April 1995 Print

In effect, the battle began immediately, from the very first days of the Council. Card. Ottaviani had presented the list of members who had belonged to the preparatory commissions, leaving full freedom for each to choose those he wanted. It was obvious that we could not all know one another, since each one came from his own diocese. How could one possibly know the 2,500 bishops of the world? We were asked to vote for members of the commissions of the Council. But whom could we choose? We did not know the bishops from South America or South Africa or India...

Card. Ottaviani thought that Rome’s choices for the preparatory commissions could give an indication to the Council Fathers. It was in fact quite normal to propose these.

Card. Lienart arose and said, “We object to this way of doing things. We ask for forty-eight hours to reflect, so that we can get to know better those who could make up the different commissions. This is to exert pressure on the judgment of the Fathers. We do not accept it.”

The Council had begun only two days previously and already there was a violent opposition between the cardinals. What had happened?

During these forty-eight hours the liberal cardinals had already prepared lists made out from all the countries of the world. They distributed these in the letter boxes of all the Council Fathers. We had, therefore, all received a list proposing the members of such and such a commission. Many said: “After all, why not? I do not know them. Since the list is already ready, we have simply to make use of it.” Forty-eight hours later it was the liberals’ list which was in front. But it did not receive the two-thirds of the votes required by the Council rules.

What then would the Pope do? Would Pope John XXIII make an exception to the rules of the Council, or would he apply them? Clearly the liberal cardinals were afraid that he might apply them, and so they ran to the Pope and said to him: “Listen, we have more than half the votes, nearly 60%. You cannot refuse that. We cannot keep going like this and hold another election. We will never be done with it. This is clearly the will of the majority of the Council, and we have simply to accept it.” And Pope John XXIII accepted. From this beginning all the members of the Council commissions were chosen by the liberal wing. It is easy to imagine what an enormous influence this had on the Council.

I am sure Pope John XXIII died prematurely because of what he saw at the Council, although he had thought that at the end of a few months everything would be done with. It was to be a council of three months. Then all would say good-bye and go home happy for having met one another at Rome, and for having had a nice little meeting.

He discovered that the Council was to be a world in itself, a world of continual clashes. No text came from the first session of the Council. Pope John XXIII was overwhel-med by this, and I am persuaded that this hastened his death. It has even been said that on his deathbed he said: “Stop the Council; stop 
the ­Council.”

Pope Paul VI and The Liberals

Pope Paul VI came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that?

From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second session of the Council, he immediately named four moderators. The four moderators were to direct the Council instead of the ten presidents who had presided during the first session. The presidents, one of whom had presided over one meeting and then the second and then the third, sat at a table higher than the others. But they were to become honorary presidents. The four moderators became the true presidents of the Council.

Who were these moderators? Card. Dopfner of Munich was one. He was very progressive indeed and very ecumenical. Card. Suenens, whom the entire world knows along with his charismatics and who has given conferences in favor of the marriage of priests, was another. Card. Lercaro who is known for his philocommunism and whose Vicar General had been enrolled as a member of the Communist Party was a third. Finally, there was Card. Agagianian, who represented somewhat the traditional wing, if I can say so.

Card. Agagianian was a very discreet and self-effacing man. Consequently he had no real influence on the Council. But the three others accomplished their task with drums beating. They constantly brought together the liberal cardinals, which gave considerable authority to the liberal wing of the Council.

Clearly the traditional cardinals and bishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.

When poor Card. Ottaviani, who was blind, started to speak, booing could be heard amongst the young bishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him understand that they had enough of listening to him. He had to stop; it was frightful. This venerable Card., who was honored throughout Rome and who had had an enormous influence on the Holy Church, who was Prefect of the Holy Office, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to see how the traditionalists were treated.

Msgr. Staffa (since named Cardinal), who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council ­moderators. These were unbelievable things.

Revolution In The Church

This is what went on at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal cardinals and Commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favor so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church.

Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the bishops and cardinals? Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 250 who favored the maintaining of Tradition, and who opposed such major changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We opposed all these things. These 250 bishops, clearly, brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions forced texts to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat ­limited.

But we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted, especially in the Schema on Religious Liberty, whose text was redone five times. Five times the same opinion was brought forward. We opposed it on each occasion. There were always 250 votes against. Consequently, Pope Paul VI asked that two small sentences be added to the text, saying that there is nothing in this text which is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church and that the Church remains always the true and the only Church of Christ.

Then the Spanish bishops in particular said: “Since the Pope has made this statement there is no longer any problem. There is nothing against tradition.” If these things are contradictory, then this little phrase contradicts everything which is in the texts. It is a contradictory schema. We cannot accept it. Finally there remained, if I remember well, only 74 bishops against. It is the only schema which met such opposition, but 74 out 2,500 are few indeed!

