Be Rational: Become Protestants!

Source: FSSPX News

What else can we say to all those who want to remain firmly attached to the Motu proprio that founded the Ecclesia Dei movement, and yet consider the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X to be schismatic? The following is a reflection by Fr. Jean-Michel Gleize, SSPX.

We have written about how the celebration of the Mass as part of the Chartres pilgrimage could become problematic [1]. Indeed, even in the best-case scenario, where the ecclesiastical authorities do not refuse to allow priests taking part in this pilgrimage to celebrate according to the Missal of St. Pius V, the fact remains that the organizers of this same pilgrimage do not intend to celebrate Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI.

This refusal puts the Catholics of the Ecclesia Dei movement in a dilemma. There are two paths for them. Either the reasons for this refusal can be added to those for which the Society of Saint Pius X does not accept the celebration of the Novus Ordo—reasons which make this refusal an attitude of principle—and thus the Ecclesia Dei movement is falling into the supposed schism it initially sought to avoid by refusing to follow Archbishop Lefebvre.

Or the said movement intends to remain faithful to its origins, by distancing itself on principle from the attitude adopted by the Society of Saint Pius X, and thus it cannot endorse the reasons for which the Society refuses on principle the new Missal of Paul VI. In order to refuse this new Missal, this would lead them to discover other, obscure reasons, like their insistence that “the old Mass is the DNA of the pilgrimage.”

2. The same logic of avoiding the supposed schism must lead to discrediting the refusal of even the Mass of Paul VI, such as it is justified by the Society of Saint Pius X. All the critics of Archbishop Lefebvre’s struggle use identical means to attack it.

This means is recourse to the only extrinsic argument of authority, since internal criticism of the new rite of the Mass, of which the Brief Critical Study by Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci is the most perfect example, leaves little hope for the potential apologists of the Missal of Paul VI. The Society of Saint Pius X rejects the celebration of the New Mass on principle, opposing it with the authority of the Popes who came before the Second Vatican Council.

3. The argument of authority invoked against the Society of Saint Pius X in this case is that of the authority of the law of the Church, which, directed as it is by the Spirit of God, can never, as a matter of principle, establish a discipline that is dangerous or harmful to the faith or morals of the faithful. The favorite reference is the condemned proposition no. 78 in Pope Pius VI's Apostolic Constitution Auctorem fidei.

Pope Pius VI intended to condemn those who would take the liberty, among the laws of the Church, to “distinguish what is necessary or useful for maintaining the faithful in the spirit from what is useless and tends to burden the faithful themselves with a burden that does not suit the freedom of the children of the new alliance; and much more from what is dangerous or harmful, because it leads to superstition and materialism.”

The idea precisely condemned is that it would be permissible to submit to examination “the discipline constituted and approved by the Church, almost as if the Church, which is governed by the spirit of God, could establish a discipline that is not only useless and more burdensome than that involving Christian freedom, but even dangerous, harmful, inducing superstition and materialism.”

Similarly, in his encyclical Mirari vos, Pope Gregory XVI declares that “Furthermore, the discipline sanctioned by the Church must never be rejected or be branded as contrary to certain principles of natural law. It must never be called crippled, or imperfect or subject to civil authority. In this discipline the administration of sacred rites, standards of morality, and the reckoning of the rights of the Church and her ministers are embraced.”

And finally, in the Encyclical Mediator Dei, Pope Pius XII reminds us against those who would intemperately adhere to ancient liturgical customs, that “The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world.”

The reaction of the Society of Saint Pius X is not that of a taught Church that fancies itself the teaching Church, but that of a Church that has already been taught for centuries and which must reject a doctrine manifestly opposed to the one it has already been taught.

4. The inadequacy of this type of argument was pointed out by Archbishop Lefebvre from the outset, in all his responses to Pope Paul VI. The error condemned by Pius VI, Gregory XVI, and Pius XII is that in which the individual conscience of the faithful intends to judge for itself the decisions of authority, attributing to the latter a deficiency that cannot be assumed. It is the reaction of a taught Church that believes itself to be a teaching Church.

The reaction of the Society of Saint Pius X can be explained and justified for an entirely different reason. “It can happen,” St. Hilary says, that “the ears of the people are holier than the hearts of the priests [2].” Precisely, it is the "ears" that are holier, and they are so because they have already heard the word of the truth that sanctifies, even if for the time being the hearts and mouths of priests no longer make it heard like before. Let us review the facts.

