The Carmelite Martyrs of Compiègne
The Sixteen Blessed Carmelite Martyrs of Compiègne guillotined at Paris, July 17, 1794. They are the first sufferers under the French Revolution on whom the Holy See has passed judgment, and were solemnly beatified May 27, 1906. Before their execution they knelt and chanted the Veni Creator, as at a profession, after which they all renewed aloud their baptismal and religious vows. The novice was executed first and the prioress last. Absolute silence prevailed the whole time that the executions were proceeding. The heads and bodies of the martyrs were interred in a deep sand-pit about 30 feet square in a cemetery at Picpus. As this sand-pit was the receptacle of the bodies of 1,298 victims of the Revolution, there seems to be no hope of their relics being recovered.
The news was leaked on January 22 and on the 24th it was confirmed. The events, the declarations, the outcries and injustices of that week and the following weeks—who could have missed them? For a few weeks the world was interested in the Society–for a time shorter than in 1988 on the occasion of the episcopal consecrations, but in an orchestration of feelings undoubtedly much more vehement. It was the world of the media, the conciliar bishops, and the politicians. It is not their judgment that should impress us, or that of the simple people, excited perhaps because too much under the influence of the press and the vile media. For us, only God’s judgment ought to count. It is as He judges that we should strive to judge the recent events, and to do that, place them in their historical context.
The Venture of Fidelity
For a century and a half, a way of thinking alien to revealed truth tried to infiltrate the Catholic Church. Despite the vigilance of the Sovereign Pontiffs, it entered the sanctuary, gaining priests, theologians, and finally bishops. At the end of the sixties, the decisive element of the unfolding of Vatican II was not the alliance of the Rhine bishops and their theologians for the enactment of liberalism by pontifical declarations; it was Pope Paul VI’s sympathy for their ideas. What happened afterwards is well known: the churchmen, supported by Peter’s authority, ratified in 1965 what their predecessors had condemned for centuries. A small group of bishops who did not want to abandon the faith of their fathers had formed, however, but the evil could not be prevented.
That is why, in 1969, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre raised the banner, not of revolt, but of fidelity. At the invitation of young Levites, he began to pursue the work of the Priestly Society of Saint Pius X despite the successive sanctions. He “handed on what he had received” (I Cor. 15).
Sanctions?
June 30, 1988, is a major date in this holy enterprise: the Archbishop is no longer concerned only with the continuation of the priesthood, as he had been sine 1970, but of his own enterprise: he must guarantee his own succession.
Let us not deceive ourselves. If John Paul II “excommunicated” Archbishop Lefebvre, Bishop de Castro Mayer, and the consecrated bishops, it was not ultimately because this consecration took place without pontifical mandate and even against the Pope’s will; but because, without realizing it, he did not want a succession in the enterprise of fidelity. The sanctions, a means given by Jesus Christ to His vicar to correct those who imperil in one way or other the common good of the Church, paradoxically served to stigmatize those who did not want to harm the same common good at any cost.
There was no fault to be found in them. There was only merit. Their act was the only way to keep the Faith, the sacraments, and hence charity. If no fault is committed, what can the penalty be worth? It enjoys as much reality as bristles on an egg shell.
The natural chilling of relations between the conciliar Church and Ecône–without any actual rupture–between 1988 and 2000 was gradually replaced by regular conversations after the Society’s Jubilee pilgrimage to Rome (in the year 2000). The steps taken by Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos and the correspondence of Bishop Bernard Fellay, among others, revived the back and forth swing between hopes of a solution and distrust that had agitated the years 1987 and 1988.
The election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to the sovereign pontificate in 2005 undoubtedly accelerated the process. The Motu Proprio of July 2007 was perceived as an encouraging sign of goodwill since he granted, more or less, the first of the Society’s preliminaries. In a letter of December 15, 2008, Bishop Fellay, in the name of the four bishops, requested the withdrawal of the censures. The decree came five weeks later.
Reasons to Rejoice
We readily admit that there are some who dare not let themselves be pleased about it. Who could really blame them? The son accustomed to his father’s blows--blows which sometimes followed smiles--does not easily relax when his father looks like he’s mellowing. The smiles of Rome...who has not benefited from them? Seminarians, priests, and bishops have been charmed by these amiable overtures. They believed, they said “yes”, and they signed. And Rome could not, or did not want to, or at any rate, did not give. For sweets, gall was given; for hugs, blows with a stick.
