Recalling Why They Resisted…
Protestantism in the Church Since Vatican II
By Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Superior General of the Society of St. Pius X, Titular Archbishop of Synnada, Former Superior General of the Holy Ghost Fathers
The Liturgical Reform and Ecumenism
To deny that the liturgical reform was conceived and executed for ecumenical reasons would be to deny the evidence.
The presence of six Protestant delegates in the commission for the reform of the Mass is ample proof that it was so. That the photograph of these six Protestants was published on the front cover of "Documentation Catholique" is significant. (1) What could have been the reason for such a Protestant presence if not to examine the prayers, and even the structure of the Mass in order to make possible a union in prayer with Protestants, and this, in the most important act of the Catholic Church. (2) The definition of the Mass as given in the introduction of the Novus Ordo is a Protestant one, and this, in itself, is inadmissible and inconceivable. (3)
~ See Protestantism/ Page 8
![[image]](images/image_20160415_01_2_large_gray.jpg)
Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
Archbishop Lefebvre -
Protestantism in the Church Since Vatican II
Continued from Page 1
Henceforth, the emphasis will be on the Supper, the Meal and no longer on the Sacrifice. This alone would suffice to justify our emphatic rejection of the Reform.
It is significant that we no longer find the term ‘Sacrifice’ in the new Mass booklets. This has been replaced by ‘Liturgy of the Eucharist’, ‘Supper Memorial’, ‘Celebration of the Eucharist’, all terms which are typically Protestant.
The logical consequence of this is that this part of the liturgy has taken on a narrative aspect, and the sacrificial action of the priest at the Consecration has disappeared. In the Ordo Romanum, on the other hand, all the gestures, postures, and attitudes of the priest, the words spoken in a low voice, demonstrated that a mystery was being enacted, and that the priestly function ‘par excellence’ was being exercised. But from now on, the priest ‘narrates’ that which happened long ago.
This also is unacceptable.
Everything in this reform concurs in deceiving and in fostering the belief that the Mass is essentially a meal; thus, the table replacing the Altar of Sacrifice; the permission to dispense with the relics of the martyrs who followed Our Lord Jesus Christ, in His Sacrifice; the priest facing the people as the president of a family meal, and no longer as the minister of a sacrifice offering a victim to God, face to face with the Cross which is the symbol of the Sacrifice being perpetuated on the Altar. Many more changes could be mentioned that all concur in this shift of emphasis introduced long ago by the Protestants.
This substitution, or shift of emphasis, must of necessity lead—and is already leading—to the destruction of Catholic Doctrine which rests upon the Sacrifice of the Cross continued on the Altar.
It will lead to loss of faith in the Real Presence, and to the ruin of the Catholic priesthood.
This means that no compromise whatever can be consented to in this regard. It means also that those who have taken the Mass along that road bear a heavy burden of responsibility.
To support this new conception, it has been asserted that the Mass is above all the symbol of the "Caena", and the "Caena" was essentially a meal. But both these claims are false.
The Mass refers essentially to the Sacrifice of the Cross as did the Caena on Holy Thursday, and the Caena was essentially a Sacrifice because its entire significance is bound to the Cross, and has no meaning but for the Cross. The lamb that was immolated and eaten is indeed the victim of the Sacrifice, as Our Lord will be on the Cross, and as signified by the separation of His Body and Blood under the species of bread and wine. It is therefore only in its exterior aspect that the Caena can be compared to a meal and, in doing so, fail to perceive the sublime and profound reality underlying this pre-signification of the Cross. (4) The danger of losing the most holy reality of our lives—the source of all sanctification, the well-spring of all graces, the fount of every Sacrament, the backbone of the priesthood, and cornerstone of the Church—must needs make us wary of being taken in by deceptive appearances.
Now, the liturgical reform clearly steers us in a direction which is very dangerous to our faith. Facts are before us to show that the danger of losing faith in the Sacrifice, in the Real presence and in the priestly function, is very real. The cries of anguish from the true faithful and from priests whose faith is strong are rising from every side, yet, it must be conceded, with no apparent result up till now.
Such is the first cardinal point on which hinges the ecumenical orientation of the liturgical reform.
