Random Thoughts

Michael Davies

I HAVE ASKED the Editor to postpone the second part of the somewhat "heavy" talk which I gave in Belfast in October until the January issue as several readers have asked for my opinion on the Tridentine Mass Indult, particularly on whether a traditional Catholic can, in conscience, make the affirmation required in condition (a) of the Indult. I hope that those who have written will accept this as my reply to their letters. I must also apologize to the many other readers who have written to me this year and have not received replies. A number have also asked me to comment on certain topics in The Angelus. The fact that I have not yet done so does not necessarily mean that I am not going to write articles on these subjects. I hope to begin dealing with them in the February issue.

I shall return to the subject of the Indult later, but would first like to offer a few random thoughts on some other events of 1984. This year has brought much that can only fill a traditional Catholic with gloom, but it has also included more rays of hope than I can remember in any year since the Council. I intend to deal with some of these in this column, in keeping with the Christmas season of hope, but in no sense do I wish to predict that the coming year will bring about any significant transformation in the present abysmal state of the Church in the English-speaking world.

Readers may be surprised at the first item which has provided me with considerable comfort: it is the result of the American election. It may seem impertinent for anyone who is not an American to express an opinion here, but I saw the election in its final stages as a classic confrontation between the forces of conservatism and liberalism. I have never seen such a terrifying collection of programmed liberals as those appearing on the platform at the Democratic Convention. Almost every speech which I saw on British T.V. appeared as no more than stereotyped liberal platitudes put together by the same computer. Mr. Mondale did appear as a kindly, avuncular person, and he certainly accepted his defeat with dignity. It seemed hard to believe that, like Mrs. Ferraro, he was not prepared to lift a finger to halt or even limit the abortion holocaust. Abortion is the great issue of our times. It appears almost blasphemous to speak of the "free world" or "western values" while unborn children are murdered in our societies by the million, and, it now appears, their bodies are being sold to cosmetic manufacturers. Citizens of both our countries have been rightly moved to help the starving people of Ethiopia, though one might have hoped that the media and politicians would have been more critical of the extent to which the incompetence and irresponsibility of the Communist government there is responsible for the extent of the famine. What I find hard to understand is how those who are indifferent to the slaughter of millions of unborn children in their own country can see no anomaly in their compassion for the children of Ethiopia. Some of the more notorious pro-abortion politicians in Britain have been strident in their denunciations of Mrs. Thatcher for what they claim is a lack of compassion on her part in the amount of aid sent to Ethiopia. I have not heard these politicians attack the Communist government of Ethiopia for causing mountains of aid to pile up in the ports so that priority could be given to huge imports of concrete to build massive Marxist monstrosities to celebrate the anniversary of the Red takeover not to mention tens of thousands of bottles of whiskey to celebrate the same event.

There is nothing new in the ambivalent attitude of liberals in such matters. Earlier this year the Neumann Press published a collection of conversations I had with Malcolm Muggeridge in which he makes some scathing comments concerning the indifference of western liberals to the Communist tyranny, and of their support for the great moral abomination of abortion. "It may well be," he said, "that liberalism is a much more vicious and destructive attitude than Communism. It's very much on the cards, because it masquerades as being humane. If you want a simple example, which I think is absolutely extraordinary: you have this holocaust in Germany under the Nazis, which is shown on television throughout the Western world, everybody beating their breasts over it, and at the same time on our side of the fence with abortion, euthanasia and all these things that are going on, you've got a sort of 'humane' holocaust taking place which is infinitely more dreadful than Hitler's, and nobody can see the connection between the two" (p. 5).

I later asked Mr. Muggeridge if he could think of a politician of real integrity in the world today. He could name only one: "I would say that one of the most maligned figures in the world today, namely President Reagan, is one of the very few politicians who has spoken out in the most emphatic terms on the question of abortion, and who has said publicly that he's going to go on persistently trying to induce Congress to overturn the judgment of the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to teach Christianity in American public schools. And he has said that in the most emphatic terms, and he'll have to fight the next election, assuming there's some very big opposition to it, with that on the record" (p. 71).¹

The overwhelming vote for President Reagan carries considerable significance for the entire Western world. It shows that the espousal of anti-liberal positions is not the kiss of death for a politician, and that the ordinary man will respond to a man of principle. It is also particularly significant for Catholics, as the overwhelming vote for Reagan by Catholic voters can be seen as a public repudiation of the Catholic bishops' much touted pastoral on nuclear weapons. This verbose and vacuous publication was greeted by the liberal and official Catholic press as some new revelation, and, we were supposed to believe, the bishops had massive support for these views among the Catholic population. What it proves is that the bishops have now lost their moral authority. If the day to day teaching of the Catholic hierarchy is no more than a rewrite of yesterday's editorial in the New York Times, then what need is there for bishops? One might just as well make do with the New York Times which, at least, has an interesting sports page.

