Michael Davies

Part One

IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE and almost inevitable that sincere, orthodox Catholics will differ on the correct attitude to adopt towards the Novus Ordo Missae. Some believe as it compromises the teaching of Trent so seriously, and presents a danger to the faith of those who assist at it, the faithful should avoid it—even in its official Latin version. Others feel

Michael Davies

Part One

IT IS UNDERSTANDABLE and almost inevitable that sincere, orthodox Catholics will differ on the correct attitude to adopt towards the Novus Ordo Missae. Some believe as it compromises the teaching of Trent so seriously, and presents a danger to the faith of those who assist at it, the faithful should avoid it—even in its official Latin version. Others feel that, whatever our personal views, we must accept the Novus Ordo Missae and assist at it without protest, because it has received the approval of the Pope. There are arguments in favor of both points of view, and for other attitudes which come between them. But it is intolerable that those upholding any position should do so by distorting the truth or by misrepresenting those  who disagree with them. A deplorable example of such an attempt occurred in the United States in 1981; the organization is Catholics United for the Faith, popularly known as CUF.

CUF was one of the first groups of conservative Catholics organized in the U. S. A. to resist the resurgence of Modernism which followed Vatican II. It did excellent work in drawing attention to abuses, and exposing the deficiencies of the new religious textbooks. Its members are generally zealous, orthodox Catholics with a deep love of the faith, who, in private, tend to dislike the liturgical changes.

As the years passed it became clear that CUF was becoming less and less effective in combatting the post-conciliar malaise due to a very uncatholic concept of blind obedience to authority which its leaders imposed on the movement. These leaders would not tolerate any public criticism of the Pope or of the American Bishops by its members, nor would they countenance criticism of any innovation approved by the Pope. Without stating it formally, their practical attitude was to treat the Pope as an oracle, considering his every word and decision as divinely inspired and above criticism. As I have just stated, such an attitude is totally uncatholic, this can be seen by referring to Appendices I and II of my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre, Volume I.

The practical effect of this CUF policy was to neutralize the conservative Catholics who enrolled in it as far as effective public resistance to the disintegration of American Catholicism was concerned. As is the case with so many religious and political movements, it reached the point where it was achieving little beyond perpetuating its own bureaucracy. This became apparent to many of its best and most perceptive members, a good number of whom left CUF to work with traditionalist Catholic groups which were taking practical measures to perpetuate a traditional Catholic presence in the U.S.A. It is only fair to point out that at the other end of the conservative spectrum, some traditional Catholics are being effectively neutralized by being drawn into groups which are, for all practical purposes, schismatic. The problem confronting the traditional Catholic is to remain within the Church to fight the forces which are destroying her from within.

A Dishonest Book

The defection of so many CUF members to the traditionalist movement gave rise to considerable concern among the leadership. As the nineteen-seventies drew to a close, entire CUF Chapters were closing down. In an attempt to stem the leakage, CUF produced a book entitled The Pope, the Council and the Mass. It was written by two CUF executives, James Likoudis and James Whitehead. The latter has subsequently resigned. It had a preface by the President of CUF, H. Lyman Stebbins, who has since stepped down in favor of his wife, Mrs. Madeleine Stebbins. Mr. and Mrs. Stebbins, together with two other executive members, are among those thanked for offering valuable assistance. CUF presented the book as an answer to "Questions the Traditionalists are Asking." In reality it is one of the most contemptible examples of polemical writing to appear in the U.S.A. since Vatican II. This is not entirely surprising, the policy of CUF is devoid of credibility; it cannot be defended by credible arguments; CUF has, therefore, resorted to a tactic often utilized by politicians in a similar predicament, that of trying to discredit its opponents. It does this by a combination of suppresio veri (misrepresentation by the concealment of facts that ought to be made known), and of suggestio falsi (positive misrepresentation not involving a direct lie, but going beyond concealment of the truth). In fact, as I will show, suggestio falsi is probably too mild a description for the treatment accorded to the Ottaviani Intervention in the CUF book. The book also contains very serious doctrinal errors, but these are probably not intentional—simply the result of laymen moving into a level of theology which is well beyond their competence. In this article I shall confine myself strictly to what the authors say concerning the Ottaviani Intervention. But before doing so I must note that one of them, in a book review, attacked another writer because:

