Indiscipline is everywhere in the Church. Committees of priests send demands to
their bishops, bishops disregard pontifical exhortations, even the recommendations
and decisions of the Council are not respected and yet one never hears uttered the
word “disobedience,” except as applied to Catholics who wish to remain faithful to
Tradition and just simply keep the Faith.
Obedience is a serious matter; to remain united to the Church’s Magisterium and
particularly to the Supreme Pontiff is one of the conditions of salvation. We are
deeply aware of this and nobody is more attached to the present reigning successor
of Peter, or has been more attached to his predecessors, than we are. I am
speaking here of myself and of the many faithful driven out of the churches, and
also of the priests who are obliged to celebrate Mass in barns as in the French
Revolution, and to organize alternative catechism classes in town and country.
We are attached to the Pope for as long as he echoes the apostolic traditions and
the teachings of all his predecessors. It is the very definition of the successor
of Peter that he is the keeper of this deposit. Pius IX teaches us in Pastor
Aeternus: “The Holy Ghost has not in fact been promised to the successors of Peter
to permit them to proclaim new doctrine according to His revelations, but to keep
strictly and to expound faithfully, with His help, the revelations transmitted by
the Apostles, in other words the Deposit of Faith.”
The authority delegated by Our Lord to the Pope, the Bishops and the priesthood in
general is for the service of faith. To make use of law, institutions and
authority to annihilate the Catholic Faith and no longer to transmit life, is to
practise spiritual abortion or contraception.
This is why we are submissive and ready to accept everything that is in conformity
with our Catholic Faith, as it has been taught for two thousand years, but we
reject everything that is opposed to it.
For the fact is that a grave problem confronted the conscience and the faith of
all Catholics during the pontificate of Paul VI. How ould a Pope, true successor
of Peter, assured of the assistance of the Holy Ghost, preside over the most vast
and extensive destruction of the Church in her history within so short a space of
time, something that no heresiarch has ever succeeded in doing? One day this
question will have to be answered.
In the first half of the Fifth Century, St. Vincent of Lérins, who was a soldier
before consecrating himself to God and acknowledged having been “tossed for a long
time on the sea of the world before finding shelter in the harbor of faith,” spoke
thus about the development of dogma: “Will there be no religious advances in
Christ’s Church? Yes, certainly, there will be some very important ones, of such a
sort as to constitute progress in the faith and not change. What matters is that
in the course of ages knowledge, understanding and wisdom grow in abundance and in
depth, in each and every individual as in the churches; provided always that there
is identity of dogma and continuity of thought.” Vincent, who had experienced the
shock of heresies, gives a rule of conduct which still holds good after fifteen
hundred years: “What should the Catholic Christian therefore do if some part of
the Church arrives at the point of detaching itself from the universal communion
and the universal faith? What else can he do but prefer the general body which is
healthy to the gangrenous and corrupted limb? And if some new contagion strives to
poison, not just a small part of the Church but the whole Church at once, then
again his great concern will be to attach himself to Antiquity which obviously
cannot any more be seduced by any deceptive novelty.”
In the Rogation-tide litanies the Church teaches us to say: “We beseech thee O
Lord, maintain in Thy holy religion the Sovereign Pontiff and all the orders of
ecclesiastical hierarchy.” This means that such a disaster could very well happen.
In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a
diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever
interferes with their faith, supported by the catechism of their childhood. If
they are faced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is
an overriding duty to disobey.
It is because we judge that our faith is endangered by the post-conciliar reforms
and tendencies, that we have the duty to disobey and keep the Tradition. Let us
add this, that the greatest service we can render to the Church and to the
successor of Peter is to reject the reformed and liberal Church. Jesus Christ, Son
of God made man, is neither liberal nor reformable. On two occasions I have heard
emissaries of the Holy See say to me: “The social Kingdom of Our Lord is no longer
possible in our times and we must ultimately accept the plurality of religions.”
This is exactly what they have said to me.