A second event which gave me much encouragement this year was the outcome of the "battle of the crosses" in Poland. Students in the Stanislaw Sjazic Agricultural School in Warsaw had refused to submit to a government decree ordering the removal of all crucifixes from the college, and forbidding them to wear crucifixes around their necks. The students boycotted classes and refused to return until the order was withdrawn. The government took a strong line, said that those who would not sign a pledge of loyalty could not return, and dismissed teachers who had supported the students. Eventually a compromise was reached, but one which was a clear victory for the Catholic students. They had to compromise on the removal of crucifixes from the lecture halls, but the government allowed the retention of crucifixes in the dormitories, in the library, and worn around the neck. The students were not obliged to sign an oath of loyalty, and the dismissed teachers were reinstated. Most encouraging of all was the support they received from their bishop, Mgr. Jan Mazur, who had undertaken a bread and water fast until the just demands of the students were met, and had urged his clergy to do the same.

I could not help recalling, with no little shame and embarrassment, how, in my own country, to the delight and delectation of our bishops a joint Catholic-Anglican ecumenical school has been opened, and how the oh-so-ecumenical Catholics agreed not to have crucifixes in the classrooms as this would offend some Anglicans. I understand, but am open to correction, that some Catholic universities in the U.S.A. have been so anxious to receive federal aid that they have removed crucifixes from their classrooms to demonstrate their tolerant secular outlook.

A third item which encouraged me, and which has received nothing like the publicity it merited, was the massive Catholic reaction in France to attempts by the socialist-masonic government to bring private (i.e., Catholic) schools within the state system. This plan has had to be withdrawn due to determined opposition from Catholics largely in spite of their own bishops, rather than under episcopal leadership. This defense of Catholic schools resulted in one of the largest public demonstrations seen in Paris since the War. French traditionalists were active at all levels of this protest.

A fourth reason for satisfaction is the growing interest in the traditional faith among young people in many countries. Five thousand young traditionalists marched from Paris to the Cathedral of Chartres this year. There is now a young traditionalist's movement in Britain, and the young traditionalist get-togethers at St. Mary's College in Kansas, indicate the extent of support for the traditional faith in the U.S.A. Wherever I travel I always meet young people who do not simply reject but abominate the anaemic, ecumenical secularist substitute for Catholicism offered to them by bishops in many Catholic dioceses today. What is most encouraging of all is the fact that these young people are now beginning to make their presence felt in diocesan seminaries. Some old but trendy seminary rectors in the U.S.A. have begun to express alarm about the "neo-orthodoxy" movement gaining ground among some students. In England this year, the National Conference of Priests put on record its alarm about "an emerging neo-conservatism among some present seminary students." I know for a fact that there are traditionalist seminarians in every seminary in England, young men whose hope is that they will eventually be able to celebrate no other Mass but the Mass of St. Pius V.

A fifth reason for feeling encouraged is the general cohesion and expansion of the traditionalist movement. There are, alas, still depressing defections and set-backs. Those who offer schismatic and simplistic solutions to the present crisis can offer a very strong temptation to Catholics who are emotionally unbalanced and/or theologically ignorant. The position adopted by Mgr. Lefebvre or by such a publication as The Remnant requires us to make distinctions, to think out the implications and obligations of our Faith during the present crisis. Life is far more simple if we will accept that the Archangel Gabriel appears to Mrs. Nelly Scroggs at 6:00 p.m. each Saturday, and communicates God's will to her; or that if we accept that Father Bloggs who left the Society because he knows far more about theology than Archbishop Lefebvre, even though he is only in his twenties, is directly inspired by the Holy Ghost and is thus able to provide us with ex cathedra pronouncements on who is or is not pope, and which sacramental rites are or are not valid.

Despite the temptations to give up the fight and go along with the conciliar Church, to put one's faith in pseudo-seers, to go into schism, or simply to lapse completely, authentic Catholic traditionalism is slowly but steadily expanding. The continued progress of The Angelus is an evident proof of this tendency.