Not a single conservative source or book appears in all his footnotes. He mentions by name only two representatives of a "conservative" or "traditional" viewpoint; one of them has since become a radical himself, and the other, never representative, is no longer active in Catholic affairs. His view of what is supposedly "conservative" in the Church, then, is one more gross caricature out of Commonweal or The Critic.

This is an exact description of the method adopted in the CUF book. Apart from mentioning the Intervention and attacking Archbishop Lefebvre by name, there is not a single traditionalist source or book mentioned in the text or the footnotes, and not a single representative of the traditionalist viewpoint is mentioned by name. Such a procedure disqualifies The Pope, The Council and The Mass from any consideration as a serious work of scholarship. It is as if a conservative political writer wished to publish a critique of Marxism, and did not cite a single work by Marx or a Marxist. Such a critique could not be taken seriously. What this book (which will be referred to as PCM) proves, is that CUF has such little confidence in its case that it dare not risk its supporters gaining access to writing giving the contrary position. I have documentary evidence proving that one of the authors has read all my own books, and similar evidence proving that some of those consulted were in a similar position. Soon after the book appeared I received letters from two well known journalists who write for the official Catholic press in the U.S.A., stating that CUF had published a book attacking my own writings. When I eventually obtained a copy I saw at once that much of its content was directed against what I had written. I am by no means suggesting that I should not be criticized, I am as liable to error as any other writer, but what I consider indefensible is the fear the Authors manifested of allowing CUF members to so much as know the source of the opinions they were attacking. On the other hand, I took no little satisfaction at the tribute this paid to my own books. It proved that the case I put forward in them must be very convincing.

CUF and the Ottaviani Intervention

For the purposes of this article I will be confining myself to the treatment accorded to the Ottaviani Intervention in PCM. The subject is discussed on pages 128-132. The Authors do not quote so much as a word from the Study itself, just a dozen lines from the covering letter. Then they go on at once to refer to the spurious letter to Dom Lafond which Cardinal Ottaviani had been tricked into signing. They comment:

The second letter, although it has been a matter of public record since 1970, has not been publicized to the extent that the original "Ottaviani Intervention" was publicized; many Catholics are unaware of the existence of this letter in which the respected Cardinal declared that "no one can any longer be genuinely scandalized." Though a few writers, aware of the second letter, have alleged that the blind cardinal was the victim of a fraud in obtaining his signature to it, Cardinal Ottaviani never in any way repudiated the sentiments expressed in this letter; never did he go on record to disavow it although he could easily have done so.

The letter to Dom Lafond was certainly known in France as widely as the Intervention itself, both through the efforts of those wishing to discredit the Intervention, and then through their exposure by Jean Madiran. It was publicized in England by Father John Flanagan in the journal of the Catholic Priest Association, which was read widely during the nineteen-seventies by leading personalities in English-speaking conservative Catholic circles. In 1977 I published a pamphlet entitled "The New Mass" which received a wide circulation in Britain and the U.S.A.. It included the complete text of the Dom Lafond letter, together with an account of Jean Madiran's exposé of the plot to discredit the Intervention.

