WHAT DOES IT MEAN:
A CO-EXISTANCE OF THE PRE- AND POSTCONCILIAR RITES ESTABLISHED BE THE BISHOPS ON DIOCESAN LEVEL ?
by
Reinhard Lauth
transl. by Gladys Resch
In his circular letter No. 16, addressed to the frienda and
beneficiaries of his seminaries, Archbishop Lefebvre has quoted his own
letter of 24th December, 1978, addressed to Wojtyla (called by him
'Holy Father') in which he wrote amongst other things: "We implore you,
as successor to St. Peter and as pastor of the universal Church, to
tell the bishops (...) 'We allow the unrestricted celebration of the
Tridentine Mass'. (...) The bishops would determine locations and times
(...) The unity would immediately be restored on diocesan level." At
about the same time Mgr. Lefebvre wrote to von Saventhem: "For the
universal Church I wish (...) the peaceful co-existence of pre- and
postconciliar rites. The priests (...) could then choose the 'type of
rite' at which they prefer to attend (sic!)". Letter dated 17th
September 1976.)
In spite of repeated requests by priests and laymen, who pointed out
the grave consequences which one must draw from such remarks, Mgr.
Lefebvre has not withdrawn or revised these words. Thus he insists on
the announced conception.
This, one has tried to interprete as if Mgr. Lefebvre aimed at the
re-introduction in the Catholic churchs of the tridentine Mass rite
alongside with the rite of the N.O.M., without wishing with it to
confirm the validity or the harmlessness of the effect of the N.O.M. He
rather aims at tactics which tolerate the unlawful and disastrous new
rite until the majority of the faithful, attracted by the Tridentine
Mass, now again accessible to them, cause by their choice a change in
the Church.
However, this view is untenable. To demonstrate this, I do not refer as
many do, to the now famous words of Mgr. Lefebvre: "Of this new Ordo
Missae I shall never declare that it is heretic; I shall never say that
the mass of this rite could not be a sacrifice". Because taken exactly
and verbally these words say only that Mgr. will not and shall not say
this, but not that he says the contrary. The sentence: "I do not judge
that the N.O.M. is invalid" is not identical with the sentence: "I
judge that the N.O.M. is valid (respectively invalid)". Thus Mgr.
Lefebvre has expressed himself with these words, as with so many
others, in such a way, that from them nothing decisive can be deduced
on this question.
I refer rather solely to the quoted expressions of Mgr. Lefebvre at the beginning
1rst towards Wojtyla and
2nd towards Saventhem.
"The peaceful co-existence od the pre- and postconciliar rites", that
is (among others) of the Roman, so-called Tridentine Holy Mass and the
N.O.M., must not by any chance be brought about by spontaneous action
of priests (and bishops) - by which this could perhaps be meant in the
sense of a contrary to rule course of action. It should, as the quoted
words of Mgr. Lefebvre express clearly, be realised officially by order
of the Holy Father to the bishops. Mgr. Lefebvre has in mind, that the
bishops "determine" according to "the saying" (the order) of "the Holy
Father", that the "kind of rite" of the "pre- or postconciliar" mode
could be "chosen" by the priests.
Let us analyse this presentation. Father Guérard des Lauriers has made
it absolutely clear in his last outstanding theological treatise, that
the Holy Mass is celebrated by order of the Church, and this means in
the Roman Catholic understanding of the Church, by order of the Pope.
This is why the priest says at the beginning of the Canon: "offerimus
una cum Papa N.N.". If one assumes with Mgr. Lefebvre, that Paul VI,
respectively John Paul II are lawful popes (respectively were) the
Tridentine Mass would be celebrated according to such an order, as Mgr.
Lefebvre demands it from the persons by their instructions.
This very same is also valid for the N.O.M. It would also be celebrated
validly by order of the mentioned popes. If the N.O.M. is truly a
sacrifice of the Mass then it is, being ordered by a true pope, without
fail a valid Mass celebration, to which the Catholic faithful is bound
to participate every Sunday. But now Mgr. Lefebvre has proclaimed
literally on the 6th of March 1976: "How is it possible that Rome
demands of us to accept a cult, which leads us to Protestantism?"
On the other hand Mgr. Lefehvre has clearly in mind, according to the
words quoted above, that the (lawful) Holy Father orders the
celebration of a cult (alongside with the celebration of the Tridentine
Holy Mass) which is the one of the N.O.M. However this can be combined,
if one considers the opinion of Lefebvre, that the lawful Pope could
order lawfully the celebration of the (therefore valid) N.O.M., in
spite of it leading the faithful to Protestantism. Let us leave this
peculiar opinion alone; it does not matter so much.
What is decisive with all this, is that Mgr. Lefebvre has by his words
awarded implicitly undeniable validity to the N.O.M. This follows
logically and inevitably from his determined sayings. Therefore Mgr.
