MARCH 1972

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

DO THEY THINK THAT GOD
CAN CHANGE HIS MIND?

(The above article appeared in Semaine Religieuse de Bayonne.)

Underlying this accusation there are the two following false principles, outside which, in the Church of today, there can be no salvation:

1). The "Reform" of the Church, set in motion by the Council and by Pope Paul, is a Sacred Cow, and must not on any account be attacked.

All other things can be discussed and questioned – even the Infallibility of the Pope, or the Virginity of Our Lady, or the Resurrection of Christ, even the very existence of God… in fact, such discussion is entirely in the spirit of Vatican II, and pastorally desirable. But to express doubts about Vatican II and its New Reformation is an unforgivable sin.

2). The bishops are incapable of erring, or of misleading us in any way. Moreover, their solidarity must be maintained. Even the Pope himself, should he speak differently from the College of Bishops, must be wrong. To think differently from one’s bishop, to act without his approval, is an act which is intrinsically evil. Any criticism of the French Episcopate is the most terrible slander.

Here is our reply to the present attack

1). Having taken three years over a careful doctrinal study of the writings of Abbé G. de Nantes, his own bishop and the French episcopate as a whole, and then the Holy Office, demanded that he should recant his errors. But in the course of ten years nobody had been able to point out a single error with respect to the Catholic Faith or the law of the Church. Abbé de Nantes has promised to donate a million (old) francs for the poor of the diocese to any bishop who could point out a single one, and he is still waiting!

2). The Abbé was similarly asked to withdraw the accusations he had made against those who held positions of authority in the Church, accusations backed up with evidence which could not be refuted. How can anyone expect him to deny facts which are and remain true? And if the facts on which they are based are true, a mere withdrawal of the accusations would amount to laying the blame for the errors and disorders on the Church herself instead of on sinful individuals. It would imply that the Holy Spirit could lead the Church astray, as if God could contradict Himself!

3). As a last resort, the Abbé de Nantes had been asked to sign a statement expressing total and unconditional submission to the authorities of the Church, that is, to Paul VI, to the French Episcopate, and to the Bishop of Troyes – without even any qualifying clause to exclude possible instructions which might be in conflict with the Catholic Faith. To demand such an act of unqualified submission implies a failure to distinguish between the Church and it the persons of her representatives, and is contrary to the Catholic Faith. To demand this is to take oneself for God. The Abbé de Nantes’s reply was a Profession of Catholic Faith, in which he expressed his religious obedience to the Pope and to his bishop in all that falls within their legitimate sphere. This declaration, which was not acknowledged, was falsely referred to as a "categorical refusal".

But God is Truth and Mercy!

Text of Recantation which the Abbé de Nantes was asked to sign
(This was included in the "Ultimatum" sent to him by Cardinal Seper on 7th July 1969)

1). I confirm my acceptance of all the doctrinal and disciplinary acts of His Holiness Paul VI and the Ecumenical Council Vatican II, according to their nature and with due regard to the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Council (cf. Lumen Gentium, No 25) [Note: Lumen Gentium, No 25 concludes as follows: "The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and of the importance of the matter, strive painstakingly and by appropriate means to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents. But they do not allow that there could be any new public revelation pertaining to the divine deposit of faith."]

2). I withdraw the grave accusations which I have not been afraid to make against the acts of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Council. I express my sincere regret for these imputations and I repudiate in particular the charge of heresy which I had made against Pope Paul VI, together with the perverse conclusion I had drawn from it, concerning the desirability of his deposition by the Cardinals.

3). I pledge obedience to my bishop and to the episcopate of my country, in accordance with the canonical norms.

4). I undertake to speak and write with respect about the acts and precepts of the Pope, of the Council and of the bishops.

Text of the "Profession of Catholic Faith" sent by the Abbé de Nantes in reply to Cardinal Seper’s letter of 7th July 1969

Jesus!

Your Eminence,

I have the honour to reply as follows to your ultimatum of 7th July.

1). I affirm my adherence, inwardly and outwardly, to all the doctrinal acts of His Holiness Paul VI, true and legitimate Pope, and of the Second Vatican Council, true and legitimate Ecumenical Council, as also to all those of their Predecessors, in so far as they are propounded by their authors, and received by the Faithful, as the genuine expression, free of innovation or change, of the Apostolic Tradition upheld infallibly by the Magisterium, ordinary and solemn, of the Roman Church.

This cannot apply – as is admitted even by their authors, and by general assent – to numerous documents of a "pastoral" or "prophetic" nature, which I have called in question, in part or as a whole, for grave reasons which I have publicly stated, in accordance with my right and, unless I am mistaken, also my duty.

The form of recantation which is imposed upon me leaves out all possibility, even the theoretical one, of casting doubt upon such acts of the Magisterium, and expects them all to be regarded – by myself, if by no one else – as infallibly true and beyond any dispute. Such a demand forcing me to give to all acts of the Pope and Council, whatever their official status, a blind assent, is exorbitant and manifestly contrary to the doctrine of the Faith. It is an outrageous abuse of power.

I would ask you therefore to amend your formulation in accordance with orthodox principles.

2). I accept the disciplinary acts of the same legitimate authorities in so far as they have the true and manifest intention to further the glory of God, the supernatural good of the Church and the sanctification of souls.

This is not the case with a number of acts concerned with the "reform of the Church", with "opening the Church to the world", with the "Aggiornamento" – none of which have any bearing upon Catholic Discipline. I have the right and, if I am not mistaken, even the duty, to reject and criticise such acts to the extent to which their intention seems contrary or irrelevant to the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

The formulation imposed upon me does not admit any possibility, even theoretical, of such hesitation in acceptance which is proper in the case of innovations of this kind, and implies that every reformist decision of this Council or of Paul VI has to be regarded – but only by myself as coming from a person or from an assembly incapable of error or mistake in their government of the Church. Such a demand asks of me a general, unconditional obedience to fallible human beings, which is both unreasonable and contrary to Catholic morals. There are cases – even if only in theory – where "one is bound to obey God rather than men", even where these happen to be bishops, or the Pope himself.

I request you therefore to amend your formulation in a humane and Catholic sense.

