June-July 2023
In a recent video statement, retired Swiss Bishop Vitus Huonder recalled how "In 2009, [Benedict XVI] lifted the unjust excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre and the bishops of the SSPX he had consecrated. Through that," he added, "he partially righted an injustice that weighed heavily on the Church." He further stated that Pope Francis personally told him the priests of the Society are "not schismatics."
The following address should be read in light of those facts and the sinister backdrop provided in Fr Murr's foregoing summary. Delivered during a 1982 conference in Montreal, Canada, His Grace recounts his personal experience of the Modernist corruption before, during and after the Council. An important historical testimony from a prelate regarded by Pope Benedict as "a great bishop of the Catholic Church." Footnotes and bracketed clarifications added.
The Passion of the Church: 1
Brief History
I'm happy to remark that everywhere in the world, everywhere in the Catholic world, courageous people are uniting together around priests who are faithful to the Catholic faith and to the Catholic Church, so as to maintain Tradition, which is the bulwark of our Faith. If there is a movement as general as this it is because the situation in the Church is truly serious.
If Catholics and good priests, some of whom have served in parishes for thirty years to the great satisfaction of their parishioners, have been able to beat the insult of being treated as disobedient rebels and dissidents, it could have only have been so as to maintain the Catholic Faith. They do it knowingly, following the spirit of the martyrs.
Whether one is persecuted by one's own brethren or by the enemies of the Church, it is still to suffer martyrdom, provided it be for the maintaining of the Faith. These priests and faithful are witnesses of the Catholic faith. They prefer to be considered rebels and dissidents rather than lose their faith.
Throughout the entire world we are in the presence of a tragic and unheard of situation, which seems never to have happened before in the history of the Church. We must at least try to explain this extraordinary phenomenon. How has it come to pass that good faithful and priests are obliged to fight to maintain the Catholic faith in a Catholic world, which is in the process of totally breaking up?
It was Pope Paul VI himself who spoke of self-destruction within the Church. What does this term self-destruction mean, if it is not that the Church is destroying herself by herself, and hence by her own members. This is already what Pope St. Pius X said in his first encyclical when he wrote: “Henceforth the enemy of the church is no longer outside the church, he is now within." And the Pope did not hesitate to designate those places where he was to be found: "The enemy is found in the seminaries." Consequently, the holy Pope St. Pius X already denounced the presence of the enemies of the Church in the seminaries at the beginning of the century.
Obviously the seminarians of the time, who where imbued with modernism, sillonism and progressivism, later became priests. Some of them even became bishops and among them were even some cardinals. One could quote the names of those who were seminarians at the beginning of the century and who are now dead but whose spirit was clearly modernist and progressivist.
Thus already Pope St. Pius X denounced this division in the Church, which was to be the beginning of a very real rupture within the Church and within the clergy.
I am no longer young. During my whole life as a seminarian, as a priest and as a bishop I have seen this division. I saw it already at the French Seminary in Rome where by the grace of God I was able to study. I must admit that I was not very keen to do my studies in Rome. I would personally have preferred to study with the seminarians of my diocese in the Lille seminary and to become an assistant vicar, and finally a parish priest in a small country parish.
I longed simply to maintain the Faith in a parish. I saw myself somewhat as the spiritual father of a population to which I was sent to teach the Catholic faith and morals. But it happened otherwise. After the First World War my brother was already in Rome, for he had been separated from the family by the circumstances of the war in the north of France. Consequently my parents insisted that I go to be with him. "Since your brother is already at Rome, at the French seminary, go and join him so as to continue your studies with him." Thus I left for Rome. I studied at the Gregorian University from 1923 to 1930. I was ordained in 1929 and I remained as a priest at the seminary for one year.
The First Victims of Modernism
During my seminary years tragic events took place, which now remind me of exactly what I lived through during the Council. I am now in practically the same situation as our seminary rector at the time. Father Le Floch. When I was there he had already been rector of the French Seminary in Rome for thirty years. From Brittany, he was a very outstanding man and as strong and firm in the Faith as Brittany granite. He taught us the Papal encyclicals and the exact nature of the Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, the modern errors condemned by Leo XIII and the Liberalism condemned by Pius IX. We liked our Fr. Le Floch very much. We were very attached to him.
