Fr. Hunwicke: Blessed Paul VI

I came across a fantastic post by Fr. Hunwicke on the topic of the late pontiff Paul VI, and i think it is well worth a full read:

Blessed Paul VI

"I wish to propose a theory about Blessed Paul VI for which, currently, I can adduce some evidence; I wonder if there is more. 
HE WAS UN POCO AMLETICO

(1) He relied upon dishonest people for advice. (a) From the Memoires of Louis Bouyer: "At different stages, be it with regard to the dumping overboard (sabordage) of the Liturgy of the Departed, or again in that unbelievable enterprise of expurgating the psalms in view of their use in the Office, Bugnini came up against an opposition, not just massive, but one could say pretty well unanimous. In some such cases, he did not hesitate to tell us 'But the Pope wants it!'. After that, to be sure, there was no longer a question of discussing it." Bouyer recounts how he once met Bugnini in circumstances in which the latter, mistakenly, believed that he, Bouyer, had just been with Pope Paul ... whom Bugnini was on his way to see. "On seeing me, he not only turned completely white but, visibly, was knocked for six (non seulement il blemit, mais, visiblement, il fut atterre)". "The answer was to be presented to me, but some weeks later, by Paul VI himself. Nattering with me about our famous labours, which he had confirmed, he finally said to me 'But why, then, did you put into this reform ...' (Here, I have to admit that I don't recall any longer which of the details which I have mentioned particularly irritated him.) Naturally, I replied 'But purely and simply because Bugnini guaranteed to us that you were absolutely set on it (avait certifie que vous le vouliez absolument).' His reaction was immediate: 'Is it possible? He said to me personally that you were unanimous in this respect!'". (b) Bishop Tissier's biography recounts that when Archbishop Lefebvre was received in audience by the Pope, Paul VI was hostile from the start. It transpired that he had been informed, probably by Cardinal Villot, that the Archbishop made the priests whom he formed "sign an oath against the Pope". Given such shameless mendacity, it is hardly surprising that the Holy Father's mind was poisoned against Lefebvre.
(2) Blessed Paul VI preferred to compromise with disorder rather than to face it down. It seems clear, from Dom Cassian Folsom's Adoremus series of articles, that the provision of alternative Eucharistic Prayers was a pathetic but well-meant attempt to rein in the chaos which existed particularly in the Low Countries, where home-made Eucharistic Prayers were proliferating in (literally) hundreds. He was assured that the Hierarchy, given this concession, were prepared to restore order. (Big of them ... Traditionalists would also do well to remember that it was the provision of these alternatives which saved the Canon itself from being mangled ... better, surely, to be unused for a few decades than permanently debased?)

As well as the human and historical tragedy, there is an ecclesiological point here. If you blend together in one saucepan an exaggerated notion of papal authority (as analysed by Joseph Ratzinger) with the activities (described in detail by Louis Bouyer) of unscrupulous and dishonest and ruthlessly determined manipulative individuals who have the pope's ear, you are gravely at risk of having a disaster the results of which it may well take generations to mitigate. Quod factum est."

When I read this the article that Tancred posted the other day about the FFI and the banning of Fr. Manelli from saying the ancient rite came to mind.  The joke is that conservatives and liberals alike love to play the word game that trads weaponize the ancient rite and hurt the church in the process.  Well what do you call banning a priest from saying "a form" of the Latin rite that is just as legitimate and to be accessible as the other.  At the very heart of this all is the idea that one can only say the ancient rite if there is a need by a group of people for it.  As if Mass was dependent on how many people are assisting therein. Do you know why the priest in the OF does not genuflect before the elevation of the host immediatly after consecration?  Its because the focus is on the people first seeing the Sacred Host and then he can genuflect because the people now affirm that he is there after they see Him... which is insane.  They are weaponizing the OF against the EF, and they are doing it because they know that their time is short on the matter.  For years they played word games that the OF was just the translation of the EF and the ignorant bought it hook line and sinker.  And what of these priests that are banned from saying the EF, it is happening right here in Milwaukee where I know at least one priest who is not allowed to say it in fear of punishment, and that is with a "conservative" bishop. They are driving good priests into trouble and paranoia just as they did with Lefebvre, and frankly I dont think they care.  Pray for these Bishops and priests!

