pope launches upon the world his two allocutions of Wednesday 19 and 26 November in which, ceasing to play the role of Hamlet, he reveals himself to be exactly what his mother called him, 'un uometto di ferro', a little man of iron. He imposes his Mass, the memorial of the Last Supper, all the while concealing its 'ecumenical' – or, as the Courrier de Rome says, 'polyvalent' – character. To crush his opponents, he does not hesitate to pronounce the most defamatory accusations against them, and against their irrefutable proofs the most bogus assertions. It is a tissue of unprecedented violence wrapped up in sentimental tear-jerking flights of oratory, all for the consumption of the people. In this way Paul VI pronounces – as though it were inspired by the Holy Spirit, decided upon by the Episcopal Body, and obligatory in conscience – the devastation of a liturgical and dogmatic Tradition that goes back two thousand years.¹⁵"

     In January 1970, the Abbé de Nantes published a "Roman dossier on the new ordo missæ"¹⁶. Thus the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century was the first periodical to publish a French translation of the "Short critical study of the new ordo missæ". This dossier, of which 35,000 copies were printed, also contained three documents dealing with the reactions of the Roman authorities to the traditionalist protest: the texts of Paul VI's allocutions on 19 and 26 November, and the text of Cardinal Garrone's Radio Vatican conversation on 7 November.

     As the weeks went by, it became more and more evident that the traditionalists' battle against the new ordo was in one sense lost.

     Not one bishop in the world, it seems, had officially rejected the new ordo missæ¹⁷. Mgr Marcel Lefebvre, who had been one of the leaders of the traditionalist minority during the Council, had remained strangely silent, so much so that Jean Madiran wrote to him as follows on 28 November of that year:

     "I was very moved by your message of 22 November which in a few lines shares your thoughts with me and describes the current disaster. You tell me that numerous bishops throughout the world realise the situation. Very well, but where are they? As at this moment, only one French priest, the  Abbé Georges de Nantes, and throughout the whole world only  two cardinals have spoken openly. The long note written by 'a group of theologians' in the Pensée Catholique is certainly very useful, but it remains anonymous.¹⁸"

     Furthermore, the traditionalists intervened in this battle using highly questionable arguments. They were not sufficiently instructed in liturgical matters and did not know enough about the history of rites to develop a just and well-considered critique of the liturgical innovations. Certainly, the "Short Critical Study" takes stock of the modifications made to the ceremonial parts of the Mass, the prayers and secondary rites, and even the consecration. These changes revealed a determined intention to effect a protestant deformation, a secularisation and a humanist profanation of the Mass. The authors of the liturgical reform were therefore suspected, indeed accused, "of wishing to undermine the dogma of Christ's Real Presence effected through transubstantiation and of seeking to remove all the rites specifically relating to the Holy Sacrifice, a sacrifice repeated by the priest who personifies Christ, the priest and Victim of an unbloody immolation which is the Memorial of the Cross"¹⁹.

     But Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, saw fit to reply to Pope Paul VI on 12 November 1969 as follows: "The 'Short Critical Study' opuscule contains many assertions that are superficial, exaggerated, inexact, emotive and false.²⁰"

     In the domain of the liturgy, apodictic proofs, that is proofs that are beyond dispute, are always difficult to come by. The liturgy does not have the perfection of the divinely inspired Scriptures nor the unchangeable character of dogmatic definitions. Thus, of all the criticisms formulated against the new ordo by Fr Guérard des Lauriers, none had either the value or the solidity of the dogmatic accusations brought by the Abbé de Nantes against the doctrinal novelties of Vatican II. Recall the embarrassment of the consultors of the Holy Office during the investigatory stage of his trial in 1968. They could not identify a single error in the texts of the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation²¹. Clearly because his writings did not contain any!

     What the Abbé de Nantes had foreseen in mid-October 69, took place during the winter. Cardinal Ottaviani retracted, or at least the press announced that he had been won over to the new ordo. Dom Lafond, a monk at Saint Wandrille and the founder of the "Knights of Our Lady", had written and published a "Doctrinal Note on the new ordo missæ" in which he systematically interpreted the equivocations of the new rite in a Catholic sense. Without worrying unduly about the universal destruction of faith and prayer, he torpedoed the opposition of the traditionalists to the disastrous liturgical reform, a reform that was both corrupt and corrupting. Nevertheless, his analysis was not without value. This monk refuted a number of arguments advanced by the opponents of the new ordo, such as the argument developed by the Abbé Dulac who, in order to justify his rejection of the new ordo, used the modifications made to the offertory prayers as a pretext for his claim that the offertory had effectively been suppressed²². Dom Lafond went even further and directly attacked the "Short Critical Study" and even the petition of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

     Subsequently, the press published a letter from Cardinal Ottaviani to Dom Lafond, dated 17 February 1970, in which the prelate complimented him for his "Doctrinal Note". Here is this letter:

     At Rome, a few days after the publication of this letter, a spokesman for Cardinal Ottaviani declared to the correspondent from the France-Presse news agency that this document was authentic. The result of this was that in March 1970 the French dailies announced that Cardinal Ottaviani's petition to the Holy Father had been exploited, during the preceding autumn, by the traditionalists and especially by the Abbé de Nantes, against the wishes of its signatory.

     So it was that at the beginning of the year 1970, on account of the inertia and cowardice of the conservative bishops and cardinals, the whole of the hierarchical Church seemed to have accepted and welcomed the new ordo missæ.

