|
Dear Friends and Benefactors,
TRADITION AND MODERNISM
When commenting on an incident that took place during
Vatican II with respect to collegiality, Bishop Henrici declared that it "at
least clearly demonstrated the opposition between two different traditions in
theological doctrine, which were not, deep down, mutually compatible."
1 This brief sentence is not a passing comment of little importance.
In its very brevity, it describes the great tragedy that has overcome the Church
for the past forty years. A merciless combat has been engaged between two
opposing ideas, two ideas that are mutually exclusive. At stake is nothing less
than the direction in which the Church is going.
Fifteen years after the Council, Pope Paul VI expressed
more or less the same thought to his friend, Jean Guitton.
There is, at the present time, a
great disorder in the Church, and it is the Faith that is at stake. When I
consider the Catholic world, what frightens me is that it seems that a
non-Catholic way of thinking seems to be becoming prevalent within Catholicism
itself, and that it could even happen that this non-Catholic way of thinking
could take over in the future, although it will never represent the mind of the
Church. A small flock must continue to exist, as small as it might be.2
Beforehand, the pope had wondered if we were in
the last times.
In his
Declaration of
November 21, 1974, expressing his unshakable adherence to eternal Rome and his
equally determined rejection of modernist Rome, Archbishop Lefebvre did not
speak any differently.
We cannot help but be struck by
the agreement in the analysis of the three persons quoted above, and especially
from the fact that these three analyses come from widely disparate points of
view. All three see the existence of an extraordinary rivalry between two ways
of thinking, two world visions that are incompatible, but which yet exist in the
bosom of the Catholic Church. One of these is nothing other than traditional
Catholic teaching, which the Church has always and everywhere taught: the
Catholic Faith along with all its practical consequences. The other is a modern
way of thinking, denounced by St. Pius X as evolutionary and agnostic, and
which has transformed itself from the threat that it constituted at the
beginning of the 20th century to a truly gangrenous wound, corrupting the entire
life of the Church, during the second half of this same 20th century. At the
time of the Council this non-Catholic way of thinking effectively triumphed.
Since then, it has paralyzed the Faith and the supernatural life, by so many
reforms imposed upon the Church in the name of the Second Vatican Council.
There is, in every system of thought, a logical coherence.
Every system of thought tends towards a concrete realization, towards an action.
So it is in the nature of things with this ensemble of changes that are called
post-Conciliar reforms. Reflecting the spirit of Vatican II, they have provoked
the disaster, from which the Church has suffered since the Council. This way of
thinking is in itself foreign to the Church. Through whatever cracks, the smoke
of Satan has penetrated into the temple of God. Adorned with an ecclesiastical
exterior, it plans on making itself accepted as the Catholic rule. If we have
been condemned, it is because of our opposition to this new system. Catholic
Tradition as we embrace it, has been rejected from the Church's life, or at
least pushed aside and disparaged as henceforth out of date.
Let us consider, for example, in order to become more
aware of this, the gravity of the changes imposed upon the religious life. For
the religious life is that so precious flower of the way of the counsels that
expresses to ordinary faithful and men of the world the complete separation from
the world which is the path of Christian perfection. "If any man will come
after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." (Mt.
16:24) Let him sell his goods... It is not just the physical separation from
the world, object of the evangelical counsels, that has been in large part lost
in the desire to reform the religious life and to adapt it to today's world. It
is above all and more profoundly the rejection of the world that the Church
demands of us when we make our baptismal promises, along with all the
requirements of baptism that are necessary for salvation. This loss can be seen
in innumerable details of the life of religious congregations, as for example in
the suppression of the religious habit.
The same must be said of the priestly life. This way of
thinking, so foreign to the Church, and which has pushed its way into her midst,
has profoundly destabilized an element which is even more profound and necessary
to the life of the Mystical Body: the priesthood. The loss of the notion of
sacrifice in reparation for sins, the loss of the sense of sacrifice and even
the rejection of the cross are to be found in a surprising number of priests,
intimately linked as they are with the new way of thinking that has been
engendered by the new Mass, the Novus Ordo Missae. The same applies to
all the reforms. Everything is bound together, and with frightening internal
consistency. Indeed we must say it and repeat it, the overturning of the
Church's life imposed since the Council is the fruit of the eruption in its
midst of a way of thinking that is contrary to and destructive of what is
specifically Catholic.
The greatest tragedy in this
whole situation comes from the fact that this non-Catholic way of thinking has
been assumed by the Church's authority figures and imposed in the name of
obedience. This has, alas, made its diffusion all the more efficacious and
prevented a normal reaction of rejection of such a deadly poison throughout the
Mystical Body.
THE ENCYCLICAL ON THE
EUCHARIST AND THE MASS OF MAY 24
When we consider the different
events that have taken place over recent months, it seems to me important to
recall the tragic plot that weaves itself through our history. In effect, our
criterion of judgment by which we analyze events in the Church and the world
must necessarily include this fundamental truth: we can only consider as
valuable, determining and truly good those events that influence this whole
series of events in a positive way. Simply put, we will believe that Rome truly
reaches out towards Tradition if and when it, in one way or another, changes and
corrects the general anti-traditional line that continues to infect the Church.