3). I cannot in conscience withdraw the grave accusations which I have made against the reigning Pope and the Second Vatican Council, with reference to such of their acts as are referred to as "reforms", "pastoral decisions", because these appear to me, after careful study, to be contrary to the Catholic Faith and because they have manifestly been the cause of the present general disorder and ruin in the Church. No solid arguments have been opposed to my analyses and demonstrations. To regard them a priori and without further examination or evidence as reckless calumnies is a simple matter, but both uncivil and unconvincing.

The facts referred to in my writings are facts known to all, and established beyond dispute. I am prepared to repudiate any which may be false or can be officially denied. The interpretations I have put upon them follow always the general line of the interpretations given them by their authors and accepted by public opinion. It is true that I have found grounds for accusation in the very points which are applauded by others precisely because they see them as changes in matters of Faith or signs of a "revolution" in the Church. But you cannot forbid me to quote these facts and discuss their generally accepted interpretation while the Modernists and Progressives are free to quote them and use them as justification for their own activity in disrupting the Church and leading souls astray.

The form of recantation demanded of me is based neither on a denial of the facts nor on any repudiation of their interpretation, and it constitutes therefore a demand for total submission to the errors and mistakes of the innovators.

4). I cannot in conscience withdraw the charge of heresy which I have made on several specified occasions against Pope Paul VI, and neither can I therefore take back the conclusion which I drew from it, concerning the case for his deposition by the clergy of Rome, if he should persist in it after due warning, because no serious argument has been opposed to mine either with respect to the fact of heresy or to the steps which were to be taken in such a case. I shall withdraw my accusations and make due amends if the strange ideas and expressed aims of the reigning Pope can be proved to me to be in keeping with the sacred deposit of the Faith, or if they were one day to form the subject of infallible definitions by the solemn Magisterium – which however is impossible.

The form submitted to me forbids – in opposition to Catholic teaching – the entertainment of the thought that, even in theory, it is possible for the Pope as a public or private individual to fall into heresy. Moreover, it describes as perverse the logical and necessary conclusion – which was taught by the best theologians of the Church – PAPA HAERETICUS DEPONENDUS EST. (A heretical Pope is to be deposed) It also assumes, against truth and justice, that opposition to the Pope on the grounds of his heresy is in itself sacrilegious and unlawful, even though it is recognised by the Church as legitimate, and in certain cases mandatory.

This a priori refusal to examine even the subject matter of my accusations shows the difficulty of refuting it by reference to the authority of Scripture and the teaching of the infallible Magisterium. In these circumstances the demand for an unconditional submission is unjustified and immoral. The Sovereign Pontiff cannot take the responsibility for this without making himself party to an untruth. He is not a god.

5). I have promised to obey the Church, in the person of the Sovereign Pontiff and my own Bishop, but not in that of the Episcopate of my country, a collective entity which to my knowledge has no claim to any authority. I have always respected the persons of those who hold high office, as their dignity demands. This obedience and this respect I shall continue to practise faithfully. But these virtues remain subordinate to the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and their practice must not in any way impede, or contradict, the supreme rights of God or the service of our neighbour. For this reason I cannot obey the prevaricators in their prevarications, nor respect them in their misdeeds without becoming myself their accomplice in these matters. It is the misfortune of our times that I have been obliged to adjust the degree of my obedience and my respect in proportion to the actual dignity of their persons and the morality of their acts.

The form submitted to me, demanding unconditional obedience to my bishop and to a French Hierarchy who are, collegially, prevaricators, would put me under the obligation of following all they teach, and command, and I would thereby become myself a party to heresy and schism, as well as drawing others into the same path. To demand respect of the ecclesiastical authorities, whoever they may be and whatever they may do, is to order me to show regard, confidence, and admiration for the prevaricators in their prevarications, and I should thereby be giving scandal.

Obedience has to be exercised within canonically defined limits, and these are today trampled underfoot by the tyranny of the reformers. It presupposes the submission of the superiors themselves to the Faith and Moral Law of the Catholic Church. In the same way, rulers are entitled to respect to the extent that they themselves respect their own function. "He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me." Our bishops, while demanding such respect as their due, do not themselves accord it to the Church or to Christ Himself, whom they are supposed to serve. I cannot put myself, as is demanded of me, under the orders of superiors who are unworthy and whose intentions are evil, whose first decision would be to get rid of me as of an adversary. Let them put their own house in order first!

Your Eminence – On July 16th 1966 I had requested Cardinal Ottaviani, in his capacity of Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, to pronounce upon the conformity of my writings to Catholic dogma and morals, and to divine Revelation. And you reply to me with this ultimatum which enjoins me to obey blindly and in a servile manner every whim of the reigning Pope and of the bishops, without any limits or qualifications. I can only conclude therefore, that the detailed study of my writings has not allowed your keen judgement to discern the least doctrinal deviation. If I am right – leaving out of account any possible misunderstandings which it would have been a simple matter for you to clarify – it follows that those whom I criticise must be wrong. To attempt to force me into the ranks of the Reformers by the use of blackmail, threats or violence is not only morally wrong but also perfectly useless. The present ultimatum merely shows that you are unable to legalise or justify the "doctrinal and disciplinary acts" of our new "reformers".

It is without any illusions that I request the Supreme Authority to amend the unacceptable statement which I am required to sign within three days. At the same time that I received your ultimatum, I read this statement by the Holy Father: "We are about to see a period of greater freedom in the life of the Church and therefore, in that of each of her children. This freedom will mean fewer formal obligations, and fewer inhibitions of conscience. Formal discipline will be reduced, all tyrannical constraint shall be abolished..." In these words I recognised, with horror, a hallowing of the rampant anarchy which is destroying the Church from within. And when I went on to read: "Every form of intolerance and absolutism is similarly to be abolished", I realised that this declaration of liberty would toll the knell of the true and holy Catholic virtues – of the absolutism that belongs to our Faith, of the intolerance shown by our divine moral Law and by the Sacred Canons. This liberalisation, taking place in a climate of uninhibited licence, must needs be preceded by our own condemnation. Did not this same Paul VI say quite recently, at Geneva, quoting Lacordaire: "Between the strong and the weak, it is freedom which oppresses, and the law which sets free."

We have everything to fear from this liberty which the strong assumes for himself; it is a form of violent oppression. We look back with regret to the times gone by and we long for a day when, itself submissive to the Law of the Faith, the gracious Authority of Rome will rehabilitate us and set us free from all fear and from an unworthy servitude.

