Dear Father: (reply from Father Aulagnier)


I have decided to publicly answer you since, publicly, you addressed yourself to me.

If I read you well, you essentially accuse me of two reproaches:

          - to speak about “liturgical plurality”

          - and to desire to “catholicize the new Mass”. And here above all, you condemn me to Hell and call me an ignoble disciple of Mgr. Lefebvre.


Have you read me well?


A) You reproach me for my expression “liturgical pluralism”, but you say: “If you are speaking about the “plurality of rites in the Church”, we understand each other gladly will follow You!” (I have added this to tease you!)


My dear friend, please read attentively the incriminating passage. It is the fourth conclusion of my commentary on the encyclical of the Holy Father: Ecclesia de Eucharistia. Allow me to do this reading with you.


“This is why, it seems to me, that we are drifting toward a renaissance of liturgical pluralism in the Church... As it existed, moreover, in all tranquillity before the liturgical reform, as the Vatican II Council itself admits it in “Sacrosanctum concilium” (no.4). Indeed, it existed alongside the Roman Missal - read well, I underline it for you - the Lyonais rite, the Dominican rite, the Cartesian rite for the sole Latin Church and perhaps others as well, not counting the eastern rites of the uniate orthodox Churches. Cardinal Ratzinger admits it as well in the conference he gave to Catholics of “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta” at Rome in 1998. But the liturgical reform had destroyed this rich variety”. It was no longer a question of more than one rite - every revolution being totalitarian - the rite of Paul VI. Mgr. Bugnini himself traveled to Chartreuse so that Chartreuse abandons its Cartesian rite to the benefit of the one of Paul VI. This time of totalitarianism is no more”. Let us hope for this. It has done so much damage... We are approaching then a return to liturgical pluralism. The encyclical of the Pope is the source. And this is perhaps the reason why, in the encyclical itself as also a reminder of its legitimacy, the Pope speaks of different liturgies. He speaks of that of Saint James (no.23), that of St. John Chrysostome (no.17), that of St. Basil in note 19. Why this reminder? To make peace? To make one rich? Cultured? Why not accustoming others to this veritable reality which is pluralism. Ah, how the Bishops of France will find it hard to accept this. But the Pope has spoken. Causa finita est. And it is here where the whole meaning is captured, the passage of the Pope in no. 49: “in the respect of diverse ecclesial traditions that are legitimately constituted”.

This is the case also for the Roman rite of St. Pius V.


There you have it, the reading with me.

My dear friend, is this not your expressed thought?

I am at peace then. There was no need for this uproar!


B) You reproach me as well with wanting to “catholicize” the new mass. And you say: If you simply mean “correcting the new Mass”, we understand each other and can follow you”.


Here also, dear Father, permit me to ask you to read with me the incriminating paragraph. It is in the third conclusion of my commentary on the encyclical of John Paul II “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”.


Leaning on a sentence of Jean Madiran, in an interview in the revue of Father de Tanourn “Certitudes”, stating: “... I am no longer opposed to the idea of a reform of the reform if in the reform there is a rectification”, I concluded: “I would gladly share this idea... This is what the Pope is doing today by this encyclical: “Ecclesia de Eucharistia”. He corrects the weak points, he gives the right interpretation. He gives the rectification of omissions, of ambiguities of the liturgical reform”.


You can well see that, here again, I am expressing your own thought. I will even use the word, your word of “correction”. Jean Madiran himself uses the word rectification. This word has the same meaning. Consult the dictionary “le petit Robert”, to the word “rectification”, it give also the meaning of correction:

Rectification 1) Action of rectifying; 2) Rendering materially correct, conforming; 3) rendering exact; 4) making something disappear by correcting.


I am at peace once more and I say to you again: There was no need for all this uproar.


If you want further explanations, you may ask them from me, but this time in private. I will allow myself as a concluding remark to give you a little advice: You direct, I believe, a primary school in Bogota, in Columbia where you are prior: “Teach your children to understand what they read. They will avoid unleashing wars”.

In stating to you again my friendship, and all my devoted sentiments in O.L.J.C.

Father Paul Aulagnier