RECOMMENDATIONS TO PRIESTS AND THE FAITHFUL,
IMPRINTED WITH SUPERNATURAL WISDOM

     During the autumn of 1969, the Abbé de Nantes had therefore followed the liturgical debates with great attention. He had boldly attempted to strengthen and solidify the opposition of the few cardinals who were hostile to the new ordo missæ.

     In parallel with this activity, he had intervened in controversies regarding the liturgical innovations to give his readers some recommendations of a practical order.

     For several months he had remained in a state of uncertainty, in accordance with what he had told his friends and benefactors on 17 May 1969: "Regarding the new decisions in the matter of liturgy, I would ask, if you wish to question us about our own personal decisions, that you wait calmly until we are fully informed on the matter and have reflected maturely on it." Nevertheless, from the end of spring 1969, he was solicited by integrists who wanted to involve him in their rebellion. During the summer, when he was one day questioned by some very ardent reactionaries who wished to know what instructions he would give his readers, he remained silent, then he finally told them: "I do not know."

     Was it really necessary to recommend that priests should reject the new ordo missæ, whatever the consequences of such a rejection might be? Was it necessary to prescribe that the faithful should flee celebrations of the New Mass and not take part in them under any circumstances?

     "Definitely!" replied the most hardened integrists.

     The Abbé de Nantes was also questioned by Catholics who were disturbed and disorientated. On 2 September 1969, for example, the writer Michel de Saint-Pierre confided to him his great "disarray". He told him that he read "the Catholic Counter-Reformation with an attention that grew more and more passionate. And I am profoundly saddened – I would like you to know this – by the way you have been treated and by the condemnations that rain down on you, without anyone deigning to answer you on the essential issues." But here is what tormented this writer: "It is a matter of knowing – and this is the object of my question to you – whether, on the hypothesis that the new Ordo missæ will now be applied from the end of November as we are told, the Mass to which we will be thenceforth invited will be valid or not – whether it will continue or not, in your opinion and in the opinion of the theologians whom you have been able to consult, to be the true Mass, the one Mass, that is to say the unbloody Sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ on the altar, the true and substantial renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross."

     At the beginning of September, it was still uncertain what the final decisions of the episcopates would be regarding the implementation of the Apostolic Constitution Missale romanum. But in the course of the autumn, it gradually became clear that the bishops were docile to Paul VI and that the latter was very determined to impose his liturgical reform on the whole Church, whatever the cost. So, in the Catholic Counter-Reformation for October and November 1969, at the risk of offending a great number of his readers, but with the sole concern of curbing in advance any schismatic dissidence, the Abbé de Nantes gave his remarkably prudent advice.

     In the first part, he studied the question of the validity of the new ordo, in order to answer the question so often put to him by the faithful: "Will Jesus truly be present, renewing the sacrifice of His Passion and distributing His graces through the power of the sacrament?"

     "Let us clearly understand", said the Abbé de Nantes at first, "that the validity of the Eucharistic action requires that the priest, having taken bread and wine, pronounce over these oblates the words of consecration with the intention of doing what the Church does." And he informed his readers that the new ordo did not appear to him to be stamped with invalidity, "far from it"²⁴! Nevertheless, in that month of October 1969, he did envisage that, in a minority of cases, the New Mass might be "invalid by reason of a lack of rectitude in the intention of the minister"²⁴. On this specific question of the intention of the priest necessary for the validity of the Mass, the Abbé de Nantes will subsequently modify his judgement²⁵, and he will retract this statement²⁶.

     As for the liceity of the New Mass, he dealt with this in November in the second part of his study, where he makes recommendations and counsels to his brothers in the priesthood which are imprinted with a wholly supernatural charity and wisdom. Let us listen to this good shepherd: what level-headedness!

     "The deadline is at the end of the month. On 30 November, a new Order of the Mass will be imposed on priests and the faithful.

     "This is the question put by priests: Let us suppose that the new rites do not necessarily alter the essence of the Holy Sacrifice, given that we wish to celebrate in accordance with the mind of the Church and in obedience to her, are we permitted in conscience to follow the new Order of Paul VI, or is this forbidden to us by the moral law? Or, putting the question in another way, is it morally permissible to celebrate according to either one or the other rite, indifferently?

     "To which the extremists will give us two contradictory answers, either: 'The new Order most certainly becomes obligatory as soon as it is decreed by your episcopal conference, in application of the Roman Constitution', or else the opposite: 'No, absolutely not. It is a sin!'

     "To resolves this case of conscience in accordance with the rules, we should examine the very matter of what is being imposed, then in the second place the nature of the order given, and finally in the third place – for this also counts! – the advantages and drawbacks, both supernatural and temporal, which will result from the decision, both for the priest and for those for whom he has pastoral responsibility. Since this rite is not materially invalid, as we have already established, we must here again treat of individual cases, according to the understanding and the degree of liberty of each priest. I will distinguish three cases, in accordance with three types or classes of priest.

     "(1) First of all there is that large group of priests (and bishops?) of a firm and upright vocation who, for ten years now, have given up trying to understand this aggiornamento and all the wheeling and dealing in liturgy, morals, dogmatic theology and catechesis, that goes on beyond their heads. These priests, these bishops, recognise themselves, either publicly or in their heart of hearts, as being incapable, in the face of all these reforms, of discerning the true from the false, the good from the bad, the fruit of divine inspirations from the works of the Evil One. In order to preserve their faith, on the basis of which they have dedicated their life to God and to the Church, and to continue their ministry without hesitation or discouragement, they have made the decision to obey the supreme Head and to obey him blindly, unconditionally falling into line with the Holy Father's wishes. It may be that God will hold this abstention, this intellectual laziness, against them. But no one may reproach them for this. One may simply observe that, short of some divine intervention (such as the sudden death of Paul VI or of his henchman Bugnini), short of a solemn reprimand and resistance manifested by a group of cardinals and bishops, the very great majority of of priests throughout the world will once again obey the absolute and implacable will of the Pope, holding him responsible before God on behalf of them all for the good or the evil that will issue from this Reform. If the result is good, it will be for his eternal salvation, as was the case with Saint Pius V; if the result is bad, it will be for his eternal damnation, as was the case with Pope Honorius who was declared anathema.