Well, I am not of that religion. I do not accept that new religion. It is a
liberal, modernist religion which has its worship, its priests, its faith, its
catechism, its ecumenical Bible translated jointly by Catholics, Jews, Protestants
and Anglicans, all things to all men, pleasing everybody by frequently sacrificing
the interpretation of the Magisterium. We do not accept this ecumenical Bible.
There is the Bible of God; it is His Word which we have not the right to mix with
the words of men.
When I was a child, the Church had the same faith everywhere, the same sacraments
and the same Sacrifice of the Mass. If anyone had told me then that it would be
changed, I would not have believed him. Throughout the breadth of Christendom we
prayed to God in the same way. The new liberal and modernist religion has sown
Christians are divided within the same family because of this confusion which has
established itself; they no longer go to the same Mass and they no longer read the
same books. Priests no longer know what to do; either they obey blindly what their
superiors impose on them, and lose to some degree the faith of their childhood and
youth, renouncing the promises they made when they took the Anti-Modernist Oath at
the moment of their ordination; or on the other hand they resist, but with the
feeling of separating themselves from the Pope, who is our father and the Vicar of
Christ. In both cases, what a heartbreak! Many priests have died of sorrow before
How many more have been forced to abandon the parishes where for years they had
practised their ministry, victims of open persecution by their hierarchy in spite
of the support of the faithful whose pastor was being torn away! I have before me
the moving farewell of one of them to the people of the two parishes of which he
was priest: “In our interview on the… the Bishop addressed an ultimatum to me,
to accept or reject the new religion; I could not evade the issue. Therefore, to
remain faithful to the obligation of my priesthood, to remain faithful to the
Eternal Church… I was forced and coerced against my will to retire… Simple
honesty and above all my honor as a priest impose on me an obligation to be loyal,
precisely in this matter of divine gravity (the Mass)… This is the proof of
faithfulness and love that I must give to God and men and to you in particular,
and it is on this that I shall be judged on the last day along with all those to
whom was entrusted the same deposit (of faith).”
In the Diocese of Campos in Brazil, practically all the clergy have been driven
out of the churches after the departure of Bishop Castro-Mayer, because they were
not willing to abandon the Mass of all time which they celebrated there until
Divisions affects the smallest manifestations of piety. In Val-de-Marne, the
diocese got the police to eject twenty-five Catholics who used to recite the
Rosary in a church which had been deprived of a priest for a long period of years.
In the diocese of Metz, the bishops brought in the Communist mayor to cancel the
loan of a building to a group of traditionalists. In Canada six of the faithful
were sentenced by a Court, which is permitted by the law of that country to deal
with this kind of matter, for insisting on receiving Holy Communion on their
knees. The Bishop of Antigonish had accused them of “deliberately disturbing the
order and the dignity of religious service.” The judge gave the “disturbers” a
conditional discharge for six months! According to the Bishop, Christians are
forbidden to bend the knee before God! Last year, the pilgrimage of young people
to Chartres ended with a Mass in the Cathedral gardens because the Mass of St.
Pius V was banned from the Cathedral itself. A fortnight later, the doors were
thrown open for a spiritual concert in the course of which dances were performed
by a former Carmelite nun.
Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is
impossible to avoid a choice, but the choice is not between obedience and
disobedience. What is suggested to us, what we are expressly invited to do, what
we are persecuted for not doing, is to choose an appearance of obedience. But even
the Holy Father cannot ask us to abandon our faith.
We therefore choose to keep it and we cannot be mistaken in clinging to what the
Church has taught for two thousand years. The crisis is profound, cleverly
organized and directed, and by this token one can truly believe that the master
mind is not a man but Satan himself. For it is a master-stroke of Satan to get
Catholics to disobey the whole of Tradition in the name of obedience. A typical
example is furnished by the “aggiornamento” of the religious societies. By
obedience, monks and nuns are made to disobey the laws and constitutions of their
founders, which they swore to observe when they made their profession. Obedience
in this case should have been a categorical refusal. Even legitimate authority
cannot command a reprehensible and evil act. Nobody can oblige anyone to change
his monastic vows into simple promises, just as nobody can make us become
Protestants or modernists. St. Thomas Aquinas, to whom we must always refer, goes
so far in the Summa Theologica as to ask whether the “fraternal correction”
prescribed by Our Lord can be exercised towards our superiors. After having made
all the appropriate distinctions he replies: “One can exercise fraternal
correction towards superiors when it is a matter of faith.”
