Interview of Father Aulagnier with the
President of Entraide et Tradition (Valerie Houtart )
June 18 2003
Dear
Madame,
You are asking me for my opinion on
the recent letter of the month of June from the Dominicans of Avrillé to their
friends and benefactors. I just became aware of it in my faraway Canada. I will
gladly share it with you and in a straightforward manner.
One part of the letter is
consecrated to the last encyclical of the Holy Father on the Eucharist: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. You know
already that I have studied it in depth, as so many of my confreres have done
as well, a good census, such as Father Hery, Father de Tanoüarn. You published
all three of us on the site ITEM; in the file that you had dedicated to this
encyclical. You are equally aware of the fact that Mgr. Fellay, in an Italian
journal, manifested his satisfaction with the publication of this document.
ITEM has equally published it. I congratulate you for it.
Any errors and weaknesses can be
perfectly revealed, as the FSSPX has done often enough, in this recent
instruction. I completely acknowledge that one can say that our censuses of the
encyclical are “optimistic” where others are “pessimistic”. But this commentary
from the Dominicans of Avrillé is inadmissible from the point of view of an
intellectual method: it is partial and thus false. It is not very strong from
persons who use the motto: contemplari
alliis tradere. It is even shocking. I will show you the partial and false
aspect of their presentation by a little example.
At the end of their fourth
paragraph, they quote the Pope: “There is no doubt that the liturgical reform
of the Council has produced a greater participation in the holy sacrifice of
the altar for the faithful that is more attentive, more active and more
fruitful”. This is a small part of number 10 of the encyclical. If the
Dominicans quote this passage, which insists upon the benefits of the
liturgical reform, it is for mocking it.
This liturgical reform has only emptied the churches. Case closed. But
if one wants to criticize the thinking of Jean-Paul II, one needs to make an
effort to both present it completely and try to understand it. They would have to honestly follow the
quotation. For the thought of the Pope does not stop at this single
“satisfecit”. Just the opposite. He especially insists upon the present grave
doctrinal omissions. And thus one can completely conclude that it is the
liturgical reform that the Pope wants to criticize. In any case, one needs to
repeat all that the Pope says about the present liturgy. And, de facto, the
Pope continues number 10 by writing: “Unfortunately, apart from these lights,
shadows are never lacking”. The Pope enumerates them: “There are in fact places
where an almost complete abandonment of eucharistic worship is noticed”. And
about this subject, I precisely rejoice about the great procession announced at
Nantes in honour of the most Holy Sacrament, while the bishop of Nantes hardly
encourages his parishioners to honour, as the Pope requests, the Holy
Eucharist.
The Pope continues: “To this is
added, in such or such an ecclesial context, abuses which contribute to obscuring the right faith and Catholic
doctrine concerning this admirable Sacrament” (some time ago, he would have
said “abuses which contribute to obscuring the right interpretation of the
conciliar reform”). The Pope explains these abuses: “Sometimes there appears a
comprehension that greatly reduces the eucharistic Mystery ”. This is how the
Pope states the disappearance of the notion of sacrifice, benefiting from the
notion of meal or of the simple notion of festivity: “Deprived of its
sacrificial value, this sacrament is lived as if it did not go beyond the
meaning and value of a cordial and fraternal encounter”. He will dedicate
numerous paragraphs in order to recall the essence of the holy Mass which is
precisely a sacrifice, the sacrifice of Christ. It would have been better, as
Mgr. Fellay has observed, that the propitiatory character of the sacrifice be
better explained. But this essential element is de facto present. It is
manifested, as I had explained in my commentary, that the Pope took into
account the theological criteria that Cardinal Ottaviani presented to Pope Paul
VI in addressing to him the Brief
critical examination, similiar to remarks from the Society’s book that was
presented to Cardinal Ratzinger and to the Supreme Pontiff: The problem of the reform of the Mass. In
any case, about this notion of sacrifice Pope John Paul II almost insists just
as much upon it as the reformers insist on the notion of the meal, of banquet,
in the Institutio generalis which
directed the liturgical reform.
The Pope continues: “furthermore,
the necessity of a ministerial priesthood which adheres to the apostolic
succession is sometimes obscured”. Here is expressed, very clearly this time,
the second deficiency of the liturgical reform that issued from the II Vatican
Council. And there as well, the Pope is going to refute this error present in
the Novus Ordo Missae during long and very great developments,
precise and with a great technique. Any serious reader cannot help but see
this. The Pope finally writes: “the sacramental character of the Eucharist is
reduced to a sole efficacy of an announcement”. Here, the Supreme Pontiff is
going to explain the third truth of the faith concerning the holy Mass which is
unfortunately expressed in an equivocal manner in this new Mass: the real
presence of Our Lord. The Pope will then have an opportunity to mention
transubstantiation, to quote the Council of Trent, Saint Thomas of Aquinas.
From then on, only quoting from the
end of number 10, only taking into account a single expressed idea, whereas
this number 10 contains precisely other ideas and even all the ideas of the
encyclical- this number 10 being the plan of the whole encyclical- this, for me
is an intellectual dishonesty. With such proceedings, the criticism coming from
Tradition ceases to be credible.
Their conclusion is particularly
shameful coming from theologians who are supposed to be speaking in the name of
Tradition. They state: “The conclusion of this brief review is that Rome (the
conciliar Rome) has not changed since 40 years not only according to content
but also according to form. According to content, since they continue to teach
the new theology, that of the new Mass”. Now, I encourage that one criticizes
them, but on condition that one has read correctly and thus to find that the
encyclical does de facto denounce the ambiguities of the theology of the new
Mass. To speak falsely on a subject so important for Catholics of Tradition as
the Mass, the aim of their combat for such a long time, is self-defeating. It
is to deceive the faithful, to lead them into error by falsely informing them.
It is to discredit oneself in the eyes of those that one criticizes.
They continue with their conclusion:
“According to form, for they (Rome) persists in the art of mixing the true and
the false together so as to render docile the mentalities and to make one
progressively pass form Catholicism over to the new religion”. Here the
intention is judged. Thus, from partiality to intellectual falsity, we arrive
at a moral suspicion. Saint Ignatius stated the contrary at the beginning of
his Spiritual Exercises (no. 22) that
one must always grant an a priori that
is favourable to the “proposition of one’s neighbour”.
According to Our Lord, He says that one must not “extinguish the smouldering
wick”. How much more reason when the wick re-lights, which must not be put out
but left intact so that it burns further. Partiality. Error. Suspicion. What a
family! As one knows, I do not belong to such a family. And, I could equally
demonstrate to you very easily that, in this letter and this conclusion, which
rests upon the principle that everything that comes from Rome is a priori bad, thus raising the theory of
the “Church in eclipse”, which is certainly a theory worst than sedevacantism,
which is certainly heretical by not expressing the truth about the Church. I
believe that this letter of Avrillé does a great harm to the noble cause that
we are defending.
Father Paul Aulagnier