I referred earlier to the technique of suggestio falsi in PCM; I fear this phrase is not strong enough to describe the claim by the Authors that "Cardinal Ottaviani never in any way repudiated the sentiments expressed in this letter; never did he go on record to disavow it, although he could easily have done so." They made this statement after having studied my pamphlet, and knowing full well that the Cardinal had, in his statement to Madiran, gone on record to disavow the alleged retraction. Would they, perhaps, like to suggest that Madiran was deliberately lying, that he made the whole story up, that he challenged the Cardinal's secretary to meet him in court knowing that he would certainly be proved wrong? The enemies of Madiran and the traditionalist movement, the men who wished to discredit the Intervention, were all powerful in Rome at that time. They would have had no difficulty in arranging for the Cardinal to be visited by a group of witnesses whose testimony would not have been doubted in a civil or ecclesiastical court. He could then have confirmed to them that he had indeed signed the letter to Dom Lafond, that he was aware of its contents, that he agreed with its contents, and he no longer had any reservations concerning the New Mass. The Intervention would thus have been totally defused and Madiran totally discredited. But no such action was taken. Msgr. Agustoni was dismissed, and Madiran's testimony remains unchallenged to this day. It is hardly surprising that, after presenting their readers with a travesty of the truth, the Authors of PCM took care not to include any reference to my own pamphlet which contained the full story.

PCM next quotes an alleged statement of the Cardinal which appeared in a Spanish journal, Cruzade Espanol, 25 May 1970. I say "alleged" because, in view of the Dom Lafond episode, it seems reasonable to treat any such statement with a certain degree of scepticism. However, for the purposes of argument we will take this statement at its face value as expressing the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani:

The beauty of the Church is equally resplendent in the variety of liturgical rites which enrich her divine cult—when they are legitimate and conform to the faith.

This seems a somewhat strange statement for a theologian of the Cardinal's eminence to make. If a liturgical rite was not legitimate or did not conform to the faith it would not form part of the divine cult of the Church. But let us continue:

Precisely the legitimacy of their origin protects and guards them against the infiltration of errors ... The purity and unity of the faith is in this way also upheld by the supreme Magisterium of the Pope through the liturgical laws.

There is not one word in this statement with which any theologically literate traditionalist could not concur wholeheartedly. It is simply a statement of the Church's indefectibility in approving sacramental rites, which has already been referred to, and which is explained in the addendum to this article taken from The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Authors of PCM interpret this statement as "the most powerful and conclusive argument that the New Order of Mass cannot really contain or tend towards heresy, namely, that its doctrine is guaranteed by the divinely assisted Magisterium of the Catholic Church." This is correct, but which responsible traditionalist writer has alleged that the NOM contains heresy? Cranmer's Communion Services contained no heresy. They were condemned not for what was in them, but for what they omitted from the rites which they replaced. Almost all the prayers which the Protestant Reformers had removed from the variants of the Roman Rite in use in the sixteenth century have been removed from Pope Paul's New Mass, which was concocted with the assistance of Protestant advisers. Neither the Study nor the covering letter speak of the rite containing heresy—the charge is that it has removed a barrier to heresy that existed in the previous rite. It is the removal of this barrier which means that there is a danger of those using the rite tending towards heresy. A mother who refuses to allow her child to receive a smallpox innoculation could certainly not be accused of giving him smallpox, nor would such a decision imply that she wished her child to contract the disease. She might well have decided that there is so little smallpox about today that such a precaution is hardly necessary. But it is perfectly reasonable to state that a mother who denied her child such an innoculation was certainly failing to provide a barrier against the disease.

Fruits of the Reform

"A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos," the Bible tells us: "By their fruits you shall know them" (Matt. 6:16). When we look at the manner in which Mass is celebrated today in the generality of churches in the English-speaking world do we see any good fruits coming from the liturgical reform? Let those readers who are old enough to recall the atmosphere of piety and reverence which characterized the celebration of Mass as they knew it before Vatican II; let them contrast it with this comment by the late Archbishop R. J. Dwyer on the atmosphere which permeates all too many American churches today:

Communicants flock to the communion rail in all sorts of attire, from short shorts to near bathing suit undress ... Near jazz music in rollicking fashion accompanies those approaching the Table of Our Lord ... Many children do not genuflect any more. They roam around church, sit down in their pew without even so much as a nod to recognize Our Lord in the tabernacle. The Real Presence is not emphasized—the supreme holiness of the Blessed Sacrament has been relegated to the background. The bread and wine have been too completely represented as symbols "of the work of men's hands."