Now that you can no longer endure our legitimate opposition to your so-called pastoral innovations and your "reform" of the Church, and have made up your mind to destroy us, we ask your Eminence that whatever is to be done, be done quickly!

16th July 1969  
(The Feast of Our Lady of Mt Carmel)  

(Signed) Georges de Nantes, priest.  

Before any bishop, priest or Catholic lay person takes it on himself to pass public judgement upon us, we ask him to read the full text of this dossier.

 
PREPARING FOR VATICAN III

THE CATHOLIC PRIESTHOOD
(Preliminary Schema)

INTRODUCTION. The Priesthood instituted by Our Lord is bestowed through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, by means of which the priest becomes "another Christ", endowed with very real powers in the supernatural sphere. Until recent years, it was taken for granted throughout the Church that priests as such, from the Pope down to those in the lowest ranks, were held in high esteem, because by virtue of their Orders they had been raised above the Faithful, though dedicated to work for the spiritual good of the latter. The dignity conferred upon the priest at his ordination remains with him for the rest of his life: it becomes part of the man himself.

The priest is a man apart, devoted to the service of God and to the welfare of souls. Through the Sacrament of Holy Orders he receives the graces to fulfil the function to which he is called and in the performance of his task he has always found the most deep and perfect satisfaction of his innermost desires. The priest cannot be separated from his function, which is to sanctify, direct, and guide the children of the Church and teach them the doctrine of Christ. The Council of Trent stressed first and foremost the role of the priest as the one who offers the Sacrifice of the Divine Victim; it looked upon him as the man devoted to the service of the Altar. This does not mean that it lost sight of his other functions, such as the remission of sins and the preaching of the Gospel, but simply that it acknowledged the primacy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the summit of the priest’s function and the source from which he continues to receive the graces which he needs for his ministry.

Priests form a special section of the community – not in the sense of being a caste, for they are drawn from the rest of society – but they are, nevertheless, distinct from other men by virtue of their priestly status itself: as men who have once and for all consecrated their entire life to the service of God. Among them we distinguish secular priests, who retain a certain freedom in their personal life, and the regular, who have sacrificed all the goods and joys of this world for the sake of those of life everlasting. In addition, priests have always worn a distinctive dress – in most countries, the cassock or religious habit, and throughout the Western Church they have been distinguished by their celibacy, which is a sign both of their mystical love for Christ and of their freedom from other attachment, to wife or children, which would detract from the completeness of their gift of themselves to the service of the Church and her members. The body of priests has always been noteworthy for two other qualities: a remarkable freedom of thought and action, within the limits of loyalty that is due to their bishop, and a wonderful cohesion among its members, as among the members of one great family…

THE FIRST REFORMATION. The denial of a Priesthood endowed with divine powers is a logical consequence of the Lutheran heresy, which does not see any value in human good works or in the homage rendered to God. For its adherents there can be no Priest other than Christ Himself. So, the priest, as the one who celebrates the Divine Sacrifice and remits sins, who directs souls and parishes, has no place in their religion, and there came to substituted for him the "pastor" who presides at the "assembly" or "minister of the Gospel". These preach the Gospel but, unlike the priest, are not endowed with any special authority. It was not long before this sort of "priesthood" was extended to all Christians. It was the Reformers who invented the "universal priesthood". There being no more priests, all could now be priests! But a new class was to emerge almost immediately upon the disappearance of the priesthood – that of the married Protestant pastor, with his family. It had more in common with the Levitical priesthood than with that which was instituted by Christ.

VATICAN II. The Council was more than unfair to priests. In the first place, its stress on the "sacramental nature" of the bishops’ office detracted from that of the ordinary priesthood, and tended to make the latter into a mere subsidiary of the episcopal order. Secondly, the Council had the cheek to bring into the Catholic Church the Protestant notion of the "common priesthood of all the People of God", thereby detracting again from the role of the true priests which we find referred to by that terrible, dehumanising term "the ministerial priesthood". And, as if this were not enough, the Council, claiming to redress the balance unfairly weighted by the Council of Trent, shifted the emphasis in priestly function to the "ministry of the word", and the "mission of preaching the Gospel".

At the same time, we were assured that the new ideas would in no way detract from the dogmatic reality of the priest as the Minister of the Altar. But, alas, the new thinking was to carry the day, and oust all the old truths. The Council Fathers saw the role of the priest as a new, "evangelical", "missionary" one, which would require him to lead a totally different sort of life, which was turned towards the world, where he would mix as much as possible with other men, in order to "understand" them before he could bring them the Christian message. It seems to have been assumed that only those outside the church mattered – or existed at all. The Faithful could be totally disregarded. This was the beginning of what has been referred to as "declericalisation" of the clergy.

THE PRESENT SITUATION. The Third Synod gave an opportunity for making up the balance sheet. Vatican II had made a pretence of safeguarding the unchangeable doctrine while supposedly doing no more than to shift the emphasis from "cult" to "culture", from the service of the Altar to the service of the People. We know what the practical consequences were – lay dress and manual, or white collar work for the priests, their engagement in trade union affairs and politics and obsession with the idea of marriage. In other words, the result has been total secularisation.

That these practical changes would themselves lead to a changed interpretation of the central teaching was predictable: the priest is looked upon as no different from other men and the collective disintegration of the priesthood destroys the boundary between the sacred and the profane. We are witnessing a "desacerdotalisation". The next step would be that the priest, no different in any essential from the layman, would be chosen from among them – man or woman, it no longer matters which! – in order to preside at the Assembly, preach the Word, distribute the eucharistic bread and wine. We see it happening already, and we are sick and tired of it. Priests are, so we are told, suffering from a crisis of identity!

We see today two different types of priest, the new and the old, in accordance with the different concepts of the priesthood. Either only the one of these is right, which is what we believe. In that case, it is the Pope’s duty to decide. But if both are, to a greater or lesser extent, valuable, then the rights of the old type should be recognised, and also the right of the Faithful to benefit from their ministry. To persecute them may be in the "spirit" of Vatican II, but it is nevertheless an act of despotism. We ask that our priests be set free!