Thus ended the Council. We should not be astonished at the reforms which have been introduced since. Since then, everything is the history of liberalism. The liberals were victorious within the Council, for they demanded that Paul VI grant them places within the Roman Congregations. And, in fact, the important places were given to the progressive clergy. As soon as a Card. died or an occasion presented itself, Pope Paul VI would put aside traditional cardinals, immediately replacing them with liberal ones.

Thus it is that Rome was occupied by the liberals. This is a fact which cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that the reforms of the Council were reforms which breathe the spirit of Ecumenism, and which are, quite simply, protestant, neither more nor less.

The Liturgical Reform

The most serious of the consequences was the liturgical reform. It was accomplished, as everybody knows, by a well known priest, Bugnini, who had prepared it long in advance. Already in 1955, Fr. Bugnini had asked Msgr. Pintonello, General Chaplain of the Italian army, who had spent much time in Germany during the occupation, to translate protestant liturgical texts. For Fr. Bugnini did not know German.

It was Msgr. Pintonello himself who told me that he had translated the protestant liturgical books for Fr. Bugnini, who at that time was but an insignificant member of a liturgical commission. He was nothing. Afterwards he became professor of liturgy at the Lateran. Pope John XXIII made him leave on account of his modernism and his progressivism. Hence, surprise, surprise, and he is found again as President of the Commission for Liturgical Reform. This is, all the same, unbelievable.

I had the occasion to see for myself what influence Fr. Bugnini had. One wonders how such a thing as this could have happened at Rome. At that time, immediately after the Council, I was Superior General of the Congregation of the Fathers of the Holy Ghost and we had a meeting of the Superiors General at Rome. We had asked Fr. Bugnini to explain to us what his New Mass was, for this was not at all a small event. Immediately after the Council we heard of the Normative Mass, the New Mass, the Novus Ordo. What did all this mean? It had not been spoken of at the Council. What had happened? And so we asked Fr. Bugnini to come and explain himself to the 84 Superiors General who were united together, amongst whom I consequently was.

Fr. Bugnini, with much confidence, explained what the Normative Mass would be; this will be changed, that will be changed and we will put in place another Offertory. We will be able to choose between different canons. We will be able to reduce the communion prayers. We will be able to have several different formats for the beginning of Mass. We will be able to say the Mass in the vernacular tongue. We looked at one another saying to ourselves: “But it’s not possible!”

He spoke absolutely, as if there had never been a Mass in the Church before him. He spoke of his Normative Mass as of a new invention.

Personally I was myself so stunned that I remained mute, although I generally speak freely when it is a question of opposing those with whom I am not in agreement. I could not utter a word. How could it be possible for this man before me to be entrusted with the entire reform of the Catholic liturgy, the entire reform of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the sacraments, of the Breviary, and of all our prayers? Where are we going? Where is the Church going?

Two Superiors General had the courage to speak out. One of them asked Fr. Bugnini: “Is this an active participation, that is a bodily participation, that is to say with vocal prayers, or is it a spiritual participation? In any case you have so much spoken of the participation of the faithful that it seems you can no longer justify Mass celebrated without the faithful. Your entire Mass has been fabricated around the participation of the faithful. We Benedictines celebrate our Masses without the assistance of the faithful. Does this mean that we must discontinue our private Masses, since we do not have faithful to participate in them?”

I repeat to you exactly that which Fr. Bugnini said. I have it still in my ears, so much did it strike me: “To speak truthfully we didn’t think of that,” he said! Afterwards another arose and said: “Reverend Father, you have said that we will suppress this and we will suppress that, that we will replace this thing by that and always by shorter prayers. I have the impression that your new Mass could be said in ten or twelve minutes or at the most a quarter of an hour. This is not reasonable. This is not respectful towards such an act of the Church.” Well, this is what he replied: “We can always add something.” Is this for real? I heard it myself. If somebody had told me the story I would perhaps have doubted it, but I heard it ­myself.

Afterwards, at the time at which this Normative Mass began to be put into practice, I was so disgusted that we met with some priests and theologians in a small meeting. From it came the “Brief Critical Study,” which was taken to Card. Ottaviani. I presided at that small meeting. We said to ourselves: “We must go and find the Cardinals. We cannot allow this to happen without reacting.”

So I myself went to find the Secretary of State, Card. Cicognani, and I said to him: “Your Eminence, you are not going to allow this to get through, are you? It’s not possible. What is this New Mass? It is a revolution in the Church, a revolution in the liturgy.”

Card. Cicognani, who was the Secretary of State of Pope Paul VI, placed his head between his hands and said to me: “Oh Monsigneur, I know well. I am in full agreement with you; but what can I do? Fr. Bugnini goes in to the office of the Holy Father and makes him sign what he wants.” It was the Card. Secretary of State who told me this! Therefore the Secretary of State, the number two person in the Church after the Pope himself, was placed in a position of inferiority with respect to Fr. Bugnini. He could enter into the Pope’s office when he wanted and make him sign what he wanted.

(to be continued)