The Church has always remained what it is, even in times of crisis, even in the period after Vatican II: an inherently unequal society, where the taught Church always reacts in dependence on the preaching of the teaching Church. The resistance of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and the Society of Saint Pius X to the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI is justified by the criterion set out by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians, chapter 1, verse 8: “praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis” [“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema”].

The taught Church must consider as anathema any doctrine opposed to that which it has already been taught. The refusal of the Novus Ordo is precisely the refusal of a taught Church, the refusal of a Church already taught by its pastors the unalterable expression of divine worship and of the divinely revealed Catholic Faith, through the liturgy of the Missal of St. Pius V.

The rejection of Paul VI's new missal is the rejection of anything that "departs" from this liturgy of the Missal of St. Pius V, the rejection of anything that "departs" from “the discipline sanctioned by the Church [...] the administration of sacred rites,” to use Pope Gregory XVI's own words.

5. This is the real—and only—reason that can be considered legitimate for rejecting the new liturgy of Paul VI. This reason stems from the essential nature of the Catholic Church, an inherently unequal society, in which the profession of faith of the taught Church continually echoes without alteration the directives of the teaching Church.

Continually—that is to say, throughout the centuries, from St.Peter down to the last Pope in history, and without possible contradiction. But, in its essence—that is to say, as a sign and therefore in what it is meant to signify—the new liturgy of Paul VI is in clear contradiction with the ancient liturgy of the Church.

The meaning of the Mass of Paul VI is too far removed from what the teaching Church has always intended to signify in its liturgy for the reform of the Novus Ordo Missae to be considered the legitimate expression of the faith and discipline to which the taught Church should conform. This significant departure not only makes the New Mass less good, or imperfect, or open to improvement.

It makes it bad, because it is dangerous and harmful to the faith of the faithful and displeasing in the eyes of the Almighty. For all that, it is also a scandal—that is, an occasion for spiritual ruin. Refusing it is therefore not only legitimate but necessary: it is a duty imposed on the conscience of every Catholic determined to remain faithful to his or her baptismal promises.

6. This real reason for refusal is all too often overlooked by the faithful of the Ecclesia Dei movement, and it is not the one put forward by the organizers of the Chrétienté pilgrimage. When this reason is not used, it becomes increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for them to maintain their credibility in the face of the demands of ecclesiastical authorities.

How can the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta, the basis of which is to prevent any opposition on principle to these same reforms, be used to reject the New Mass and the reforms resulting from Vatican II?

7. The first principle of the Ecclesia Dei movement's very existence, its radical raison d'être, is to avoid the supposed schism of Archbishop Lefebvre. This principle is clearly stated in point c) of paragraph 5 of the motu proprio Ecclesia Dei Adflicta:

“In the present circumstances,” Pope John Paul II says, “I wish especially to make an appeal both solemn and heartfelt, paternal and fraternal, to all those who until now have been linked in various ways to the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre, that they may fulfil the grave duty of remaining united to the Vicar of Christ in the unity of the Catholic Church, and of ceasing their support in any way for that movement. [...]

"To all those Catholic faithful who feel attached to some previous liturgical and disciplinary forms of the Latin tradition I wish to manifest my will to facilitate their ecclesial communion by means of the necessary measures to guarantee respect for their rightful aspirations. In this matter I ask for the support of the bishops and of all those engaged in the pastoral ministry in the Church.”

In other words, the opportunity given to those faithful who wish to attend Mass according to the Missal of St. Pius V is, in the Pope's mind, merely a means of facilitating for these faithful ecclesial communion, now founded on adherence to the reforms resulting from the Second Vatican Council and diverting them from the orientations followed by the Society of Saint Pius X.

This is the means, therefore, preventing them from refusing to celebrate Mass according to the new Missal of Paul VI, which is slowly but surely driving Modernism into people's minds, gradually accomplishing the widespread Protestantization of the Church.

8. What can we say, then, to all those who want to remain firmly attached to the motu proprio that founded the Ecclesia Dei movement and yet who consider the faithful of the Society of Saint Pius X to be schismatics? What else can be said, except: "Be rational: become Modernists or, better still, Protestants.”


[1] See the article “A Schismatic Pilgrimage?”
[2] St. Hilaire [St. Hilary], Contre Auxence [Liber Contra Auxentium], no. 6 in Migne latin, t. X, 613. Quote translated from the French.