THE HIERARCHY OF THE PRIESTHOOD
Proposed Dogmatic Constitution

It is the Priesthood which gives the Church her image. Priests are the rank and file, the infantry of the Church, who baptise and preach the Gospel, who sanctify the Faithful and safeguard them for life everlasting, who in their celebration of the Sacred Liturgy anticipate already the bliss of Heaven. Just as each individual priest is responsible for the souls in his charge, so the Hierarchy as a whole bears responsibility for the Church throughout the entire world. If it is correct to speak of a "common priesthood" in any sense, then it is to indicate, collectively, the Pope, the bishops, and the priests who, each with his particular role to play, are carrying on the work of Christ the High Priest.

The majority of priests are engaged in the pastoral care and sanctification of the Faithful, while some, the missionaries, have taken on the task of spreading the Faith and an even smaller number – the contemplatives – devote themselves entirely to prayer and adoration.

Whatever their particular task, they all partake of the same Priesthood.

In 1962, on the eve of the Council, priests enjoyed an incomparable esteem; this is a fact which cannot be disputed. The respect embraced all from the Pope downwards, and missionaries and contemplatives especially were looked upon as members of a battalion engaged in a particularly heroic task. Even those outside the Church respected the priest… While in the eyes of some he was first and foremost the representative of God – "another Christ", others saw in him a model of charity and virtue, and others again respected him for his learning. Even those priests whose personal life fell short of their vows partook of this universal respect.

For many centuries the problem of where the next generation of priests would come from, did not arise; it was simply taken for granted that the steady stream of vocations would continue. It was John XXIII who made the wise remark that the Church’s vitality could be measured by the number of vocations. The Church of Rome on the eve of Vatican II showed a very high degree of vitality.

An Unprecedented Crisis of the Priesthood…

Within the space of seven years, from 1965 to 1972, we have seen the most fantastic falling off both in the number of priests and in their quality. For long before then, especially since 1944 (this applies to France and certain other countries in Europe - Tr.’s note) we had heard the voices of certain clerical agitators raised from time to time. Dissatisfied with their state, they preferred to blame the priesthood for its supposed lack of adaptation to the modern, changing, world, rather than to lay the blame where it belonged, upon the evil state of modern society itself. Gradually, and especially after 1958, these protests began to be transformed from mere academic remarks into practical attitudes, which surprised and shocked the faithful and even the bishops. We began to see priests abandoning the cassock, losing

interest in pastoral duties and itching to take up ordinary jobs, to take part in politics and trade unions and, finally, to marry. The bishops continued, for far too long, to pretend that the agitators were only a few odd men out, who would not be taken seriously. They refused to pay any attention to us when we pointed out repeatedly that this was all part of a new and dangerous philosophy which was being systematically spread by an already well organised subversive movement.

Today, at long last, our bishops are beginning to be concerned. But as they too are following the "winds of change", as they too are involved in the Great Plot, they refuse to look beyond the immediate problem of getting rid of the worst of the agitators, whom they regard as a write-off, and making it as easy as possible for these to leave the priesthood. Much of the bishops’ energy then continues to be expended in making sure that these rebels, once they have left the priesthood and married, do not continue their ministry unofficially.

The priests who lead the revolt march under the banner of a new "updated", "evangelical" concept of the priesthood. Not for them the priesthood based on the Liturgy and the Sacraments, on Mysteries which are so hallowed that they require him who celebrates them to keep his hands undefiled… They do not want to form part of a "clerical caste", to be cut off from the laity, and they ask for nothing better than to be "promoted" – officially or unofficially – to the lay estate, to become ordinary citizens doing ordinary jobs, to marry and have families. As for the faithful, they are shocked and saddened to find that so many priests have less Faith and devotion, less respect for discipline and even for morals than they themselves, who are only simple lay folk. Non-believers are similarly shocked to find that the priest should be no better a man than they… And so we are witnessing, today, the greatest crisis the priesthood has ever known, even at the time of the First Reformation.

The new philosophy consists in the "proclamation of the good tidings of Jesus Christ" – but they have rejected Jesus Christ, true God and true Man, in favour of the Man Jesus of Nazareth, whom they want to see in every man.

Moreover, the revolutionary priests want to bring about their revolution without breaking off relations with their bishops and it appears that the bishops are quite agreeable to this, regardless of the fact that such priests are aiming at nothing less than the destruction of the Church. For is this philosophy not merely the logical continuation of the "new theology of the priesthood" taught by theologians such as Kung, Liégé, Laurentin, whose views are highly respected by the European hierarchies and which continue to inspire the younger generation of priests?

Can anyone deny that it is the Council which is the cause of the present crisis? When priests protest that they do not wish to be ministers of a sacral cult because the very words mean for them something magical or occult, they are only carrying to its logical conclusion the liturgical revolution initiated by Vatican II. We have discussed this in our study on the Sacred Liturgy (CCR 24).

These priests are rebelling against an "alienation imposed on the People of God by an authoritarian hierarchy". They reject the concept of the Church as an institution and they refuse to serve a "Catholic ghetto". The Church must no longer "exist for itself" – nor should it be turned towards God. The role of the priest, if any, is to be sent into the world, for the world. We have seen in our study on the Mystery of the Church (CCR 23) how the whole concept of the Church was distorted by Vatican II and in the chapter on the Sources of the Faith (CCR 22) we have tried to show how the Illuminism of Vatican II amounts to a new religion. The pastoral packet of Vatican II contained all the seeds which have developed into a stark contestation of the Church’s Liturgy and Institutions, and indeed of the Mysteries of Revelation which form the essence of our Faith. The crisis of the priesthood is a fruit of the New Reformation initiated by Vatican II.

But the Council dealt also specifically with the Ministry and Life of Priests. Let us therefore turn to this and ask just what were its ideas on the subject. What did it intend to do and what did it actually succeed in doing, for the Catholic priesthood? To renew it or to destroy it?

The Vatican II type of Priest…

The Council’s main concern, when allocating status and authority in the Church was, in the first place, to increase that of the bishops, raising them collegially into the highest rank of all, as the Successors of the Apostles (with the Pope retaining a place within this Sovereign College!). Secondly, it sought to boost the status of the laity, promoting them to be the People of God who, through the mere fact of having been baptised, were endowed with a threefold charism of prophecy, priesthood and kingship, and thus able to exercise their priestly mission in a manner second to none.

