The SSPX and the Council

7/30/2019 The SSPX and the Council

1/122

The SSPX and the Council

Why the Society of St Pius X is Right About Vatican II

Moyra Doorly

1/4/2013


2/122


1

Contents

Foreword 21 Turning Towards the World 72 The Background to the Council 203 Religious Liberty 364 Ecumenism 425 The Mass 496 The Priesthood 647 Active Participation 70

8 A Culture of Desire 869 The Social Reign of Christ 98

10 The Status of the Council 110

Declaration of Archbishop Lefebvre 114Bibliography 116


3/122


2

Foreword

Arriving at the conclusion that the Society of Saint Pius X is right about

the Second Vatican Council has not exactly been a comfortable process.

Fears of exile to the gulag have been combined with stupefaction at how far

the Council documents actually do deviate from the traditional teachings of

the Church. It may be acceptable to admit that the documents have been

wrongly interpreted, or even that they contain weaknesses, failures of

prudence and inadequate doctrinal formulations. But the insistence is that the

Council documents are true to Tradition and as such should be accepted

without dissent.

For a long time I did accept them, and even tried to read them.

Attending Mass in the Extraordinary Form offered by traditionalist groups

reconciled with Rome, as I also did, seemed entirely a matter of aesthetic

preference for a richer and more reverent liturgy. These groups shared the

opinion that the Council documents had been mistakenly implemented by

over-zealous reformers and that the whole scale adoption of the vernacular,

Communion in the hand, Mass facing the people and extraordinary ministers

of the Eucharist and so on had not been mandated by the Council. And for a

while this seemed to explain the determination of many in the Church to

eradicate all pre-conciliar liturgical forms, as well as the disdain with which

the old devotions were held.

When Pope Benedicts 2007 Moto Proprio Summorum Pontificum

recognised of the status of the traditional Mass and proposed a more liberal

framework for its celebration, all the talk for a while was of the reform of the

reform. Here at last was recognition of the value of the traditional liturgy and


4/122


3

the suggestion that the reformed liturgy might have something to learn from it.

In this light, the refusal of the SSPX to recognise the Council could only be

due, it was said, to their refusal to acknowledge that life has moved on since

the 1950s. Viewed as prodigal sons of the Church, the priests of the SSPX

and their lay faithful were now expected to repent of their stubborn ways.

Then I found a passage in the 1970 General Instruction on the Roman

Missal which puzzled me, to say the least. This passage claims that while

some of the Fathers of the Council of Trent had desired the introduction of

the vernacular to the Mass, they had refrained from doing so because:

... the circumstances prevailing in those days forced the Council to aconclusion incompatible with that desire, namely, that there was animperative need to emphasise once again a traditional doctrine of theChurch. This was the doctrine that the eucharistic Sacrifice is in thefirst place an action of Christ himself, and that its intrinsic efficacy is

independent of the manner in which the faithful take part in it.1 (my

emphasis)

As explained in the previous paragraph of the General Instruction, the

circumstances prevailing in those days referred to the post-Reformation

period. But the argument being made seemed to be that the 1960s were

considered so favourable to the Church that the need to emphasise this

doctrine was not so acute. Therefore the Fathers of Vatican II could relax and

introduce the vernacular to the liturgy. What this argument suggests,

however, is that the vernacular is only appropriate when times are good, that

the traditional doctrines of the Church dont always need to be emphasised,

and that the middle of the 20th century really was favourable to the Church.

Then I also read that according the General Instruction,...the celebration of

Mass is of its nature a community activity ....2 And I was even more startled,

because how can the celebration of Mass be a community activity if, as quoted

above, the eucharistic Sacrifice is in the first place an action of Christ

1General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Foreword, para 11.2General Instruction on the Roman Missal, para 14.


5/122


4

himself, and ... its intrinsic efficacy is independent of the manner in which the

faithful take part in it.

Another question then arose. If the Sacrifice of the Mass is in the first

place an action of Christ himself, why involve actively the laity, especially if

the intrinsic efficacy of the Sacrifice of the Mass is independent of how the

laity participates? Given that a radical transformation of the liturgy of the

Church has taken place since the Council, it seemed likely to me that Vatican

IIs vigorous promotion of the active participation in the liturgy by the faithful

must have been at least partly responsible for the changes.

At the same time, it was being claimed that the current liturgical

debacle was due to the misinterpretation and mistaken implementation of the

Council by those over-eager for novelty and change. Therefore the Council

could not be held responsible for the liturgical revolution that has taken place,

and was thereby exonerated from all responsibility for the current dire

situation.

According to Alcuin Reids study The Organic Development of the

Liturgy3, however, the 20th century Liturgical Movement had been promoting

liturgical reform for decades before Vatican II. Of course, the Liturgical

Movement had not proposed such disgraceful shows as priests prancing about

with balloons and liturgical dancing around the altar. But they did promote

Mass facing the people, the introduction of the vernacular, the simplification

of the rites, an emphasis on the Liturgy of the Word and greater involvementby the laity. Were the Fathers of Vatican II entirely unaware of the Liturgical

Movement and its new ideas, which had been around since at least the 1920s?

Or could it be that Vatican II was ready to embrace such changes and that

those responsible for it are simply embarrassed by the results and cannot bring

themselves to admit that the Council got it wrong?

3 2005, The Ignatius Press, San Francisco


6/122


5

It was then that I decided to study the SSPXs arguments, which of

course meant also studying the Council documents, a challenging task if ever

there was one. Until then I had shared the opinion that the SSPX was just

another traditionalist group attached to the pre-conciliar liturgy, only more so.

Quite what that more so amounted to, I wasnt sure, beyond the fact that a

dispute with the Vatican, which pre-dated my conversion to Catholicism, had

led to the SSPX being ostracised from the Church.

But it soon became obvious that the SSPX differs fundamentally from

other traditionalist groups reconciled to Rome. As Pope Benedict pointed out

in his letter of March 12, 2009 concerning the lifting of the excommunications

against the 4 bishops of the SSPX ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988:

...the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature andconcern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and thepost-Conciliar magisterium of the Popes.

As it turned out, the difference between the SSPX and traditionalist

groups such as the Fraternity of St Peter, the Institute of Christ the King and

others, is that the SSPX continues to criticise the Council whereas the others

are constrained not to. In fact, in order to achieve reconciliation with Rome,

these groups have to sign an agreement not to criticise the Council, an

agreement which states:

Concerning other doctrineswhich the Second Vatican Council teaches, orconcerning posterior reforms be they liturgical, or canonical, which areviewed by someas being difficult to conciliate with preceding

Magisterial declarations, I assume the obligation of following a positiveline of study and communication with the Holy See while avoiding allpolemic.4

Granted, Archbishop Lefebvre also signed the Protocol, but later

withdrew his consent to the document when he realised what was being said:

remain attached to the pre-Conciliar liturgy and Rome will accommodate you,

4 Protocol, May 5, 1988, para 3


7/122


6

but dont criticize the Council. And yet in his address to the Bishops of Chile,

the then Cardinal Ratzinger stated:

The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and

deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoralcouncil; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort ofsuperdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.5

Furthermore, in the years following the Council, Pope Paul VI made the

following comments:

Differing from other councils, this one was not directly dogmatic, butdisciplinary and pastoral.6

There are those who wonder what the authorities, the theologicalqualification, that the Council wanted to give his teachings, knowing thatit has avoided giving solemn dogmatic definitions, engaging theinfallibility of the Magisterium. And the answer is known for those whoremember the conciliar declaration of March 6, 1964, repeated November16, 1964: given the nature of the pastoral council, it has declined to speakin an extraordinary manner dogmas with the note of infallibility.7

And so it is clear that the SSPXs approximately 500 priests, 200

seminarians, three hundred religious brothers and sisters, as well as thousands

of otherwise ordinary Catholic supporters across the world, find themselves in

an extraordinary situation for reasons that go beyond an attachment to some

previous form of the Latin liturgical tradition.

