The Church in Crisis: Duty of every Catholic to uphold truth
Feb 12, 2019 15:06:43 GMT
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2019 15:06:43 GMT
The Angelus - June 1982
This is the text of the address delivered by Mr. Davies at our Fifth Anniversary Banquet. The parallel it draws between our present situation and the Arian crisis is disturbing and depressing, but we can take comfort in the fact that just as orthodoxy emerged triumphant in the fourth century, it will certainly triumph in its conflict with the contemporary heresy of Modernism. Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell can never triumph against His Church!
On February 27th this year an advertisement of what I consider to be historic significance appeared in The Cincinnati Enquirer. It had been inserted by two priests from the diocese of Covington, in Kentucky—Monsignor Edward Mickey, J.C.D., and Father Henry Haacke. Remember their names, they deserve our gratitude and our admiration. Monsignor Hickey and Father Haacke had gone to the expense of inserting an advertisement in a secular newspaper in order to register a protest. They claimed, and I am sure that everyone here would agree with them, that it was "a scandal and a disturbance to the faithful" that Father Richard McBrien had been invited to preach at St. Mary's Cathedral in Covington on February 26th. Father Richard McBrien is the Chairperson of the Theology Department at the University of Notre Dame, probably the most prestigious Catholic university in the United States of America. He also happens to be a heretic. Monsignor Hickey and Father Haacke did not merely accuse Father McBrien of heresy—they documented their accusation. They listed nine points in which he has publicly rejected the teaching of the Church. I will mention just three of them. He denies the necessity of infant baptism; he denies that Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Orders, and claims that, if necessary, any member of the congregation could celebrate the Eucharist; he denies that homosexuality and the use of contraceptives are intrinsically evil.
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared that Dr. Hans Küng can no longer be regarded as a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role. Pope John Paul II approved this declaration and ordered its publication. On December 7, 1981, Dr. Küng gave a public lecture at the University of Notre Dame. Father McBrien introduced him to the standing-room only audience as a "fellow Catholic theologian" (The Wanderer, 14 January 1982). This insolent and cynical rejection of the judgment of the Sacred Congregation was loudly applauded.
I can well imagine that the average reader of The Cincinnati Enquirer glanced through the protest of the two courageous priests with amusement, disdain, or perhaps bewilderment. "How ridiculous," many of them will have thought, if they bothered to read the advertisement at all, "fancy anyone making a fuss over such trivialities in the closing decades of the twentieth century. We are plagued by unemployment, recessions and rising crime rates, we can travel throughout space, and we may all be destroyed by a nuclear holocaust at any time. Who really cares whether infants are baptized or not? If anyone wants to baptize their infants, well, the best of luck to them. If they don't want to, who cares?"
We care, of course. I am sure that society in general, many of our friends, and sometimes even members of our families think we are rather eccentric, somewhat peculiar, because we care. Others would go further, they would call our views extreme, term us fanatics. Does that prove that we are wrong? Of course it doesn't. Cardinal Newman wrote:
Cardinal Newman was willing to be accounted intemperate and extreme in his own generation because the motivating force of his entire life was what he termed "the dogmatical principle" which he describes thus:
"He that would be saved must thus think, and not otherwise." This is what the dogmatical principle is about. It is an awesome matter, the one which must preoccupy us more than anything else in life, because our eternal destiny depends upon it. It is, briefly, a question of heaven and hell. The dogmatical principles concerned Newman so deeply because his whole life was centered upon the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The fervour of his love for the Son of God shines through every page of his writing; and because Newman loved and cared for Our Lord he loved and cared for the truth. Jesus Himself told us that He had come into the world to bear testimony to the truth. "Art thou a king then?" asked Pilate. Jesus answered: "Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony of the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John, 18:37).
Every Catholic has a duty to uphold the truth; each one of us must thus think, and not otherwise, if we wish to be saved. But there are men in the Church who have a particular and solemn obligation to uphold and defend the truth in public—these men are known as bishops. St. Paul wrote to his beloved disciple Timothy, who had become Bishop of Ephesus, and warned him of his responsibilities toward the truth. This admonition has never been improved upon as a summary of the duties of a bishop—it could not be:
"They will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth." They will indeed. They will invite Hans Küng to lecture in Notre Dame University, in Notre Dame which means "Our Lady"—Hans Küng lecturing in a university dedicated to the Mother of Incarnate Truth! I will not speculate upon the fee they paid him. They will also invite Richard McBrien to preach in St. Mary's Cathedral, Covington, Kentucky, a Cathedral dedicated to the Mother of Incarnate Truth. A cathedral—the word is derived from a Greek root meaning "chair," for in every cathedral is the cathedra, the chair on which the bishop sits to preach sound doctrine, and rebuke error in season and out of season.
"But is there no bishop in the diocese of Covington, is the see vacant?" some of you will be asking, and if you are not, then you ought to be. "Did the bishop know of the invitation issued to Father Richard McBrien, Chairperson of the Theology Department of Notre Dame, an evident heretic? How come priests of the diocese had to insert an advertisment in the secular press denouncing his visit? Surely, this is the bishop's job!"
There is indeed a Bishop of Covington. The see is not vacant. His name is William A. Hughes. He did indeed know of the invitation issued to Father Richard McBrien. And how did he "fulfil his ministry"? Bishop William A. Hughes of Covington, Kentucky, did not reprove, rebuke, or even entreat Father McBrien. He did not protect his flock from Father McBrien. No, he praised Father McBrien, he endorsed him, he approved him. Here is the manner in which he fulfilled his ministry as a successor of the Apostles. Bishop Hughes responded to the protest as follows:
A man who, like Father McBrien, has been past president of the Catholic Theological Society of the U.S.A. surely has the high regard of his peers. In addition, as current Chairperson of the Theology Department of Notre Dame University, he is not considered unacceptable to Church authorities. Father McBrien's recently published two-volume work, Catholicism, has been widely praised as a special contribution toward helping today's Catholics understand their faith. He is especially adept at relating the influence of Vatican II documents on traditional Church teaching.
Well, I wouldn't want to argue with anything the Bishop says here. McBrien does indeed have the high regard of his peers, his fellow theologians—so much the worse for them. He is indeed very acceptable to Church authorities—so much the worse for them. His two-volume, blasphemously misnomered work Catholicism has indeed been widely praised—so much the worse for those who praised it.2 And Father McBrien, who is a heretic, is adept at relating the influence of Vatican II documents on traditional Church teaching. Is he indeed? Look at the state of traditional Church teaching in America today, and Father McBrien relates this to the documents of Vatican II. Very interesting. Well, Bishop Hughes says this. If anyone objects, contact him, don't blame me!
The situation I have described is truly scandalous. A successor of the Apostles allowing a public heretic to preach in his cathedral and defending him against the well-founded criticisms of zealous priests who are doing what the Bishop should have done himself, making a public stand on behalf of Catholic Truth.
Is this situation unique? Is Bishop Hughes an isolated case, what you would probably call in Texas, a "maverick prelate"? Alas no. A maverick prelate in the U.S.A. today would be one who would refuse to allow Father McBrien to preach in his diocese. The only such prelate I can think of in the U.S.A. is Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge, and I am told on good authority that when the American hierarchy meets Bishop Sullivan is treated as if he is suffering from some form of mental disability. Nothing he says is taken seriously. He is considered, in the words of Newman, "singular, intemperate, extreme."