Lefebvre means and supports the view that the Holy (Tridentine) Mass
and the N.O.M. are both valid Holy Masses and should be simultaneously
be celebrated in the Catholic Church - on order from the (lawful) Pope
and on instructions of the bishops.
But then one cannot speak anymore of a restitution of our Churches by
the alone valid Holy Mass by the traditionalists as an Econe programme.
If one wants to take the view, that Mgr. Lefebvre only calls Montini
and Wojtyla (misleadingly) "Holy Father", but does nor recognise them
as lawful popes, if would mean, that he is calling for a deception, in
order to attain his objective, the reinstaltment of the Holy
(Tridentine) Mass. Because then, the so-called "Holy Father" would not
be lawful Pope, therefore he could not legally enact anything, and the
Holy Mass could not be validly celebrated on his instructions and in
unity with his "Church" (una cum!). For referring solely to the demand
of this head of the Church would be to refer to an apostate, who
destined the Holy Sacrifice to be performed on his demand, by which it
would cease to be a sacrifice by the Church of Christ. The request, to
carry this out nevertheless under the false pretence of lawfulness,
amounts to an abuse with the holiest.
By this way the Holy (Tridentine) Mass could perhaps be given a chance
but only amongst a heretic religious community and under the (of course
meaningless) order of its head. But Mgr. Lefebvre has with his
suggestion just approached Montini (and, as he still continues, now
also Wojtyla) as "Holy Father" and by this in foro externo (and this is
decisive in an action that Lefebvre as bishop performs publicly, only -
the forum internum could always be in his favour) recognised him as
lawful Pope, and therefore all as lawful that he ex officio justifies
and orders to be carried out, so also the heresies and schismatic
actions of this man.
One cannot say that Mgr. Lefebvre does not admit such heresies and
schismatic actions. On the 6th of March, 1976 he said: "We cannot
follow the Holy Father in the aiioe of the Council (...) and in
everything, which happened after the Council." And on 29th of July of
the same year: "The Church, that justifies such errors is at the same
time schismatic and heretic. This Conci liar-Church is therefore not
Catholic." As this Church does not justify anything that is not
justified by the Pope, (who alone decides on binding matters of faith)
this 'Pope' therefore justifies heresies and behaves as a schismatic,
"he therefore is not Catholic".
The final outcome is clear: Mgr. Lefebvre recognises with his quoted
letter a Pope John Paul II as lawful head of the Roman Catholic Church,
and he addresses the by him recognised Pope with the request for a
religious function by which the Holy (Tridentine) Mass as well as the
N.O.M. should be prescribed by the Church as Holy Masses to be
celebrated.
It follows a double outcome:
1) By asking for official recognition of the Holy (Tridentine) Mass and the N.O.M., he admits the latter to be valid.
2) by asking Montini and Wojtyla as lawful Popes for this order, Mgr.
Lefebvre recognises that the Reform-Church is neither heretic nor
schismatic, and that its head had the right and was authorised to
prescribe the N.O.M., which therefore cannot be heretic. Now we can
co-ordinate all four conclusions:
1rst conclusion: If Wojtyla as head of the "schismatic as well heretic"
Church is a schismatic and heretic himself, he cannot possibly lawfully
prescribe and re-introduce the Holy (Tridentine) Mass. Such a request
addressed to him makes no sense.
2nd conclusion: If John Paul II is lawful Pope, one must obey him as
long as only the N.O.M. has been prescribed by him as sacrifice of the
Mass.
3rd conclusion: If the N.O.M. is invalid, it can, instead of the valid
Tridentine Mass, have only been prescribed by a heretic Ex-Pope
(respectively be prescribed); then such a heretic cannot be requested
to order "the peaceful co-existence of the pre- and postconciliar
rites", as he is de jure not in the position to give such an order.
4th conclusion: If the N.O.M. is valid, then the head of the Church, in
which it is being celebrateci, is not an Ex-Pope, but he has remained
the lawful head. As such he can forbid the celebration of the
Tridentine Holy Mass and put in its place the N.O.M. as the only rite
to be performed. Then Mgr. Lefebvre and his followers have to obey. It
is this confrontation that the Roman Congregation of Faith has put
before Lefebvre. His answer was that at this point he did not wish to
express his opinion.
Conclusions of this kind cannot be avoided in view of Mgr. Lefebvre's
contradictory assumption. The more intelligent Traditionalists (and who
is to-day not more clever than the other) will find this tactically
very clever. By this they overlook or conceal that these tactics are by
themselves the completion of a heresy. They rejoice at the ingenity of
an operation, which caused the death of the patient.
Concerning Mgr. Lefebvre, he represents clearly a heretic position, as
long as he does not withdraw his proposition to Wojtyla and his request
to von Saventhem. We don't say that, because we have the slightest wish
to lable someone a heretic. We say so because it involves the most
precious good that the Church performs: the valid Holy Sacrifice of the
Mass. |