     "To a number of priests whom I know and love well, I should have replied (should they have seen fit to consult me): you, such as you are, my dear fellows, have only to follow. You cannot do anything else, at least while higher up the bishops and Roman cardinals refuse to budge. Here then is the solution for the majority of priests: Obedientia (imperfecta) et Pax, in servitio Dei et animarum, Obedience (imperfect) and Peace, in the service of God and souls. 

     "(2) More numerous than one may think, we now come to that group of priests who are "enlightened" but who possess "a doubtful conscience". They have read, they have sought out various advice, they have reflected and they have reached the conclusion that the new Ordo is equivocal, uncertain and suspect. They hesitate over a duty which, for them, is not clear. For example, the demonstrations by the Courrier de Rome concerning the quasi Lutheran suppression of the offertory disturbed them, and the articles by Nobili in L'Homme Nouveau did not entirely reassure them (article of 7 September in particular, clever!). As they are in some doubt, the sheer weight of the pontifical decision and the unanimous consent (as always!) of the French episcopate make them resolve the case through obedience, but not without misgivings on their part. And this decision is reinforced by the fact that obedience sits very well here with ambition, concern for material goods, a peaceful life and indolence. Whether acknowledged or not, these secondary advantages, these ignoble fears, give rise to a sense of shame and to a confused impression of surrender, as when a man gives himself good reasons to choose a bad path because of the advantages he finds therein.

     "I will not give all these priests the same answer, since their state of confusion must be taken into account.

     "For some, submission seems to me to be morally permissible, and this may even be the safest solution for them. Lacking certitude and therefore having no true freedom of choice, religious obedience must prevail over every other consideration. I am opposed to that other far greater disorder sought by the adventurers and ever present activists, who try to swell their numbers by pushing the hesitant into a disobedience that has all the appearance of an unjust and foolish revolt. May these also return peaceably to their ministry, in due submission (Dt 20).

     "To others, I say that they will not be free of their honourable doubts even though they carefully conceal them. The primary duty of a doubtful conscience is to clarify its religion so that it may have a perfect knowledge of the will of God and follow it entirely. These priests may adopt the Nova Missa on 30 October, but they will be expected to express their disquiet to their normal superiors and to the Author of the law. They would sin if they renounced this debate in an attempt to justify their own practice. Their submission puts them in a very strong position to ask for and obtain full clarifications from the authorities to whom they are submitted. Having thus become "valid negotiators", let them profit from this situation to demand a solution to our doubts! And should one of these priests be rewarded for his obedience with the office of bishop or even of cardinal, let him then be mindful of his brothers who remain in the servitude of a blind obedience and deliver them by taking a courageous stand!

     "(3) Finally we have the small number of priests who are perfectly enlightened. Without doubt they are in a minority, but they represent the better part of the clergy. For those who place obedience above everything, above even faith, hope and charity, just as much as those who are filled with a passion for reform and innovation, cannot be held up as models of Roman Catholic priests.

     "Many capable priests of proven virtue have studied the new rites in relation to the former ones; they have weighed the reasons, both official and unofficial, behind these changes; they have calculated their consequences for themselves and for the flock entrusted to their care. They have also wished to learn of the criticisms formulated against these reforms and even the accusations made against the innovators. For My Lord God must be served first! or, as Témoignage Chrétien says, "Truth and Justice whatever the cost!" And they have concluded that once again, but this time from the inside and from on high, the aim was "to destroy the papist Mass".

     "These priests (and bishops, and cardinals) have the absolute duty to oppose the institution of the Mass of Paul VI, to the extent that this is possible or appropriate for them.

     "Now, here again – and doubtless my moderation will astonish more than one reader –, I am obliged to distinguish two cases. To understand this supernatural prudence, one must be aware that today the Church is governed like a popular democracy, such as Czechoslovakia: any ideological opposition, any conscientious objection, any desire for independence or reaction, will lead the priest to ruin and literally to excommunication, to the lunatic asylum or to destitution. This is not one of the least hideous aspects of the current regime. To oppose a pontifical or collegial decree, bad for the Church and for souls, but imposed by the camarilla in accordance with the ideology of the reformist party, exposes the priest, however knowledgeable, apostolic or saintly he may be, to being denounced, put on file, pushed aside and finally dismissed by his bishop, all with the active complicity of Rome...

     "To certain of these priests, then, I would once again advise submission, despite their clear appreciation of the pernicious character of this reform. The reasons for this would be: to avoid their being relieved of office and immediately replaced by some progressivist; to allow them to live out their last days in peace; to a avoid the odious persecutions of their fellow priests; or to keep them from falling into poverty and starving under the glacial eye of their 'Father-bishop'. Imprudent bravura could put in jeopardy the salvation of their soul and the welfare of their flock. If they are hesitant about disguising their true feelings in this way, I would remind them that it is morally acceptable to obey a bad law in the external forum, provided that such a law does not command an act that is intrinsically immoral. Thus the Muscovites were entitled to feign submission to Stalin in order to avoid being deported to Siberia. Likewise the unhappy parish priests of today may pretend to fall in with the plans of the supreme Soviet and its Bugnini to avoid being wrenched away from their parishioners and thrown on the rubbish heap, the diocesan homes for elderly priests, before their time. Should anyone find me too easy-going in this respect, it is because they have not experienced the tribulations and nervous breakdowns (let alone suicides) of priests who are persecuted by 'the Church of the poor', the 'Church of Love', the reforming Church of Paul VI and his episcopal conferences. It is ghastly!