The priest himself tended to fall between the two stools, receiving but a passing mention in Lumen Gentium, as the "dependent co-operator" of the bishop, until one fine day it was realised that you would not go very far without him; so, a little late in the day, "knowing that the wished-for renewal of the whole Church depends in a large measure on a ministry of priests which is vitalized by the spirit of Christ…" (Preface to the Decree of Priestly Formation ), the Council decided to concern itself also with the "Presbyterate". Obviously it was necessary to involve the priest in this renewal, for how could it succeed without him? So, in October 64, they set about salvaging what rags of the priesthood had been left to these "priests of the second rank", and sought to give it anew look. They admitted that "Vatican II had dealt extensively with the Sacrament of Orders in relation to the episcopate, and it had touched upon the priesthood in connection with the priesthood of the faithful." (Unam Sanctam, l98) It had moreover reinvented the diaconate – so what was left for the rest of the "presbyterate"? Two Conciliar Decrees are devoted to the subject: Presbyterorum Ordinis, on the Ministry and Life of Priests (abb. MLP) and Optatam Totius on Priestly Formation (PF) One cannot fail to be impressed that so much thought and intelligence was put into the preparation of these documents which are based on a way of thinking so fallacious that they are doomed to failure from the start. At least it seems clear that the "experts" were in good faith! It really is pathetic – but what a disaster!

They wished to go one better than the Council of Trent!

At that time the Church – referred to as the Church of the Counter-Reformation – which had just emerged from the upheaval of the First Reformation, shone brighter than ever with the light of sanctity, ready to send her missionaries to the four corners of the earth. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the source and centre of her spiritual life was the more exalted because it had been challenged by Protestantism. That the Priest, the Man who offers the Mass, should be held in special honour follows logically from this. His work, including the remission of sins and preaching, were all centred upon the altar. Without neglecting any other aspect, it was recognised that this was the essence of religion.

Then comes the New Reformation, impatient for change and anxious to link up ecumenically with the other. It must therefore invent a "new type of priest". So the theologians set to work, and at the same time the agitators too busied themselves in creating an undercurrent of neurotic discontent among the clergy. They made sure that at the Council there would be voices raised to say that priests were fed up with living like contemplatives, hemmed in by the altar and the confessional, their time and energy taken up with liturgical functions… The seeds of the crisis were deliberately sown at the Council, but nobody worried about the outcome, for was the Holy Spirit not there to make sure that all went well?

What was to be the "new type of priest"? Certainly very far removed from the concept of the priest as the Man of God, so dear to the heart of the Council of Trent and exemplified by such a great number of Saints. Much closer, in fact, to that of the Pastor as defined by Luther than to that of the Priest as defined by Trent. His function would no longer be primarily the service and worship of God, but his "mission" to men, the service of the world. Is this not all in the general line of Vatican II? The need for a special schema devoted to priests became apparent (if somewhat late in the day!) as a result of an increased awareness of the pastoral objectives of Vatican II. It first took shape in the decision to devote a schema to the relation of the Church to the World of Today. Similar motives led to another decision: that of placing the chapter of De Ecclesia dealing with the People of God before that on the hierarchy." (Unam Sanctam, 219) We have already seen the serious consequences that followed from this latter decision (CCR No 23). We now know enough to realise what were the Council’s terms of reference when it embarked upon its "reform" of the priesthood. The priest’s zeal was to be turned away from God and towards the world; his "mission" was to serve the laity and therefore he was to be subordinated to them.

"What is to be the mission of the priest in the world of today?" is the question we priests were asking at the Council, at least according to the French team whom we know to have played a prominent part in the preparation of the Decree on the Priesthood. It was a foregone conclusion that any definition that smelt in the least degree of the Council of Trent would be rejected as "too abstract". It was in vain for the "minority" to protest that the priesthood must remain centred upon the Sacrifice and the Liturgy. The "majority" insisted upon the essentially "missionary" calling of the priest; the French even claiming support for this in a particularly obscure text of St Paul (Rom l5.16, "That I should be the minister of Christ Jesus among the Gentiles: sanctifying the gospel of God, that the oblation of the Gentiles may be made acceptable and sanctified by the Holy Ghost") in their endeavour to make "mission" and "cult" mean the same thing. They managed to take it sound sufficiently convincing for the Assembly to vote 2390 against 5 in their favour! The "mission" before the Mass – what a victory for the New Reformation!

The discussion of the priesthood begins by a dissertation on the People and on the sort of "priesthood" which belongs to them. It is the "Priesthood of the People of God" which comes before that of the priest. But if all the people are priests, what is the task of the (genuine) priests among them? The answer is that they have the "mission" to "preach the Gospel to all men." This "mission", so we gather, is in itself a sacred task, a "liturgy", by means of which men offer their whole life to God as a "spiritual oblation". Here we seem to be going round in circles, for the non-believer is to have the Gospel preached to him so that he, in his turn, may be fitted for his "priestly" task of preaching the Gospel. Even though some allusions to the Mass and the Sacraments creep in here and there in the discussion of the ministry of the priest, we sense a hollow ring about them – for once the priesthood has been pushed into a place secondary to the "priesthood" of the laity, those things that were at its centre have of necessity been similarly downgraded. The process of "desacerdotalisation" was begun at the Council itself.

Once it has been made clear that the priest is the servant of the laity, he is exhorted – if not forced – to change his mode of life so as to come into more intimate contact with the world. "But they cannot be of service to men if they remain strangers to the life and conditions of men… this ministry requires that they live in this world among men, and that as good shepherds they know their sheep." (MLP, 3) In other words, the priest should live in the midst of those whom he is to "evangelise" and be as like them as possible! Many of them will not need to be told twice! We might note here that there is no reference to the wearing of the cassock. All is set, in fact, for the admission of various extreme forms of the ministry, such as "worker priests". "Declericalisation" has now, thanks to the Council, become official policy.

