Posted on 02/01/2013 6:01:52 PM PST by ebb tide
Can Paul VI be beatified?
On December 20, 2012, Benedict XVI authorized the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to promulgate a decree recognizing the “heroic virtues” of Paul VI, pope from 1963 to 1978. Now only a miracle obtained through the intercession of Paul VI is necessary to proceed to his beatification. Apparently the postulator for his cause, Fr. Antonio Marrazzo, has already chosen a case to present to the medical commission, the cure of an unborn child diagnosed with severe malformation. According to Andrea Tornielli of La Stampa’s Vatican Insider, the beatification could take place in 2013.
Paul VI is the pope who closed the Second Vatican Council, opened by his predecessor John XXIII. It was during Paul VI’s pontificate that the Novus Ordo Missae was developed. He wrote unhesitatingly to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1976, “The Second Vatican Council is no less authoritative than the Council of Nicea, and is even more important in some respects.”
Archbishop Lefebvre, who was suspended a divinis during Paul VI’s pontificate, gave his opinion of Paul VI to the seminarians of Ecône in the lecture series he gave on the Magisterium that provided the material for his book They Have Uncrowned Him (Angelus Press, 1994). Chapter 31, “Paul VI, a Liberal Pope,” provides a strong indication of what the Society of St. Pius X’s founder would have said about the pending beatification. Dici has introduced headings in the form of questions into Archbishop Lefebvre’s text, the better to follow his analysis.
How will Paul VI be judged by the Church of the future?
Obviously, the Church will one day judge this council and these popes. How will Paul VI, in particular, fare? Some call him heretic, schismatic, and apostate; others believe themselves to have proved that he could not have acted for the good of the Church, and that therefore he was not in fact pope—the theory held by Sedevacantists. I do not deny that these opinions have some arguments in their favour. Perhaps, you will say, in 30 years secrets will have been revealed, or elements that should have been obvious to contemporary observers will stand out, statements made by this pope in complete contradiction to the traditions of the Church, etc. Perhaps. But I do not believe that such hypotheses are necessary; in fact, I think it would be a mistake to espouse them.
Others think, simplistically, that there were two popes: one, the true pope, imprisoned in the cellars of the Vatican, and the other, an imposter, his double, seated on the throne of Peter, working for the destruction of the Church. Books have been published about the two popes, based on the ‘revelations’ of a possessed person and on supposedly scientific arguments that state, for instance, that the double’s voice is not the same as that of the real Paul VI…!
What is your own explanation of Paul VI’s pontificate?
The real solution seems entirely different to me, much more complex, more difficult, and more painful. It is given us by a friend of Paul VI, Cardinal Daniélou. In his Memoirs, published by a member of his family, the cardinal clearly states, “It is clear that Paul VI is a liberal Pope.”
Such is the solution that seems the most historically likely, because this pope was himself a fruit of liberalism. His whole life was permeated with the influence of the men he chose to surround him or to rule him, and they were liberals.
Paul VI did not hide his liberal leanings; at the Council, the men he chose as moderators to replace the presidents appointed by John XXIII, were Cardinal Agagianian, a cardinal of colourless personality from the Curia, and Cardinals Lercaro, Suenens and Döpfner, all three liberals and the pope’s friends. The presidents were sidelined at the head table, and these three liberals directed the conciliar debates. In the same way, Paul VI supported the liberal faction that opposed the tradition of the Church throughout the entire Council. This is a recognized fact. Paul VI repeated –I quoted it to you—the exact words of Lammenais at the end of the Council: “L’Eglise ne demande que la liberté” – the Church only seeks freedom—a doctrine condemned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX.
Paul VI was undeniably very strongly influenced by liberalism. This explains the historic evolution experienced by the Church over the last few decades, and it describes Paul VI’s personal behavior very well. The liberal, as I have told you, is a man who lives in constant contradiction. He states the principles, and does the opposite; he is perpetually incoherent.
Could you provide some examples in support of your analysis?
Here are a few examples of the thesis-antithesis conundrums that Paul VI loved to present as so many insoluble problems, mirroring his anxious and conflicted mind. The encyclical Ecclesiam suam, (August 6, 1964), provides an illustration:
“If, as We said, the Church realizes what is God’s will in its regard, it will gain for itself a great store of energy, and in addition will conceive the need for pouring out this energy in the service of all men. It will have a clear awareness of a mission received from God, of a message to be spread far and wide. Here lies the source of our evangelical duty, our mandate to teach all nations, and our apostolic endeavor to strive for the eternal salvation of all men. (…) The very nature of the gifts which Christ has given the Church demands that they be extended to others and shared with others. This must be obvious from the words: “Going, therefore, teach ye all nations,” Christ’s final command to His apostles. The word apostle implies a mission from which there is no escaping.”