Hopefully the following account will go some way towards explaining

the depth of the Societys opposition to the Second Vatican Council and its

reforms.

5

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Address to Chilean Bishops, July 13, 1988. www.ecclesiadei.nl.6 Pope Paul VI, General Audience of August 6, 1975. www.vatican.va.7 Pope Paul VI, General Audience of January 12, 1966. www.vatican.va.


8/122


7

1

Turning Towards the World

A complete overthrow of the entire tradition and teaching of the Church hasbeen brought about since the Council by the Council. Archbishop Lefebvre.8

In one respect, the most radical liturgical reformer is in agreement with

the position taken by the Society of Saint Pius X. Both have identified a

spirit of Vatican II at work in the Council, a spirit which justifies all manner

of liturgical experimentation in the eyes of those most enthusiastic for change,

and a spirit which promotes a new religion that is not the Catholic faith

according to SSPX founder Archbishop Lefebvre.

Rejecting the opinion that the current liturgical crisis in the Church can

be attributed to the faulty interpretation and implementation of the Second

Vatican Council, the SSPX claims that at the root of this crisis are the new

ideas clearly present in the Council documents and manifested in the reforms

the Council introduced. It is this new thinking which has shaped the reforms,

the SSPX argues, and attempting to heal the post-Conciliar liturgical rupture

by giving Gregorian chant pride of place again, or introducing more Latin,

will only paper over the cracks. As Archbishop Lefebvre wrote inAn Open

Letter to Confused Catholics:

But it is impossible to maintain it is only the later applications of theCouncil that are at fault. The rebellion of the clergy, the defiance of thepontifical authority, all the excesses in the liturgy and the new theology,and the desertion of the churches, have they nothing to do with theCouncil, as some have recently asserted? Let us be honest: they are itsfruits!9

8A Bishop Speaks: Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, page 260.9 page 112.


9/122


8

The radical difference in appearance between the traditional and

reformed liturgies is, according to the SSPX, the manifestation of a

fundamental shift in belief which has resulted in a new teaching on the

Churchs mission to the world. Drawing inspiration from the writings of the

Modernists, Liberals, Integral Humanists, Sillonists, revolutionaries and

others, and contrary to the repeated warnings of the pre-conciliar popes,

Vatican II has abandoned Christs mandate to convert all nations. Instead,

the Conciliar Church promotes dialogue with men of all faiths and none in an

effort to bring about the unity of all through shared values, thereby creating a

universal brotherhood of man based on a concept of human dignity which

ignores both the reality and the consequences of mans fallen nature.

This radical reorientation, which necessitates the sidelining of the

unique teachings of the Catholic Faith in order to achieve common ground

with those in error, has determined the nature of the liturgical reform. It

explains why the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass has become the Celebration of

the Eucharist, and why the sacrificing priest is now the president of the

assembly. According to Archbishop Lefebvre inA Bishop Speaks:

Let there be no mistake. It is not a question of a difference betweenMsgr. Lefebvre and Pope Paul VI. It is a question of the radicalincompatibility between the Catholic Church and the Conciliar Church,the Mass of Paul VI being the symbol and the programme of theConciliar Church.10

One of the Councils professed aims was to embrace modern thought

and render the rites and worship of the Church more suited to the modern age.

For example, according to the 1970 General Instruction on the Roman Missal

(Cenam Paschalem):

....the Second Vatican Council assembled with the aim of adapting theChurch to the needs of todays apostolate...11

10A Bishop Speaks: Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, page 241.11 Foreword, para 12.


10/122


9

To achieve this, as the General Instruction points out, the prayers of the

new Missal have been adapted and new prayers added in order to speak more

effectively to the times:

While many of the texts are derived unchanged from the most ancienttraditions of the Church, some have been adapted to contemporary needsand circumstances; yet others are completely new, drawing on thethoughts and even the words of recent conciliar documents ... Suchchanges have been made so that the mode of expression may be inharmony with that of modern theology and with the facts ofcontemporary Church discipline.12

It is in seeking to marry the ideas of the age to the morals and teachings

of Christian doctrine, according to Archbishop Lefebvre, that the Council notonly laid the Church open to the spirit of the age but actually embraced it. In

order to achieve a new synthesis of Gospel teaching and contemporary

thinking suitable for modern man, Tradition has been adapted to

accommodate elements foreign to the Deposit of Faith, while traditional

doctrines deemed unsuitable for the modern age are played down.

In this way the door is opened by the Councils 1965Declaration on

Religious Liberty(Dignitatis Humanae), for the sidelining of the Churchs

traditional teaching on the social reign of Christ. This teaching proposes the

union of temporal and spiritual powers in a Catholic state, as well as the

obligation of such a state to regulate and moderate the public expression of

other forms of worship in order to defend its citizens against the diffusion of

false doctrines which, in the judgement of the Church, endanger their eternal

salvation. Going way beyond the concept of Religious Tolerance which, in a

Catholic state, the Church has deemed necessary for the preservation of peace,

Dignitatis Humanae declares:

the right to religious freedom is based on the very dignity of the humanperson ...[It] must be given such recognition in the constitutional order ofsociety as will make it a civil right.13

12 Para 15.13 para 2.


11/122


10

This concept of Religious Liberty, the SSPX claims, is based on a view

of human dignity which plays down the distinction between the dignity man

possesses by virtue of his nature, and the dignity which depends upon his

actions and which can be lost by adherence to error. Religious Liberty confers

rights on error and inevitably leads to the religious indifferentism of the state

in which the one, true faith is viewed as just another religion, along with the

others. As Archbishop Lefebvre pointed out:

They thought that they would attract the world by accepting the ideas ofthe world. They thought they would attract to the Church those who donot believe, by accepting the ideas of those persons who do not believe,

by accepting the ideas of modern manthis modern man who is a liberal,who is a modernist, who is a man who accepts the plurality of religions,who no longer accepts the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ. ThisI have heard twice from the envoys of the Holy See, who told me that thesocial kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ was no longer possible in ourtime; that we must accept definitely the pluralism of religions. That iswhat they told me; that the Encyclical Quas Primas which is so beautiful,on the social kingship of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was written byPope Pius XI, would never be written today. That is what they said to me

the official envoys of the Holy See.14

Similarly, the Councils 1964Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis

Redintegratio) introduces the new concept of dialogue with error, not to

convert those in error to Catholicism, but to achieve an illusionary unity with

those who disagree with the Church on significant points of doctrine and

maintain the right to do so. In proposing the doctrine about the Lords

Supper15, but not the doctrine of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, as a suitable

subject for Ecumenical dialogue, the Decree also acknowledges theEcumenical importance of Church renewal and liturgical reform, a connection

further suggested by the similarities, as pointed out by Archbishop Lefebvre,

between the changes to the Mass introduced by the Council and those of

Martin Luther, changes which reflected Luthers view of the Mass as merely:

14A Bishop Speaks, page 247.15 para 22.


12/122


11

a sacrifice of praise, that is an act of praise and thanksgiving, butcertainly not an expiating sacrifice renewing and applying the sacrifice ofthe cross.16

And so, the Councils 1963 Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

(Sacrosanctum Concilium) makes no mention of the Mass as a propitiatory

sacrifice, and instead emphasises the Mass, or rather the Eucharist, as a

memorial of Christs death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of

unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet....17 The traditional doctrine that

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is a re-presentation of Christs sacrifice at

Calvary, in an unbloody manner, by which Christs Body and Blood are

offered to God as satisfaction for the sins mankind continues to commit, has

all but been abandoned by the reforms in favour of the view, condemned by

the Council of Trent18, that the Mass was instituted solely for the spiritual

nourishment of the faithful.