     "Finally we come to the minority of the minority. These men will prefer to obey God rather than men, and they will follow the inviolable law of Saint Pius V rather than the fraudulent Montini-Bugnini shambles. Such men have no need of my counsels. They march towards their martyrdom, the worst that priests can conceive of and from which they cannot escape, martyrdom at the hands of those who are their own Fathers and brothers in the faith and the priesthood.

     "The Instruction of 20 October for the application of the constitution Missale Romanum already concludes like a Law of Suspects, because Robespierre and his cult of the Supreme Being will always need Fouquier-Tinville and his special courts. Read this. Article 19: elderly priests who celebrate Mass in private will be able to hold on to the old rite, but only 'with the consent of the Ordinary', this in order that they may be put on file and given a rough time, invariably being discharged from any ministry. Article 20: 'Special cases involving priests who are sick, infirm or experiencing other difficulties (you have understood me well!) will be submitted to the Sacred Congregation', that is to say to Bugnini, and through him to Benelli, Villot, and the other top-ranking Policemen. For the small-scale rebel episcopal retaliation will suffice; but for serious adversaries there is Rome with its diplomatic staff, with its spiritual omnipotence, with its terror.

     "You will not escape with your life. But your martyrdom will prove their satanism.²⁷"

WE MUST REMAIN IN THE CATHOLIC COMMUNION

     The Abbé de Nantes, in his concern to defend the unity of the Church and his care for the good of souls, wished to dissuade traditionalists from rejecting the new ordo missæ in an excessive way, lest they stray from the visible, apostolic and hierarchic communion of the Church.

     Having been invited as the principal speaker to a dinner-debate on 30 January 1970 organised by the Union des intellectuels independants, he was able to explain why he opposed "the solution of falling back around the last 'faithful' priests". No, people should not systematically desert their parishes in order to attend, along with other traditionalists, Masses said according to the Roman rite of Saint Pius V. "This solution is ruinous", he said. "It is schismatic in this sense at least, that it irresistibly leads to the condemnation and rejection of everything that remains outside of the little chapel.

     "One cannot despair of the immense Catholic Church like this nor allow a whole people misled by their bad pastors to sink into infidelity. We must, inasmuch as it is superhumanly possible (and grace will never be lacking to us for this), remain in contact with our priests and with other members of the faithful, working together to preserve the faith, we with them and them with us. We have no right to effect a division, to draw the frontier between what is still Catholic, we others!, and what is no longer Catholic. It is to our honour and to our credit to remain like this in 'the Catholic communion', and there is only one such communion, the one that lives and continues despite everything around the Pope and the bishops united to him. In certain cases, of course, it may be necessary to seek elsewhere for a Mass that is traditional or at least less bad. But this will always be a solution of an exceptional character, which can never authorise the decision to go our own separate way. If the parish priest throws you out, you are permitted to to and say Mass across the way, on the other side of the street, but your personal trial constitutes a sad and perilous situation that must not be erected into a general rule for 'faithful priests' and the 'last of the just'²⁸."

A JOURNEY TO MADRID AND ROME

     The Abbé de Nantes had lived through an "unhappy winter" in 1969-1970, to use his own expression, because he had been struck by several of the claims made by the reactionaries, but was unsure of the exact value of their reasons and demonstrations. The crucial and dramatic question, to be resolved quickly and decisively, was that of the validity of the new rite of the Mass. For traditionalists were already claiming that it was invalid and proclaiming that it was better to abstain from making one's Easter duties rather than to receive the sacraments from priests who celebrated the new Mass.

     Providentially, in mid-March 1970, before the Feast of Easter, our Father was able to learn an important lesson from a trip he made to Spain and to Rome as well as from various information he received from Germany, Switzerland, Portugal and Australia.

     But let us first mention some of the meetings that punctuated his travels in Spain and Italy.

     Having arrived at Madrid on 2 March, the Abbé Georges de Nantes was welcomed by some Spanish correspondents for whom he was brining the first number of a monthly edition of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, in Castilian. Then he met some of the leaders of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Antonio-Maria Claret²⁹, comprising six thousand Spanish priests³⁰. They had a real esteem for his theological works and for his doctrinal combat. The secretary of the Fraternity, Father José Mariné, had written to him on 13 December 1969: "Our association admires your work and desires to collaborate in it. In our opinion, your idea of an Spanish edition [of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th century] is excellent and we have offered our collaboration.³¹" These ecclesiastics had congratulated Cardinal Ottaviani on his petition, and they had themselves addressed their own petition to the Pope, expressing the same request³², although the Spanish Episcopal Conference had already made the new ordo mandatory. But, in March 1970, almost all the members of this priestly fraternity had adopted it. This was an important fact. "This Church in Spain, where faith, piety and Eucharistic devotion have always been very strong", will recount the Abbé de Nantes, "uses the New Mass with its faith unchanged. Moreover, in its journals and its conferences it has no hesitation about criticising the new worship or denouncing the Protestantism and liberalism of a conciliar 'renovation' which it abhors. It appeared to me that Spain is in its heart of hearts counter-reformist. Progressivism has only arrived there as though imported on trucks from foreign lands, under the pressure of the Holy See and in the name of the Council. It is a dangerous subversion, which advances under cover of the Gospel and of obedience to the Pope, but which has already been unmasked and denounced by the best of the clergy as contrary to the whole of their tradition.³³"