The Indult

1984 will certainly be known as "The Year of the Indult" above anything else. Some readers have expressed surprise at how accurate my prediction in the September issue of this magazine proved to be. The best aspect of the Indult is that the Mass it authorizes is the 1962 version, the one mandated by Archbishop Lefebvre for use within the Society. The Indult also accepts that those using the 1962 version will use the liturgical calendar of that year. Some traditional Catholics have expressed the view that the Indult is all part of a cunning plot designed to fragment the traditionalist movement. This view is naive, if not actually paranoid. If the Vatican wished to fragment the traditionalist movement, it would have authorized the 1967 version of the Tridentine Mass, as specified in the celebrated English Indult.² It would also have insisted on acceptance of the liturgical calendar of Pope Paul VI. Many traditionalists would have been delighted to accept such a compromise, others would not have done so under any circumstances, and a further rift would have been introduced into the movement. In my September article I expressed the view that the New Code of Canon Law made provision for fulfilling one's Sunday obligation by assisting at a Tridentine Mass. This opinion has been fully vindicated by the Indult. Despite its apparently restrictive conditions it is open to a very liberal interpretation by any individual bishop. For example, it recommends that Tridentine Masses should not be celebrated in parish churches unless the bishop allows it in extraordinary cases. Now what does extraordinary mean within the context of the Conciliar Church? Laymen are permitted to act as extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion, but it would not be extraordinary to find a church in which they are not utilized. Therefore, to all intents and purposes, what the Indult means is that any bishop may allow the Tridentine Mass to be celebrated in any parish church as often as he feels inclined and that, thanks to the New Code of Canon Law, there is no doubt whatsoever that assistance at such a Mass will fulfill the Sunday obligation.

Now I would like to go one stage further. I consider that there can be no doubt at all that the fact that the Indult specifies the 1962 rite, the very rite utilized by the Society of St; Pius X, makes it clear that the Pope envisages an eventual reconciliation of the Society and the Holy See. What I expect to see is the establishment of a personal prelature as has been the case with Opus Dei. The Society would then become a recognized religious order with priories all over the world, with its priests utilizing the traditional sacramental rites, just as the Dominican Order had its churches in many cities celebrating the Dominican Rite.

It would be hypocritical of me to pretend that I give wholehearted approval of every action of Pope John Paul II. I received a great deal of criticism for the article I wrote for The Angelus on his visit to Britain. Some readers considered that I had exceeded the bounds of propriety in the strong criticism I made of his participation in the ecumenical service in Canterbury Cathedral. I deplored his assistance at a Lutheran service in Rome. I fully agree with William Buckley's strictures on some of the socio-political opinions expressed by the Pope during his visit to Canada, although it is virtually certain that he was doing no more than read out speeches written for him by the Canadian hierarchy. Nonetheless, I must offer my gratitude and my praise for his courage in ordering the promulgation of this Indult against the wishes of almost every bishop in the world and, above all, of the liturgical establishment. In my September article, p. 8, col. 1, I referred to the fact that a Pope cannot do whatever he wishes simply because he is Pope, that he must take into account the opinions of his "executive" advisers, and the likely effect of his decisions on the Church as a whole. If Pope John Paul II had said to himself: "What can I do that will most antagonize the bishops of the world and the forces of liberalism within the Church?" then he could not have been given a more accurate answer than to promulgate this Indult. It has evoked an almost pathologically hostile reaction within the Liberal establishment. Father Laisney remarked quite correctly in the November Angelus that: "The anger of the Modernists is a good sign. It shows that this decree is truly not their work but, rather, the result of endless labor of good cardinals in the Vatican who were encouraged by the fidelity of Archbishop Lefebvre and the petitions of many of the faithful all across the world, especially Una Voce."

I was most gratified at the positive attitude to the Indult adopted by Father Laisney, which reflects that of Father Schmidberger and Archbishop Lefebvre. Father Schmidberger got right to the heart of the matter when he stated that we should rejoice over the Indult as it represents a first step towards a clear change of direction in the disastrous policies followed by the Vatican since Vatican II.

The most dramatic possible endorsement of the positive reaction of the Society of St. Pius X to the Indult came during a conference of liturgists in Rome at the end of October, with the object of assessing the progress of the post-conciliar liturgical reform. There is good reason to believe that, at the instigation of Archbishop Noe, representatives of the bishops at this conference were to do all in their power to persuade the Pope to suppress or at least postpone the promulgation of the Indult. In order to preempt such an initiative, Archbishop Mayer, Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments (Archbishop Noe is the Secretary), published the Indult before the conference began, which explains why most bishops had no knowledge of it before they read of its publication in their daily newspapers. Many an apostle of progress almost choked on his breakfast crunchies! Archbishop Mayer is certainly the best friend traditionalists have had in this Congregation since the death of Cardinal Gut, and I hope that every reader of The Angelus will comply with the suggestion made on page 11 of the November issue and write letters of appreciation to those named on that page, with the exception of substituting Archbishop A. Mayer for Cardinal Oddi. Cardinal Oddi is Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy, and has nothing at all to do with the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.