I could provide hundreds of examples of equally scandalous actions on the part of American bishops, Dutch bishops, French bishops and English bishops.
Let us not imagine that Bishop William Hughes of Covington, Kentucky, or any of those like him, are liberal-minded, tolerant men. They do not tolerate heretical theologians because their motto is "live and let live." They don't just tolerate them, they promote them, and they promote them because they approve of them. But there are priests that Bishop Hughes will not tolerate. I have a letter here from him addressed to one of them. The priest in question is a good friend of mine; he has given fifty years of loyal service to the diocese. He is a fine scholar. "A new retirement policy for priests of the Diocese of Covington has come into effect," says the Bishop. This sounds promising. "You have given many years of your life to the Diocese," he continues. It's nice to be appreciated. "You are certainly eligible for the retirement benefits." This is good news. But the good news ends here. "It has been reported to me," says Bishop Hughes, "that you still celebrate Mass publicly in the Latin Tridentine form. I do not know if that is true, if it is, it is something that I would have to take into consideration."
Well, there you have it. That is the American Church today. Heresy yes, the Latin Tridentine Mass, no. "Only one offense is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions."
"Only one offense is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions." This complaint was not made by my priest-friend in Kentucky who has been ordered to cease celebrating the rite of Mass he was ordained to offer. It was made by St. Basil during the Arian persecution in the fourth century. Yes, the situation that I have described is by no means unique. It has happened before, and the Church survived, as, indeed, it must; for Jesus Himself has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Today is the Feast of St. Athanasius, described by St. Gregory of Nazianzen as "an incomparable prelate, mighty voice of the truth, pillar of the faith, new herald of Christ." There could be no more appropriate day for us to reflect upon the life of St. Athanasius, and to discover what we can learn from his example to help us in our efforts to uphold the truth.
The state of the Church during the Arian heresy was even worse than it is now. There are countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Japan, where, to the best of my knowledge, Catholic orthodoxy is upheld. But, in the fourth century, according to St. Jerome: "Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est"—"The entire world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian." Arianism was a heresy which first became influential in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. The heresy was not new. It claimed that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is not really God in the sense that the Father is God. But in its initial stages, the proponents of the heresy were careful not to make this blasphemy absolutely specific. Ambiguity was their weapon. In his Apologia pro Vita Sua Cardinal Newman noted the manner in which the Arians had drawn up their creeds:
But how had Arius been allowed to initiate and propagate his heresy? Sadly, the answer must be through the weakness of his bishop. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. Arius was a priest of the great patriarchal See of Alexandria. In the entire Church only the See of Rome was of greater importance. Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, now St. Alexander, was guilty of serious weakness in allowing Arius great latitude to express his theories and argue in their defense. Cardinal Newman notes that: "The mischief which ensued from his misplaced weakness was considerable."3 When Alexander was eventually persuaded to excommunicate Arius, not least through the influence of St. Athanasius, his secretary at the time, his heretical theories had already spread so far that they could not be checked. I will not attempt to recount the history of Arianism in any detail. I have already provided the necessary facts in Appendix I to my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. Arius was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325. But the movement did not disappear, it simply went underground—as did Modernism after its condemnation by St. Pius X. It reemerged with a new leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia. When reading the history of Arianism one finds references to a Eusebian doctrine or a Eusebian formula, this means an Arian doctrine or an Arian formula expressed in cunningly ambiguous terms. Eusebius was far too shrewd to attempt any direct reversal of what had been decreed at Nicea.
Eusebius was able to win the support of the Emperor Constantine and after his death (in 337), of his son the Emperor Constantius II. The support of the Emperor was decisive. Catholic bishops were deposed and replaced by Arians. By this time Athanasius himself had become Bishop of Alexandria. He, more than any other individual, upheld the teaching of the Council of Nicea that Jesus Christ was divine, true God, true Man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Athanasius had been the chief force at the great council. It was the chief object of Eusebius to displace him from the See of Alexandria. Repeatedly he was accused to the Emperor of serious crimes. One packed council after another declared him deposed. (These were, of course, regional councils of bishops and not general councils of the Church.) Twice the Emperor replaced him with an Arian. Five times he was exiled, and, at one time, with a price on his head, he spent seven years lost from sight in the deserts to the south of Egypt. How appropriate is the Epistle for today's feast. Do you remember Cardinal Newman's warning, which I quoted a few minutes ago, that those who uphold the truth will always be in a minority, and that they will be rejected by the complaisant, self-assured majority? Let me quote a few sentences from the Epistle for today's feast: "In all things we suffer tribulation, but we are not distressed; we are straitened, but we are not destitute; we suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we perish not."
"We suffer persecution, but we are not forsaken; we are cast down but we perish not." What words of inspiration, what words of comfort to traditional Catholics in this present time of tribulation. In choosing this epistle for the feast of St. Athanasius, the Church clearly intended to apply these words to the great saint himself, the "Father of Orthodoxy" as he is rightly termed. It would not be true to say that St. Athanasius was the only bishop in the world who upheld the divinity of Our Lord, he had the support of a few other courageous bishops such as St. Hilary, but there can be no doubt that he was the primary instrument utilized by God for the defeat of Arianism. "Athansius contra mundum" (Athanasius against the world), the tribute is well justified.
Now what was the basis of the defense of orthodoxy made by St. Athanasius? It was an appeal to tradition. "What fathers can you assign to your phrases?" was a challenge he put to his Arian opponents. His attitude was that of every true Catholic to doctrinal novelties, an attitude well summarized by Cardinal Newman when he wrote:
But, as I have said, the bishops as a whole failed miserably and scandalously in their sacred duty of preserving and handing on the deposit of faith during the Arian heresy. St. Gregory of Nazianzen remarked that but for a very few
St. Gregory's description could be applied without changing a word to the English bishops during the Protestant Reformation. St. John Fisher was the sole, heroic and honorable exception. St. Gregory's description could also be applied without changing a word to the bishops in many countries today—not least to the U.S.A. In an article in the December 1981 Homiletic and Pastoral Review, the leading journal for priests in America, one parish priest testified from his personal knowledge that some American dioceses, I would say most American dioceses, are dominated by theological Modernism. Some of the bishops are "themselves willingly Modernists," the true leanings of the others are harder to discern, "they have appointed Modernists to all or most of the key positions; they have voiced public praise and support for these officials; they have never—at least publicly—attempted to correct their errors."
In about the year 372, St. Basil wrote:
Do we need to change one word of this description to describe the state of the Church in so many parts of the Catholic world today? In my own case I live a two-minute walk from a Catholic church where I served the early Mass each day for many years. That church is very dear to me, not least for the memories it contains of the saintly priest who was such an inspiration to me. But now the tabernacle has been removed from the high altar, women distribute Communion in the hand to a standing congregation, ludicrous ditties replace the Gregorian Chant that I once knew, and I am told that recently, as a special surprise, the congregation sang "Happy Birthday" to the new pastor during the Mass. Each Sunday now I make a long journey across London by public transport to the chapel which the Society of St. Pius X has just purchased. This causes me no particular hardship, but there are elderly and infirm people who make even longer journeys, there are even those who are crippled and blind. But they feel that they must avoid their parish churches as places of impiety. Did not Pope John Paul II feel it necessary to apologize to us for this impiety in his letter Dominicae Cenae, dated 24 February 1980? He begged forgiveness in his own name and that of the entire episcopate for everything in the application of the liturgical reform which "may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the veneration due to this great sacrament." We must admire the honesty and the humility of the Pope in making this astonishing apology. Indeed, it must be one of the most astonishing statements ever made by a pope in the entire history of the Church. But what notice have the bishops of the U.S.A. taken of him—none at all, absolutely none at all. And what has the Pope done about the fact that the American bishops have defied him? Absolutely nothing! I don't know how many of you have ever heard of Dame Edith Cavell, an English nurse executed by the Germans during the first World War. She is remembered not only for her courage and her patriotism but for words which even surpass these virtues: "Patriotism is not enough." I feel that we must say to the Pope, with all the respect and veneration due to the successor of St. Peter, apologies are not enough! Admonitions and exhortations are not enough! What we want is some action—and the most urgent action at present is the removal of the weak or heretical bishops who are leading the Catholic Church in the U. S. A. into schism.