At the same time, the Councils promotion of the priesthood of the

people of God and its repeated references to the priest as president of the

assembly, undermines the concept of the sacrificing priest called by Christ to

offer to God His Sacrifice, in His Person, on the altars of the Church. Instead

the reforms emphasise the Eucharist as a community gathering, a fraternal

banquet celebrated by the people of God who gather round the Table of the

Lord, with the priest presiding. But according to Archbishop Lefebvre:

It is the priest who offers the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and the faithfulparticipate in this offering, with all their heart, with all their soul, but it isnot they who offer the holy sacrifice of the Mass.19

Thus the reforms introduced by the Council promote a view of the Mass

which does not reflect the fullness and entirety of the Churchs traditional

teaching. To appeal to autonomous modern man who has discarded such

16A Bishop Speaks, page 194.17

Sacrosanctum Concilium, Article 47.18 Part II, Ch IV, Question LXX. Baronius Press Edition, p 241.19A Bishop Speaks, page 247.


13/122


12

outdated concepts as original sin and believes he is intrinsically good, the new

rite of Mass and the new thinking behind it, reflect a lack of distinction

between the redemption of mankind, achieved by Christ through His

sacrificial offering on the Cross which paid the debt to divine justice for the

sins of fallen man, and salvation which requires that individuals cooperate

with grace and realise that although redeemed, man still sins and is therefore

in need of the continued propitiatory offering of Christs Body and Blood in

the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

In effect, the reforms have created a liturgy of the saved according to

the SSPX study The Problem of the Liturgical Reform, a liturgy based on a

new understanding of the Mass as:

...less an application of the merits of Redemption and more a liturgy ofthe savedthe liturgy of apeople your Son has gained for you ... Ratherthan being an action whereby the priest in persona Christi applies themerits and satisfactions won by Christ in His redemptive sacrifice, theMass is the action of a peoplethe sacred assembly, a chosen race, aroyal priesthood who celebrate with thanksgiving a Redemptionalready released in full.20

Now, all the emphasis is on the celebrating community while the

respect and honour due to the Body and Blood of Christ is neglected, even

ignored, as the worship of the Church becomes increasingly profane and

secularised. Whats more, the reforms have introduced a collectivist mentality

into the worship of the Church, reflected in the relentless promotion of the

active participation of the laity, despite the traditional doctrine that the

Eucharistic Sacrifice is, in the first place, an action of Christ himself, and that

its intrinsic efficacy is independent of the manner in which the faithful take

part in it.21 This collective mentality is also reflected in concerted attempts to

eradicate devotions considered too individualistic by the reformers; in the

promotion of collective confession, or rather reconciliation, services; and in

20The Problem of the Liturgical Reform: A Theological and Liturgical Study, page 33.21General Instruction on the Roman Missal, Foreword, para 11.


14/122


13

the transformation of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction into generalised

blessing services for the sick.

As if this wasnt enough, Collegiality undermines the personal authority

of priests, of bishops, and the pope, an authority conferred by God on the men

He has called to serve His Church. Now, authority belongs to the group, to

the collective, to the People of God, and is exercised through innumerable

commissions, councils and conferences which paralyse individuals and

frequently become talking shops for those with an agenda to push.

* * *

Once the impression is given that the teachings of the Church contain

no more truth than any other religious or mythical system, and as soon as this

is combined with a belief in human autonomy and the innate goodness of man

freed from whatever restricts and constrains him, everything is up for grabs:

the status of the Catholic Church status as the sole ark of salvation isplayed down; teachings considered an obstacle to dialogue are

avoided.

dogmas and ready-made formula are shunned in favour of creativeexpressions of encounter with the Mystery of God.

the true, sacrificial character of the Mass is sidelined; doubts are caston the True Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament; marks of

respect towards the Sacred Species and ceremonies in its honour are

suppressed.

the unique character of the sacrificing priesthood is undermined; thepriest is now the president of the assembly which gathers together to

celebrate the Eucharist.


15/122


14

the exaltation of human dignity and the autonomy of conscience callinto question the need for obedience.

Collegiality collectivises Church hierarchies and undermines papalauthority; the inspirations of the Holy Ghost to an individual bishop

are subjected to the vote of the Bishops Conference; parishes are run

by committees of lay people.

Inherent in this modernisation process is the vilification of everything

considered traditional, outdated and no longer relevant. The Church before

Vatican II is presented as out of touch and impotent, according to Archbishop

Lefebvre:

The traditional Church is guilty in her wealth, in her triumphalism; theCouncil Fathers feel guilty at being out of the world rather than of theworld. They are already blushing for their episcopal insignia; soon theywill be ashamed of their cassocks.22

* * *

However contemporary thought presents itself, whether as high or low,

libertarian or communitarian, popular or exclusive, the rejection of the

sacrificial principle is its distinguishing feature. While traditional belief

systems place man firmly within the context of a cosmic order created and

controlled by supernatural forces, contemporary belief views man as the

primary reality and either rejects the concept of a supernatural realm

altogether or relegates it to a source of extraordinary knowledge for mans

benefit. Consequently modern man makes no sacrifices and neither does he

offer them. Having undergone a spiritual self-promotion, he doesnt think he

needs to.

22A Bishop Speaks, page 230.


16/122


17/122


16

original sin and mankinds fallen status are denied, modern man has little need

of recourse to grace though the sacraments of the Church, or of making

satisfaction to God through the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Instead, by

assuming his autonomous status, and with faith in his ability to save himself

by his own means, todays man believes he is capable of achieving paradise in

the here and now.

The contemporary, anti-sacrificial world view also creates the ideal

conditions for an economy of desire to flourish. With their ability to create an

abundance of goods on a massive scale, modern manufacturing systems have

undoubtedly contributed to the material abundance of the western world. But

these manufacturing systems also depend upon the constant stimulation of

appetites in order to sell the goods coming off their production lines. In this

respect the modern world view and the now dominant capitalist economic

system are mutually dependent, and together they forge a culture industry to

promote the values and ideas which sustain them. Capitalism both depends

upon and encourages the belief in consumption as the ultimate good because it

helps create the ideal consumers of its products.

Contemporary culture offers to free the will and unleash the appetites,

thereby promising entry to the garden of earthly delights. The sign over the

garden door might read Abandon restraint all ye who enter here, but as every

addict knows, the appetite tends to grow on what it feeds. What the sign

doesnt say is that the door to the garden opens in one direction only. Onceinside, the individual is anything but free because sooner or later consumption

becomes the only aim. The ideal subject of todays culture industry is always

hungry but never satisfied.

* * *


18/122


17

Admittedly, the 1965 Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the

Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) recognises the problem of the universal

drowning out the particular:

...a more universal form of culture is gradually taking shape, and throughit the unity of mankind is being fostered and expressed in the measurethat the particular characteristics of each culture are preserved.23

But there is a conflict here, because although the need to preserve the

particular characteristics of each culture is recognised, this new and more

universal form of culture is credited with fostering and expressing the unity

of mankind. But universal culture has no interest in preserving particular

characteristics, including those of the Church, which contradict its own

values, and actively seeks to discredit and marginalize them. And yet

Gaudium et Spes speaks in glowing terms of contemporary culture,

recognising in it much that is good and admirable:

The Church, moreover, acknowledges the good to be found in the socialdynamism of today, particularly progress towards unity, healthysocialisation, and civil and economic cooperation. The encouragement of

unity is in harmony with the deepest nature of the Churchs mission, for itis in the nature of a sacrament a sign and instrumentthat is ofcommunion with God and of unity among all men.24

But what is the nature of this unity? Does it consist of drawing all men

into the unity of the Holy Catholic Church founded by Christ as the true arc of

salvation? Or does it represent a new orientation characterised by the

discarding of the Churchs Divine mandate in favour of a new vision, in which

the Pilgrim Church cooperates with those of all faiths and none as they

journey together towards their eternal destiny? As Gaudium et Spes claims:

Thus the Church, at once a visible organisation and a spiritual

community, travels the same journey as all mankind and shares the same

earthly lot with the world: it is to be a leaven and, as it were, the soul ofhuman society in its renewal by Christ and transformation into the familyof God.25

23

Para 54.24 Para 42.25 Para 40.