That is the thesis, and the antithesis follows immediately:
“To this internal drive of charity which seeks expression in the external gift of charity, We will apply the word ‘dialogue.’ The Church must enter into dialogue with the world in which it lives. It has something to say, a message to give, a communication to make.”
And finally he attempts a synthesis, which only reinforces the antithesis:
“Before we can convert the world—as the very condition of converting the world—we must approach it and speak to it.”[1]
Have you another example?
Of greater gravity are the words with which Paul VI suppressed Latin in the liturgy after the Council, and they are even more characteristic of his liberal psychology. After restating all the advantages of Latin: a sacred language, an unchanging language, a universal language, he calls, in the name of adaptation, for the “sacrifice” of Latin, admitting at the same time that it will be a great loss for the Church. Here are his very words, reported by Louis Salleron in his book La nouvelle messe [The New Mass] (Nouvelles Editions Latines, 2nd ed., 1976, p. 83)
On March 7, 1965, he said to the faithful gathered in St. Peter’s square,
“It is a sacrifice that the Church makes in renouncing Latin, a sacred language, beautiful, expressive, and elegant. The Church sacrifices centuries of tradition and unity of language in the name of an ever-growing desire for universality.”
The ‘sacrifice’ of which he spoke became a reality with the Instruction Tres abhinc annos (May 4, 1967) which established the use of the vernacular for reciting the Canon of the Mass aloud.
This ‘sacrifice,’ in Paul VI’s mind, seems to have been final. He explained it once again on November 26, 1969, when he presented the new rite of the Mass:
“The principal language of the Mass will no longer be Latin, but the vernacular. For anyone familiar with the beauty and power of Latin, its aptness for expression of the sacred, it will certainly be a great sacrifice to see it replaced by the vernacular. We are losing the language of centuries of Christianity, we become as intruders, reduced to the profane in the literary domain of expressing the sacred. We lose, too, the greater part of the admirable, incomparable wealth of art and spirituality contained in Gregorian chant. It is with good reason, then, that we experience regret and even distress.”
Everything therefore should have dissuaded Paul VI from imposing this ‘sacrifice’ and persuaded him to maintain the use of Latin. On the contrary, deriving a singularly masochistic pleasure from his ‘distress,’ he chose to act against the principles he had just set forth, and decreed the ‘sacrifice’ in the name of promoting understanding of prayer, a specious argument that was only a modernist pretext.
Never has liturgical Latin been an obstacle to the conversion of infidels or to their education as Christians. Quite the opposite: the simple peoples of Africa and Asia loved Gregorian chant and the one sacred language, the sign of their affiliation to Catholicism. And experience shows that where Latin was not imposed by missionaries of the Latin Church, there the seeds of future schism were planted.
Paul VI followed these remarks with this contradictory pronouncement:
“The solution seems banal and prosaic, but it is good, because it is human and apostolic. The understanding of prayer is more precious than the dilapidated silks in which it has been royally clad. More precious is the participation of the people, the people of today who want us to speak clearly, intelligibly, in words that can be translated into their secular tongue. If the noble Latin language cuts us off from children, from youth, from the world of work and business, if it is an opaque screen instead of a transparent crystal, would we fishers of men do well to maintain its exclusive use in the language of prayer and religion?”
Alas, what mental confusion. Who prevents me from praying in my own tongue? But liturgical prayer is not private prayer; it is the prayer of the whole Church. Moreover, another lamentable lack of distinction is present: the liturgy is not a teaching addressed to the faithful, but the worship the Christian people address to God. Catechism is one thing, and the liturgy is another. The point is not that we “speak clearly” to the people assembled in the church, but rather that these people may praise God in the most beautiful, most sacred, and most solemn manner possible. “Praying to God with beauty” was St. Pius X’s liturgical maxim. How right he was!
How would you describe a liberal?
You see, the liberal mind is conflicted and confused, anguished and contradictory. Such a mind was Paul VI’s. Louis Salleron explained it very well when he described Paul VI’s physical countenance, saying “he was two-faced.” Not duplicitous—this word expresses a malicious intent to deceive which was not present in Paul VI. No, he had a double personality, and the contrast between the sides of face expressed this: traditionalist in words, then modernist in action; Catholic in his premises and principles, and then progressive in his conclusions; not condemning what he should have, and then condemning what he ought to have preserved.