To return to the October conference on the new liturgy, the 2 November 1984 Universe carried a headline proclaiming: "Tridentine Mass: Bishops 'Deplore' Decision." The report was by Ronald Singleton, the Rome correspondent of The Universe. Those who have purchased Volume II of Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre might like to look up his name in the index. They will discover that Mr. Singleton is not the number one fan of the traditionalist movement. In the 2 November Universe he reported with great satisfaction that:

Anyone interested in Archbishop Hurley can discover a great deal about him in the January 1984 Angelus. The most significant sentence in his anti-papal diatribe is the one deploring the fact that "an important liturgical question should be left to the local bishop." In other words, Archbishop Hurley considers that a diocesan bishop does not have the right to rule in his own diocese, subject only to the intervention of the Supreme Pontiff. The fact is that episcopal conferences have no canonical right to dictate to an individual bishop as to what he may or may not do in his own diocese. But sadly, most bishops have now submitted themselves to the unofficial dictatorship of these bodies, which, in effect, means submitting themselves to the even more unofficial dictatorship of the so-called "expert advisers" who manipulate the episcopal conferences for their own purposes. The only expertise one can rightly attribute to these men is that of being demolition experts. Before the Council each bishop was the ruler in his own diocese, and in the debate on collegiality Archbishop Lefebvre warned the bishops that it would not increase but decrease their effective authority. In a truly prophetic speech he stated precisely what was going to happen. It can be found on p. 14 of his book I Accuse the Council, and the key passage reads: "The national assemblies with their commissions would soon—and unconsciously—be feeding and governing all the flocks, so that the priests as well as the laity would find themselves placed between these two pastors: the bishops, whose authority would be theoretical, and the assembly with its commissions, which would, in fact, hold the exercise of that authority." One can only marvel at the perspicacity of Archbishop Lefebvre in foreseeing so exactly a development to which almost all the other bishops at the Council appeared blind. Archbishop Hurley's outburst at the liturgical conference makes it clear that he and his ilk consider the unofficial dictatorship of the episcopal conferences to be de facto Church law.

The anger of the liberals concerning the Indult is then, as Father Laisney remarked, a good sign. If the liberals hate it, then we must welcome it, despite its limitations. In his October tirade, Archbishop Hurley claimed that the enquiry held by the Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments revealed that in 98% of the world's dioceses, no one wanted the Tridentine Mass. This is because most of the bishops either made no attempt to discover the feelings of the faithful or told outright lies. I mentioned this enquiry in my September article, and referred to the fact that the dismissal of Cardinal Knox by the Pope was due at least in part to the fact that the Holy Father had been made aware of the deplorable falsification which this report contained.

It is absolutely vital that we note that the present Indult instructs bishops to report back to the Holy See at the end of a year concerning the outcome of the Indult. It is therefore up to us not to let them claim that there has been no demand. We must do this by sending in as many requests as possible, and sending copies of these requests to Archbishop Mayer and the Holy Father. It is far from unlikely that some, even many, bishops would go as far as denying that they had received any requests, such is their hatred of Tradition.

This brings us to the question as to whether a traditional Catholic could in good conscience make a request for a Mass in a diocesan church under the terms of this Indult. Where priests of the Society are concerned the Indult contains conditions, which, as Father Laisney remarked in his November editorial, make it unacceptable to the Society. No one would expect the Society of St. Pius X to accept the conditions set out in this Indult as the basis for a formal reconciliation with the Holy See. But this does not mean that lay Catholics, including supporters of the Society, cannot write to their bishops asking them to arrange for the celebration of Masses under the terms of this Indult.

Let us examine the conditions in (a), the only section which presents a problem. This section reads: "There must be unequivocal, even public evidence, that the priests and faithful petitioning have no ties with those who impugn the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Roman Missal promulgated in 1970 by Pope Paul VI."

As regards the lawfulness of the New Missal, it has been lawfully promulgated in accordance with the required canonical norms and so there is no problem whatsoever about accepting this requirement.