19/122


18

No longer the Church Militant standing in opposition to the values of

the world, no longer armed against the hostility of those who seek the

Churchs downfall, the Pilgrim Church is now a leaven, offering her services

to the world in order to purify the worlds values and learn from the good they

contain.

The Church has a visible social structure, which is a sign of its unity inChrist: as such it can be enriched, and it is being enriched, by theevolution of social lifenot as if something were missing from theconstitution which Christ gave the Church, but in order to understand thisconstitution more deeply, express it better, and adapt it more successfullyto our times.26

Again there is a conflict here. The constitution given to the Church by

her Divine founderwho is Godcannot, by definition, be enriched. And so

Gaudium et Spes backtracks with the suggestion that until Vatican II, the men

of the Church did not properly understand or express that constitution, which

now needs to be enriched by the evolution of social life in the 20th century.

And how is this new vision, in which the Pilgrim Church cooperates with

those whose values it so esteems, to be achieved? Through dialogue, of

course:

And so the Council ... can find no more eloquent expression of itssolidarity and respectful affection for the whole human family, to which itbelongs, than to enter into dialogue with it...27

Vatican II was convened in the middle of a century estimated by the

United Nations to be the most murderous in history. The Council Fathers met

less that 20 years after the end of a war which had claimed the lives of 60

million people. It is possible to attribute a naive optimism to the idealisation

of the modern world demonstrated by Gaudium et Spes. But surely there is

also a new way of thinking at work in this document, a thinking which is at

odds with the Tradition of the Church because it chooses to ignore, and

26 Para 44.27 Para 3.


20/122


19

consequently fails to address, the reality of evil and its influence on the affairs

of men. It is also possible to suggest that the Fathers of the Council got

carried away by the heady atmosphere of liberation, and the casting off of

outdated constraints, that so characterised the 1960s, a decade in which

revolutions of every variety were underway and the prophets of the emerging

counter-culture were making their promises of unbridled freedom, love, and

letting it all hang out.

Time has now tested the Councils new way of thinking and what is the

result? The world has simply carried on regardless, ridding itself of every last

vestige of Catholic teaching, morality and culture, in order to establish in its

place a new Pagan empire in which you can worship any god, or gods, you

like as long as you dont claim that yours is the one, true one. The secularist

and atheist might profess no belief, and sneer at the ever-growing array of

spiritualities on offer in todays market-place in a manner reminiscent of the

contempt shown by the liturgical expert for the popular devotions of the

Catholic faithful. But underlying secularism and atheism is self-worship, the

worship of autonomous man who has come of age at last and stands proud in

the face of his achievements and capacity to be master of all he surveys. An

atheist might not believe in God, or the gods. But he believes in himself.

Turning to Archbishop Lefebvre inI Accuse the Council:

To denounce publicly the machinations of churchmen who sought tomake this Council the Churchs peace of Yalta with her worst enemies,

which is in reality a new betrayal of Our Lord Jesus Christ and HisChurch, is to render an immense service to Our Lord and to the salvationof souls.28

28I Accuse the Council, Preface, page x.


21/122


20

2

The Background to the Council

The adoption of liberal theses by a Council could not have occurred except in

a non-infallible pastoral council, and cannot be explained without there havingbeen a secret, detailed preparation which the historians will eventually uncoverto the great stupefaction of Catholics who confuse the eternal Roman CatholicChurch with the human Rome susceptible to infiltration by enemies robed in

purple. Archbishop Lefebvre.29

Throughout the first half of the 20th century an increasingly influential

Liturgical Movement called for the reform of the liturgy of the Church. These

reforms were aimed at simplifying the rites by stripping away what was

perceived as the superfluous accumulations of the centuries, fostering the

laitys active participation in the liturgy, and rendering the rites more suitable

for modern man. When the claim is made that the liturgical crisis in the

Church is due to the misinterpretation and implementation of the Council

documents, the similarity between the reforms introduced by Vatican II and

those promoted by the Liturgical Movement for decades prior to the Council

should also be noted, as should early indications of the desacralising effect

these new ideas would have when adopted by the Church.

In the United States the practice of introducing parishes to the new

ideas began in 1940 when the first American Liturgical Week was held in

Chicago. This is how the people of Seattle were introduced to Mass facing

the people for the first time during a Liturgical Week hosted by the Diocese in

the summer of 1962, just months before Vatican II convened. Throughout the

Mass, a lay commentator speaking in English from a lectern in the sanctuary

encouraged the people to join in the responses and in the singing of hymns.

29A Bishop Speaks: Writings and Addresses 1963-1976, page 260.


22/122


21

It was a little taste of the future, the website of the United States Bishops

Conference30 observes.

It was also a little taste of the past, because the Catholics of Hubbards

Woods, Illinois, had been familiar with Mass facing the people since 1957

when Msgr Reynold Hillenbrand re-ordered the sanctuary at Sacred Heart

Church, having gained permission for the versus populam orientation.31

Going back even further, Romano Guardini, author ofThe Spirit of the Liturgy

published in 1918, experimented with new liturgical forms when he

established a community of young people at Burg Rothenfels, Germany,

which continued until the Nazis closed it in 1939. According to a description

of the chapel there, quoted in Alcuin Reids The Organic Development of the

Liturgy:

The walls were white; daylight, or candlelight in the evening, providedthe main decorative element. The altar was not placed against the backwall ... but forward toward the people who sat on small black cubesarranged around it on three sides. The presider was seated behind thealtar and so closed the circle...32

In another example, Pius Parsch, a canon of the Augustinian monastery

at Klosterneuberg near Vienna, reordered the chapel of nearby Saint

Gertrudes in 1935 to include an altar for Mass facing the people. Described

by Alcuin Reid as the leader of the Liturgical Movement in Austria, Pius

Parschs Sunday Mass liturgy at Saint Gertrudes in 1950 included

participatory singing by the people, readings and prayers in German, an

offertory procession, and the reception of Holy Communion standing.33

Commenting on the developments at Saint Gertrudes chapel in The Modern

Rite, Klaus Gamber neatly encapsulates a common experience of the Mass

today:

30 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website: www.usccb.com.31

University of Saint Mary of the Lake website: www.usml.edu/liturgicalinstitute/hillenbrand.32 page 93.33 page 111.


23/122


22

Pius Parschs Praying and Singing Mass was often transformed into a

prayer spoken by priest and people in alternation, and enlivened by a fewhymns. Hardly a trace remained of the celebration of a mystery.34

As The Organic Development of the Liturgy documents, the ideas of the

Liturgical Movement were also put forward at a series of conferences held

during the 1950s. At Mont Sainte-Odile in 1952 it was recommended that:

...the five signs of the cross be dropped ... the celebrant makes hisgenuflection (if at all) only after theAmen ... theAmen after the Paternosterbe omitted ... the Confiteor, MisereaturandIndulgentiam beomitted before the distribution of holy Communion during Mass ... ifthere are many communicants, the priest be permitted to use a shorterformula for distribution: eg, Corpus Christi or Corpus Domini...35

There were also conferences at Lugano in 1953, at Mont-Csar in 1954

when the topic of concelebration was raised, and at Assisi in 1956. Liturgical

conferences were held in France, Italy, Ireland, Australia and Canada during

this period. With the convening of the Second Vatican Council in 1962 came

the culmination of half a centurys endeavour, as the new ideas outlined and

developed by the Liturgical Movement were adopted by the Church and put

into practice.

As already pointed out, one of the Councils aims was the bringing up

to date and simplification of the rites of the Church. Sacrosanctum Concilium

makes this clear:

With the passage of time ... there have crept into the rites of thesacraments and sacramentals certain features which have rendered theirnature and purpose far from clear to the people of today. Hence some

changes are necessary to adapt them to present-day needs.36

Sacrosanctum Concilium also claims:

...the rites should be distinguished by a noble simplicity. They should beshort, clear, and free from useless repetitions. They should be within the

peoples powers of comprehension, and normally should not require

much explanation.37

34The Modern Rite, page 11.35

page 195.36 Article 62.37 Article 34.