But his firmness in doctrine and in Tradition obviously displeased the progressive wing. Progressive Catholics already existed at that time. The Popes had to condemn them.
Not only did Fr. Le Floch displease the progressives, but he also displeased the French government. The French government feared that by the intermediary of Fr. Le Floch and by that formation, which was given to the seminarians at the French Seminary in Rome, traditional Bishops would come to France and would give to the Church in France a traditional and clearly anti-liberal direction.
For the French government was Masonic and consequently profoundly liberal and frightened at the thought that non-liberal bishops could take over the most important posts. Pressure was consequently exerted on the Pope so as to eliminate Fr. Le Floch. It was Francisque Gay, the future leader of the MRP,(1) who was in charge of this operation. He came to Rome to exert pressure on Pope Pius XI, denouncing Fr. Le Floch as being, so he said, a member of Action Française (2) and a politician who taught his seminarians also to be members of Action Française.
This was all nothing but a lie. For three years I heard Fr. Le Floch in his spiritual conferences. Never did he speak to us of "Action Française." Likewise people now say to me: "You were formerly a member of Action Française." I have never been a member of Action Française.
Clearly we were accused of being members of Action Française, Nazis and fascists and every other pejorative label because we were anti-revolutionary and anti-liberal.
Thus an inquiry was made. The Cardinal Archbishop of Milan (Card. Schuster) was sent to the seminary. He wasn't the least of the Cardinals. He was in fact a Benedictine of great holiness and intelligence. He had been designated by Pope Pius XI to make the inquiry at the French Seminary so as to determine if the accusations of Francisque Gay were true or not. The inquiry took place. The result was: the French Seminary functions perfectly well under the direction of Fr. Le Floch. We have absolutely nothing to reproach the seminary rector with. But this did not suffice.
Three months later a new inquiry was begun, this time with the order to do away with Fr. Le Floch. The new inquiry was made by a member of a Roman Congregation. He concluded, in effect, that Fr. Le Floch was a friend of Action Française, that he was dangerous for the Seminary and that he had to be asked to resign. This is just what happened.
In 1926 the Holy See requested Fr. Le Floch to kindly abandon his post as rector of the French Seminary. He was overwhelmed with sorrow. Fr. Le Floch had never been a politician. He was traditional, attached to the doctrines of the Church and the Popes. In addition he had been a great friend of Pope St. Pius X, who had had great confidence in him. It was precisely because he was a friend of St. Pius X that he was the enemy of the progressive wing.
It was at the same time that I was at the French Seminary that Cardinal Billot was also attacked. He was a first class theologian at the time and remains today well known and studied in our seminaries. Monseigneur Billot, Cardinal of the Holy Church, was deposed. The purple was taken away from him and he was sent away in penance to Castelgandolfo, quite close to Albano, where the Jesuits have a house. He was forbidden to leave under pretext of having connections with Action Française.
In fact Cardinal Billot never belonged to Action Française. He did, however, hold [Charles] Maurras [an organiser and principal philosopher of Action Française] in high esteem and had cited him in his theology books. In the second volume [of his book] concerning the Church (De Ecclesia), for example, Cardinal Billot accomplished a magnificent study of liberalism where he took, in the form of notes, several quotations from Maurras. This was a mortal sin! This was all they could find to depose Cardinal Billot. It is not a minor tragedy, for he was one of the great theologians of his time and yet he was deposed as a cardinal and reduced to the state of a simple priest, for he was not a bishop. (At that time there were still some cardinal deacons.) It was already the persecution.
Pope Pius XI Influenced By The Progressive Wing
Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. Divini Redemptoris, his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend Catholic schools.
If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican Civil War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and combating for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honour those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith.
Already at the beginning of this century we find certain situations, which announce a division in the Church. Slowly we arrived at it, but the division was very definite just before the council.