Has the new encyclical on the
Holy Eucharist had this influence? Despite appearances to the contrary, despite
the very welcome reminders from the Council of Trent, despite the denunciation
of many abuses, all things that are good in themselves and that we rejoice to
see, the underlying way of thinking and all the circumstances that surround the
encyclical oblige us to reply, unfortunately, in the negative. The Mass to which
the encyclical refers is, from beginning to end, indeed the New Mass, the Mass
reformed in the name of Vatican II. This says everything. This means that there
is a desire to make some cosmetic and superficial modifications, but not the
radical change that is so absolutely necessary for a "return to Tradition".
Nowhere is there even a partial questioning of the liturgical reforms, even if
it is admitted that there have been errors, abuses, etc. This encyclical does
not plan to go backwards. It simply intends to present in a manner which is not
so bad the new teaching on the holy Eucharist. They might be ready to change the
jam, but they are certainly not ready to change the moldy slice of bread upon
which it is spread. This is so serious that the rest of it remains indigestible
and dangerous for health.
Can the Mass celebrated by Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos on
May 24 in St. Mary Major's Basilica, which we are happy to hear about, be seen
as a sign of such a return? Could it be interpreted as a feeble expression of a
firm will to change the disastrous course of events? Alas, by lack of
conviction, by fear of opposition from the progressive wing, this noble gesture
will remain a one time act, and is not the happy announcing of the freedom of
the Mass that has been so long awaited by the traditional faithful. Indeed, the assistant
priest at this Mass, he who had the honor of accompanying the cardinal
at the altar, was refused that very morning of May 24 the right to celebrate the Tridentine Mass at
St. Peter's, and this despite the fact that he had an
Ecclesia Dei celebret. This fact is eloquent in itself.
There is, consequently, in these
events, an incompatible mixture of the old and the new, at least to our way of
seeing things, in the light of Tradition. However, the modern mind, which
pretends to go beyond the principle of non-contradiction, does not understand it
in the same way as we do. It accepts contradictions, but on one condition only,
namely that the old way cease to reject contradictions and that it cease to
stand for exclusivity.
The contradictory character of
the modern Church is to be found in a striking manner in this encyclical when it
treats of the question of the admission of non-Catholics to Holy Communion. The
distinction between a (non-Catholic) group, to whom Holy Communion must be
refused, since they are outside of ecclesial communion, and an (non-Catholic)
individual, to whom Communion can be administered so long as he believes in the
Holy Eucharist, is unacceptable. For, both Faith and ecclesial communion are
independent from the question of belonging to a group.
Theology teaches that the denial of a single truth of
Faith suffices to remove the entire Faith (cf. Pius XII, Dogma of the
Assumption). Consequently, it cannot be said of the non-Catholic who rejects
certain dogmas that he objectively has "Faith in the Holy Eucharist", and
that this condition would be sufficient to receive Communion.
RELATIONS WITH ROME
We come up against the same
problem in our relations with Rome. If Rome desires to receive us, and even
invites us, it is in this new broad and pluralistic perspective that accepts
that contradictory points of view can coexist (for it does not accept that there
is such a thing as a contradiction). This is not a question of divergent
acceptable positions that make up the richness of the Church in its diversity.
It is rather a question of a non-Catholic way of thinking that wants to make
itself accepted at any price by everyone and for everyone.
The Catholic Faith, to the
contrary, is exclusive, as is all truth. It cannot grant any rights to contrary
ideas, even if exterior circumstances sometimes demand tolerance, in view of the
common good.
The Catholic spirit which flows
from this Faith is also exclusive, and it is incompatible with the spirit of the
world, even if in the life of numerous faithful we can see the incoherence of
the mixture of Catholic and worldly elements.
We are aware that our explanation is a little schematic.
When we speak of modern Rome or today's Rome, we must add that it is not
modernist in an entirely rigid and invariable manner, nor do we deny that even
at Rome there are a certain number of prelates who would like to stand up
against this catastrophe. But so far, everything indicates that the direction
remains that of the post-Conciliar Reforms, in the name of the untouchable
Council. It is still, implicitly and explicitly, the Council and the New Mass
that Rome plans to impose upon us as a present-day and general rule of Catholic
life. This is the foreign way of thinking of which we spoke above, and which
they desire still and always to force us to accept. Rome has made it the
condition sine qua non of our regularization. There remains for us, then,
to continue our hunger strike with respect to these novelties, until such time
as Rome finally agrees to give us —and to the entire Mystical Body —the
nourishing bread of Catholic Tradition for which we have been begging during
this already very long night. However, we will never tire of knocking. It is Our
Lord Himself who taught us this. It is He who has the words of Everlasting Life.
We believe in His Omnipotence, we believe in His promises.
May Our Lady, Mother of the Church, who is so great and
motherly in her protection, deign to guide us along the paths of patience and
fidelity and "cum prole pia" 3 bless us abundantly.
+Bernard Fellay
Superior General
|