True to its practice of mixing medicine with the poison, the Council follows up its new and revolutionary definition of the "pastoral mission" of the priest with a restatement of the classical doctrine of the threefold sacerdotal power, but with a progressive slant. The "ministry of the Word" comes first and not only chronologically but also in order of importance. We read in Unam Sanctam (145): "The order adopted by the Decree gives pride of place to the ministry of the Word. Certain of the Council Fathers continued to express reservations on this point to the very end, but the Commission refused to take these into account, for it had the support of the authority of the (already promulgated) Dogmatic Constitution on the Church." We must remember also that by the "ministry of the Word" we are not to understand the teaching of doctrine but the "preaching of the Gospel" to those outside the Church. What is more, "No 4 (of MLP) explains that a priest may preach the word also through the witness he bears by the conformity of his conduct to the Gospel." Not only is he encouraged to put speaking before praying, to speak to those outside the Church in preference to the faithful, but finally, to "speak" as far as possible through his own life and conduct, as like to those of others as possible. This is what has come to be known as "Christian witness" about which we hear so much today!

No 5, so we read in the commentary, "in a balanced summing-up recalls all the traditional ideas concerning the ministry of the sacraments and of the Eucharist." But does it? For we see everywhere how the sacramental, liturgical function of the priest is directed towards, or subordinated to, that form of "cult" which is rendered to God by ordinary people doing their ordinary work… and through Creation as a whole… It is the "offering of the world" in the Teilhardian "mass"!

When we find priests referred to as "leaders of the People of God" this is to be understood in the sense of acting as guide for both believers and non-believers, helping them to interpret the "signs of the times" and to carry out their social commitments. For all that the experts refer to the priest as the representative of Christ the Head, in practice he is here being deprived of his true authority, that which comes to him from above and is now transferred to the People, which needs him for the help he can give his brothers in working for the progress of the world in the name of the Gospel. He has become a "president".

We have just seen how the priest’s ministry is to be changed, the Word replacing worship, dialogue with non-believers taking the place of conferring the sacraments on the faithful. Hence the life of the priest must change and so, necessarily, must the formation of priests. They are no longer to be kept apart from the world, taken up with their sacred functions, but rather thrown into the world, a prey to all its temptations. If the priesthood is to be deprived of its spirituality then it is only logical to do this by making a radical change in the education of priests. At least the Council is true to its own logic.

It is admitted, in the commentary, that "the resistance offered by certain long-established attitudes took long" to overcome. When agreement was finally reached on the new type of spirituality that should be expected of priests, it was accepted that this would have its source no longer in prayer and worship, but rather in action, in the "ministry turned towards men, in particular where this corresponds to missionary needs." (!) No longer is there to be a conflict – or any distinction even – between contemplation and action. All the teaching of the great masters of the spiritual life has been thrust aside, and we learn that holiness today finds its mainspring in the ministry itself, because the priest is "the living instrument of Christ".

Celibacy, poverty, obedience, are all given full lip service by the Council. Because it is taken for granted that the new type of ministry will be such a source of inspiration to the priest, it follows that the counsels of perfection will no longer present any difficulty!

One day, priests will realise that they have been "had", that they have been freed of their submission to the will of God only in return for a submission to the will of man, and to that of their bishop in particular. We dread to imagine what would have been the result if the Council had, as the fifth column demanded, agreed to place the whole question of the "reform of the presbyterate" in the hands of the bishops’ conferences; even so, there must be many an unfortunate priest who, leaving his ministry in sheer despair, can turn round and say to his bishop: "It is through your doing that I am going to my death."

As regards the Decree upon the Formation of Priests, it is clear from the first paragraph that the question of the training of priests is to be handed over wholesale to the episcopal conferences. The general principles which are here laid down open the door to revolution: it was evident from the beginning that the conciliar "reform" of the seminaries would lead to their disintegration and, eventually, to their disappearance… So we in France today, loyal to the spirit of the Council, are having to sell our seminaries.

It was an illogical thing to treat the subject of "Priestly Formation" before agreeing on what the priest was supposed to be. No wonder that there was such dispute on fundamentals – when the conflict was between Tradition on the one hand and Modernism on the other, between an approach centred on God and one centred on Man. The two sides came up against each other on every point, while the great mass stood by unquestioning in their acceptance of the principle of "reform". The text which was finally accepted by a virtually unanimous vote (with only two dissensions) was a text of compromise. Unanimity was made possible by this fact of delegating everything to the bishops’ conferences: everybody voted in favour, thinking at the same time that when it came to putting it all into practice they would be able to follow their own plans…

We read that the task is to be looked upon as following in the wake of that undertaken by the Council of Trent… "Nevertheless, the institution was to be entirely changed, in order to adapt it to the needs of a changing world, and therefore, it is the changes that receive all the emphasis!" But "there is no question of a complete break with the past"! "It would be dangerous to suggest that the change is towards greater laxity… "Perhaps this was so evident already that it had to be denied in advance. The texts leave little doubt on this point, and today, when we look at what is going on in the seminaries, it would be difficult to deny that the Council did indeed make a clean break with the past, paving the way at every step for greater ease and laxity… Today, seven years later, we see seminaries being sold – even the hope of filling them again seems to have been abandoned.

Those parts of the Decree (PF) which are not wishful thinking are revolutionary. As it is now the "ministry" itself which has become the pathway to holiness, the formation of future priests must be concerned essentially with their "initiation into the ministry." You will be struck on reading the text that the emphasis everywhere is on ‘formation" in the purely human sense – education for liberty, training for responsibility, knowledge "of man, of the world, and of God", methods of working in teams, dialogue, etc. All the incoherences and absurdities of modern pedagogic and pastoral methods have found their way into the seminaries in the name of the Council. And all this at the expense of the realities that are sacred and everlasting – such as training in devotion, asceticism, mysticism and discipline, and theological studies.

That Chancre Vatican II...

We cannot repeat it too often – it is the Council which is to blame for this appalling crime, the dismembering of the priesthood. For the greatness of the priesthood lay in its closeness to God through the Mass and the liturgy, and through an apostolate which is closely related to these. Let me add that while this was so, priests were happy men. The collapse of the priesthood began on the day it was decided that "mission" should come first, that priests must be concerned with the things of this world and no longer with those of Heaven. This sums up the crime committed against the priesthood by the Council.