Pope Pius XII was a great pope in his writing as well as in his way of governing the Church. During the reign of Pius XII the Faith was firmly maintained. Naturally the liberals did not like him, for he brought back to mind the fundamental principles of theology and truth.
But then John XXIII came along. He had a totally different temperament than Pius XII. John XXIII was a very simple and open man. He did not see problems anywhere.
When he decided to hold a Synod in Rome they said to him, "But Holy Father, a Synod has to be prepared. At least one year is necessary and perhaps two so as to prepare such a meeting, in order that numerous fruits be gained and that reforms be truly studied and then applied so that your diocese of Rome might draw profit from it. All this cannot be done straight away and in the space of two or three months followed by two weeks of meetings and then all will be fine. It is not possible."
"Oh yes, yes I know, I know, but it going to be a small Synod. We can prepare it in a few months and everything will be just fine."
Thus the Synod was rapidly prepared: a few commissions in Rome, everybody very busy and then two weeks of meetings and all was over with. Pope John XXIII was happy his small Synod had been held, but the results were nil. Nothing had changed in the diocese of Rome. The situation was exactly the same as before.
The Drift Begins With The Council
It was exactly the same thing for the Council. "I have the intention to hold a Council." Already Pope Pius XII had been asked by certain cardinals to hold a Council. But he had refused, believing that it was impossible. We cannot in our time hold a Council with 2,500 bishops. The pressures that can be exercised by the mass media are too dangerous for us to dare hold a Council. We are liable to get out of our depth. And there was in fact no Council.
But Pope John XXIII said: "But it’s fine: we don't need to be pessimistic. You have to look at things with confidence. We will come together for three months with all the bishops of the entire world. We will begin on October 13. Then everything will be over with between December 8 and January 25. Everybody will go home, and the Council will be over and done with."
And so the Pope held the Council! Nevertheless it did have to be prepared. A Council cannot be held off the bat just like a Synod. It was indeed prepared two years in advance. I was personally named as a member of the Central Preparatory Commission as Archbishop of Dakar and president of the West African Episcopal Conference. I therefore came to Rome at least ten times during the two years so as to participate in the meetings of the Central Preparatory Commission.
It was very important, for all the documents of the secondary commissions had to come through it so as to be studied and submitted to the Council. There were in this Commission seventy cardinals and around twenty archbishops and bishops, as well as the experts. These experts were not members of the Commission, but were only present so they could eventually be consulted by the members.
The Appearance of Division
During these two years the meetings followed one another and it became clearly apparent for all the members present that there was a profound division within the Church itself. This profound division was not accidental or superficial but was even deeper amongst the cardinals than amongst the archbishops and bishops. On the occasion of the casting of votes the conservative cardinals could be seen to vote in one way and the progressive cardinals in another. And all the votes were always more or less the same way. There was obviously a real division amongst the cardinals.
I describe the following incident in one of my books, A Bishop Speaks. I often mention it because it truly characterises the end of the Central Commission and the beginning of the Council. It was during the last meeting, and we had received beforehand ten documents on the same subject. Cardinal Bea (3) had prepared a text, De Libertate Religiosa, "Concerning Religious Liberty." Cardinal Ottaviani had prepared another, De Tolerantia Religiosa, "Concerning Religious Tolerance."
The simple fact of the two different titles on the same subject signified two different conceptions. Cardinal Bea spoke of freedom for all religions and Cardinal Ottaviani of freedom for the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error and false religions. How could such a disagreement have been resolved by the Commission?
From the beginning Cardinal Ottaviani pointed the finger at Cardinal Bea and said, “Your Eminence, you do not have the right to present this document."
Cardinal Bea replied, “Excuse me but I have perfectly the right to put together a document as President of the Commission for Unity. Consequently, I have knowingly put together this document. Moreover, I am totally opposed to your opinion."