Smiles, sweetness, sugar, the hugs: other words for designating the opportunity to “conduct the experiment of Tradition.” The blows, the gall, the cudgels: metaphors to signify at best a drastic reduction of ministry; at worst, and quite often, the dilution, partial or total, of the combat of our former traveling companions.
But these experiences do not justify our putting on a long face and refusing to be glad: “There is a time to weep and a time to laugh” (Eccl. 3:4). Today is a time for mirth. Tradition is no longer considered to be excommunicated: this is the fact that inspires our joy and thanksgiving.
Tradition is indeed what it is all about, and Tradition undiluted, for the Society has remained, by the grace of God, faithful. Bishop Fellay recently declared: “There is a dangerous current running through the Council, and in this sense we reject it.”
Tradition was not excommunicated by the past. And it still is not, in that there has been no change. What has changed is that yesterday in the eyes of men it appeared excommunicated and today it no longer appears to them as such. This is a great, twofold advantage. The advantage is for the apostolate: for already some souls are approaching priests of Tradition without any qualms. The advantage is also for the truth: for there is an injustice when, for example, Msgr. Bruguès, who asserts that “the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Jewish negation of this divinity are equally founded,” should be considered as “in-communicated” while the four bishops who profess the faith of Pius XII should be seen as “ex-communicated.”
The Rights of Canon Law
In this regard, if we further examine the canonical effects of the papal decision, we ought to distinguish what it represents in the minds of the Roman authorities and what it is in reality. According to the way the churchmen today judge, the censures incurred by the four bishops no longer exist; they are henceforth remitted (or lifted), that is to say, the concerned persons have been absolved.
The lifting is not a “withdrawal.” The term “withdrawal” used by our Superior General denotes a judgment of nullity on the censure inflicted in 1988: by granting it, Rome would have judged that the censure had never existed despite the appearances. “To remit” or “to lift” the censure (as was done) assumes a double meaning: directly, it means that the censure does not exist (as of January 21); but indirectly, that it did exist (before).
Bishop Fellay could not request the lifting of the censure; that would have constituted an incoherence (since we consider the censure as null) and an error (since the censure was in fact null).
It would have been possible but extremely difficult for Rome to “withdraw” the censure. Possible, because in history we find analogous judgments of nullity decreed by some pope on the act of one of his predecessors. We might consider, for example, that the brief Ambulate in Dilectione of December 7, 1965, constitutes on Pope Paul VI’s part not only the lifting of the excommunications inflicted on the Orthodox, but a judgment of nullity on the censure incurred in 1054. It is very difficult, certainly, because no “canonical” framework exists for a judgment of nullity on a previous sanction, but especially because that would have constituted both a disavowal of John Paul II (whose cause of beatification Benedict XVI is sponsoring) and a recognition of the legitimacy of the consecrations. In other words, that would have amounted to Rome’s approbation of the Society’s stance and a renunciation of aggiornamento.
Bishop Fellay was no doubt aware of the possibility and the difficulty. The possibility enabled him to make the request; the difficulty probably left him with few illusions on the likelihood of carrying the day.
Without Suspension
Some may have been surprised that the Society “acts as if” they had won the withdrawal. This may just be a way to avoid entangling the faithful in canonical arguments and to facilitate things for Benedict XVI. Bad diplomacy exists, they say. Quite true--but so does good. Moreover, we should observe that Rome has not corrected the equivalence (at first) made by the authorities of Tradition between “withdrawal” and “lifting.”
But what is the truth of the matter, and not just what appears to be in the eyes of the Roman authorities? Neither Archbishop Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer nor the four bishops they consecrated were affected by the putative penalties for the reasons explained above. These same reasons, moreover, relieve of any penalty the members of the Society, given that they were inflicted in order to extinguish the flame of resistance. The suppression of the Society in 1975 (in a completely irregular procedure), the suspension a divinis of July 22, 1976, etc., were only done to induce the Archbishop to modernize the doctrinal formation of his seminarians, to celebrate the New Mass, or to adhere to the Council.
That is why today neither the priests nor the bishops of the Society have incurred any penalty; not even the suspension that some people wave like a scarecrow: “The four bishops may not be ‘excommunicated,’ but they are still ‘suspended!’” Rome has not pronounced on the subject, but the Swiss Bishops’ Conference could not wait to proclaim as much, doubtless referencing Canon 1359. From that perspective, the four bishops ought to wait for “regularization” before exercising a ministry. The prospect of the upcoming ordinations (June 2009) with which the Society will proceed as usual is frightening to some. But it doesn’t scare the Society any more than it did its founder more than 30 years ago. The line of conduct is the same.