In the issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review which I have just mentioned, the Editor, Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., for whose courage and integrity I have great admiration, expressed the fear that "an American Church"—separated and independent of Rome—is just around the corner." I disagree with Father Baker. I don't think that a schismatic American Church is just around the corner, I think that it is here already. What are we supposed to call bishops who allow heretics into their dioceses, then praise and defend them against the protests of the outraged faithful? I can't think of a better word than "schismatic" to describe them; I also think that St. Gregory of Nazianzen's phrase "foremost champions and leaders in the impiety" is also very applicable. I understand that here in Texas you have some rather more forceful expressions to describe the bishops you are afflicted with today, but the ones I have heard appear more suitable for private conversation!
One advantage of our present situation over that of faithful Catholics during the Arian heresy is that at least we are not subjected to physical persecution in most cases. There have, of course, been examples of physical harassment. Father Yves Normandin was locked out of his church. Have you read his story? If you haven't, you ought to! He is one of the greatest fighters for orthodoxy in the Church today. What, then, are the weapons used today against those who remain faithful to tradition? Bishop Rudolph Graber of Regensburg in Germany has given us the answer:
What happened over 1,600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by the banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character.
And it is not simply such traditionalist priests as these among us here tonight who suffer this form of persecution. There are others equally committed to orthodoxy, who are attempting to uphold truth within the official structures of the Conciliar Church. But much as I respect and admire them I fear that they are fighting a losing battle, they can do no more than achieve a holding operation. They are being ruthlessly and systematically purged; I know some of them, I could give you names. So could Fr. Bolduc. This type of pastor can be called a papalist priest. One of them wrote the article in the Homiletic which I have already cited several times. This is what he has to say about those like himself:
"Barred from any position of influence," this is the terrible truth. A priest who displays the least inclination for orthodoxy has no hope of becoming a bishop in the American Church today. So the situation is going to get worse and worse—I apologize for the gloomy prediction, but I don't think anyone here would want to challenge it. In fact, I don't think it can be challenged. And if we start thinking about the priests who are emerging from American seminaries today—well, let's not think about it. It's too depressing.
I have not yet spoken to you about Pope Liberius whose pontificate lasted from 325-366. He has the unenviable distinction of being the first pope in the history of the Church not to be recognized as a saint. Initially, the pope defended Athanasius and defended Our Lord's divinity with great courage, but he was subjected to great pressure and eventually gave way—subscribing to the excommunication of St. Athanasius and signing an ambiguous formula which could be interpreted in an Arian sense. The tragic fall of Pope Liberius is described in the strongest of terms in Butler's Lives of the Saints: "The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself."
How then, did St. Athanasius uphold the true faith against Arianism? The Emperor was against him, almost all the bishops were against him, and even the pope failed to support him—going as far as to excommunicate him. Cardinal Newman has no doubt about the answer. St. Athanasius was the instrument used to preserve the Apostolic Faith and his support came largely from the laity. Not all the laity, many, perhaps most, also compromised. But a large number remained true to the faith they had received at their baptism. They were not learned men and women, they were not theologians; but they knew what bishops and priests were telling them to believe was contrary to the traditional faith—in many cases, and this is truly astonishing, contrary to what those very bishops and priests had taught them in earlier days. St. Athanasius and his flock constituted a small minority, a persecuted minority, a despised minority, and it appeared for many years, a minority without hope. But as you say in America, "they hung in there." Eventually there was a Catholic Emperor and a strong pope, orthodoxy was restored, truth flourished, the Church was saved. Many of them didn't live to see this happy day—St. Athanasius didn't—but he knew that it would come because Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.
What, then, can we learn from the battle waged against heresy by the great saint whose feast we celebrate today? When we are told that we are arrogant or even crazy because we claim to be right and most of the bishops and clergy wrong, and that this could not possibly be the case, we can reply that not only is it possible, but that it has happened before. We can learn from the story of St. Athanasius that Catholics who remain faithful to the truth may have to worship outside the official churches; and that such Catholics may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership and inspiration—not to their parish priest, not to their diocesan bishop, not to the bishops of their country as a body or even to the bishops of the world. They may have to look to one solitary and heroic bishop who has been repudiated by his fellow bishops, and, perhaps even by the Pope himself. Such a bishop may have to disregard the normal rules of Canon Law. St. Athanasius did, he even ordained in the dioceses of other bishops to ensure that there would still be orthodox priests in the Church to teach the faith, celebrate Mass, and administer the other sacraments. Such was his standing that it was said that to be in communion with St. Athanasius was in itself the truest test of orthodoxy. And how would we recognize that this solitary bishop was right even if he appeared to be in opposition to all the other bishops of the world, and even the Pope himself? The answer is that they would recognize in his teaching what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of St. Athanasius: the one true faith into which they had been baptized. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to tradition be compared to the Protestant principle of private judgment. The fourth century Catholic traditionalists upheld St. Athanasius in his defense of the faith that had been handed down, the Protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional faith.
I remarked earlier on how appropriate it is that we should be reflecting together upon the life of St. Athanasius upon his feast day. It is even more appropriate that we should do so when we have the privilege, the blessing, the grace of having among us the bishop who, I am absolutely certain, will be seen by history as the Athanasius of our times. "You compare yourself to Athanasius," Pope Paul VI once said to him. The Archbishop has never done this, he certainly never will, and I know that it embarrases him when the comparison is made. But, Reverend Fathers, ladies and gentlemen, how can we not make this comparison? Archbishop Lefebvre is remaining true to the faith and traditions that were handed down to him which, as a bishop, he swore to uphold and defend. And now, in country after country, in diocese after diocese, groups of faithful Catholics, inspired by his example, are finding the courage to do the same. Where would we be without the Archbishop? But, then, how could he have achieved what, with the help of God, he has achieved without your support? He is an inspiration to you but I know that you are an inspiration to him. When I say "you" I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of traditional Catholics who support him in his work throughout the world—but I am speaking today especially of Queen of Angels parish. I know that this parish is one for which he has a very special affection—and with good reason. I have seen the work of the Society in a number of countries, but I have never seen anything which surpasses what you have here. I have heard that in Texas everything is bigger and better than anywhere else—well, the people of Queen of Angels parish have certainly done their part in upholding the reputation of the Lone Star State!
And together with the parish I must link The Angelus Press—and together with them both I must link the name of Father Bolduc. Without Father Bolduc there would be no Queen of Angels, without Father Bolduc there would be no Angelus Press, without Father Bolduc there would be no St. Mary's— I won't carry on, if I gave a list of all that Father Bolduc has achieved in America we would be here for hours. I can't think of any other individual in the U.S.A. who has done more to ensure that the traditional faith is kept alive, with the exception of Mr. Walter Matt and the valiant apostolate he has conducted with his journal The Remnant.