Thus two of the most eminent cardinals, Cardinal Ottaviani, Prefect of the Holy Office, and Cardinal Bea, former confessor of Pope Pius XII, a Jesuit having a great deal of influence on all the cardinals, who was well known in the Biblical Institute and responsible for advanced biblical studies, were opposed on a fundamental thesis in the Church. Unity for all religions is one thing, that is to say that liberty and error are placed on the same footing; but liberty of the Catholic religion along with tolerance of error is something quite different. Traditionally the Church has always been for the opinion of Cardinal Ottaviani and not for that of Cardinal Bea, which is totally liberal.
Then Cardinal Ruffini, from Palermo, stood up and said; “We are now in the presence of two confreres who are opposed to one another on a question which is very important in the Church. We are consequently obliged to refer to a higher authority."
Quite often the Pope came to preside over our meetings. But he was not there for this last meeting. Consequently the cardinals requested to vote: "We cannot wait to go and see the Holy Father. We are going to vote." We voted. Just about one half of the cardinals voted for the opinion of Cardinal Bea and the other half for that of Cardinal Ottaviani. All those who voted for Cardinal Bea's opinion were the Dutch, German, French and Austrian cardinals, and all those in general from Europe and North America. The traditional cardinals were those of the Roman Curia, from South America and in general those of Spanish Language.
It was a true rupture in the Church. From this moment I asked myself how the Council could proceed with such opposition on such important points. Who would win? Would it be Cardinal Ottaviani with the Cardinals of Spanish or romance languages or would it be the European Cardinals and those of North America?
In effect, the battle began immediately, from the very first days of the Council. Cardinal Ottaviani had presented the list of members who had belonged to the preparatory commissions, leaving full freedom for each to choose those that he wanted. It was obvious that we could not all know one another, since each one came for his own diocese. How could one possibly know the 2,500 Bishops of the world? We were asked to vote for members of the commissions of the Council. But who could we choose? We did not know the Bishops from South America nor from South Africa nor from India.
Cardinal Ottaviani thought that Rome's choices for the preparatory commissions could help as an indication for the Council Fathers. It was in fact quite normal to propose these.
Cardinal Lienart arose and said, "We do not accept this way of doing things. We ask for 48 hours to reflect, that we might know better those who could make up the different commissions. This is to exert pressure on the judgement of the Fathers. We do not accept it."
The Council had begun only two days previously and already there was a violent opposition between the cardinals. What had happened?
During these 48 hours the liberal cardinals had already prepared lists made out from all the countries of the world. They distributed these in the letterboxes of all the Council Fathers. We had therefore all received a list proposing the members of such and such a commission; that is such a bishop and another etc. from different countries. Many said: "After all why not. I do not know them. Since the list is already ready we have simply to make use of it." Forty-eight hours later it was the liberals' list, which was in front. But it did not receive the two thirds of the votes, which were required by the Council rules.
What then would the Pope do? Would Pope John XXIII make an exception to the rules of the Council or would he apply them? Clearly the liberal cardinals were afraid that he might apply them and so they ran to the Pope and said to him: "Listen, we have more than half the votes, nearly 60%. You cannot refuse that. We cannot keep going like this and hold another election. We will never be done with it. This is clearly the will of the majority of the Council and we have simply to accept it." And Pope John XXIII accepted. From this beginning all the members of the Council commissions were chosen by the liberal wing. It is easy to imagine what an enormous influence this had on the Council.
I am sure Pope John XXIII died prematurely because of what he saw at the Council, although he had thought that at the end of a few months everything would be done with. It was to be a Council of three months. Then all would say good-bye and go home happy for having met one another at Rome and for having had a nice little meeting.
He discovered that the Council was to be a world in itself, a world of continual clashes. No text came from the first session of the Council. Pope John XXIII was overwhelmed by this and I am persuaded that this hastened his death. It has even been said that on his deathbed he said: "Stop the Council; stop the Council."
Pope Paul VI Gives His Support to the Liberals
Pope Paul VI came along. It is obvious that he gave his support to the liberal wing. Why was that?