It is amazing – or, rather, most revealing, to find Cardinal Marty saying, after the setback he received at the 1971 Synod: "I remain convinced of the need to continue in the general line of the Council… I want to stress the continued relevance of Presbyterorum Ordinis… Our task is missionary and I am convinced that it must remain so… The Church rejects the notion that it should be a club for the initiated. Today, six years after the Council, we have reached a point of no return, when there is no longer any need to ask whether the Church ought to go out into the world: for today, the Church is in the world… We are in the middle of crossing a ford and some are seized with panic, or are merely fatigued – and so they look back wistfully to the apparent peace and quiet of the past. Others are anxious to race on ahead and reach the opposite shore before the rest, and to be the ones to show them the way. We who are the Pastors of the latter as of the former, and of many others besides, are moving forward with them, perhaps too slowly for some – but always in the same direction!"

Who do they think they are? Moses and his Prophets, marching towards the Promised Land, in the middle of crossing the Red Sea?

But to our eyes they are more like Pharaoh and his army, swallowed up by the flood!

And in any case, we can be sure that they will not be going much farther now. Their triumphant procession in the pursuit of mirages will come to an untimely halt when they suddenly turn round and realise that there is nobody behind them any more!

ERRARE HUMANUM EST, PERSEVERARE DIABOLICUM!

 
THE RESTORATION OF THE PRIESTHOOD BY VATICAN III

The results are there for all to see – our priesthood has been ruined. Once its true nature was denied, its de facto extinction was soon under way. I am of course referring to the priesthood that belongs to bishops and priests, for that of the laity never did see the light of day. It will be a matter of the greatest urgency for the next Pope and the next Council to restore the Catholic Priesthood. How is this to be done?

Perhaps the simplest way would be merely to restate the theological concepts of the Council of Trent. Even Vatican II paid lip service to its essential definition of the priest as the one who offers the Sacrifice and remits sins. But Trent had intended to limit its definition to the minimum that was necessary to refute the Protestant errors. By its insisting on the essential – that the Priesthood was instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, giving the power to offer the Holy Sacrifice and to remit sins – it did not exclude the functions of preaching and the "apostolate" but it did relegate them to a second place. What mattered was to affirm the essential, and the four centuries that followed bear witness to the fruitfulness of the Council’s teaching.

Nevertheless, we favour the alternative approach of taking note of all the genuine progress made in theology and of preserving what was sound in the ideas adopted by Vatican II, and assimilating them into the tradition of Trent. The over all tendency of Vatican II was disastrous and swamped anything that had real value. The experts claim to distinguish four new elements in its theological approach to the question of the priesthood. Some of these are wholly false while some are fruitful. We may also note that they are incompatible with each other!

1). The "ministerial" priesthood is defined by reference to the "general" priesthood of all "Christians". NO; this is totally incorrect and together with Pius XII and all Catholic Tradition we repudiate this monstrous perversion.

2). The "presbyteral ministry" is primarily concerned with "mission" rather than with "cult". It is concerned with proclaiming the Gospel to non-believers, who are thereby helped to rise to a higher human plane, and to Christians, who are to "consecrate" the world. No, once again, true to the Gospel and Tradition, we must repeat that this anthropocentrism must be condemned: it has torn priests away from the true and supernatural idea of their function and is causing them to neglect their churches and Congregations.

3). The "presbyteral" ministry – as also the ministry of deacons – should be defined with reference to the bishop’s ministry, to which it is subordinate. To this we can agree, with reservations. Vatican III could well adopt such an approach, which takes full account of the hierarchical structure of the priesthood. But it must guard against belittling the power which belongs to the priest himself through his ordination and which is not something merely delegated to him at the whim of the bishop.

4). The powers of the priest, of whatever rank, include those of preaching and directing in addition to those of celebrating the Eucharist and conferring the Sacraments. Again, such a definition would seem acceptable, though with some reservations. It will be for Vatican III to find the correct balance between the three forms of service which the priest renders to the Mystical Body of Christ. But every suggestion of opposition between them must be excluded. Every priestly action must be viewed in relation to the central one, which is the Sacrifice of Christ Himself in the Eucharist, the Source of life and holiness.

The Nature of the Priesthood

A careful study of the writings of Congar on the subject (references in the French text to the collection Unam Sanctam will not be detailed here and only a few quotations given – Tr.’s note) suggests that there is enough of genuine value in the sources followed by Vatican II to justify an attempt to isolate it from the poison with which it is mingled. Congar himself includes certain warnings against the excesses to which the new thinking might, and did in fact, lead. His definitions would make a suitable point of departure for Vatican III.

"The priesthood is primarily a consecration, a sacrament, which bestows grace at the same time as an ontological power or authority. " And ordination endows its subject with a supernatural dignity which belongs to him personally." He stresses this point against those "who in their overpowering awareness of the functional aspect, lose sight of the ontological, who see only the service which they render to the world, and not that which they are; for whom the priesthood is a function rather than a personal dignity – if only on a spiritual plane, which belongs to them, which represents a particular and greater likeness to Christ."

Let us add to this: The fullness of the priesthood, the origin and model of every priesthood, is found in Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the New Covenant, and hence, in the Person of the Sovereign Pontiff, who is the successor of Peter and Christ’s Vicar on earth. As is inscribed on the cupola of St Peter’s: INDE ORITUR UNITAS SACERDOTII (it is here that the unity of the priesthood finds its origin.) Therefore it would be more correct to begin by consideration of the Pope rather than of the episcopal "College" – and certainly not with the "People of gods"!

The Priestly Ministry

Congar continues: "But ordination is not a mere ritual which bestows upon an individual something static, something that has a relevance only for himself; rather, he is ordained for something, that is, he is entrusted with a mission… for the service of God certainly, but on behalf of men." Thus far we recognise a genuine progress in theological thought…

But note that "We must remember that this consecration, the power to confer the Sacraments – and in particular, to celebrate the Eucharist – has a fundamental character of its own. This is something which cannot be contested. While we must bear in mind that ordination is for the service of men, in accordance with the threefold office, it is also, in an even more fundamental sense, a consecration for the worship of God which is exercised chiefly in the celebration of the Eucharist." He is being very specific "in order to counteract the danger of losing sight of the particular nature of the priesthood in a wider and more general concept of the ‘apostolate’… and of establishing a duality between two concepts of the priesthood, the one concerned with the celebration of the Eucharist and the Sacraments, and the other with the Word and the apostolate."