     On Tuesday 3 March, the Abbé de Nantes gave a press conference. Then he was received by the Minister of Justice of the Spanish government, M. Oriol, and he was able to tell him how greatly the crisis in the Church concerned him. "But here in Spain", the minister replied, "we monitor the clergy. There exists a concordat. Our relations with the Church are good. The situation and the evolution of the clergy do not alarm us." The Abbé de Nantes tried to put him on guard against the subversive designs of Paul VI. "The Pope wishes to tip the Church in Spain over into the camp of the Reform and of the Revolution. He is in the process of updating your episcopate by directly appointing auxiliary bishops and coadjutors who have the right of succession." Thus the Pope had managed to circumvent one of the clauses in the concordat, the one in fact which accorded the government the privilege of "presenting" residential bishops, and was choosing future bishops from amongst the progressivist members of the Spanish clergy. "Paul VI is currently engaged in stabbing you in the back." The minister simply smiled! As though he were in no way worried about the intrigues of liberal and progressivist Catholics, as though he were happy to contemplate the evolution of Spain towards democracy. At this point the Abbé de Nantes was unable to resist the impression that this minister was perhaps betraying the Caudillo, its ideas and its programme. 

     Our Father left Madrid on 4 March and went directly to Rome. "Was it an omen?" he will say. "Our plane was struck by lightning just as it was arriving in Rome, and the persistent bad weather there made me ill. Yes, Paul VI had sown the wind and it was there that I saw the tempest awake.³⁴"

     In the Eternal City, the Abbé de Nantes met Giovanni Volpe, an excellent and very devoted friend. An editor by profession and someone who immensely admired our Father's works of theological controversy, he wished to make these works known in Italy. He had already published, in Italian, an initial volume of the Abbé de Nantes' writings, including his letter to Cardinal Ottaviani of 16 July 1966 and his letter to Pope Paul VI of 11 October 1967. And he was currently preparing a second volume.

     During his brief stay in Rome, the Abbé de Nantes had a meeting with Mgr Marcel Lefebvre whose usual residence over the last few months had been in Fribourg. Two years earlier, in July 1968, the former leader of the conciliar minority had given him some advice, a directive even, which had turned out to be providential: the traditionalist bishop had told him that it was his duty to refuse to comply with what the Roman judges wanted to impose on him after his trial at the Holy Office: a general retraction along with an undertaking to give the Pope and the bishops his entire, unconditional and unlimited obedience. "You cannot do this, you must not sign", the bishop had told him³⁵.

     This time, the Abbé de Nantes wanted to meet Mgr Lefebvre to ask him some precise questions regarding the liturgical reform and the validity of the new ordo missæ. Alas, the interview was very disappointing, even strange. The Abbé de Nantes was unfortunately taken ill while he was with Mgr Lefebvre and the latter did not offer him any hospitality. He seemed put out, very uncomfortable at receiving a visit from the theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century³⁶. The upshot was that they did not have any real conversation.

     The Abbé de Nantes was grieved to see that in Rome traditionalism "had few recruits and had come to a standstill. It suffered ostracism at the hands of the Pope and his administration"³⁷. What a picture of desolation! Doctor Volpe was fully aware of its pitiable state. Scarcely had the Abbé de Nantes returned to France than this friend would write to him: "I do not know what your final impressions were after your visit to Rome, but they will not have been favourable. There are too many sordid quarrels, too many discussions about personalities and dubious ones at that, too many rivalries³⁸"...

     The mental and moral collapse of the Roman ecclesiastical world was stupefying and horrifying. Whence the following remark in the Abbé de Nantes' account of his journey: "A quarter of a century of Christian democracy has emptied Italy of its substance. And ten years of Montinism has rotted the Church of Rome, her universities (the Gregorian! and the Lateran itself), her Curia under the negligence [play on words between Curie and incurie - translator] of the likes of Villot, Garrone and Benelli, and her generalate houses with their dissolute character as 'Roman holiday homes'.

     "In Spain there is a great store of energy that has only to be set in motion. In Rome there does not seem to be anything." But "Nice cheered me up again. And on setting foot in France again, you rediscover a whole set of views expressed in newspapers, reviews and meetings where the Counter-Reformation is at work. This is for us an honour and a duty.³⁹"

THE LESSON OF THE CHURCHES

     Shortly after he returned to France, the Abbé de Nantes published, by way of a supplement to the Catholic Counter-Reformation for March, an article whose title, "The Lesson of the Churches", indicated the new, essential and unassailable argument he was bringing to the debates over the validity and liceity of the new ordo missæ. Here are a few extracts:

     “Having defined in theoretical terms where we stand in the present crisis, I was glad to have occasion to go to Madrid and Rome and, after stopping at Nice, return here in time to receive a deputation of the Gruppe Maria from Switzerland and Germany. This gave me the opportunity of putting my theological analyses to the test against the actual practice of the local Churches and of the Church of Rome, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches. ‘The Law of Prayer expresses the Law of Faith’: the practice of prayer in the Church bears unfailing witness to the dogmas of her belief. Going abroad, meeting eminent members of the Church, clerical and lay, confronting one’s thoughts, feelings and decisions with those of other priests and other communities facing different situations… all this serves to bring one’s thoughts closer into line with those of the whole Mystical Body, letting one’s whole being be ruled by that Catholicity which is still – and always will be – guided by the Spirit of God.