The Steps to Follow
What is this line of conduct? It is the one set by Bishop Bernard Fellay in 2000, which he confirmed in an interview with Fr. Alain Lorans. It comprises two preliminary conditions which the Superior General considers as granted. Then come the famous “doctrinal discussions,” and only then the question of the Society’s canonical status.
However, the clarity of the preliminary conditions (universal freedom of the traditional Mass acknowledged and the withdrawal of the “excommunications”) contrasts with the necessarily elastic character of the doctrinal discussions. How far should the discussions progress before regularization can be envisaged? In the same interview, Bishop Fellay answered the question: the preliminary conditions should create “a new atmosphere” “allowing Tradition to recover its right of citizenship in the Church and to prove itself in field work,” to see “the experiment of Tradition at work.” This experimental phase “will have to last as long as is necessary for a right evaluation of the results, neither Rome nor the Society would commit themselves in any way. But at the end, Rome will be able to judge the work accomplished by traditional priests from the results.” The goal of this phase: “a lesson given [to Rome] by the facts themselves.”
The logic and the pedagogy of this course of action are unquestionable. The liberalization of the Mass allows a gradual extension of the traditional ministry (practical aspect); the absence of the censures delivers the Society’s ministry from a baseless opprobrium and so enhances its development (practical aspect again); the doctrinal conversations (doctrinal aspect), by the exposition of principles, clarify what traditional practice proves.
How long will it take to reach the goal? “Some time,” some might quip. “The regularization of our canonical status must come last, as if to seal an agreement previously achieved, at least in its essentials, on the level of principles, thanks to the facts observed by Rome.”
Possible Problems
Bishop Fellay explained: “To desire an immediate canonical agreement at any cost would expose us to seeing an immediate resurgence of the problems opposing us to Rome and the agreement would at once become null and void.” The Society is not primarily seeking regularization, but the victory of truth over error.
The bishops of France were quick to grasp this common-sense truth: there is no point in seeking an agreement if the parties do not agree. Cardinal Ricard recognized this: “At some point, the question of the actual texts of Vatican II as magisterial documents of the highest importance must be raised. It is fundamental.” Cardinal Vingt-Trois also recognizes this: “The difficulties the history of the Church is experiencing cannot be resolved by decrees; they can only be resolved by a change of heart...”
Let’s suppose that the roadmap traced by the Society’s Superior General was not followed, and that the stage of experience and of discussions was not respected. Difficulties of every kind would arise.
The Sacraments
The Motu Proprio has certainly smoothed over, at least in principle, a great many obstacles. One may suppose that no structure could be acceptable that did not provide for the exclusive usage of the traditional liturgy and the exclusion of the concelebration of the New Mass by the members of the Society.
However, let’s entertain a pure hypothesis, however unlikely. If, in the future, a seminarian attended the Mass of Paul VI, what room to maneuver would our superiors have in dealing with the situation? Without an experimental phase and discussions, in truth it would be very narrow. No sanction, and a fortiori no exclusion, would be possible.
Another example: when a couple obtains from the diocesan authorities a declaration of the nullity of their marriage because one of the spouses was judged to be “not able to assume the essential obligations of marriage for causes of a psychological nature,” and one of them, remarried, approaches the holy table, what will the priests of Tradition do? Continuing to consider this cause of nullity to be illegitimate, as they do today, they will be duty-bound to refuse Holy Communion to the individual. But he will be able to communicate in the conciliar Church! For want of an experimental period and discussions, conflict will be inevitable.
Or else, when an archbishop learns that a bishop of the Society is administering confirmation conditionally to souls who already received it with the new rite, how will he react? If the experimental stage and discussions have not taken place, Rome will not be able to understand why traditional bishops accept only olive oil as the remote matter of this sacrament.
Lastly, when one of the faithful makes advance arrangements for his cremation from practical considerations, will the priests of Tradition be able to refuse him a religious burial as they do today, contrary to Canon 1184, §1, n. 2 (CIC 1983), which on the contrary allows a cremated person to receive an ecclesiastical burial?
Preaching
It is the domain of ecclesiastical ministry that would prove the most troublesome without a preparatory phase. What will become of the poor priest who, through love of truth and souls, denounces from the pulpit or in a conference—with all due prudence—ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, secularism, religious freedom, and democracy in the Church? Should the idea come to him, in season and out of season, to point at the Council, the illicit canons of the 1983 Code, or even some episcopal declarations or encyclicals of Benedict XVI, what can he expect? All kinds of scenarios are imaginable; the lack of doctrinal clarifications will bring the whole weight of the conciliar line down on this man of God and on the whole Society.