This psychological weakness afforded an ideal opportunity for the enemies of the Church. While maintaining a Catholic face (or half-face, if you like) he contradicted tradition without hesitation, he encouraged change, baptized mutation and progress, and followed the lead of the enemies of the Church, who egged him on.
Did not the Izvestia, official newspaper of the Communist Soviet party, demand from Paul VI my condemnation and that of Ecône in the name of Vatican II? And the Italian Communist paper L’Unita followed suit after the sermon I gave in Lille on August 29, 1976; furious because of my attack on Communism, they devoted an entire page to their demand. “Be aware,” they wrote, addressing Paul VI, “be aware of the danger Lefebvre represents, and continue the magnificent approach initiated through the ecumenism of Vatican II.” With friends like these, who needs enemies? This is a sad illustration of a rule we have already established: liberalism leads from compromise to treason.
How should priests and faithful who are attached to tradition act under a liberal pope?
The psychology of a liberal pope is easy enough to imagine, but difficult to bear! Indeed, such a leader—be it Paul VI or John Paul II—puts us in a very delicate position.
In practice, our attitude must base itself on a preliminary distinction, made necessary by the extraordinary circumstances of a pope won over by liberalism. This is the distinction we must make: when the pope says something in keeping with tradition, we follow him; when he opposes the Faith, or encourages opposition of the Faith, or allows something to be done that attacks the Faith, then we cannot follow him. The fundamental reason for this is that the Church, the pope, and the hierarchy must serve the Faith. They do not make the Faith, they must serve it. The Faith cannot be made; it is immutable, and must be transmitted.
This is why papal teachings intended to validate actions opposed to tradition cannot be followed. In following, we would participate in the self-destruction of the Church, in the destruction of our Faith.
It is clear that what is unceasingly demanded of us—complete submission to the pope, complete submission to the Council, acceptance of the entire liturgical reform—is in opposition to tradition, in the sense that the pope, the Council and the reforms lead us far from tradition, as the facts show more overwhelmingly every year. Therefore, to demand these things is to require us to participate in the downfall of the Faith. Impossible! The martyrs died to defend the Faith; we have the example of Christians imprisoned, tortured, sent to concentration camps for the Faith. One grain of incense offered to an idol, and their lives would have been safe. I was advised once, “Sign, sign saying you accept everything, and then you can continue as before!” No! One does not play games with the Faith.
Translated from Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Ils l’ont découronné, Clovis, 3rd ed., 2008; pp. 253-260. Available in English translation at Angelus Press as They Have Uncrowned Him (1994)
(DICI no. 269 01/02/13)
Or it could mean everybody sits, or everybody stands, or everybody puts their left foot in. Do you not see the ambiguity in the conciliar documents and the abuses that have resulted from them?
Before the 1962 reforms, there were no rubrics for the laity at all. From a liturgical law point of view, turning cartwheels was no worse (and no better) than kneeling. Custom and common sense largely held sway, but things did vary from region to region.
There is a great story about Belloc going to Mass in France and kneeling at a time where it was customary to kneel in England, but to stand in France. An usher thought that Belloc was a confused Anglican, and came up to him and said, “excuse me sir, but we stand here,” to which Belloc replied “Go to hell,” to which the usher replied “I’m sorry, I didn’t know you were Catholic.”
I do agree that if the Council has issued a completely revised Missal itself, things would have been less ambiguous. Given that uniform instructions for the laity had first come into force only in the previous year, the most natural interpretation would be that everybody ought to do what we just got through telling everybody to do. Yes, it is possible that different directions might be forthcoming in the future, but I don’t recall anything in the documents to the effect that “the just given rubrics for the laity on posture aren’t working, please change them.” If you see something to that effect, please give me the paragraph number.
Have you read "Iota Unum" or The Ecumenical Vatican Council II: A Much Needed Discussion"?
In all of this, my key point is simple. Both Blessed John XXIII and Pope Paul VI were duly elected in the manner consistent with previous Popes.
While SPXX doesn’t agree with Vatican II and the many changes that came after, doesn’t mean that either the Popes were illegitimate, or the Councils were illegitimate.
What it means is that SPXX thinks it alone is right in its interpretations and in open rebellion. Yes, rebellion.
Instead of rebellion, perhaps SPXX and its leaders should follow the example of St. Pio of Pietrelcina. Be obedient to your superiors, trusting eternally in the Lord that His will be done and Righteousness will reign.