     “What we must believe and how we are to live has always been taught us by the faith and the practice of all the Churches. If we find on crossing the frontiers that convictions are no longer in accord with local practice, or if our decisions clash with the opposing views of our brothers across the mountains or beyond the seas, that is because we have not been able to rise to the heights of Catholicity. And the clearest expression of this general consensus is to be found in Rome herself.

     “I went, ready to listen to this unanimous voice of the Church in her Head and in her members, a deep voice which can still be heard despite the discordant shouts of opinion and the tumult of passions. And I returned, glad to have visited friends who, in the face of similar difficulties to ours, are determined, in spite of and against everything, to remain in submission to the universal Church, to her Roman Head and to the communion of all her far flung members, outside of which there is, for us Catholics, no salvation.

     “Let us now move on to our discussions. Everywhere these turned on the state of the Church in that country and on the ways and means of furthering the Counter-Reformation, but they always came back to the same problem – vital for all of us and full of drama  – the New Mass.

     “Everywhere there are ardent souls who will not accept compromises, fine distinctions, and solutions that involve patience and waiting, souls who imagine that it is possible to force the issue through words and save the Church through some bold manoeuvre. They will risk everything, at the cost of losing everything. My task was to recall then to the realities of the situation and the supernatural lesson to be learned from it.

     “For this is the central fact, in all its brutality: In Spain, in Italy and in France, and all over the world – and I have just received reliable information on this point from correspondents in Portugal⁴⁰ and Australia –, the vast majority of priests and faithful have everywhere accepted the new Ordo Missæ⁴¹. While a few Spanish priests who still celebrate according to the old rite do so openly without being censured by anybody, in Rome itself the Roman rite is only celebrated in secret, for fear of this being reported to the Vicar General, and Cardinal Dell’Acqua does not treat such indiscipline as a light matter!

     “But another fact, as universal as the first though not so easy to measure, also struck me wherever I went. This New Mass has been generally accepted for the sole reason that it was launched and suddenly imposed by the Supreme Authority, by Paul VI in person. That is to say, it does not satisfy anybody (except perhaps some Benedictine, devoted to the Pope for good or ill). The indifference or disdain shown towards this new Ordo by the progressivist clergy is striking. The absence of any sign of joy or gratitude among French Catholics, in fact the sudden and widespread disaffection now apparent among Sunday Mass goers, seem to me to be extremely grave signs. Our campaign against the New Mass has found extremely powerful support in this general apathy and distaste.

     “And now we find a similar lukewarmness or distaste across the Alps or the Pyrenees. It is well known that the Spaniards were pleased at the introduction of their beloved Castilian into the liturgy. It is equally well established that they suffer the New Mass in pain and that it has made them feel homeless, betrayed and cheated. The reaction in Italy is less violent, but the trend is similar. The people had accepted the vernacular and, even in Rome, the Saturday evening Mass and all the other simplifications, out of indifference. But the New Mass is putting them off going to church. It is an extremely mysterious fact, but whatever remains over there of the supernatural and the pure, which could in an instant rise to sublime heights, all the tender piety and the sensible devotion, is in danger of dying from this disaffection which the people feel for the new rite, so protestant and so unlike Rome.

     “This then is the reaction of the local Churches to the decision of an innovator Pope: a material obedience that cannot hide a spiritual rebellion. It is proof of the Pope’s authority over all the Churches, but it is also a sign of the hostility of all the Churches to the innovations of Paul VI. The people in Rome were able to tell me in plain language: here, we always do what the Pope wants and that is why we have accepted this monster fabricated by Bugnini. But we know that another Pope will undo what this one has done. We shall have it back again, the true Mass; but in the meantime we have to make the best of this one!

     “These observations in the course of my travels brought home to me some useful lessons, well worth some fatigue and the danger from lightning over Rome!

     “I think that in the first place we must be honest with ourselves. I fail to understand people who persist in lying in order to give themselves courage. Let us accept the facts as they are, and it will be easier to avoid making errors of judgement. I can see two such errors immediately, both very close to us and at opposite extremes. The one extols the merits of the New Mass at the expense of the Old and even assures us of the good faith and pure intentions of our reformers. The other one, on the contrary, in order to strike the harder and stamp out heresy more quickly, declares that the New Mass is invalid, impious and sacrilegious, and absolutely forbids both priests and faithful to use it. If these minimalists and maximalists lack theological wisdom, good sense at least should guard them from such aberrations.

     “In the first place, how could we be so rash as to decide all by ourselves that this Mass is invalid when the whole Catholic Church the world over has accepted its daily celebration? On the other hand, it would be an exaggeration to draw conclusions concerning the perfection of the new rite from the general adherence of priests and faithful who were never even advised or consulted. They were circumvented and had it forced upon them. As I have already pointed out, wherever one looks, their obedience demonstrates a complete lack of enthusiasm. But all the same, it does prove the validity of the rite. The entire Church could never have accepted, even out of obedience to the Pope, a mere simulacrum of the Sacrifice. It is because this new liturgy, however ambiguous, was still capable of expressing the true faith and bringing about the authentic Holy Sacrifice that the Churches have all accepted it. This argument is categorical: If today, all over the world, the mass of Catholic priests were celebrating an invalid liturgy, giving the faithful nothing but bread and wine to adore and consume in place of the adorable Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and if the whole Catholic community were taking part in the deception in a mistaken faith, then the promises of Christ to His Church would be void, the Gates of Hell would have prevailed against her and there would no longer exist a Church of God!