There is no need for me to mention all the wonderful people who write and distribute The Angelus as this has already been done, but I absolutely must mention Mrs. Carlita Brown who typesets it each month and Father Carl who prints it, not to mention all the books and pamphlets they typeset and print as well. I have already mentioned the great privilege we have been vouchsafed to have Archbishop Lefebvre here with us for the anniversary of The Angelus Press on this most appropriate of all days, the Feast of St. Athanasius. God sends us sorrows, but He also sends us joys and I cannot doubt that this has been a very special sign of divine favor for us all. And to cap it all, The Angelus Press has just printed a most important book by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. It is called I Accuse the Council and is available here tonight for the very first time. It has been beautifully typeset by Mrs. Brown and printed perfectly by Fr. Carl—a real credit to The Angelus Press and the most appropriate way possible of marking its anniversary.
After the council it seemed for a time that the traditional faith had been extinguished Well, anyone who thinks that should have been at Mass this morning. They should have seen your exquisite church, heard the truly superb singing of your choir, watched the beautiful May procession which Sr. Mary Raphael organized so beautifully. No, the traditional faith has not been extinguished! Here in Dickinson it is burning with especial brightness with a flame lit by our beloved Archbishop which is now sending out its light, beams of hope and truth, to Catholics in other states and other countries.
The meaning of this anniversary celebration here tonight is clear. The Faith of our Fathers is living still in spite of all the bishops could do; it is living; it is flourishing, and The Angelus Press will continue spreading the traditional message as long as Father Carl can keep the presses rolling—and I am sure that this is going to be for a very long time as every time I see him he looks fitter and stronger. I'm sure that his ancestors must have come from Texas!
The message which this meeting has for Bishop Morkovsky of Galveston/Houston, for Bishop Hughes of Covington, and for bishops all over the U.S.A. is this—you couldn't beat us and you won't beat us, because our hope is in the Name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth. So if you can't beat us, why not join us? Return to the Faith of your Fathers—and do you know something, your excellencies, you might even enjoy it. I enjoy being a traditionalist! Everyone I have met here seems to enjoy it! I have never in my life met a more good natured and good humored group of people than those who write, produce and dispatch The Angelus. I have a little badge here which says "I Love Texas" which is true. We ought to have one made saying "I Love Being a Traditionalist." There are those, I know, who consider us fanatics, who think we are all narrow and bitter, very peculiar indeed. Well, we're all happy because Queen of Angels is still a church and not a parking lot. Bishop Morkovsky would be happy if it were a parking lot. So who's peculiar?
As this is the feast of St. Athanasius I hope you will forgive me if I quote him just once more. I would ask you to give these words your very close attention, for I think they form the basis of the entire stand made by the Archbishop; they justify the existence of Queen of Angels parish, they justify the existence of The Angelus Press; they are, in fact, the reason we are all here tonight. The great saint wrote:
Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests here tonight, and we lay people too, are not prepared to see God's mysteries despoiled by others, not by any others, not even by bishops! We will resist, just as St. Athanasius resisted. Before concluding I must bring one final point, a very important point to your attention. It is, in fact, yet another point of similarity between the manner in which St. Athanasius stood against the world in defense of the faith and the manner in which Archbishop Lefebvre is making his stand today. St. Athanasius resisted Pope Liberius—he did not reject him. At no time did he suggest that because Liberius succumbed to pressure, because he compromised himself by subscribing to an ambiguous formula, that he was not the Pope. St. Athanasius could not repudiate the Pope because he was a Catholic, and a Catholic cannot repudiate the Pope and remain within the Church. If a pope through weakness fails to uphold the faith effectively we are not bound to follow him, if a pope commands us to do something which compromises our faith, we can resist him, and our case for doing so must be very, very convincing. St. Athanasius spoke respectfully of Liberius, he accepted that the pope had acted under pressure and that his will was not entirely free. Archbishop Lefebvre has always spoken most respectfully of the reigning pontiff, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. He resists them but he does not repudiate them, and the difference is very important. It is the difference between being a Catholic and not being a Catholic. Let each of us make a point of ensuring that a day never passes when we do not pray for the Holy Father, pray that God will give him the grace to take the measures necessary to restore order to the Church no matter what it might cost him, and such an act of courage could cost him dearly, how dearly it is terrifying to imagine.
Bearing this in mind I would like to conclude with one more short quotation, a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre. I am sure that if St. Athanasius were here today he would say the very same thing to you without changing a word. I would like The Angelus Press to print it for us as an insert to The Angelus so that we could all pin it up and be inspired by it each day:
We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism, which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner, and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural and divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the Popes who have maintained Tradition. That is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the saints who are in heaven. Doing so, we are persuaded that we are rendering a great service to the Church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Newman Against the Liberals—25 Classic Sermons by John Henry Newman, p. 264. (400 pages hardback, available from The Angelus Press at $10.00).
2. A review of Catholicism by Richard McBrien was published in the March 1981 issue of The Angelus. The book was reviewed by Fr. G. H. Duggan, a theologian of considerable repute living in New Zealand.
3. Arians of the Fourth Century (London, 1976) p. 237.
4. A Short History of the Church, P. Hughes (London 1967), p. 26.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
The Church in Crisis
Michael Davies
Michael Davies
On February 27th this year an advertisement of what I consider to be historic significance appeared in The Cincinnati Enquirer. It had been inserted by two priests from the diocese of Covington, in Kentucky—Monsignor Edward Mickey, J.C.D., and Father Henry Haacke. Remember their names, they deserve our gratitude and our admiration. Monsignor Hickey and Father Haacke had gone to the expense of inserting an advertisement in a secular newspaper in order to register a protest. They claimed, and I am sure that everyone here would agree with them, that it was "a scandal and a disturbance to the faithful" that Father Richard McBrien had been invited to preach at St. Mary's Cathedral in Covington on February 26th. Father Richard McBrien is the Chairperson of the Theology Department at the University of Notre Dame, probably the most prestigious Catholic university in the United States of America. He also happens to be a heretic. Monsignor Hickey and Father Haacke did not merely accuse Father McBrien of heresy—they documented their accusation. They listed nine points in which he has publicly rejected the teaching of the Church. I will mention just three of them. He denies the necessity of infant baptism; he denies that Our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Sacrament of Orders, and claims that, if necessary, any member of the congregation could celebrate the Eucharist; he denies that homosexuality and the use of contraceptives are intrinsically evil.
The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has declared that Dr. Hans Küng can no longer be regarded as a Catholic theologian nor function as such in a teaching role. Pope John Paul II approved this declaration and ordered its publication. On December 7, 1981, Dr. Küng gave a public lecture at the University of Notre Dame. Father McBrien introduced him to the standing-room only audience as a "fellow Catholic theologian" (The Wanderer, 14 January 1982). This insolent and cynical rejection of the judgment of the Sacred Congregation was loudly applauded.
I can well imagine that the average reader of The Cincinnati Enquirer glanced through the protest of the two courageous priests with amusement, disdain, or perhaps bewilderment. "How ridiculous," many of them will have thought, if they bothered to read the advertisement at all, "fancy anyone making a fuss over such trivialities in the closing decades of the twentieth century. We are plagued by unemployment, recessions and rising crime rates, we can travel throughout space, and we may all be destroyed by a nuclear holocaust at any time. Who really cares whether infants are baptized or not? If anyone wants to baptize their infants, well, the best of luck to them. If they don't want to, who cares?"