24/122


23

To this end, Sacrosanctum Concilium calls for the revision of the rite

for the Baptism of Infants, the rite of Confirmation, the rite and formulae of

Penance, the Marriage rite, Funeral rites and the rite for the Burial of Infants.

The document also makes provision for the adaptation of the liturgy to the

culture, traditions and tastes of groups and communities:

Even in the liturgy the Church does not wish to impose a rigid conformityin matters which do not involve the faith or the good of the wholecommunity ... Provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite ispreserved, provision shall be made, when revising the liturgical books,for legitimate variations and adaptations to different groups, regions andpeoples ... in some places and circumstances, however, an even more

radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed...38

Also announced in the Constitution is the training and setting up of

panels of experts to advise on and oversee the liturgy:

It is desirable that the competent territorial ecclesiastical authoritymentioned in Article 22:2 set up a liturgical commission to be assisted byexperts in liturgical science, sacred music, art and pastoral practice. Asfar as possible the commission should be aided by some sort of Institutefor Pastoral Liturgy, consisting of people who are eminent in these

matters, not excluding laymen ... It will be the task of this commission ...to regulate pastoral liturgical action throughout the territory, and topromote studies and necessary experiments whenever there is a questionof adaptations to be proposed to the Holy See.39

These provisions may not have been intended to pave the way for the

rule of the liturgists as we now know it, but they certainly advocated and

encouraged a stripped-down and simplified liturgy made more

comprehensible by the use of the vernacular; the introduction of variationsand adaptations suited to different groups and nations; and the appointing of

liturgists to implement and oversee these changes.

Whether or not a liturgy which includes dancing, clowns or rock music

as some have done, demonstrates legitimate variations is anyones guess.

But available for viewing on YouTube is a recording of the Catholic

38 Articles 37-40.39 Article 44.


25/122


24

Halloween Mass at Corpus Christi Parish in the Diocese of Orange,

California, which shows Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist distributing

Holy Communion dressed as devils in red, fancy dress costumes complete

with horns. Turning to Sacrosanctum Concilium, it is possible to make the

albeit ludicrous argument that Halloween celebrations belong to the traditions

and culture of the people of Orange Diocese and that since in some places

and circumstances an even more radical adaptation of the liturgy is needed,

the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority has judged that they might

appropriately be admitted into divine worship. And who can argue?

The Council documents might occasionally stress the need for caution

and prudent consideration in implementing the reforms, but they also pave the

way for significant changes and variations to be introduced if deemed

appropriate. For example Sacrosanctum Conciliums advises that:

The use of the Latin language, with due respect to particular law, is to bepreserved.40

But later the same paragraph points out that the use of the vernacularmay frequently be of great advantage to the people and goes on to permit its

wider use. Since it is unclear whether the priority is to preserve Latin in the

liturgy or to encourage the active participation of the laity in an easily

understood, vernacular liturgy, it is necessary to turn to previous statements,

such as:

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy the full and active

participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before allelse....41

What eventually does becomes clear from any study of the Council

documents is that behind the vision of the great renewal they promise lies a

body of thought which could not have come together overnight and cannot be

ignored in any evaluation of the Conciliar reforms. Indeed it is difficult to

40 Article 36.41 Article 14.


26/122


25

imagine how so radical a change to the form and appearance of the Mass, and

so rapid an implementation of that change, could have been achieved without

the long-term influence of new ideas and ways of thinking. So before looking

at the reforms in greater detail, it is worth considering the efforts of the pre-

conciliar Popes to counter these influences which, when adopted by the

Council, would lead to the radical re-orientation of the Church and allow the

liturgical reforms to take place.

* * *

To understand fully the accommodation that Vatican II made with the

modern world, it is necessary to examine the pre-conciliar teaching on the

Social Reign of Christ and compare it with the Councils new orientation.

One of the SSPXs assertions is that this traditional teaching, defended by the

pre-conciliar popes, was abandoned by Vatican II. In 1995, SSPX Bishop

Tissier de Mallerais wrote:

We are convinced that the rejection of the Social Reign of Our Lord JesusChrist by nations is the cause of their ruin, or of the most seriousdisorders and of inextricable problems of the moral, political, social andeconomic order that no one can master today. We are conscious of thefact that the triumphant revolution is establishing a new world order onthe ruins of the apostate nations, and this new order is essentially anti-Christian. We observe that the conciliar Church cooperates in this work.42

The conciliar Church no longer proclaims the doctrine of the Social

Reign of Christ which holds that the teachings of the Gospel are the surest

basis for building up and ruling society. Man as an individual cannot alone

provide for himself the necessities of life, and so it is divinely ordained that he

should cooperate with his fellows in establishing a society in which his and

his fellows needs can be adequately supplied. To prevent conflict and

disarray, God has willed that a ruling authority should govern this society, the

42 Fideliter, March-April 1995, also www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/ecumenism/reign.


27/122


26

method of governance not being tied to any particular mode of government

provided that its rulers recognise God as ruler of the world and govern

according to His law. Since this authority has God for its author as surely as

society does, it follows that all public power proceeds from God and that this

power is only delegated to those in authority. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in his

1885 EncyclicalImmortale Dei:

For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the world. Everything,without exception, must be subject to Him, and must serve him, so thatwhosoever holds the right to govern holds it from one sole and singlesource, namely, God, the sovereign Ruler of all.43

Since the chief duty of all men is to offer praise to God in the manner

He has ordained, all who rule must honour the holy name of God by

favouring, protecting, and shielding by legal means the one, true, religion.

For it is on this that the full and perfect happiness of mankind depends. As

Pope Leo XIII maintains:

... it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it asin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its

scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion toadopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are boundabsolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be Hiswill.44

When states were governed by the philosophy of the Gospel, according

toImmortale Dei, Christian wisdom informed the laws, institutions and

morals of the people and the religion instituted by Jesus Christ flourished

everywhere by the favour of princes and the legitimate protection ofmagistrates. But the Reformation threw Christendom into confusion and from

this arose the claims of modern Man to autonomy and freedom of conscience:

New ideas about society developed, in which:

The authority of God is passed over in silence, just as if there were noGod; or as if He cared nothing for human society; or as if men, whether intheir individual capacity or bound together in social relations, owed

43 para 3.44 para 6.


28/122


27

nothing to God; or as if there could be a government of which the wholeorigin and power and authority did not reside in God Himself. Thus, as isevident, a State becomes nothing but a multitude which is its own masterand ruler ... Moreover, it believes that it is not obliged to make publicprofession of any religion; or to inquire which of the very many religionsis the only one true; or to prefer one religion to all the rest. 45

Immortale Dei holds that since God has established both the civil and

the ecclesiastical powers to govern the affairs of men both temporal and

spiritual, there must exist between these two powers a certain orderly

connection, which may be compared to the union of the soul and body. And

since the ecclesiastical power has the higher aim of getting souls to Heaven,

its authority is the most exalted of all authority, not inferior to the civil power

or dependent upon it in any way.

An individual freed by Liberalism to claim autonomy from God and act

only according to his conscience recognises, of course, that society needs

laws. But he cannot submit to a state which acknowledges God as the

supreme power and which governs accordingly. In a Liberal society,

therefore, individuals claim autonomy from God collectively, by claiming that

power resides in them and that it is the people who delegate that power to

those who govern.

By claiming autonomy from God, modern states undermine the concept

of true democracy, in which the people elect rulers who acknowledge instead

that the power vested in them comes from God and demonstrate this in the

exercising of their legislative authority. Modern societies do everything theycan to eliminate God from the political sphere because they no longer

acknowledge the Law of God in social and political affairs. Meanwhile the

conciliar Church pleads that God has a place in the public realm, but wont

proclaim that because Christ is King, the public sphere belongs to Him, that it

is His, just like everywhere else.