     “The situation today is not identical with that of the Anglican schism in the 16th century, which the maximalists often cite in support of their thesis. They are right in saying that our reformers are leading us along exactly the same paths of heresy. But at that time the change in the rites was accepted only by the Church in one country, without protest and in the clear understanding of being cut off from Rome by the violence of a political power. Certain martyrs bore witness to the true state of affairs with their blood. Today on the other hand, it is all the Churches which have accepted a change decided upon and imposed by the Sovereign Pontiff, and nowhere has there been any rupture in the Catholic community. The invalidity of the Anglican rites had been demonstrated by the scission from Rome and from the universal Church. On the other hand, it is impossible to declare a new Ordo Missæ invalid, when the entire Church has received it, without enthusiasm, but without hesitation, from Rome itself.

     “If this were not the case, the entire Church would have become deaf and blind in a matter upon which she gives us infallible guidance, and that is impossible. I would sooner think that I had become deaf and blind myself, rather than the entire Church.

     “But is this a reason for exalting the new rite, with the intention of helping the Church to get as quickly as possible over the crisis into which she has been thrown by the change? Here again, you grow wise through travel. The general trend cannot be reversed by the learned and acrobatic discourses of some monk or the vehement affirmations of a well-known cardinal. You can prove it all in theory and on paper, but this will have little effect upon the movement of ideas and the practice of the Church. The intention of the reformers has everywhere been made apparent in the protestantisation of worship, and both this and the resulting desacralisation have been generally resented. This intention is inscribed in the texts, and even more indelibly in the desires of those who immediately exploited these texts and in the fears of those who accepted them, in the efforts of those who defend the changes and in the torments of the entire Church. Article 7 of the Institutio Generalis clearly has a heretical meaning in itself, but its intrinsic effect has been multiplied a hundredfold by those who have used it to impose their idea – which the text was intended to promote – that the Mass is an assembly and a meal, and no longer a Sacrifice.

     “Our position then must lie between that of the minimalists and the maximalists. The lesson learnt from the local Churches and from Rome itself bears out our theological analyses. This Mass is still valid, and that is why it has been accepted by all the Churches, in obedience to the supreme Authority which imposed it. But this Mass is “hereticising” and this is shown by the general allergy of all the Churches to its novelties. It conflicts with the piety of the faithful and the faith of the priests. It engenders doubts, boredom and a distaste for sacred things. It is a reflection of those who invented it, insipid, doubtful and degenerate.

     “We have taken this reforming Pope and these reforming bishops in union with him for are our lawful, although bad, pastors. And the same holds for their Mass. It is valid though bad, and, like its inventors, void of spiritual fruits. We must tolerate it, as we tolerate them. It will not outlast them. Flying over our ancient Catholic lands with all their ancestral stability, I came to the instinctive conclusion that the solid foundations of their sacramental life would persist, even if the times were  bad, and that we must wait, remain faithful in the service of God, put up with evil and with wicked men and not risk a worse alternative, but strive nevertheless for what is better, in the knowledge that the Lord is always in the midst of those who are His, to suf­fer with them and rise again in glory.

     “ ‘Be angry and sin not!’ This exhortation of the psalmist is invaluable to us in these times of iconoclastic fury. We must show our anger against all that which is destroying the Church and drawing unfortunate souls into perdition. But we must not, in our indignation, go so far as to sin against the Church of God by an unjustifiable act of rebellion. The exaggerated reactions of certain integrists point to a sort of fear of seeing this evil indefinitely installed in the Church unless one wages an immediate victorious fight against it. But we must always count upon the Holy Spirit coming to the aid of the Church. That which is evil shall pass away. The inventions of the perverse have never held their own for long in the Church.

     “And, therefore, what God asks of us is to proceed in saintliness, in wisdom and in strength, anticipating the restoration of the Church which, in His own good time, and through the infallible apostolic hierarchy, He will bring about.

     “What can we do to hasten that great day?

     “The idea of the petition is not very pleasing to our friends. It is in essence less than democratic, indeed anarchic. Those bare numbers that claim to be imposing have no real value in themselves and are hardly likely to move the competent authorities. It is the best that can be done by the least good, but the least that the best can hope to do. The petition of the 100,000 is pursuing its uncertain course in Rome. I will send on the packets of letters and lists of signatures which I have received, and let us see what comes of it. There are better things to do.

     “A mass demonstration can be well organised and well conducted by experienced leaders. It can set thousands of people on the move and that is no small matter. But as it only lasts for a brief moment, it has little more value and is no more effective than a petition... Yes, there are coach loads of people, all brandishing placards, listening to and applauding the speakers, some of them shouting and maybe even breaking a few windows. Tomorrow, perhaps, the papers and the radio will speak of it – as something in the past that has now blown over and disappeared. And if they do not speak of it, it might as well not have taken place. We need something more...

     “When the institutions and the faith of the Church are at stake, when the Mass that was instituted by Christ as His Sacrifice to be renewed until the end of the world is under threat, then our action must be inscribed within the action of the whole Church and must yield before the will of the Lord who guides her.

     “The means is simple, it is valiant and of itself effective: it is to practise one’s religion within the Church and to bring the others back to do the same. Whether we are in the minority or the majority, we cannot make it our programme to impose our views, our liturgy and our traditions upon our fathers and brothers in the faith through the use of force. But, in our certainty of having remained faithful to the true institutions and wishes of Christ, we have the noble ambition of holding on to them, of defending them steadfastly and of getting all the others to love them too, whilst we wait for God Himself to convert the hearts of our Pastors who have gone astray.