We care, of course. I am sure that society in general, many of our friends, and sometimes even members of our families think we are rather eccentric, somewhat peculiar, because we care. Others would go further, they would call our views extreme, term us fanatics. Does that prove that we are wrong? Of course it doesn't. Cardinal Newman wrote:
"It would seem to be certain that those opinions which are popular will ever be mistaken and dangerous as being popular opinions. Those who serve God faithfully must ever look to be accounted, in their generation, singular, intemperate, extreme. They are not so..."1
Cardinal Newman was willing to be accounted intemperate and extreme in his own generation because the motivating force of his entire life was what he termed "the dogmatical principle" which he describes thus:
That there is truth then; that there is one truth; that religious error is in itself of an immoral nature; that its maintainers, unless involuntarily such, are guilty in maintaining it; that it is to be dreaded; that truth and falsehood are set before us for the trial of our hearts; that our choice is an awful giving forth of lots on which salvation or rejection is inscribed; that "before all things it is necessary to hold the Catholic faith," that "he that would be saved must thus think" and not otherwise. (Newman Against the Liberals, p. 21).
"He that would be saved must thus think, and not otherwise." This is what the dogmatical principle is about. It is an awesome matter, the one which must preoccupy us more than anything else in life, because our eternal destiny depends upon it. It is, briefly, a question of heaven and hell. The dogmatical principles concerned Newman so deeply because his whole life was centered upon the person of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The fervour of his love for the Son of God shines through every page of his writing; and because Newman loved and cared for Our Lord he loved and cared for the truth. Jesus Himself told us that He had come into the world to bear testimony to the truth. "Art thou a king then?" asked Pilate. Jesus answered: "Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony of the truth. Everyone that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John, 18:37).
Every Catholic has a duty to uphold the truth; each one of us must thus think, and not otherwise, if we wish to be saved. But there are men in the Church who have a particular and solemn obligation to uphold and defend the truth in public—these men are known as bishops. St. Paul wrote to his beloved disciple Timothy, who had become Bishop of Ephesus, and warned him of his responsibilities toward the truth. This admonition has never been improved upon as a summary of the duties of a bishop—it could not be:
I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by His coming and His kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine, but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned into fables. But be thou vigilant: labour in all things: do the work of an evangelist: fulfill thy ministry. Be sober. (II Timothy, 4:1-5).
"They will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth." They will indeed. They will invite Hans Küng to lecture in Notre Dame University, in Notre Dame which means "Our Lady"—Hans Küng lecturing in a university dedicated to the Mother of Incarnate Truth! I will not speculate upon the fee they paid him. They will also invite Richard McBrien to preach in St. Mary's Cathedral, Covington, Kentucky, a Cathedral dedicated to the Mother of Incarnate Truth. A cathedral—the word is derived from a Greek root meaning "chair," for in every cathedral is the cathedra, the chair on which the bishop sits to preach sound doctrine, and rebuke error in season and out of season.
"But is there no bishop in the diocese of Covington, is the see vacant?" some of you will be asking, and if you are not, then you ought to be. "Did the bishop know of the invitation issued to Father Richard McBrien, Chairperson of the Theology Department of Notre Dame, an evident heretic? How come priests of the diocese had to insert an advertisment in the secular press denouncing his visit? Surely, this is the bishop's job!"
There is indeed a Bishop of Covington. The see is not vacant. His name is William A. Hughes. He did indeed know of the invitation issued to Father Richard McBrien. And how did he "fulfil his ministry"? Bishop William A. Hughes of Covington, Kentucky, did not reprove, rebuke, or even entreat Father McBrien. He did not protect his flock from Father McBrien. No, he praised Father McBrien, he endorsed him, he approved him. Here is the manner in which he fulfilled his ministry as a successor of the Apostles. Bishop Hughes responded to the protest as follows:
A man who, like Father McBrien, has been past president of the Catholic Theological Society of the U.S.A. surely has the high regard of his peers. In addition, as current Chairperson of the Theology Department of Notre Dame University, he is not considered unacceptable to Church authorities. Father McBrien's recently published two-volume work, Catholicism, has been widely praised as a special contribution toward helping today's Catholics understand their faith. He is especially adept at relating the influence of Vatican II documents on traditional Church teaching.
Well, I wouldn't want to argue with anything the Bishop says here. McBrien does indeed have the high regard of his peers, his fellow theologians—so much the worse for them. He is indeed very acceptable to Church authorities—so much the worse for them. His two-volume, blasphemously misnomered work Catholicism has indeed been widely praised—so much the worse for those who praised it.2 And Father McBrien, who is a heretic, is adept at relating the influence of Vatican II documents on traditional Church teaching. Is he indeed? Look at the state of traditional Church teaching in America today, and Father McBrien relates this to the documents of Vatican II. Very interesting. Well, Bishop Hughes says this. If anyone objects, contact him, don't blame me!
The situation I have described is truly scandalous. A successor of the Apostles allowing a public heretic to preach in his cathedral and defending him against the well-founded criticisms of zealous priests who are doing what the Bishop should have done himself, making a public stand on behalf of Catholic Truth.
Is this situation unique? Is Bishop Hughes an isolated case, what you would probably call in Texas, a "maverick prelate"? Alas no. A maverick prelate in the U.S.A. today would be one who would refuse to allow Father McBrien to preach in his diocese. The only such prelate I can think of in the U.S.A. is Bishop Sullivan of Baton Rouge, and I am told on good authority that when the American hierarchy meets Bishop Sullivan is treated as if he is suffering from some form of mental disability. Nothing he says is taken seriously. He is considered, in the words of Newman, "singular, intemperate, extreme."
I could provide hundreds of examples of equally scandalous actions on the part of American bishops, Dutch bishops, French bishops and English bishops.
Let us not imagine that Bishop William Hughes of Covington, Kentucky, or any of those like him, are liberal-minded, tolerant men. They do not tolerate heretical theologians because their motto is "live and let live." They don't just tolerate them, they promote them, and they promote them because they approve of them. But there are priests that Bishop Hughes will not tolerate. I have a letter here from him addressed to one of them. The priest in question is a good friend of mine; he has given fifty years of loyal service to the diocese. He is a fine scholar. "A new retirement policy for priests of the Diocese of Covington has come into effect," says the Bishop. This sounds promising. "You have given many years of your life to the Diocese," he continues. It's nice to be appreciated. "You are certainly eligible for the retirement benefits." This is good news. But the good news ends here. "It has been reported to me," says Bishop Hughes, "that you still celebrate Mass publicly in the Latin Tridentine form. I do not know if that is true, if it is, it is something that I would have to take into consideration."
Well, there you have it. That is the American Church today. Heresy yes, the Latin Tridentine Mass, no. "Only one offense is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions."
"Only one offense is now vigorously punished—an accurate observance of our fathers' traditions." This complaint was not made by my priest-friend in Kentucky who has been ordered to cease celebrating the rite of Mass he was ordained to offer. It was made by St. Basil during the Arian persecution in the fourth century. Yes, the situation that I have described is by no means unique. It has happened before, and the Church survived, as, indeed, it must; for Jesus Himself has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Today is the Feast of St. Athanasius, described by St. Gregory of Nazianzen as "an incomparable prelate, mighty voice of the truth, pillar of the faith, new herald of Christ." There could be no more appropriate day for us to reflect upon the life of St. Athanasius, and to discover what we can learn from his example to help us in our efforts to uphold the truth.