If we were more resolute on this subject, we would avoid coming to the point of
gradually absorbing heresies. At the beginning of the sixteenth century the
English underwent an experience of the kind we are living through, but with the
difference that it began with a schism. In all other respects the similarities are
astonishing and should give us cause to ponder. The new religion which was to
take the name “Anglicanism” started with an attack on the Mass, personal
confession and priestly celibacy. Henry VIII, although he had taken the enormous
responsibility of separating his people from Rome, rejected the suggestions that
were put to him, but a year after his death a statute authorized the use of
English for the celebration of the Mass. Processions were forbidden and a new
order of service was imposed, the “Communion Service” in which there was no longer
an Offertory. To reassure Christians another statute forbade all sorts of
changes, whereas a third allowed priests to get rid of the statues of the saints
and of the Blessed Virgin in the churches. Venerable works of art were sold to
traders, just as today they go to antique dealers and flea markets.
Only a few bishops pointed out that the Communion Service infringed the dogma of
the Real Presence by saying that Our Lord gives us His Body and Blood spiritually.
The Confiteor, translated into the vernacular, was recited at the same time by the
celebrant and the faithful and served as an absolution. The Mass was transformed
into a meal or Communion. But even clear-headed bishops eventually ac-cepted the
new Prayer Book in order to maintain peace and unity. It is for exactly the same
reasons that the post-Conciliar Church wants to impose on us the Novus Ordo. The
English bishops in the Sixteenth Century affirmed that the Mass was a “memorial!”
A sustained propaganda introduced Lutheran views into the minds of the faithful.
Preachers had to be approved by the Government.
During the same period the Pope was only referred to as the “Bishop of Rome.” He
was no longer the father but the brother of the other bishops and in this
instance, the brother of the King of England who had made himself head of the
national church. Cranmer’s Prayer Book was composed by mixing parts of the Greek
liturgy with parts of Luther’s liturgy. How can we not be reminded of Mgr.
Bugnini drawing up the so-called Mass of Paul VI, with the collaboration of six
Protestant “observers” attached as experts to the Consilium for the reform of the
liturgy? The Prayer Book begins with these words, “The Supper and Holy Communion,
commonly called Mass…,” which foreshadows the notorious Article 7 of the
Institutio Generalis of the New Missal, revived by the Lourdes Eucharistic
Congress in 1981: “The Supper of the Lord, otherwise called the Mass.” The
destruction of the sacred, to which I have already referred, also formed part of
the Anglican reform. The words of the Canon were required to be spoken in a loud
voice, as happens in the “Eucharists” of the present day.
The Prayer Book was also approved by the bishops “to preserve the internal unity
of the Kingdom.” Priests who continued to say the “Old Mass” incurred penalties
ranging from loss of income to removal pure and simple, with life imprisonment for
further offences. We have to be grateful that these days they do not put
traditionalist priests in prison.
Tudor England, led by its pastors, slid into heresy without realizing it, by
accepting change under the pretext of adapting to the historical circumstances of
the time. Today the whole of Christendom is in danger of taking the same road.
Have you thought that even if we who are of a certain age run a smaller risk,
children and younger seminarians brought up in new catechisms, experimental
psychology and sociology, without a trace of dogmatic or moral theology, canon law
or Church history, are educated in a faith which is not the true one and take for
granted the new Protestant notions with which they are indoctrinated? What will
tomorrow’s religion be if we do not resist?
You will be tempted to say: “But what can we do about it? It is a bishop who says
this or that. Look, this document comes from the Catechetical Commission or some
other official commission.”
That way there is nothing left for you but to lose your faith. But you do not have
the right to react in that way. St. Paul has warned us: “Even if an angel from
Heaven came to tell you anything other than what I have taught you, do not listen
Such is the secret of true obedience.