     “Our task in the first place then is to be good Catholics and to the best of our ability faithful to the practice of the whole of the Christian life. At this present moment then, we must unite ourselves to Christ in His Death and Resurrection by the reception of the Sacraments of Penance and of the Eucharist. That is how we shall employ ourselves during this Holy Week. We have not broken our contract with the Church and it does not really matter if she has disappointed us and irritated us with a thousand strange novelties, as long as she gives us access to Our Saviour through absolution from our sins and the sharing of His Sacrifice and the Life of His Resurrection. We still have a claim upon her sacred ministry and it is our duty to have recourse to it. We can look around for those priests who seem to be the most steadfast and virtuous, or else we can take them as they come, in the knowledge that God dispenses His graces without regard to the imperfections of His ministers. In either case, as long as there is no public heresy or declared schism, the Church makes up for the deficiencies of her priests.⁴²”

     One cannot over-emphasise the importance of this article, “the lesson of the Churches”, published in the Catholic Counter-Reformation for March 1970. This truly vigorous stance by the Abbé de Nantes saved the situation. For a while it would preserve French  traditionalism from schism.

     At the time our Father enjoyed a significant audience and an incontestable authority amongst reactionary Catholics. He was known to have taken a courageous stand in the fight for French Algeria and later to have been the first to have publicly opposed the conciliar reform and to forecast that its fruits would be dreadful. Furthermore, had not his writings undergone a trial by fire at the Holy Office during his trial in Rome?

     Now, in the dramatic circumstances of this spring of 1970, at a time when the most extremist integrists were in the process of cutting themselves off from the Church by claiming that the new rite of the Mass was invalid, this clear-sighted theologian stood up to expose and demonstrate their profound error. His “lesson of the Churches” was decisive.

     Let us clearly understand the full force of his argument : the battle against the new Ordinary of the Mass, in which he himself had taken part alongside the reactionaries, had in a sense been lost, since the bishops and nearly all the priests and faithful had adopted it. By reason of the infallibility of the universal Church, the new Mass was certainly susceptible of a Catholic interpretation. It was not possible that the whole hierarchical Church could have accepted this new rite on account of its heresy, on the basis of an heretical interpretation. The divine assistance promised to the Church was effectively being called into question in this essential matter⁴³. To declare this new Mass intrinsically evil, invalid or null, was to have lost, immediately and ineluctably, one's faith in the holy Roman Church, visible, hierarchical and apostolic.

     The most hardened reactionaries rejected “the lesson of the Churches”. They did not seem to understand the demonstration of the Abbé de Nantes when he explained to them that the intention of the Church in adopting this new ordo missæ could not be identified and confused with that of its fabricators and its promoter, Pope Paul VI. It is true, he told them, that these men must be held in suspicion of heresy, but the rite itself cannot be judged in the same way as its authors. For “every rite promulgated by the sovereign Authority of the Church and accepted by the entirety of the Catholic hierarchy is, as a necessity of faith, theologically valid and canonically licit, even though, secondarily and indirectly, it may present grave equivocations and constitute a very real danger for souls”⁴⁴.

     The extremist integrists then began to spread this story, this vile rumour: “The theologian of the Counter-Reformation has sold out. He has become a democrat.” To explain matters to his readers, the Abbé de Nantes therefore published an account of his conversation with a friend from Rome who was troubled by these calumnies.

     The friend: “But suppose this new Mass were proved to be invalid, then your argument from numbers wouldn't stand up.”

     The Abbé de Nantes: “First of all, my friend, don't speak to me about arguing from numbers, for I have shown often enough that I have no time for it. It is solely the argument from quality and not from quantity that has decided me : the entire teaching Church, that is to say the Pope and all the bishops in communion with him, cannot be deceived in an affair as holy as the Sacrifice of the Mass, a sacrament of divine institution, to the extent of celebrating and making others, throughout the earth, celebrate a charade of the Mass involving unconsecrated bread and wine, all the while believing that they are offering God the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.

     “If Paul VI, Bugnini and their protestant advisers had substantially changed the essential part of the Mass, they would have made the battle too easy for us and, by directly calling into question the infallible assistance promised by Christ to His Church, they would have provoked the anger of God too blatantly for their plans to have been able to succeed. That approach would never have worked. The complementary proof to this, a proof by absurdity, is given us by these people who are losing their heads and saying that the worst has happened, that the New Mass is invalid and that, apart from them, the whole Church has quietly accepted a parody of the Mass. Well, these extremist friends have been forced to conclude that the infallible divine assistance has not worked, that the Church of Rome has lost the Spirit, and that you have to get out of her in order to carry on the fight against the Reform. But I have just one small objection : To fight for the Catholic faith outside of the Roman Church? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

     The friend: “But theologians have proved that this New Mass is invalid.”

     The Abbé de Nantes: “All that this shows is that their arguments are false, or at least that they have drawn exaggerated conclusions from them. And to persist in such private reasoning despite the lesson taught by the Church as a whole, in an essential matter that involves her infallibility, is to reject the Church and lose the faith. It is this which is so serious and which made me raise my voice against certain integrists who claim to be experts in these matters but whose theological incompetence becomes criminal when it leads the faithful into schism.”

     The friend: “What do you propose then?”

     The Abbé de Nantes: “We must first of all unite in professing the true Catholic faith, even if this means excluding those who persist in maintaining indefensible positions, people for instance who claim that the new Mass, celebrated throughout the world, is invalid, that those who celebrate it are heretics, that the bishops are no longer bishops and that the Pope is ipso facto deposed, and other such rubbish. Above all we must keep faith in the Church. With God's help, she is quite capable, in her real self, of crushing this Reformation.⁴⁵”