+JMJ+

A note on +Marcel Lefebvre and sedes

There are a lot of opinions out there on the SSPX and I am by no means an expert on the subject.  I do believe that the competency for the issue rests with the Ecclesia Dei Commision.

Now having said that...

There are some who will appeal to +Lefebvre and say that he thought the sedevantist proposition was a real possibility to hold to. There is one specific quote used by Sede's to lure trads into their disorder:

"I do not say that the Pope is not the Pope, but I do not say that you cannot say the Pope is not the Pope."

Now this sounds rather damning.  However, the former SSPX seminarian (expelled by Lefebvre before his ordination gives context to the quote:

"(Said at table to fellow clergy, to laughter, for the phrase in French sounds like a tongue twister.)"

In other words this is an informal, off the cuff discussion and seemingly not very serious.  Furthermore it should become obvious that when Fr. Cekeda was expelled as a seminarian (along with others) he was expelled for holding to the sedevacantist position.

+Lefebvre is a very complicated character in Church history.  Some people like to compare him with St. Athanasius, but I think this is more piety than reality.  It is, however, more interesting to look at him along the lines of Friar Savonarola during the Renaissance.

How Archbishop Karol Wojityla and Archbishop Lefebvre were silenced at the council on Religious Liberty

Most people think that Archbishop Lefebvre was stubborn and unwilling to work with the Vatican at any expense, but this is a grave mis-characterization.  For instance, when the first document exploring “Religious Liberty” was provided to the council fathers, the English and Italian speaking fathers sided with the document, while Spanish, Polish speaking fathers and those from the mission field stood strong in favor of Cardinal Ottoviani’s stance against the Cardinal Bea document.   It is interesting to note that even a young Archbishop Karol Wojtyla (later to be JPII) stood against the revolutionaries proclaiming that only the truth will set men free!

Below you will find an excerpt from Roberto de Mattei’s book on the council explaining how the attempt to reign in the revolution was thwarted by the French and Pope Paul Vi himself:

“On October 9, Cardinal Bea received a letter from Bishop Felici informing him of the Holy Father’s wish that the text on religious liberty be rewritten and telling him that for this purpose a Joint Commission would be set up, comprised of members of the Secretariat for Christian Unity and the Theological Commission, along with Cardinal Michael Browne, the master general of the Dominicans Aniceto Fernandez, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Carlo Colombo. Apart from the last-mentioned, a man on whom the Pope relied, the other three were staunch opponents of the declaration on religious liberty. 

The progressives immediately mobilized, alarmed especially by the name of Archbishop Lefebvre. On Sunday, October 11, there was an afternoon meeting at the residence of Cardinal Frings, attended by Cardinals Leger, Joseph-Charles Lefebvre, Meyer, Ritter, Silva Henriquez, Dopfner and Alfrink attended. That same evening a dramatically phrased letter, signed by thirteen cardinals, arrived on the pope’s desk. It read: “Not without great sorrow have we learned that the declaration on religious liberty (…) is to be sent to a certain Joint Commission, of which, it is said, four members have already been designated, three of whom seem to stand in contradiction to the orientation of the council on this question.” 

On October 12 a note by the Secretary of State referred to the fact that the French episcopate was not disposed to accept the possible nomination of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre as a member of the commission for the revision of the schema. The note, passed on by Cardinal Cicognani to the pope, was expressed in these words: “1) His Excellency Bishop Marcello Lefebvre (sic) would be considered as a sort of lack  of confidence in the episcopacy, among whom such a nomination would not be favorably received (sic, given the more than ‘extremist’ positions that Archbishop Lefebvre has taken in various circumstances. I thought it advisable to authorize Bishop Martin to announce that no nomination had been made and that Archbishop Lefebvre will not be among those chose beforehand.” 

Two days later, the notice was made public by the daily Il Messagero and caused quite a stir. On October 16, in the new instructions conveyed by the Secretary of State to Bishop Felici, the names of Archbishop Lefebvre and of Father Fernandez had disappeared and the role of the commission was reappraised. The two principal “theorists” of religious liberty, John Courtney Murray and Pietro Pavan, would assume the task of working on the revision of the text, favoring an “Anglo-Italian” approach of a political-juridical type rather than the theological and moral one, as the French-speaking theologians were requesting with these words: “You shall see, our document will be approved.” In an interview with Daniel Pezeril, the pope asserted: “perhaps I am slow. But I know what I want. After all, it is my right to give careful consideration. Bishop Pavan described Paul VI’s intervention on the conciliar document as “decisive.”