45 para 25.


29/122


30/122


29

power for themselves in the name of the people, seizing absolute control of

the state, and attempting to refashion it according to their own ideas.

If the liberty of conscience claimed by Liberalism as the right of the

individual inevitably translates, in a modern liberal democracy, into liberty of

conscience for the state, or government by the will of the people and not God,

then the adoption of Liberal ideas by Catholics must have an effect on how

those Catholics view their role in the world. Pope Pius X in Our Apostolic

Mandate, the Apostolic Letter given to the French bishops in 1910, identified

the Sillonists as a group that had been so influenced.

Taking their name from the French for furrow, the Sillonists were

idealists according to Pope Pius X, and their social doctrine rested on a

particular concept of human dignity, freedom, justice and brotherhood. This

called on the people to liberate themselves from political authority that is

distinct from them, through an electoral process which allows as many as

possible to participate in the government of public affairs. Authority comes

from God, but it resides primarily in the people and does not escape their

control. External in appearance, it is also internal because assented to.

Countering individual selfishness, the Sillonists claim, is the love which

rises above the pettiness of private interests and enlarges the human heart with

a passion for the common-wealth of all men. A reign of love and justice is

established on Earth as workers of all religions and none forego what might

divide them and share what unites them. Thus we have, founded by Catholics,an inter-denominational association working for the reform of civilization.

Pope Pius X then asks:

What are we to think of this appeal to all the heterodox, and to all theunbelievers, to prove the excellence of their convictions in the socialsphere in a sort of apologetic contest ... What are we to think of thisrespect for all errors, and of this strange invitation made by a Catholic toall the dissidents to strengthen their convictions through study so thatthey may have more and more abundant sources of fresh forces?


31/122


30

No longer Catholic, the social action of the Sillon incorporates ideas

from the world which can only lead to:

...the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither

dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for thepassions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity,would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) thereign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, andof all those who toil and suffer.

* * *

It would not be possible to account adequately for the concerns of the

pre-conciliar popes without considering the 1907 Encyclical letter of Pope

Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis (On the Doctrine of the Modernists). Pope

Pius X describes Modernism as a synthesis of all heresies, which holds that

all religions are equally valid manifestations of mans unconscious longing for

God; that dogmas are particular expressions of that manifestation, symbolic

of the truth but not necessarily true in themselves; and that everything is

subject to change as evolution demands a constant adaptation of dogma,

liturgical expression and ecclesiastical authority to developing historical and

social conditions.

Thus, explains Archbishop Lefebvre inAn Open Letter to Confused

Catholics, the Modernists maintain that Faith is no longer the adherence of

the intellect to the Truth revealed by the Word of God. Instead, We are now

being told that man does not receive truth but constructs it.48 This

constructing of the truth comes about because Mans unconscious desire for

the divine is converted by the intellect into formulas and dogmas which do not

contain the truth but instead are its mere images and symbols. Believers then

come together by sharing their religious experiences and combine to create a

society in order to preserve and develop the dogmas they have formulated. In

48 p 121.


32/122


31

this way the Church is formed as an emanation of the collective unconscious

of its members, necessarily limited in expression by time and place and

therefore not applicable to all times and places.

According to the Modernists, as Pascendi explains, Revelation is not

given to man, is not something man receives, but instead must be looked for

in man. Faith consists of a certain interior sense which stems from the need

for the divine, and this is the beginning of revelation.

It is thus that the religious sense, which through the agency ofvitalimmanence emerges from the lurking-places of the subconsciousness, isthe germ of all religion, and the explanation of everything that has been

or ever will be in any religion ... Nor is the Catholic religion anexception; it is quite on a level with the rest, for it was engendered, by theprocess ofvital immanence, and by no other way, in the consciousness ofChrist, who was a man of the choicest nature, whose like has never been,nor will be. In hearing these things we shudder indeed at so great anaudacity of assertion and so great a sacrilege. And yet, VenerableBrethren, these are not merely the foolish babblings of unbelievers. Theyare Catholics, yea, and priests too, who say these things openly; and theyboast that they are going to reform the Church by these ravings!49

From these notions it follows that the 2,000 year Tradition of the

Church will be viewed by the Modernists as no more than a particular

collective expression of mans inner longing for the divine, alongside all the

other manifestations of this longing, which leads to the conclusion that

Catholicism contains no more truth than any other religion, Pascendi claims:

...given this doctrine ofexperience united with that ofsymbolism, everyreligion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true ... On whatgrounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a

follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences forCatholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain,some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true.50

It also follows that Mans collective expression of his religious sense is

manifested as formulas appropriate to only a particular period in history.

Tradition and dogma must necessarily be subject to continuous adaptation and

49 para 10.50 para 14.


33/122


32

reform, as the collective unconscious of the faithful continues to manifest

itself in the evolution of belief and its symbols. As Pascendi points out;

...evolution in the Church itself is fed by the need of adapting itself to

historical conditions and of harmonising itself with existing forms ofsociety.51

It then follows that the Church hierarchy, which is also part of the

emanation of the collective unconscious, must also be subject to change, since

a particular form of that hierarchy may not necessarily be appropriate for all

ages. Here is Pascendi again:

Authority, therefore, like the Church, has its origin in the religious

conscience, and, that being so, is subject to it. Should it disown thisdependence it becomes a tyranny. For we are living in an age when thesense of liberty has reached its highest development.52

And finally:

...if they write history, they carefully, and with ill-concealed satisfaction,drag into the light, on the plea of telling the whole truth, everything thatappears to cast a stain on the Church. Under the sway of certain a prioriconceptions they destroy as far as they can the pious traditions of thepeople, and bring into disrespect certain relics highly venerable from their

antiquity.53

Since the modern world has turned so radically from God, since Man is

god in the modern world, the question must be can the tradition of the Church

in any way accommodate or appease the modern belief system? But what is

meant by Tradition?

* * *

In his 1988 Moto PropioEcclesia Dei Afflicta which announced the

excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the four SSPX bishops, Pope

John Paul II wrote that the root of Archbishop Lefebvres schismatic act in

51

para 26.52 para 23.53 para 43.


34/122


35/122


36/122


37/122


36

3

Religious Liberty

To adopt the world, they wish to adopt also to the errors of the world; by

opening to the world, they wish also to open themselves to the errors of theworld, those errors which say, for example, that all religions are of equal worth.We cannot accept those errors which say that the social reign of our Lord JesusChrist is now an impossibility and should no longer be sought. We do notaccept that. Even if the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ is difficult, we want it,we seek it ... Archbishop Lefebvre.58

Can the conciliar declaration on religious liberty,Dignitatis Humanae,

be reconciled with traditional doctrine? This is the question posed by

Archbishop Lefebvre in his introduction toReligious Liberty Questioned,

where he argues that not only was the doctrine of the social Kingship of Christ

elaborated by the Doctors and theologians of the Church and then clarified by

the 19th century popes, but also that liberty cannot have any other foundation

than truth, since it is the truth that sets us free. The problem, however, is that:

A certain liberal-evolutionism tries to obscure these immutable truths bybuilding a theology of the historical evolution of doctrine based on ahistorical relativism of this doctrine.59

This liberal-evolutionism argues that Religious Liberty was

condemned by the pre-conciliar popes because the mind of the Church was

still attached to hierarchical social and economic structures based on

monarchies. But the emergence of liberal democracies calls for a re-think of

this position to take account of the prevailing conditions of the modern age,

and this will be achieved by referring to the entire tradition of the Church,

particularly to its earliest sources, and not just to teachings which developed

58 A Bishop Speaks, p 25359Religious Liberty Questioned, Introduction, page 2.


38/122


37

during a particular period in history. But as Bishop Tissier de Mallerais has

already pointed out, tradition is living because it applies the eternal and

unchanging principles of the Catholic Faith to the problems and necessities of

each century. Since new teachings are not added to the Deposit of Faith or

derived by assimilating elements foreign to it, doctrines must be appliedto the

circumstances of the age, and not adapted to them. The process by which

teachings are elaborated and promulgated has a Divine mandate and the truth

revealed by God speaks to all ages.