The Canonical Structure
Whatever the canonical structure that may be devised for the Society, that too will not be without difficulties if the experimental stage and discussions are left out.
A personal prelature would not give the members of the Society any right to a ministry over the faithful (except member-faithful such as tertiaries). How else would this ministry be exercised, except by the granting of personal parishes or territories, which would suppose the local Ordinary’s blessing. Similar problems would also arise if the structure were one of a society of apostolic life (common life without vows).
An apostolic administration would pose other difficulties if it concerned most of the regions of the world, especially the manner of determining whose authority the faithful were under...Other matters to be resolved would also arise, such as the establishment of seminaries. None would be simple if the experimental stages and discussions were left out.
The purpose of foreseeing these difficulties in liturgy, teaching, and jurisdiction is not to frighten ourselves, but to show the importance of this phase of doctrinal discussions.
Benedict XVI
The Sovereign Pontiff himself desires these discussions. He had this expressed by Cardinal Re in the January 21st Decree. If he had the courage to brave the wrath of the media, the bishops, and politicians; if he kept his decision despite the threats of apostasy brandished by Catholics as few in number as they were prompt to make themselves heard, it is because he would not allow himself to be swayed in the matter.
On February 4 he did renew, however, more than one invitation, an order given to the bishops of the Society to recognize the Council. He renewed it partly as a concession to pressures too well orchestrated not to have emanated from the Masonic lodges and partly from personal conviction. For Benedict XVI, it seems, is not a man to say what he does not think. He solemnly expressed his attachment to the Council the day after his election. He specified how he intended to interpret the Council on December 22, 2005. Consequently, on many occasions he did not make a mystery of his intention to pursue the work of his predecessors in continuity with Vatican II, especially as regards ecumenism and the public rights of other religions.
It is true that some recent nominations, some more traditional declarations, some returns to sacred liturgical forms, the Motu Proprio and the Decree of January 21 pose a question. The adherents of a total modernism are sufficiently alarmed for us not to be unaware of their worries. They can be summed up in this question: What does Benedict XVI really want? Where is he going?
A mystery envelops Benedict XVI. This pope owns outright that he is attached to the Council read “conservatively.” But some of his initiatives have caused the ultra-modernists to fear that he is progressively challenging the Council itself. Their fear would be our hope. Is it well founded? With prayer and penance, everything is possible. The Rosary has twice demonstrated its incredible power. Why not thrice? Nevertheless, nothing indicates that that day has come. In this case, should we not opt for the prudential solution? Our role concerning the authorities won over to the novelties is to uphold doctrine whatever the cost. Over this, we will not compromise.
Negotiations?
One does not “negotiate” with Rome. Christ did not constitute His Church in such a way that negotiations between His vicar and the sheep would be conceivable. This is true when the vicar follows the voice of the Master and still true when he follows the paths of modernity.
The communities of Tradition can concede everything except faith and everything that is closely related; they cannot, therefore, yield on the Council. The authorities of the Church, for their part, understand that they can concede everything (including the lifting of censures), but the Council is a given in their eyes. How can there be a meeting of the minds by negotiation? There cannot be; the only solution is that error yield to truth, for what lasting unity can be formed without it?
Archbishop Lefebvre explained, roughly, to Rome before 1988: “Let us conduct the experiment of Tradition. We are ready to consider any canonical structure that would leave us as we are.” After 1988, he was more demanding: “First of all, recognize the kingship of Jesus Christ over nations as well as the uniqueness of the Church as means of salvation, then we will consider a canonical structure.” Did the Archbishop change his point of view? Not that much, for the first condition is hardly conceivable without the second; that is to say once more, without error giving way to truth.
The language of the Society today is no different: “Recognize, by practice and by the examination of the contentious questions, the contradiction between the magisterium of all time and the innovations of the last fifty years, and then we will be able to study a canonical framework.”
These words are bold when addressed to a Sovereign Pontiff. Let us not believe that fidelity to Tradition is for us the guarantee of a virtue above all others. The simple relationship with them and the discovery of our neighbor protect us from such a pernicious delusion.
These words, though, are necessary. Will it bear fruit? Experience demonstrates it: the recitation of the Rosary will obtain what still looks like a miracle bigger than all the other stages, however necessary.
Current Issue