From the very beginning of his pontificate, during the second session of the Council, he immediately named four Moderators. The four Moderators were to direct the Council instead of the ten Presidents who had presided during the first Session. The Presidents, one of whom had presided over one meeting and then the second and then the third, sat at a table higher than the others. But they were to become honorary Presidents. The four Moderators became the true Presidents of the Council.
Who were these Moderators? Cardinal Döpfner of Munich was one. He was very progressive indeed and very ecumenical. Cardinal Suenens, whom the entire world knows along with his charismatics and who has given conferences in favour of the marriage of priests, was another. Cardinal Lercaro who is known for his philocommunism and whose Vicar General had been enrolled as a member of the Communist party was a third. Finally there was Cardinal Agagianian, who represented somewhat the traditional wing, if I can say so.
Cardinal Agagianian was a very discreet and self-effacing man. Consequently he had no real influence on the Council. But the three others accomplished their task with drums beating. They constantly brought together the liberal cardinals, which gave considerable authority to the liberal wing of the Council.
Clearly the traditional cardinals and bishops were from this very moment put aside and despised.
When poor Cardinal Ottaviani, who was blind, started to speak, boos could be heard amongst the young Bishops when he did not finish at the end of the ten minutes allocated to him. Thus did they make him understand that they had had enough of listening to him. He had to stop; it was frightful. This venerable Cardinal, who was honoured throughout Rome and who had had an enormous influence on the Holy Church, who was Prefect of the Holy Office, which is not a small function, was obliged to stop. It was scandalous to see how the traditionalists were treated.
Monseigneur Staffa (he has since been named Cardinal), who is very energetic, was silenced by the Council Moderators. These were unbelievable things.
Revolution in the Church
This is what happened at the Council. It is obvious that all the Council documents and texts were influenced by the liberal cardinals and commissions. It is hardly astonishing that we have such ambiguous texts, which favour so many changes and even a true revolution in the Church.
Could we have done anything, we who represented the traditional wing of the bishops and cardinals? Frankly speaking, we could do little. We were 250 who favoured the maintenance of Tradition and who were opposed to such major changes in the Church as false renewal, false ecumenism, false collegiality. We were opposed to all these things. These 250 bishops clearly brought some weight to bear and on certain occasions forced texts to be modified. Thus the evil was somewhat limited.
But we could not succeed in preventing certain false opinions from being adopted, especially in the schema on Religious Liberty, whose text was redone five times. Five times the same opinion was brought forward. We opposed it on each occasion. There were always 250 votes against. Consequently Pope Paul VI asked that two small sentences be added to the text, saying that there is nothing in this text which is contrary to the traditional teaching of the Church and that the Church remains always the true and the only Church of Christ.
Then the Spanish Bishops in particular said: "Since the Pope has made this statement there is no longer any problem. There is nothing against tradition." If these things are contradictory then this little phrase contradicts everything, which is in the texts. It is a contradictory schema. We could not accept it. Finally there remained, if I remember well, only 74 bishops against. It is the only schema, which met such opposition, but 74 of 2,500 is little indeed!
Thus ended the Council. We should not be astonished at the reforms, which have been introduced since. Since then, everything is the history of Liberalism. The liberals were victorious within the Council for they demanded that Paul VI grant them places within the Roman Congregations. And in fact the important places were given to the progressive clergy. As soon as a Cardinal died or an occasion presented itself, Pope Paul VI would put aside traditional cardinals, immediately replacing them with liberal ones.
Thus it is that Rome was occupied by the liberals. This is a fact, which cannot be denied. Nor can it be denied that the reforms of the Council were reforms which breathe the spirit of ecumenism and which are quite simply Protestant, neither more nor less.
FOONOTES:
(1) The Popular Republican Movement: a Christian-democratic political party in France during the Fourth Republic. Its base was the Catholic vote.
(2) A French Monarchist counter-revolutionary movement founded in 1898.
(3) Cardinal Bea's conniving with the Jewish lobby during Vatican II is detailed in "Benedict and the Jews: Part I", CO, Aug-Sept 2011.