Within the idea that doctrine must adapt, and not be applied, to

historical conditions and changing forms of society, are distinct echoes of the

Modernist view, condemned by Pope Pius X in Pascendi, that doctrine is

formulated as a manifestation of mans unconscious longing for God in a

particular historical situation, and that as man evolves, so must doctrine. It

also reflects the Liberal ideal of the autonomous individual who resists the

influence of laws that originate outside his own conscience, because the

source of law, as of religion, lies within man. Thus, Revelation is no longer

something received and Faith is no longer an assent to the Truth as revealed

by the Word of God. Instead, both Revelation and Faith are negotiable, and

the circumstances under which they were formulated should be taken into

account when assessing the relevance of the teachings they present.

InReligious Liberty Questioned, Archbishop Lefebvre points to the

concept of human dignity offered byDignitatis Humanae, as in:The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right toreligious freedom ... The Council further declares that the right toreligious freedom is based on the very dignity of the human person asknown through the revealed word of God and by reason itself. This rightof the human person to religious freedom must be given such recognitionin the constitutional order of society as will make it a civil right.60

He then asks:

60 para 2.


39/122


38

Does Vatican II teach that human dignity, as the foundation of religiousliberty, is based only on the dignity of its nature, endowed with reasonand free will, independently of its adherence to what is true and what isgood?61

Here, Archbishop Lefebvre is referring to the distinction between the

dignity man possesses by having a nature endowed with intelligence and free

will, and the dignity man possesses as a result of his actions, which can be lost

by adhering to error or evil. The dignity of man in his actions depends on his

adherence to truth and goodness, because there is no real dignity outside of

truth. But modern thought brushes over this distinction, and dismisses the

effects of mans wounded nature on his actions. Modern thought grants full

dignity to man by virtue of his nature alone, which it denies is fallen. But as

Archbishop Lefebvre maintains:

...it is important to remember that original sin profoundly woundedhuman nature in its faculties, most especially in its capacity to know God.The natural dignity of man has suffered, as a consequence, a universaldegradation that not even the grace of baptism can heal completely inChristians.62

To consider mans dignity apart from truth, and to hold that it derives

from his nature alone and not also from his actions, also confers rights on

error which by virtue of his dignity every man has the right to embrace.

WhileDignitatis Humanaeasserts that everybody has the duty and

consequently the right to seek the truth in religious matters, it also states:

The search for truth, however, must be carried out in a manner that isappropriate to the dignity of the human person and his social nature,namely, by free enquiry with the help of teaching and instruction,communication and dialogue. It is by these means that man share witheach other the truth they have discovered, or think they have discovered,in such a way that they help one another in the search for truth.Moreover, it is by personal assent that men must adhere to the truth theyhave discovered.63

61

page 99.62Religious Liberty Questioned, page 20.63 para 3.


40/122


39

Archbishop Lefebvre then asks if free research helps man discover the

truth more than a Catholic education or hearing the teachings of the Church;

and if dialogue with a Muslim helps a Catholic in the quest for truth. Were

the apostles sent to preach, or to engage in dialogue with the followers of

other religions while remaining mindful of the salutary values they contain?

In contrast to Pope Leo XIIIs EncyclicalImmortale Dei which claims that the

must state grant the recognition due to the one, true religion, and protect the

one, true Church by special favour of law,Dignitatis Humanae applies the

rights granted to religions and religious communities without distinction.

The protection and promotion of the inviolable rights of man is anessential duty of every civil authority. The civil authority must thereforeundertake to safeguard the religious freedom of all the citizens in aneffective manner ... [and] help to create conditions favourable to thefostering of religious life ... If because of the circumstances of aparticular people special civil recognition is given to one religiouscommunity in the constitutional organisation of the State, the right of allcitizens and religious communities to religious freedom must berecognised as well.64

That the state should give civil recognition to one religious community,is seen as due to a peculiarity of circumstance. And yet in the Syllabus of

Errors which Pope Pius IX attached to his Encyclical Quanta Cura, among

the condemned propositions is the following:

In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religionshould be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of allother forms of worship.65

Dignitatis Humanaedoes contain traditional teachings, such as the

Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth66. The document

also acknowledges the Church as the spiritual authority appointed by Christ

the Lord with the duty, imposed by divine command, of going into the whole

64

para 6.65Syllabus of Errors, condemned proposition 77.66 para 14.


41/122


40

world and preaching the Gospel to every creature.67 But the Declaration no

longer acknowledges the public right of the true religion and the tolerance

granted by the Catholic State to other religions. Instead, equal rights for all

religions are promoted in a State which recognises those equal rights by law.

St Cyprians formula, Outside the Church there is no salvation, might

seem harsh and exclusive in a culture which relentlessly promotes diversity

and inclusivity in order to promote the universal and render the particular

insignificant. But the tradition of the Church recognises three ways of

receiving baptismthe baptism of water; the baptism of blood, ie that of

martyred catechumens; and the baptism of desire. Baptism of desire can be

explicit in the case of a catechumen who dies before receiving baptism by

water, and it can also be implicit. As Archbishop Lefebvre explains:

This consists in doing the will of God. God knows all men and He knowsthat amongst Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and in the whole ofhumanity there are men of good will. They receive the grace of baptismwithout knowing it [and] become part of the Church ... The error consistsin thinking they are saved by their religion. They are saved in their

religion but not by it ... There is only one Cross by which we are saved,and that Cross has been given to the Catholic Church. It has not beengiven to others. To his Church, His mystical bride, Christ has given allgraces. No grace in the world, no grace in the history of humanity isdistributed except though her.68

And yet according to the Councils 1965Declaration on the Relations

of the Church to Non-Christian Religions (Nostra Aetate):

The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in thesereligions ... [and] urges her sons to enter with prudence and charity intodiscussions and collaboration with members of other religions. LetChristians, while witnessing to their own faith and way of lifeacknowledge, preserve and encourage the spiritual and moral truths foundamong non-Christians, also their social life and culture.69

Is it really up to Christians to preserve and encourage the spiritual

and moral truths of other religions? How does this square with the traditional

67

para 13.68 An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, pages 80-81.69 para 2.


42/122


41

understanding of Christs call to convert all nations? And what is the

anticipated result of this new liberty? Dignitatis Humanae claims that:

When the principle of religious freedom is not just proclaimed in words

or incorporated in law but is implemented sincerely in practice, only thendoes the Church enjoy in law and in fact those stable conditions whichgive her the independence necessary for fulfilling her divine mission ... Aharmony exists therefore between the freedom of the Church and thatreligious freedom which must be recognised as the right of all men andmust be sanctioned by constitutional law.70

It is worth considering the situation of the Catholic States which until

recently gave constitutional recognition and legal protection to the Catholic

Church while accepting the private practice of other religions. For example,the 1886 Constitution of Columbia had declared Catholicism to be the religion

of the State and granted to the Church a primary role in its affairs at all levels.

Then in 1973, a new agreement was reached with the Vatican, and the clause

in the Constitution which had named the Catholic Church as the Church of the

nation, was amended to state merely that Catholicism is the religion of the

great majority of Columbians. Columbians were also given the right to

contract civil marriages, the Church surrendered her right to censor public

university texts and ensure the use of the Catechism in schools, and the

mission territories, lands with Indian populations, ceased to be enclaves where

missionaries had greater jurisdiction than the government over schools, health

and other services. These were eventually transferred to the government.71

This astonishing development, in which the Church voluntarily

surrenders her status was repeated in Spain, Italy and Argentina, as Catholic

states across the world brought their constitutions into line withDignitatis

Humanae. And so the question has to be askedhas the pleasant situation

predicted above come about?