The state of the Church during the Arian heresy was even worse than it is now. There are countries such as Poland, Lithuania, and Japan, where, to the best of my knowledge, Catholic orthodoxy is upheld. But, in the fourth century, according to St. Jerome: "Ingemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est"—"The entire world groaned in astonishment to find itself Arian." Arianism was a heresy which first became influential in the eastern half of the Roman Empire. The heresy was not new. It claimed that Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, is not really God in the sense that the Father is God. But in its initial stages, the proponents of the heresy were careful not to make this blasphemy absolutely specific. Ambiguity was their weapon. In his Apologia pro Vita Sua Cardinal Newman noted the manner in which the Arians had drawn up their creeds:
"Was it not on the principle of using vague ambiguous language, which to the subscribers would seem to bear a catholic sense, but which, when worked out in the long run, would prove to be heterodox."
But how had Arius been allowed to initiate and propagate his heresy? Sadly, the answer must be through the weakness of his bishop. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun. Arius was a priest of the great patriarchal See of Alexandria. In the entire Church only the See of Rome was of greater importance. Alexander, the Patriarch of Alexandria, now St. Alexander, was guilty of serious weakness in allowing Arius great latitude to express his theories and argue in their defense. Cardinal Newman notes that: "The mischief which ensued from his misplaced weakness was considerable."3 When Alexander was eventually persuaded to excommunicate Arius, not least through the influence of St. Athanasius, his secretary at the time, his heretical theories had already spread so far that they could not be checked. I will not attempt to recount the history of Arianism in any detail. I have already provided the necessary facts in Appendix I to my book Apologia Pro Marcel Lefebvre. Arius was condemned by the Council of Nicea in 325. But the movement did not disappear, it simply went underground—as did Modernism after its condemnation by St. Pius X. It reemerged with a new leader, Eusebius of Nicomedia. When reading the history of Arianism one finds references to a Eusebian doctrine or a Eusebian formula, this means an Arian doctrine or an Arian formula expressed in cunningly ambiguous terms. Eusebius was far too shrewd to attempt any direct reversal of what had been decreed at Nicea.
"The new policy was to propose, in place of its rigid and unmistakable definition, new formulae purposely vague and all embracing, which Catholics could interpret in a traditional sense and the Arians in an Arian sense. So the Arians would be able to remain within the Church."4
Eusebius was able to win the support of the Emperor Constantine and after his death (in 337), of his son the Emperor Constantius II. The support of the Emperor was decisive. Catholic bishops were deposed and replaced by Arians. By this time Athanasius himself had become Bishop of Alexandria. He, more than any other individual, upheld the teaching of the Council of Nicea that Jesus Christ was divine, true God, true Man, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Athanasius had been the chief force at the great council. It was the chief object of Eusebius to displace him from the See of Alexandria. Repeatedly he was accused to the Emperor of serious crimes. One packed council after another declared him deposed. (These were, of course, regional councils of bishops and not general councils of the Church.) Twice the Emperor replaced him with an Arian. Five times he was exiled, and, at one time, with a price on his head, he spent seven years lost from sight in the deserts to the south of Egypt. How appropriate is the Epistle for today's feast. Do you remember Cardinal Newman's warning, which I quoted a few minutes ago, that those who uphold the truth will always be in a minority, and that they will be rejected by the complaisant, self-assured majority? Let me quote a few sentences from the Epistle for today's feast: "In all things we suffer tribulation, but we are not distressed; we are straitened, but we are not destitute; we suffer persecution, but are not forsaken; we are cast down, but we perish not."
"We suffer persecution, but we are not forsaken; we are cast down but we perish not." What words of inspiration, what words of comfort to traditional Catholics in this present time of tribulation. In choosing this epistle for the feast of St. Athanasius, the Church clearly intended to apply these words to the great saint himself, the "Father of Orthodoxy" as he is rightly termed. It would not be true to say that St. Athanasius was the only bishop in the world who upheld the divinity of Our Lord, he had the support of a few other courageous bishops such as St. Hilary, but there can be no doubt that he was the primary instrument utilized by God for the defeat of Arianism. "Athansius contra mundum" (Athanasius against the world), the tribute is well justified.
Now what was the basis of the defense of orthodoxy made by St. Athanasius? It was an appeal to tradition. "What fathers can you assign to your phrases?" was a challenge he put to his Arian opponents. His attitude was that of every true Catholic to doctrinal novelties, an attitude well summarized by Cardinal Newman when he wrote:
Blessed be God! We have not to find the truth, it is put into our hands; we have but to commit it to our hearts and to preserve it inviolate, and to deliver it over to our posterity. This then is the meaning of St. Paul's injunction in the text given at the time when Truth was first published. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust," or rather, "keep the deposit;" turn away from those "profane emptinesses" which pretenders to philosophy and science bring forward against it. Do not be moved by them; do not alter your Creed for them; for the end of such men is error. (Newman Against the Liberals, p. 172).
But, as I have said, the bishops as a whole failed miserably and scandalously in their sacred duty of preserving and handing on the deposit of faith during the Arian heresy. St. Gregory of Nazianzen remarked that but for a very few
"all temporized, only differing from each other in this, that some succumbed earlier, and others later; some were the foremost champions and leaders in the impiety, and others joined the second rank of battle, being overcome by fear, or by interest, or by flattery, or, what was most excusable, by their own ignorance."
St. Gregory's description could be applied without changing a word to the English bishops during the Protestant Reformation. St. John Fisher was the sole, heroic and honorable exception. St. Gregory's description could also be applied without changing a word to the bishops in many countries today—not least to the U.S.A. In an article in the December 1981 Homiletic and Pastoral Review, the leading journal for priests in America, one parish priest testified from his personal knowledge that some American dioceses, I would say most American dioceses, are dominated by theological Modernism. Some of the bishops are "themselves willingly Modernists," the true leanings of the others are harder to discern, "they have appointed Modernists to all or most of the key positions; they have voiced public praise and support for these officials; they have never—at least publicly—attempted to correct their errors."
In about the year 372, St. Basil wrote:
"Religious people keep silence, but every blaspheming tongue is let loose. Sacred things are profaned; those of the laity who are sound in faith avoid the places of worship as schools of impiety, and raise their hands in solitude with groans and tears to the Lord in heaven."
Do we need to change one word of this description to describe the state of the Church in so many parts of the Catholic world today? In my own case I live a two-minute walk from a Catholic church where I served the early Mass each day for many years. That church is very dear to me, not least for the memories it contains of the saintly priest who was such an inspiration to me. But now the tabernacle has been removed from the high altar, women distribute Communion in the hand to a standing congregation, ludicrous ditties replace the Gregorian Chant that I once knew, and I am told that recently, as a special surprise, the congregation sang "Happy Birthday" to the new pastor during the Mass. Each Sunday now I make a long journey across London by public transport to the chapel which the Society of St. Pius X has just purchased. This causes me no particular hardship, but there are elderly and infirm people who make even longer journeys, there are even those who are crippled and blind. But they feel that they must avoid their parish churches as places of impiety. Did not Pope John Paul II feel it necessary to apologize to us for this impiety in his letter Dominicae Cenae, dated 24 February 1980? He begged forgiveness in his own name and that of the entire episcopate for everything in the application of the liturgical reform which "may have caused scandal and disturbance concerning the veneration due to this great sacrament." We must admire the honesty and the humility of the Pope in making this astonishing apology. Indeed, it must be one of the most astonishing statements ever made by a pope in the entire history of the Church. But what notice have the bishops of the U.S.A. taken of him—none at all, absolutely none at all. And what has the Pope done about the fact that the American bishops have defied him? Absolutely nothing! I don't know how many of you have ever heard of Dame Edith Cavell, an English nurse executed by the Germans during the first World War. She is remembered not only for her courage and her patriotism but for words which even surpass these virtues: "Patriotism is not enough." I feel that we must say to the Pope, with all the respect and veneration due to the successor of St. Peter, apologies are not enough! Admonitions and exhortations are not enough! What we want is some action—and the most urgent action at present is the removal of the weak or heretical bishops who are leading the Catholic Church in the U. S. A. into schism.