We would amplify this as follows:

The Priesthood represents a consecration to God both for His glorification and for the apostolate, and, in accordance with it, God’s minister acts "in persona Christi", in the place of Christ and endowed with His priestly powers. The priest is thus "another Christ". But while this applies in a precise sense in the case of sacramental acts, does it also apply, and to what extent, to acts which are of an apostolic nature? Vatican II seems to have extended this effective presence of Christ to all those acts of a priest which are apostolic – and how much more to those of a bishop! The facts have shown how dangerous an exaggeration we have here. Vatican III will have to clarify the exact degree to which this effective presence of Christ applies in the case of every priestly act.

The Hierarchy of the Priesthood

While Trent laid all the stress on the supernatural quality which is conferred on the priest personally through his ordination, "the priesthood represents at the same time a function, and this is exercised in co-operation with the bishop and under his authority.

The Episcopal Order is perpetuated through the Consecration of Bishops, which (if we are to believe Vatican II on this point) represents the fullness of the Sacrament of Orders. The bishop thus receives his powers direct from God. It seems however that Vatican II exaggerated the autonomous nature of the episcopal order, paying insufficient attention to its subordination to the Sovereign Pontiff. At the level of the priesthood however, Vatican II over-stressed the dependence on the bishop, refusing to take into account the fact that, by virtue of his ordination the priest too received his dignity directly and immediately from Christ. The practical consequence of this way of thinking has been to allow free rein to bishops’ tyranny. It will be for Vatican III to strike the correct balance between the dignity of the bishop and his loyalty to the Holy See – for the bishops at Vatican II overestimated their own and their "College’s" independence – and between the dignity that belongs to the priest and his sworn loyalty to his bishop – for here Vatican II laid too much stress on his dependence. And similarly, between the dignity that pertains to the faithful by virtue of their baptism and the submission which they are bound to show to the hierarchy, for here, as we shall show later, Vatican II initiated a wholesale emancipation of the laity from the obedience to which they are bound…

Priests and their Spirituality

On this point Congar shows himself shockingly blind, putting forward his own theory – which is self-contradictory – of the "sacred". Christianity is, for him, distinguished from pagan religions which have a separate "cult" of the divine, by its being a "faith", whose "cult" consists in "building up the Body of Christ". In other words, for the Christian his day to day life becomes a "spiritual sacrifice" which is offered to God! Thus the distinction between sacred and profane has been obliterated… Such thinking leads to the desacralisation of the liturgy and, finally, does away with the need for priests.

Here we would state clearly that the subordinate ministries in the Church, such as the diaconate, have no priestly quality and still less do the devotional and other good actions rendered by the faithful. Vatican III will be able to define the manner in which those who are not priests can unite their offerings and themselves to the Divine Victim which is offered by Christ the Divine Priest at the hands of his ordained ministers. Freed from the burden of this pseudo-priesthood with which they were falsely endowed by Vatican II, the faithful will have little difficulty in finding once more their rightful place in the body of the Church, outside the sanctuary but, through the help of the priest, united to Christ the King and High Priest.

As for the priest, who is the mediator between God and man, his life must be marked by a very high degree of spirituality. It will be for Vatican III to restore that dignity which belongs to him and sets him apart from the rest. A man of prayer and devotion, and well versed in doctrine, the priest of the future, like the one of the past, will receive a long and assiduous training in the course of which a number will be wisely weeded out.

The priesthood is a great thing. To be a priest is no mean task! When Vatican II pretended to widen the limits, make everyone partake of the priesthood, it took away its meaning, even for the priests themselves, destroyed its Mystery… so that today nobody wants to be a priest any more!

OUR DINNER DEBATE

(A Selection of Questions Answered by Abbé de Nantes, in Paris, on 3rd Feb. 72)

Q. Is it true that you were promised a bishop’s mitre in Rome and that this is why you have changed your stand and become so accommodating?

A. This is a story which we have heard from various quarters, so I must be firm in my reply. Obviously, if I were capable of making such a deal, I should also be capable of swearing by everything that is sacred that there is no truth in it… So it becomes difficult to refute the story. But why should not those who put out the story be pleased at the prospect of seeing me with cross and mitre and putting these into the service of those convictions for which I have had to suffer so much in the past! But clearly, if I were to form such a pact with Paul VI, out of ambition, then I should have been living a lie these past three years. No, seriously, there is no truth whatever in the story. I remain true to the Church of all time, and reject the New Reformation. In fact, I have not shifted an inch – it is others who have been provoked into turning against us.

Q. It is being said that you are recommending people to accept the New Mass and that you are celebrating it yourself?

A. Here we go again. As soon as the subject of the New Mass is raised, some of our friends begin to lose their heads. My own view is what it has always been… and it lies between the two extremes.

The first of these is that, for various reasons which I myself have often set out (remember that we were the first to translate the "Breve Esame") the new Mass is bad, and some go so far as to say that it is a sin to celebrate or to attend it. To say that it is invalid is only one step removed. This attitude does not, I believe, take into account three factors: the real nature of the Sacrifice, the authority of the Church which promulgated the new rite, and the honesty of the priests and faithful who accept it either out of conviction or out of obedience.

At the other extreme are those who see no point in fighting over a "secondary issue" like the Mass… They think we should simply obey, and that it is nostalgia and disobedience to keep the Mass of St Pius V.

In fact, there has been a tendency over the past year for those at the extremes of the scale to draw closer together, in the same area which, doctrinally and pastorally, represents our own position. Doctrinally, because the new Mass is valid, with certain exceptions where the official rite is replaced with way-out variations, but it is also evil, on account of the wicked, ecumenical intentions of its inventors, and the good of souls demands its abolition or amendment. Pastorally, because, other things being equal, it is a thousand times better to celebrate or attend the old Roman Mass. But in view of the practical impossibility of this, the good of souls normally requires that one should accept the new Mass for the sake of the fruits of grace that come through the Holy Sacrifice and Holy Communion, for we need these for our supernatural life.

Q. But what about yourself? Which Mass do you say?

A. It is simple for me, because I am a priest, and can choose. I celebrate the eternal Mass, the Mass of my ordination… and I object in conscience to saying any other.

Q. But then why do you recommend it to others?

A. I do not recommend it, for it is evil. But I cannot therefore deny its validity or question the good faith of others who have accepted it. I have no right to assume that my own conscience is infallible and to judge others by it. They have their own conscience. I cannot deny that the new rite, proposed by the hierarchy and universally accepted by the Church, is licit.