Can any reader imagine such a scene in a Catholic church before the barrier of the Tridentine Mass had been removed? Of course not. The warning contained in the Intervention has proved to be only too prophetic and accurate. The infallible assistance given to the Pope in defining doctrine or approving sacramental rites is purely negative, there is no degree of inspiration involved. The Holy Ghost will prevent him from allowing heresy to enter sacramental rites destined for the entire Church,^{1 [1]} but the Holy Ghost will not inspire him to ensure that any new rite is an improvement upon the old, or even as good as the old.

The Fantasyworld of CUF

The Authors of PCM continue:

Those who attempt to justify their rejection of the Novus Ordo on the basis of Cardinal Ottaviani's opinion of it delivered before its definitive version was even available, conveniently ignore these other wise words of this same humble servant of the Holy See ... (A comment on obedience to the Pope made by Cardinal Ottaviani during Vatican II follows).

At this point the Authors have entered a fantasy world. The version of the NOM criticized in the Intervention is the definitive version. The decree promulgating the NOM and the IG makes no reference to "provisional versions." I mentioned this nonsensical statement in the 17 January 1982 Remnant, and a reader of this journal took the matter up with the CUF office. The reply he received claimed that what the Authors were referring to was the complete edition of the New Missal published in March 1970. The CUF office defended the Authors by claiming that:

They observed that the Cardinal's support of theological objections to the Novus Ordo (and accompanying General Instruction) was written before the important doctrinal clarifications provided in the "General Instruction on the Roman Missal" accompanying the Novus Ordo was published on March 26,1970.

Oh no they didn't! They stated that the definitive version of the NOM was not available when the Cardinal criticized it, and they did not even mention the General Instruction. The version of the NOM criticized by the Cardinal in 1969 is exactly the same as that contained in the 1970 Missal (but for the restoration of the Quod ore to the Communion rite). The CUF defense of its own book adds that:

Obviously, at the time Cardinal Ottaviani gave support to the conclusion of the Critical Study, he could not be aware that a future revision of the "General Instruction on the Roman Missal" would serve to alleviate some of his fears concerning a "break with tradition."

This must surely be the silliest statement made at any time by anyone on any aspect of the post-conciliar liturgical revolution. The revision of the IG was made precisely because of the criticisms contained in the Critical Study. If the Study hadn't exposed the errors and ambiguities of the IG it would not have been revised! The version of the IG criticized by the Study was the definitive version, just as the Order of Mass criticized by it was the definitive Order. Alas, although the IG was revised the NOM was not.

A Plea to the Pope

Sufficient has now been written to demonstrate that the CUF attempt to discredit the Ottaviani Intervention is as contemptible and devoid of factual basis as similar attempts made in other countries.

I do not wish to argue that the Critical Study itself is beyond criticism. There is a case for arguing that in places it has overstated the case against the NOM. But it gave those whose Catholic instinct had made them uneasy concerning liturgical changes a sound doctrinal basis for expressing this anxiety; and its arguments have been amply justified by the disintegration of Catholic liturgical life which followed the virtually universal imposition of the NOM.

In their covering letter the two courageous Cardinals warned Pope Paul VI that truths which have always been believed by Christians cannot be altered or silenced "without infidelity to that sacred deposit of doctrine to which the Catholic faith is bound forever." Their final appeal to Pope Paul VI is one which faithful Catholics must make respectfully but persistently to every successor of St. Peter until it is granted:

Therefore we most earnestly beseech Your Holiness not to deprive us—at a time of such painful divisions and ever increasing perils for the purity of the Faith and the unity of the Church, daily and sorrowfully echoed in the voice of our common Father—of the possibility of continuing to have recourse to the faithful integrity of that Missale Romanum of St. Pius V, so highly praised by Your Holiness and so deeply venerated and loved by the whole Catholic world.

 

1 [2]. Although there are other rites in the Church, teaching, or liturgy destined for the Roman Rite can be considered as if for the entire Church.