In the issue of Homiletic and Pastoral Review which I have just mentioned, the Editor, Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., for whose courage and integrity I have great admiration, expressed the fear that "an American Church"—separated and independent of Rome—is just around the corner." I disagree with Father Baker. I don't think that a schismatic American Church is just around the corner, I think that it is here already. What are we supposed to call bishops who allow heretics into their dioceses, then praise and defend them against the protests of the outraged faithful? I can't think of a better word than "schismatic" to describe them; I also think that St. Gregory of Nazianzen's phrase "foremost champions and leaders in the impiety" is also very applicable. I understand that here in Texas you have some rather more forceful expressions to describe the bishops you are afflicted with today, but the ones I have heard appear more suitable for private conversation!
One advantage of our present situation over that of faithful Catholics during the Arian heresy is that at least we are not subjected to physical persecution in most cases. There have, of course, been examples of physical harassment. Father Yves Normandin was locked out of his church. Have you read his story? If you haven't, you ought to! He is one of the greatest fighters for orthodoxy in the Church today. What, then, are the weapons used today against those who remain faithful to tradition? Bishop Rudolph Graber of Regensburg in Germany has given us the answer:
What happened over 1,600 years ago is repeating itself today, but with two or three differences: Alexandria is today the whole universal Church, the stability of which is being shaken, and what was undertaken at that time by means of physical force and cruelty is now being transferred to a different level. Exile is replaced by the banishment into the silence of being ignored; killing by assassination of character.
And it is not simply such traditionalist priests as these among us here tonight who suffer this form of persecution. There are others equally committed to orthodoxy, who are attempting to uphold truth within the official structures of the Conciliar Church. But much as I respect and admire them I fear that they are fighting a losing battle, they can do no more than achieve a holding operation. They are being ruthlessly and systematically purged; I know some of them, I could give you names. So could Fr. Bolduc. This type of pastor can be called a papalist priest. One of them wrote the article in the Homiletic which I have already cited several times. This is what he has to say about those like himself:
In his diocesan context the papalist priest is a pariah, the butt of obloquy, of condescending pity, barred from any positions of influence, quarantined to small enclaves, usually isolated rural places where he can do the least "damage."
"Barred from any position of influence," this is the terrible truth. A priest who displays the least inclination for orthodoxy has no hope of becoming a bishop in the American Church today. So the situation is going to get worse and worse—I apologize for the gloomy prediction, but I don't think anyone here would want to challenge it. In fact, I don't think it can be challenged. And if we start thinking about the priests who are emerging from American seminaries today—well, let's not think about it. It's too depressing.
I have not yet spoken to you about Pope Liberius whose pontificate lasted from 325-366. He has the unenviable distinction of being the first pope in the history of the Church not to be recognized as a saint. Initially, the pope defended Athanasius and defended Our Lord's divinity with great courage, but he was subjected to great pressure and eventually gave way—subscribing to the excommunication of St. Athanasius and signing an ambiguous formula which could be interpreted in an Arian sense. The tragic fall of Pope Liberius is described in the strongest of terms in Butler's Lives of the Saints: "The fall of so great a prelate and so illustrious a confessor is a terrifying example of human weakness which no one can call to mind without trembling for himself."
How then, did St. Athanasius uphold the true faith against Arianism? The Emperor was against him, almost all the bishops were against him, and even the pope failed to support him—going as far as to excommunicate him. Cardinal Newman has no doubt about the answer. St. Athanasius was the instrument used to preserve the Apostolic Faith and his support came largely from the laity. Not all the laity, many, perhaps most, also compromised. But a large number remained true to the faith they had received at their baptism. They were not learned men and women, they were not theologians; but they knew what bishops and priests were telling them to believe was contrary to the traditional faith—in many cases, and this is truly astonishing, contrary to what those very bishops and priests had taught them in earlier days. St. Athanasius and his flock constituted a small minority, a persecuted minority, a despised minority, and it appeared for many years, a minority without hope. But as you say in America, "they hung in there." Eventually there was a Catholic Emperor and a strong pope, orthodoxy was restored, truth flourished, the Church was saved. Many of them didn't live to see this happy day—St. Athanasius didn't—but he knew that it would come because Our Lord has promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His Church.
What, then, can we learn from the battle waged against heresy by the great saint whose feast we celebrate today? When we are told that we are arrogant or even crazy because we claim to be right and most of the bishops and clergy wrong, and that this could not possibly be the case, we can reply that not only is it possible, but that it has happened before. We can learn from the story of St. Athanasius that Catholics who remain faithful to the truth may have to worship outside the official churches; and that such Catholics may have to look for truly Catholic teaching, leadership and inspiration—not to their parish priest, not to their diocesan bishop, not to the bishops of their country as a body or even to the bishops of the world. They may have to look to one solitary and heroic bishop who has been repudiated by his fellow bishops, and, perhaps even by the Pope himself. Such a bishop may have to disregard the normal rules of Canon Law. St. Athanasius did, he even ordained in the dioceses of other bishops to ensure that there would still be orthodox priests in the Church to teach the faith, celebrate Mass, and administer the other sacraments. Such was his standing that it was said that to be in communion with St. Athanasius was in itself the truest test of orthodoxy. And how would we recognize that this solitary bishop was right even if he appeared to be in opposition to all the other bishops of the world, and even the Pope himself? The answer is that they would recognize in his teaching what the faithful of the fourth century recognized in the teaching of St. Athanasius: the one true faith into which they had been baptized. In no sense whatsoever can such fidelity to tradition be compared to the Protestant principle of private judgment. The fourth century Catholic traditionalists upheld St. Athanasius in his defense of the faith that had been handed down, the Protestant uses his private judgment to justify a breach with the traditional faith.
I remarked earlier on how appropriate it is that we should be reflecting together upon the life of St. Athanasius upon his feast day. It is even more appropriate that we should do so when we have the privilege, the blessing, the grace of having among us the bishop who, I am absolutely certain, will be seen by history as the Athanasius of our times. "You compare yourself to Athanasius," Pope Paul VI once said to him. The Archbishop has never done this, he certainly never will, and I know that it embarrases him when the comparison is made. But, Reverend Fathers, ladies and gentlemen, how can we not make this comparison? Archbishop Lefebvre is remaining true to the faith and traditions that were handed down to him which, as a bishop, he swore to uphold and defend. And now, in country after country, in diocese after diocese, groups of faithful Catholics, inspired by his example, are finding the courage to do the same. Where would we be without the Archbishop? But, then, how could he have achieved what, with the help of God, he has achieved without your support? He is an inspiration to you but I know that you are an inspiration to him. When I say "you" I am referring to the hundreds of thousands of traditional Catholics who support him in his work throughout the world—but I am speaking today especially of Queen of Angels parish. I know that this parish is one for which he has a very special affection—and with good reason. I have seen the work of the Society in a number of countries, but I have never seen anything which surpasses what you have here. I have heard that in Texas everything is bigger and better than anywhere else—well, the people of Queen of Angels parish have certainly done their part in upholding the reputation of the Lone Star State!