As regards doctrinal soundness (doctrinalem rectitudinem); can a traditionalist state without hypocrisy that he does not impugn the doctrinal soundness of the New Missal? Several decades ago, there was a radio program in Britain called "The Brains Trust." The most popular member of the panel was a certain Professor Joad, whose favorite phrase was: "Well, it all depends what you mean by . . ." This is what I would say with regard to this stipulation: "It all depends on what you mean by doctrinal soundness." I would also add that it also depends on what you mean by the New Missal. To answer the second question first, I mean by the New Missal the Latin version approved and promulgated by Pope Paul VI. This obviates any problem raised by defective translations. By doctrinal soundness I mean an absence of heresy. There is no formal heresy in the New Missal. Indeed, priests of the Society are obliged to affirm that this is the case. I would thus feel able to accept section (a) without feeling in the least hypocritical, and I would certainly have no ties with anyone who claimed that the New Missal had not been lawfully promulgated or that it contained formal heresy. I have consulted an outstanding traditionalist theologian on this point, a professor of theology and author of twelve books, who says only the Tridentine Mass. He assured me that I had every right to interpret section (a) in the sense I had done, that he would interpret it in the same sense, and that he considered that doing so did not involve equivocation let alone hypocrisy.

In order to forestall two possible objections I will answer them in advance. Does not the notorious Instruction 7 cast a cloud over the New Mass? My answer is that this article has been replaced and that the New Missal contains a foreword (proemium) stating unequivocally that it is intended to uphold the Tridentine Eucharistic teaching of the Church.

In his editorial to the November Angelus, Father Laisney referred to the New Mass as "equivocal and ambiguous." I am sure that he will not mind my saying that this statement needs qualifying when we consider the New Missal as a totality. We must never forget that the New Missal does include the Roman Canon which states the Catholic Eucharistic teaching of sacrifice, the Real Presence, and the ministerial priesthood unequivocally. On p. 329 of Pope Paul's New Mass I stated: "Thus if we examine the Novus Ordo Missae from a dispassionate theological standpoint and consider it, even when celebrated with Eucharistic Prayer II, within an ex adjunctis setting which includes the Roman Canon and the Foreword reiterating the teaching of Trent (which has been added to the revised General Instruction), then the sacrificial nature of the Mass is expressed in the rite as a whole." I will not add to the length of this article by explaining the meaning of signification ex adjunctis, but for those who understand the principle I would add that the fact that the Tridentine Mass is now formally recognized by the Holy See as a legitimate rite to be used throughout the Church most certainly has an ex adjunctis signification for the New Mass which must now be considered as just one of a family of rites used within the Roman Rite. The fact that the Tridentine Mass is no longer subjected to a de facto prohibition makes the New Mass less suspect.³

Evidently, what I have written here is my personal opinion and is in no sense intended to represent the opinion of the Society. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the fact that anything I write in The Angelus represents my personal opinion and nothing more. If any reader feels inclined to write and accuse me of defending the New Mass I would suggest to him that no one has gone into greater detail than I have to point out its deficiencies. In my books and pamphlets I have always endeavored to put the strongest possible case for the other side, which is not simply honest but pre-empts criticism.

It is thus my hope that readers will make frequent applications to their bishops for celebrations of the Tridentine Mass under the terms of the Indult. There is good reason to believe that the Pope wishes to broaden its terms, eventually to remove all restrictions. He will not be helped in this task if we do not provide him with evidence of a widespread demand for it. A failure on our part to request celebrations under the terms of the Indult would play into the hands of the bishops who wish the Tridentine Mass to vanish from the face of the earth. If the Tridentine Mass is to be restored eventually as the only order of Mass used within the Roman Rite, then this restoration must come from a Pope. The Society can do no more than preserve it for a small minority of the faithful. It would be grossly selfish of those of us who have regular access to the Tridentine Mass not to play our part in bringing it back for all our brothers in the Faith, particularly the millions of young people who will not ask for it themselves as they have never been privileged to assist at it, and are unaware that they are being deprived of their most precious spiritual heritage apart from Holy Scripture. Above all, those who do ask for celebrations under the Indult must insure that evidence of their application is preserved to be sent to the Pope and Archbishop Mayer to preclude an almost certain attempt at a "cover-up."

1. A Fireside Chat with Malcolm Muggeridge, 92 pages, $5.50 postpaid, Neumann Press, Rural Route Two, Long Prairie, Minn. 56347.

2. See Pope Paul's New Mass, pp. 564-568, for the full text and relevant documentation.

3. There is an explanation of signification ex adjunctis in my book The Order of Melchisedech.