Why continue to support modernists?

Just in case you still believed that liberals are worth linking to:

Just keep thinking Fr. Martin is interested in Truth... Pray for him (h/t Fr. Z)

Oh and then you have John Allen... he left a modernist rag to start up his own modernist rag with diocecen approval from +O'Malley.

Dont, I beg you support modernists in their error.  Pray for them and when they make steps toward repairing their error meet them and affirm them.  Meanwhile, the Franciscans of the Immaculate are persecuted and told they cant say the office in Latin... Really? (source is Rev. Angelo Van der Putten's updates from the FSSP mission in Nigeria)

Crazy times we live in eh?

+JMJ+

Ten Days of Davies: The campaign against Monsignor Lefebvre

Source

One of the more, shall we say, controversial aspects of Mr. Davies works was his defense of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre in the book "Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre".

Monsignor Lefebvre is a hard topic for many to look at objectivly.  There are hard feelings on both sides of the issues with many good points equally made.  However, few people that comment on the SSPX really know the issues involved with their stand.  There are plenty of false narratives about, but I think if you want to comment on the SSPX you must understand Marcel Lefebvre and the grave injustice done to him and the society from the beginning.

The following is an exerpt from Davies book, which you can read online in its entirety HERE

Apolgia Pro Marcel Lefebvre:  The Campaign Against Écône

"On 26 March 1974 a meeting was convened in Rome to discuss the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X (which will be referred to hereafter simply as the Society of St. Pius X) and its principal foundation, the Seminary at Ecône. 

Present at this meeting were Cardinal Garrone, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education; Cardinal Wright, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy; Mgr. Mayer, Secretary of the Congregation for Religious; Mgr. Mamie, Bishop of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg - the diocese in which the Society first obtained canonical authorization; Mgr. Adam, Bishop of Sion – the diocese in which Ecône is located. It was decided that a report on the Society and Seminary should be compiled. 

With surprising speed the requested report was dispatched within four days, on 30 March 1974. It had been compiled by Mgr. Perroud, Vicar-General of the diocese of Lausanne, Geneva, and Fribourg. This report, accompanied by a letter from Bishop Mamie, was sent to Cardinal Garrone. 

On 30 April 1974 Mgr. Lefebvre and Mgr. Mamie met at Fribourg.At some time in June 1974, Pope Paul is alleged to have convoked the ad hoc Commission of Cardinals. While it cannot be claimed with certainty that this is untrue, it is certain that the document convoking the Commission has never been produced. As will be shown later, this document was one of the items which Mgr. Lefebvre's advocate would have demanded to see had not the Archbishop's appeal been blocked. It is not unreasonable to presume that one reason why the Archbishop was denied due legal process was that a number of serious irregularities would have been brought to light. It can hardly be a coincidence, in view of the criticisms aroused by the doubtful legality of the proceedings against Mgr. Lefebvre, that when a Commission of Cardinals was convoked to examine the case of Fr. Louis Coache, a traditionalist priest who had been deprived of his parish for his defense of the traditional Mass and catechism, great care was taken to leave no legal loopholes. The text of this document will be cited under the date of 10 June 1975. It will also be made clear that not one shred of evidence proving that the Pope had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop and his Seminary was produced until 29 June 1975. Pope Paul stated in a letter of this date, which is included in its chronological order, that he had approved of the action taken against the Archbishop in forma specifica (this term will also be explained under the same date). It is not unreasonable to conclude that this was an attempt to give retrospective legality to what must certainly be one of the greatest travesties of justice in the history of the Church. 

On 23 June 1974 the Commission of Cardinals met and decided upon a canonical visitation of the Seminary. 

The Apostolic Visitation of the Seminary at Ecône took place from 11-13 November 1974. The two Visitors were both Belgians: Mgr. Descamps, a biblical scholar, and Mgr. Onclin, a canonist. The Apostolic Visitation was carried out with great thoroughness. Professors and students were subjected to searching and detailed questions concerning every aspect of life in the Seminary. However, considerable scandal was occasioned by opinions which the two Roman Visitors expressed in the presence of the students and staff. For, according to Mgr. Lefebvre, these two Visitors considered it normal and indeed inevitable that there should be a married clergy; they did not believe there was an immutable Truth; and they also had doubts concerning the traditional concept of our Lord 's Resurrection.¹ 

On 21 November 1974, in reaction to the scandal occasioned by these opinions of the Apostolic Visitors, Mgr. Lefebvre considered it necessary to make clear where he stood in relation to the Rome represented by this attitude of mind. "This," he said, "was the origin of my Declaration which was, it is true, drawn up in a spirit of doubtlessly excessive indignation.” 