They could also follow St. Francis de Sales and St. Faustina and their lessons in meekness.
Let this rebuke be taken in fraternal charity, with prayers for Christian unity.
“What it means is that SPXX thinks it alone is right in its interpretations and in open rebellion. Yes, rebellion.”
The SSPX is not alone in its “interpretation”. It has 2000 years of pre-conciliar popes and saints in agreement with it.
It is the post-conciliar popes who are in open rebellion, yes, open rebellion with Tradition.
Did Jesus not tell Peter the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church? Does Jesus call us to obedience to Church, even when difficult?
Has there been a single ex cathedra statement since the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception?
In asking these questions, I am simply pointing out the continuity of the Church. I am also pointing out that no dogma has been added or changed.
While Rites, rituals, and postures have been changed, those types of changes are at the discretion of the Holy Father.
The celebration of Holy Mass has changed throughout the centuries, and is somewhat different throughout the world today. However, the Catholicity of the liturgy is found in the framework, as well as the most essential element, the Eucharist.
The Popes, elected by their brother bishops (Cardinals), under the guide of the Holy Spirit, are the legitimate successors of Peter. Blessed John XXIII was, Paul VI was, just as Pius X, Pope St. Gregory and now Benedict XVI.
Each has/had the authority to teach, administer, and lead the Church. While you may disagree with elements of Vatican II and abuses by individuals that took place following, your stubborn disobedience of the Holy Father and insistence on the views of SPXX create disunity in the Church.
I don’t judge your reasons, and believe you are earnest in your beliefs. However, disunity and disobedience are the hallmarks not of Our Lord, but the Enemy.
Change is hard, but the essential teachings of Jesus, as found in the Scriptures and Magisterium of the Church are unchanging.
May God bring peace to your heart, guidance to your soul, and wisdom to your lips.
“Has there been a single ex cathedra statement since the proclamation of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception?”
Not to my knowledge; which makes me wonder why the SSPX is required to sign off on the dogma of Vatican Council II.
Do you know what catholic means? Apparently not; it means "universal".
Each has/had the authority to teach, administer, and lead the Church."
Does each pope have the authority to teach that which is contrary to the teaching of his predecessors?
Did not Peter deny Christ three times in one night? Did not Paul rebuke Peter to his face?
I most certainly know the definition of catholic. I also know that local ordinaries have some flexibility.
A perfect example is Canada. In Canada, they use the Apostle’s Creed instead of the Nicene Creed.
While the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the guiding document for the celebration of the Mass, there is some variance.
If you recall, Infallibility is a negative power. The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.
And finally, you refuse to answer a question I have posed to you 3 times, so I will ask it a fourth, in hopes you will answer it.
Were Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI legitimately Popes?
“The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.”
You forgot the most important part: the above is true only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra”.
“The Holy Spirit prevents Supreme Pontiff from teaching error in faith and morals.”
You forgot the most important part: the above is true only when the pope speaks “ex cathedra”.
Of course they were legitimate Popes; but good Popes: not at all.
“While the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the guiding document for the celebration of the Mass, there is some variance.”
And we all know how screwed up the GIRM has been, needing constant correction since Bugnini’s new Mass:
http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/translating_sixquestions.shtml
“And finally, you refuse to answer a question I have posed to you 3 times, so I will ask it a fourth, in hopes you will answer it.”
I’ve reviewed your posts to me. You didn’t ask me the question three times; you didn’t even ask it one time.
Do you even know what the Eighth Commandment is? Do you take advantage of the Sacrament of Confession?
If they were legitimate Popes, you are obliged to follow their teachings on faith and morals. “Good” or “bad” is subjective. They were elected according to God’s plan for the Church.
All ordained men and other religious are required to be obedient to his teachings on all matters, by their vows.
By virtue of their office and election, Popes have an assumption of correctness. They have the legitimate right to rule the Church, teach, and guide.
When people disagree, they can communicate their disagreement through the appropriate channels. Until such time as it is addressed or changed, the assumption is that the Holy See is correct, and obedience is expected.
If one doesn’t wish to follow these norms, especially the clergy, they need to re-think their membership.
For those unwilling to obey, they should disassociate themselves with the Catholic Church and worship elsewhere, no longer calling themselves Roman Catholic.
After the election of Benedict XVI, someone said, “The cafeteria is now closed.” No more picking and choosing what one wishes to believe.
See post 32, ex cathedra is implied.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.