70 para 13.71 www.concordatwatch.eu
http://www.concordat/http://www.concordat/


43/122


42

4

Ecumenism

The keynote of the reform is the drive against certainties. Catholics who havethem are branded as misers guarding their treasures, as greedy egotists whoshould be ashamed of themselves. The important thing is to be open tocontrary opinions, to admit diversity ... The mark of a holy life is to join indialogue with error. Archbishop Lefebvre.72

An economist might view the new orientation promoted by Vatican II

as the consent to a free market economy of religions and philosophies in a

society characterised by open competition between ideas. But the analogy

falls down when the same economist applies the principles of free competition

to this market place of beliefs. Because in the struggle for market share, the

aim of producers and sellers of goods is to attract the maximum number of

customers at the expense of rival producers and sellers, despite the possibility

that they may be put out of business as a result. While market regulation

attempts to ensure at least some degree of fairness between competitors, the

aim of any business is always to achieve an ever increasing market share in

order to maximise profits and investor returns.

Consequently, no business enterprise plays down the particular

characteristics of its products in order to emphasise what they hold in commonwith other products on the market. When a stall is laid out, the work of

attracting customers is focussed on standing out from the crowd. By offering

to serve rather than compete, the Church must hope that the other religions

and philosophies are also willing to engage in the search for shared values,

and that the world is prepared to see baptised those of its values which contain

72An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, page 69.


44/122


43

impulses to the good but which might have gone astray. In promoting the

unity of all mankind in a fraternity of brotherly love, compassion and respect

based on mutual understanding, the conciliar Church anticipates a free and

respectful exchange of ideas in the market place while seeming blissfully

unaware of just how cutthroat markets can be.

In his 1950 Encyclical Some False Opinions Which Threaten to

Undermine Catholic Doctrine (Humani Generis), Pope Pius XII pointed to a

danger concealed beneath the mask of virtue which exists in proposals to set

aside the questions which divide men by reforming theology and theological

methods.73 Those calling for this change,Humani Generis claims, consider

that things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ constitute an

obstacle to the union of all and the reconciliation of opposing dogmas.74 To

overcome this, they aim to free dogma from terminology long established in

the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, so

that Catholic doctrine may be presented in the way of speaking used in Holy

Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. Whats more:

They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements whichthey hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compareadvantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separatedfrom the unity of the Church and that in this way they will graduallyarrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of thedissidents.75

AsHumani Generis continues, those who propose this development

claim that when dogma has been reformed in line with these notions, it willthen be possible to express the teachings of the Church according to the terms

and concepts of modern philosophy. Since dogma is only capable of

expressing the mysteries of faith by approximate and ever changeable

notions, and these notions are manifested by the various forms in which

73

Humani Generis, para 11.74 para 12.75 para 14.


45/122


46/122


45

The sacred Council exhorts ... all the Catholic faithful to recognise thesigns of the times and to take an active and intelligent part in the work ofecumenism.78

And:

In certain circumstances, such as in prayer services for unity and during

ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholicsshould join in prayer with their separated brethren.79

In the face of this complete reversal of the pre-conciliar position, no

doubt it will be argued that the popes of that era belonged to a certain tradition

born of the Middle Ages; that a return to the sources is necessary to renew the

liturgy; and that the teachings of the Church have to take account of thepredominant ideas of the age. But the point is that this exhortation represents

a clear departure from the pre-conciliar position, and that Unitatis

Redintegratio then goes on to demonstrates another obvious sign of Modernist

influences, revealing itself in a tendency towards the universal at the expense

of the particular, when it urges Catholic theologians to:

...remember that in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or hierarchy

of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of theChristian faith.80

Is this what Pope Pius XI warned against when he referred to:

that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between thosearticles of faith which are fundamental and those which are notfundamental ... as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the lattermay be left to the free assent of the faithful.81

If the term hierarchy of truths is taken at face value it obviously

means that some truths are more significant than others, although the 1970

documentReflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue,

makes the following suggestion as to how this new idea can be understood:

For example, the dogma of Marys Immaculate Conception ...

presupposes, before it can be properly grasped in a true life of faith, the

78Unitatis Redintegratio, para 4.79

para 8.80 para 11.81Mortalium Animos, para 9.


47/122


46

dogma of grace to which it is linked and which in its turn necessarily restsupon the redemptive incarnation of the Word.82

However the implication is bound to be that the Dogma of the

Immaculate Conception may be put aside so as not to obstruct Ecumenical

dialogue, and this is not permissible according toMortalium Animos, since:

...all who are truly Christs believe, for example, the Conception of theMother of God without stain of original sin with the same faith as theybelieve the mystery of the August Trinity, and the Incarnation of our Lord

just as they do the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff.83

Unitatis Redintegratiocertainly praises the separated brethren for

their love and reverence of Holy Scripture in which they seek God, andcontemplate the life of Christ, His teachings and in particular the mysteries of

his death and resurrection.84 Moreover, it is maintained that much of what

comes from Christ can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic

Church, such as the life of grace, the interior gifts of the Holy Spirit and

visible elements including a liturgical life which gives access to the

communion of salvation.85 However Unitatis Redintegratio also admits that,

among other things, the Protestants have not preserved the proper reality of

the eucharistic mystery in its fullness, but points out that nevertheless:

...when they commemorate the Lords death and resurrection in the HolySupper, they profess that it signifies life in communion with Christ andawait his coming in glory. 86

Then the suggestion is made that the doctrine of the Lords Supper is

a suitable subject for Ecumenical dialogue. But although Protestantscommemorate the Last Supper, they deny that the Mass is a holy sacrifice,

reject Transubstantiation and, since Justification is guaranteed by faith alone,

dont believe in the necessity of offering the Body and Blood of Christ to God

82Reflections and Suggestions Concerning Ecumenical Dialogue, part IV, para 4b.83Mortalium Animos, para 9.84

Unitatis Redintegratio, para 21.85 para 3.86 para 22.


48/122


47

as satisfaction for the sins we daily commit. As previously mentioned, the

traditional doctrine that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice is not even

mentioned in the Vatican IIs Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

(Sacrosanctum Concilium), and it is one of the SSPXs contentions that this

traditional doctrine has been side-lined in the name of Ecumenism.

Archbishop Lefebvre certainly believed this to be the case and

compared the changes introduced by the Council to the changes introduced by

Martin Luther, changes which reflected Luthers view of the Mass as merely a

sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but certainly not an expiating sacrifice

renewing and applying the sacrifice of the cross.87 Luther believed that Mass

is offered by God to man, not by man to God, Archbishop Lefebvre points

out. He abolished the Offertory and the prayers at the foot of the altar; turned

the rite into a Liturgy of the Word followed by Communion; introduced the

vernacular; turned the priest round to face the people; introduced tables for

altars; and rejected the sacrificing priesthood with the claim that all Christians

are priests.

It is difficult to deny the similarities between Luthers liturgical reforms

and those introduced by the Council. If the new theology has transformed the

Holy Sacrifice of the Mass into the Celebration of the Eucharist, which

according to the SSPX represents a Protestantisation of the Mass, it is hardly

surprising that appearance of the reformed liturgy should have also been so

transformed. Unitatis Redintegratio even admits that:Church renewal has notable ecumenical importance ... the biblical andliturgical movements, the preaching of the Word of God and catechetics,the apostolate of the laity, new forms of religious life and the spiritualityof married life, and the Church's social teaching and activity ... All theseshould be considered as promises and guarantees for the future progressof ecumenism.88

87A Bishop Speaks, page 19488Unitatis Redintegratio, para 6.


49/122


48

All of the above points to a levelling down of dogma in the conciliar

decree on Ecumenism, to the introduction of new thinking, and to a departure

from tradition. Past mistakes of the Church are also indicated in order to

justify the new orientation, with the admission that often enough, men of both

sides were to blame for the separation of communities from the Church,89

and:

...in various times and circumstances, there [may] have been deficienciesin moral conduct or in the way that Church teaching has beenformulated.90

The traditional approach

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	moyradoorly
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

The SSPX and the Council

Documents