In this Declaration he rejected the views expressed by the Visitors, even if they were currently acceptable in the Rome which the Visitors represented in an official capacity. 

In this Declaration, he stated: 

...we refuse...and have always refused to follow the Rome of Neo-Modernist and Neo-Protestant tendencies...No authority, not even the highest in the hierarchy, can compel us to abandon or diminish our Catholic faith, so clearly expressed and professed by the Church's Magisterium for nineteen centuries. 

It is difficult to see how any orthodox Catholic could possibly disagree with Mgr. Lefebvre concerning this. It is all the more significant, therefore, that the Commission of Cardinals subsequently stated that the Declaration "seemed unacceptable to them on all points." 

It is also important to note that this Declaration was not intended as a public statement, let alone as a Manifesto defying the Holy See. It was intended to be a private statement solely for the benefit of the members of the Society of Saint Pius X. 

However, the Declaration was leaked without Mgr. Lefebvre's permission, and because the text, or extracts from it, were being used in a manner which he could not condone, he authorized Itinéraires to publish the full and authentic French text in January 1975. An English translation of this Declaration was published in Approaches 42-3 and The Remnant of 6 February 1975. 

It is particularly significant that the Commission of Cardinals persistently refused to view this Declaration in the context of its origin: as a private reaction of righteous indignation to the scandal occasioned by the views propagated by the two Apostolic Visitors who had been sent to Ecône by the Commission of Cardinals.

+JMJ+

Correcting some false narratives about Padre Pio

I have recently come across a number of posts that are setting up false narratives about a great Saint that demand a correction.

First there is a notion out there that Padre Pio offered the Novus Ordo (Ordinary Form) mass.  Generally people like to make reference to a few pictures or a video about Padre Pio offering mass versus populum, ergo he offered the new rite.

Only problem is that he died in 1968, a year before the new rite was promulgated.  Second just because mass is offered versus poplulum doesnt mean it is an ordinary form mass.  People forget, or choose to, that the time from 1965-1969 was an era of liturgical insanity in the church, with experimentation with the liturgy being prominant throughout the church.  This is also true with the Capuchin order which Padre Pio was under obedience to.  Therefore if his superiors ordered him to offer the ancient rite as such he will obey because of his vow before God and man.  The only things that can be said about these pictures and videos is that Padre Pio said the ancient rite versus populum, and that is it.  It doesnt speak to his will to do so, only that it was offered.  We also know that Padre Pio at this time was unable, do to his health to stand at the high alter, hence he is sitting down at a make shift altar.

The other thing to note is the supposed meetings that Padre Pio had with some notable Catholic leaders are often spoken of in ways that are pious yet fictional.

The first is his meeting with a young Fr. Karol Wojtyla (later JPII).

This encounter took place around 1947 or 1948. At that time in post-war Italy, it was possible to have access to Padre Pio, since travel was difficult and great crowds were not besieging the Friary. The young priest spent almost a week in San Giovanni Rotondo during his visit, and was able to attend Padre Pio’s Mass and make his confession to the saint. Apparently, this was not just a casual encounter, and the two spoke together at length during Fr. Wojtyla’s stay. Their conversations gave rise to rumors in later years, after the Polish prelate had been elevated to the Papacy, that Padre Pio had told him he would become Pope. The story persists to the present day, even though on two or three occasions "Papa Wojtyla" denied it.      Recently, new information about this visit has come to light, according to a new book in Italian published by Padre Pio's Friary, Il Papa e Il Frate, written by Stefano Campanella (1).  As reported in this book, the future Pope and future Saint had a very interesting conversation.  During this exchange, Fr. Wojtyla asked Padre Pio which of his wounds caused the greatest suffering. From this kind of personal question, we can see that they must have already talked together for some time and had become at ease with each other. The priest expected Padre Pio to say it was his chest wound, but instead the Padre replied, "It is my shoulder wound, which no one knows about and has never been cured or treated." This is extremely significant, not only because it reveals that Padre Pio bore this wound, but because, as far as is known, the future pope is the only one to whom Padre Pio ever revealed existence of this secret wound. 