And together with the parish I must link The Angelus Press—and together with them both I must link the name of Father Bolduc. Without Father Bolduc there would be no Queen of Angels, without Father Bolduc there would be no Angelus Press, without Father Bolduc there would be no St. Mary's— I won't carry on, if I gave a list of all that Father Bolduc has achieved in America we would be here for hours. I can't think of any other individual in the U.S.A. who has done more to ensure that the traditional faith is kept alive, with the exception of Mr. Walter Matt and the valiant apostolate he has conducted with his journal The Remnant.
There is no need for me to mention all the wonderful people who write and distribute The Angelus as this has already been done, but I absolutely must mention Mrs. Carlita Brown who typesets it each month and Father Carl who prints it, not to mention all the books and pamphlets they typeset and print as well. I have already mentioned the great privilege we have been vouchsafed to have Archbishop Lefebvre here with us for the anniversary of The Angelus Press on this most appropriate of all days, the Feast of St. Athanasius. God sends us sorrows, but He also sends us joys and I cannot doubt that this has been a very special sign of divine favor for us all. And to cap it all, The Angelus Press has just printed a most important book by Archbishop Lefebvre himself. It is called I Accuse the Council and is available here tonight for the very first time. It has been beautifully typeset by Mrs. Brown and printed perfectly by Fr. Carl—a real credit to The Angelus Press and the most appropriate way possible of marking its anniversary.
After the council it seemed for a time that the traditional faith had been extinguished Well, anyone who thinks that should have been at Mass this morning. They should have seen your exquisite church, heard the truly superb singing of your choir, watched the beautiful May procession which Sr. Mary Raphael organized so beautifully. No, the traditional faith has not been extinguished! Here in Dickinson it is burning with especial brightness with a flame lit by our beloved Archbishop which is now sending out its light, beams of hope and truth, to Catholics in other states and other countries.
The meaning of this anniversary celebration here tonight is clear. The Faith of our Fathers is living still in spite of all the bishops could do; it is living; it is flourishing, and The Angelus Press will continue spreading the traditional message as long as Father Carl can keep the presses rolling—and I am sure that this is going to be for a very long time as every time I see him he looks fitter and stronger. I'm sure that his ancestors must have come from Texas!
The message which this meeting has for Bishop Morkovsky of Galveston/Houston, for Bishop Hughes of Covington, and for bishops all over the U.S.A. is this—you couldn't beat us and you won't beat us, because our hope is in the Name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth. So if you can't beat us, why not join us? Return to the Faith of your Fathers—and do you know something, your excellencies, you might even enjoy it. I enjoy being a traditionalist! Everyone I have met here seems to enjoy it! I have never in my life met a more good natured and good humored group of people than those who write, produce and dispatch The Angelus. I have a little badge here which says "I Love Texas" which is true. We ought to have one made saying "I Love Being a Traditionalist." There are those, I know, who consider us fanatics, who think we are all narrow and bitter, very peculiar indeed. Well, we're all happy because Queen of Angels is still a church and not a parking lot. Bishop Morkovsky would be happy if it were a parking lot. So who's peculiar?
As this is the feast of St. Athanasius I hope you will forgive me if I quote him just once more. I would ask you to give these words your very close attention, for I think they form the basis of the entire stand made by the Archbishop; they justify the existence of Queen of Angels parish, they justify the existence of The Angelus Press; they are, in fact, the reason we are all here tonight. The great saint wrote:
The Church has not just recently been given order and statutes. They were faithfully and soundly bestowed upon it by the Fathers. Nor has the Faith only just been established, but it has come to us from the Lord through His disciples. May what has been preserved in the churches from the beginning to the present day not be abandoned in our time; may what has been entrusted into our keeping not be embezzled by us. Brethren, as custodians of God's mysteries, let yourselves be roused to action on seeing all this despoiled by others.
Archbishop Lefebvre, the priests here tonight, and we lay people too, are not prepared to see God's mysteries despoiled by others, not by any others, not even by bishops! We will resist, just as St. Athanasius resisted. Before concluding I must bring one final point, a very important point to your attention. It is, in fact, yet another point of similarity between the manner in which St. Athanasius stood against the world in defense of the faith and the manner in which Archbishop Lefebvre is making his stand today. St. Athanasius resisted Pope Liberius—he did not reject him. At no time did he suggest that because Liberius succumbed to pressure, because he compromised himself by subscribing to an ambiguous formula, that he was not the Pope. St. Athanasius could not repudiate the Pope because he was a Catholic, and a Catholic cannot repudiate the Pope and remain within the Church. If a pope through weakness fails to uphold the faith effectively we are not bound to follow him, if a pope commands us to do something which compromises our faith, we can resist him, and our case for doing so must be very, very convincing. St. Athanasius spoke respectfully of Liberius, he accepted that the pope had acted under pressure and that his will was not entirely free. Archbishop Lefebvre has always spoken most respectfully of the reigning pontiff, both Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. He resists them but he does not repudiate them, and the difference is very important. It is the difference between being a Catholic and not being a Catholic. Let each of us make a point of ensuring that a day never passes when we do not pray for the Holy Father, pray that God will give him the grace to take the measures necessary to restore order to the Church no matter what it might cost him, and such an act of courage could cost him dearly, how dearly it is terrifying to imagine.
Bearing this in mind I would like to conclude with one more short quotation, a quotation from Archbishop Lefebvre. I am sure that if St. Athanasius were here today he would say the very same thing to you without changing a word. I would like The Angelus Press to print it for us as an insert to The Angelus so that we could all pin it up and be inspired by it each day:
We are not rebels, we are not schismatics, we are not heretics. We resist. We resist this wave of Modernism which has invaded the Church, this wave of laicism, of progressivism, which has invaded the Church in a wholly unwarranted and unjust manner, and which has tried to erase in the Church all that was sacred in it, all that was supernatural and divine, in order to reduce it to the dimension of man. So we resist and we will resist, not in a spirit of rebellion, but in the spirit of fidelity to the Church, the spirit of fidelity to God, the spirit of fidelity to Our Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of fidelity to all who have taught us our holy religion, the spirit of fidelity to all the Popes who have maintained Tradition. That is why we have decided simply to keep going, to persevere in Tradition, to persevere in that which has sanctified the saints who are in heaven. Doing so, we are persuaded that we are rendering a great service to the Church, to all the faithful who wish to keep the Faith, all the faithful who wish to receive truly the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
1. Newman Against the Liberals—25 Classic Sermons by John Henry Newman, p. 264. (400 pages hardback, available from The Angelus Press at $10.00).
2. A review of Catholicism by Richard McBrien was published in the March 1981 issue of The Angelus. The book was reviewed by Fr. G. H. Duggan, a theologian of considerable repute living in New Zealand.
3. Arians of the Fourth Century (London, 1976) p. 237.
4. A Short History of the Church, P. Hughes (London 1967), p. 26.
[Emphasis - The Catacombs]
