|
Frère François de Marie des Anges POUR L’EGLISE QUARANTE ANS TOME II ÉDITIONS DE LA
CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE |
|
Frère François de Marie des Anges POUR L’EGLISE QUARANTE ANS TOME II ÉDITIONS DE LA
CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE |
|
| Jesus! | Maison Saint-Joseph |
Your Eminence,
I have the honour to reply as follows to your ultimatum of 7 July.
On the submission due to the Magisterium
and to the disciplinary acts of the Pope and the Council
Concerning the first proposition of the formula of retraction:
"I declare my submission to all the doctrinal and disciplinary acts of His Holiness Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Council Vatican II, as their nature demands and with due regard for the intentions of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Council, cf. Lumen Gentium, no. 25."
1). I declare 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, insofar 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 ordinary and solemn Magisterium of the Roman Church.
This is not the case – as is admitted even by their authors, and by general assent – with numerous documents of a "pastoral" or rather "prophetic" nature which I have called into question, either in part or as a whole, absolutely or relatively, for grave reasons which I have publicly stated, in accordance with my rights and, unless I am mistaken, my duty as well.
The formula of submission which has been imposed upon me does not admit any possibility, even a theoretical one, of having any doubts about such acts of the Magisterium, and expects them all to be regarded a priori and a posteriori by me – and by me alone – as infallibly true and beyond any dispute. Such a demand, forcing me to give to all the acts of the Pope and the 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 formula in an orthodox sense.
2). I declare my submission to the disciplinary acts of the same legitimate authorities insofar 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 certainly not the case with a number of acts concerned with the reform of the Church, the opening of the Church to the world, and the aggiornamento – none of which have any bearing upon Catholic discipline. I have the right and, if I am not mistaken, the duty to reject and criticise such acts to the extent to which their intention seems contrary or alien to the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.
The formula that has been imposed upon me does not admit any possibility, even a theoretical one, of any hesitation about the appropriate way of responding to such innovations, as if every reformist decision of this Council or of Paul VI had to be regarded by me – and by me alone – as emanating from a man and an assembly that are indefectible, quite incapable of any error or mistake in their government of the Church. Such a demand asks of me a general and unconditional obedience to fallible human beings, which is exorbitant and contrary to Catholic morality. There are cases, at least in theory, where "one is bound to obey God rather than men", be they even bishops or Pope.
I would ask you therefore to amend your formula in a humane and Catholic sense.
On the accusations against the Pope and against Vatican II
Concerning the second proposition of the formula of retraction:
"I retract the grave accusations which I have not been afraid to propagate against the acts of the Sovereign Pontiff and the Council. I express my sincere regret for these imputations. I am particularly concerned to repudiate the charge of heresy made against Pope Paul VI, together with the perverse conclusion I had drawn from it concerning the advisability of his deposition by the Cardinals."
3). I cannot in conscience retract the grave accusations made, in full lucidity and prudence, against the reigning Pope and the Second Vatican Council on account of their so-called pastoral and reforming acts. This is because these acts appear to me, after careful study, to be contrary to the Catholic faith and because they are manifestly in our experience the cause of the general disorder and present ruin of 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 rash imputations is a facile way of proceeding, both disagreeable 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 consistently follow the line of interpretation generally given them by their authors and accepted as such 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 a change in the faith or as a revolution in the Church. But you cannot forbid me – and me alone – to quote these facts and to discuss their generally accepted interpretation, whilst the modernists and progressives are left free to claim their inspiration from them and to use them as justification for disrupting the Church and perverting souls.
The formula of retraction that has been imposed on me, being based neither on a denial of the facts nor on any repudiation of their commonly accepted interpretation, therefore constitutes a demand for total submission, both intellectual and moral, to the errors and mistakes of the innovators.
4). I cannot in conscience repudiate the charge of heresy which I have formulated on several specific and public occasions against Pope Paul VI, nor, therefore, can I take back the conclusion which I drew from it, concerning the advisability of his deposition by the clergy of Rome should he persist in this heresy after due warning, because no serious argument has been opposed to me either with respect to the fact of heresy or to the steps which should 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 truthful and honest and in keeping with the sacred deposit of the Faith, something which no one has ventured to attempt. Or if they were one day to form the subject of infallible definitions by the solemn Magisterium, something which is clearly impossible!
The formula that has been imposed on me forbids me – in violation of Catholic teaching – to entertain the possibility, even a theoretical one, that the Pope, either as a public or private person, may fall into heresy. Moreover, it describes as perverse the normal, necessary and prudent conclusion taught by the best theologians of the Church: Papa haereticus deponendus est (a heretical Pope should be deposed). It also assumes, against all truth and justice, that opposition to the Pope on the grounds of 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 encountered in seeking to refute them 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 profoundly immoral. The Sovereign Pontiff cannot take the responsibility for this without the grossest abuse of authority. This man is not a god.
On the obedience and respect due to the Pope and the Bishops
Concerning the third and fourth propositions of the formula of retraction:
"I pledge obedience to my Bishop and to the Episcopate of my country, in accordance with the canonical norms."
"I undertake always to speak and write with respect about the acts and teachings of the Pope, of the Council and of the Bishops."
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, not being a Gallican, I am not aware of having any jurisdiction. 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 the slightest way impede or contradict the supreme rights of God or the service of our neighbour. For this reason I cannot obey the corrupt in their corrupt practices nor respect them in their crimes without becoming myself their accomplice in these matters. It is the sad events of our times that have obliged me to adjust the degree of my obedience and my respect in proportion to the actual dignity of their persons and the intrinsic morality of their acts.
The formula that has been imposed on me, demanding of me unconditional obedience to my Bishop and to a collegially corrupt French Episcopacy, would put me under the obligation of following all their teachings, laws and precepts, and I would thereby become myself a party to heresy and schism, as well as drawing others into the same path. To demand respect for the ecclesiastical authorities, whoever they may be and whatever they may do, is to order me to show regard, confidence, and admiration for the corrupt as they continue their corrupt practices, and this would result in my giving scandal.
Obedience has to be exercised within canonically defined limits, and these limits are today trampled underfoot by the tyranny of the reformers. Obedience presupposes the submission of the superiors themselves to Catholic faith and morality. 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 if I were an adversary. Let them put their own house in order first!
Conclusion: "If I am right, it follows that those whom I criticise must be wrong."
Your Eminence,
On July 16 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 therefore 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 that I have been 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, for each of her children. This freedom will mean fewer legal obligations and fewer interior inhibitions. Formal discipline will be reduced, all tyrannical constraint shall be abolished..." In these words I recognised, with horror, the supreme consecration of the rampant anarchy in which the Church is sinking and perishing. 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: the absolutism of our faith and the intolerance of our divine morality and of our 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 every unworthy servitude.
Seeing 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 that, whatever it is you have to do, Eminence, you do it quickly!
On the Feast of Our Lady of Mt Carmel,
16th July 1969
Georges de Nantes, priest