The other is that Archbishop Lefevre was condemned by Padre Pio for actions yet to happen.

The meeting which took place after Easter in 1967 lasted two minutes. I was accompanied by Fr. Barbara and a Holy Ghost Brother, Brother Felin. I met Padre Pio in a corridor, on his way to the confessional, being helped by two Capuchins.
I told him in a few words the purpose of my visit: for him to bless the Congregation of the Holy Ghost which was due to hold an extraordinary General my Chapter meeting, like all religious societies, under the heading of aggiornamento (up-dating), meeting which I was afraid would lead to trouble...
Padre Pio kissing Archbishop Lefebvre's ring.
Then Padre Pio cried out. 'Me, bless an archbishop, no, no, it is you who should be blessing me!' And he bowed, to receive the blessing. I blessed him, he kissed my ring and continued on his way to the confessional...

I do hope this clears up some things about Padre Pio that are commonly said in haste.

+JMJ+

What to Read?

source

Four years ago this would have been the last thing I would have ever written on because quite frankly books are boring…its like reading a pamphlet on pulling tonsils.  I think I can remember a handful of books that I enjoyed reading from the K-12 grades, some important like To Kill a Mocking Bird to something plain foolish as Goosebumps.  It’s the same thing with magazines, too few of them interested me.  I loved ESPN the Magazine because it was drowning in amazing pictures.  Other kids in middle school or high school would talk about having a stash of playboys or other pornographic mags.  To this day I thank the Lord that when I inquired to have my friends give me one they always declined.  Someone was watching over me…Thank you Guardian Angel!

I wanted to take a moment and provide a list of the books I am currently reading and recommend them to you for your own learning and enjoyment.

1.       I Am with You Always by Michael Davies, Neumann Press 1997
This book is primarily concerned with providing an apologetic against the scourge that is Sedevananctism.  Since I delve into areas where many criticize the post conciliar church I have been confronted constantly by sedevacantists (who deny that the Popes since either Pius XII or John XXIII are valid) calling me a heretic for holding that the seat was not vacant since the council.  If you enjoy apologetics and are interested in the topic of the indefectibility of the Church this short, 100 page book is for you!  Price: $12 on Amazon

2.       Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus de Liguori
This Book takes an in depth look at the Salve Regina touching on issues like Mary as Mediatrix of all graces and even the assumption before it was solemnly proclaimed by Pius XII. This is a phenomenal work and I try to read a chapter every Sunday and focus on it for the week.  You will not be disappointed if you pick this title up. 

3.       Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies
This 3 volume work is a defense of Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, the controversial Archbishop who established and sustained the Priestly Society of Saint Pope Pius X (SSPX).  I myself am not an advocate for the society itself, especially in the way it is presently constituted, but it is interesting to get an impartial look at this controversial figure in the Churches history and examine his group and their purpose moving forward.  You can find this online for free at the SSPX Asia website.  Be critical in what is said as Mr. Davies is, Stay with Peter but be honest with actions as well.

Prof. Von Hildebrand (source)

4.       The Nature of Love by Dietrich von Hildebrand, St. Augustine’s Press 2009
This was considered Professor Hildebrand’s greatest work on what True Love really is.  Prof. Von Hildebrand was proclaimed by Ven. Pope Pius XII as the, count it, The Doctor of the Church for the 20^th Century (JPII the “great” advocates will disagree but being stuck in the muds of Assisi don’t help their cause…im just kidding).  This is a really deep and scholarly book and I am only attacking this a few pages at a time and most often I have to go back and reread because its so dense. Yet this is a fantastic work and foundational in a world that calls things that are disordered love.

5.       Aquinas (Beginners Guides) by Edward Feser
A fantastic beginners book for Thomas Aquinas.  The book covers the life of St. Thomas his metaphysics, natural theology, psychology and ethics.  Other than Dr. Taylor Marshalls book which is free at his website I would recommend this work to people that really want a deep but not too scholarly look at the Doctor of Doctors for Holy Mother Church.  A fantastic read!

I will finish by recommending The Outline of Sanity magazine put out by the American Chesterton Society.  I think you can tell whats its about.  I think a years subscription is around $50, but its worth it especially if you’re a self proclaimed Chestertonian…like me…self proclaimed.

Alight that’s enough….time for cookies… or not

C is for Cookie!