We must now mention a second point on which the Protestants who were present at the study of the Reform must certainly have insisted, namely, to reduce in the revised texts the propitiatory end of the Mass, which is the primary end of the Catholic Mass, of the Sacrifice taking place on the Altar, thereby perpetuating the Sacrifice of the Cross and applying its merits to those who participate and for whom it is being offered.
The Protestants claim that this is blasphemy and tantamount to denying the infinite value of Calvary, the One Sacrifice which atoned for the sins of all men. Faith in the Sacrifice of the Cross is sufficient to cleanse us from all our sins; sins are not really wiped out, but by our faith in Christ they are covered and will not be held against us. According to the same Protestant interpretation, the remission of sins through the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacrament of Penance, and Indulgences, is an insult to the Sacrifice of Calvary.
Accordingly, our modern reformers have thought fit to suppress the near totality of the traditional prayers which used to express clearly the propitiatory and expiatory end of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and in particular the beautiful Offertory prayers, the prayers at the foot of the Altar, the prayer to the Blessed Trinity at the end of the Mass, the Lavabo prayers, and two of the prayers before the priest’s communion. (5) This is, therefore, yet another cardinal aspect of the Catholic Mass, and of our faith, which is being faded out and will eventually disappear from the consciousness of the priests and faithful. We cannot accept such compromises; we must uphold the integrity of our faith in the basic truths of our holy religion.
If there is no longer any propitiation for our sins, there is no longer any need either for the Victim to be present on the Altar, no reason for a Sacrifice offered by the priest; all these hold together.
Now, let us not forget that the presence of the Victim on the Altar and His offering, are the ‘raison d’etre’ of the priesthood that Our Lord instituted; the ‘raison d’etre’ also of priestly celibacy, of the existence of religious orders, and of those who receive the baptism of blood. The entire Catholic spirituality finds its justification in the presence of the Divine Victim on the Altar, and in His offering. Such is, indeed, the life of every Catholic: a life of offering in communion with Our Lord, and even more so as regards the religious life whose profession it is, and the priestly life whose function it is.
We cannot afford to go along with a brand of Ecumenism that puts at stake and supernatural truths which are the very essence of Christian life and of the whole life of the Church.
It is clear that this liturgical reform has been carried out so lightly and in such irresponsible manner by people not qualified whether in theology or pastoral work, that it is well-nigh unbelievable.
The haste with which the changes have been introduced in such vital matters, the very number of these changes, the impracticability of checking translations, the intrusion of the Reform into every domain of the liturgy, even into private devotions such as the Rosary, are all beyond comprehension, and are a denial of common sense.
Further, the frenzied insistence on implementation, combined with a phobia for the traditional forms, is such that it is impossible to see in all this the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
They will not hesitate at pushing the reform to the extreme limit of what is permitted, and even beyond since the validity of some of the new Sacraments is now in doubt due to defect of matter and form. What benefit is there in a reform carried to such lengths?
These are not legitimate and beneficent reforms carried out by the Roman Catholic Church; we cannot recognize the usual marks of wisdom, moderation, concern for the faith and for pastoral needs. In circumstances such as these, our duty is to uphold tradition in order to protest our faith and safeguard the validity of our Sacraments.
• What pastoral need could there by in altering the words of the Consecration, and in permitting erroneous translations of these alterations to appear?
• What useful purpose could be served in allowing the aged to receive Extreme-Unction since they do not constitute the matter of the Sacrament of the sick?
• What pastoral advantage is there in substituting olive oil for any other oil, when olive oil has always been considered by Tradition as necessary to the validity of the Sacrament of Confirmation, any other oil being a doubtful matter?
• What is the pastoral advantage of suppressing two minor orders and the sub-deaconate, when the priest is so frequently called upon to exercise his functions of Exorcist in the Sacrament of Baptism and in all the blessing of the Ritual, and when he is more than ever in need of re-asserting his celibate state which the sub-deaconate so aptly denoted?
All these changes have put on justification, namely, and aberrant and senseless brand of Ecumenism which will not attract a single Protestant to the Faith, but will cause countless Catholics to lose their own, and will instill total confusion in the minds of many more who no longer will know what is true and what is false.
Obedience in such a case can only consist in a refusal to accept these reforms, and not in their acceptance. To
Continued Next Page
![[image]](images/image_20160415_08_0_large_gray.jpg)