CBCP recognizes the Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFC-FFL) of Frank Padilla

MANILA, October 26, 2009—The Episcopal Commission on the Laity (ECLA) of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) has given formal recognition to the Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life (CFC FFL) as a National Private Association of the Lay Faithful.

In accordance with Canons 321-320 of the Code of Canon Law, the recognition was approved by the Chairman of ECLA and Antipolo bishop Gabriel Reyes.

“May Our Lord Jesus Christ… continue to bless abundantly the Couples for Christ Foundation for Family and Life as an instrument for the sanctification and strengthening of the family,” Reyes said.

In another development, His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI, has re-appointed CFC FFL Servant General Francisco Padilla and his wife Geraldine Padilla as members of the Pontifical Council for the Family.

The servant couple will be extending their term as council members for another five years.

CFC FFL is an organization of faithful committed to the work of evangelization and family life renewal

It envisions for restoration, perpetuation and intensification of the true Couples for Christ charism that is focused on “evangelization and family life renewal.” (Kate Laceda of CBCP News)

Rebuilding Philippines as a Christian Civilization through the Ten Commandments

The laws of a country must be based on Truth. “What is Truth?” Pilate asked Christ. Christ is the Truth, for he said: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” So great a claim is backed by signs that prove his divinity, and the greatest of these is the Sign of Jonah: the Resurrection of Christ from the dead. If the Resurrection never happened, then Christ is a false prophet and Christianity is a false religion. And the twelve apostles–these twelve cowards, most of them only fishermen–will just remain in the upper room, hiding, for fear of the Jews. But the Resurrection did happen. And the apostles, filled with the Holy Spirit, went to preach to the whole world, baptizing new converts, and suffered martyrdom in the name of Christ.

But there are many groups calling themselves Christians, each group offering its own interpretation of what God has revealed as written in the Bible. One group says contraception, abortion, and divorce is okay. Another group says they are not. So on what branch of Christianity must be laws of a country be based? The laws of a country must be based on firm ground. If something is taught to be true years and centuries ago, the same teaching must still be taught as true today until the world ends. Contraception, abortion, and divorce cannot be wrong in the first centuries of Christianity but can be true now, as what Protestants in the US now claim. This is impossible Truth is timeless. Is there a group of Christians whose truths remain immutable in time? Yes, there is: it is the Catholic Church. Therefore, the laws of a country must be based on the teachings of the Catholic Church. The ideal country is a Catholic State. The ideal country is the City of God.

The Liberals rebel against union of the God and the State. What they want is to build a City Without God, a City of Man. They want to make a city that rises to the sky, piercing the clouds to very abode of God, as the men of the Babel did. They want to make a Paradise of universal brotherhood of men without the Fatherhood of God. We have seen these Utopias in the last century in the form of Fascism, Nazism, and Communism. They all failed. Nature abhors the vacuum. If you remove the God from the State, a demonic spirit will find it empty and swept clean. He will live in it and he will invite seven other demons to live with him: Pride, Covetousness, Lust, Anger, Gluttony, Envy, Sloth. And the state of the State will be more terrible than the first. If you want an example, look to the West.

What is the law of Christ? The law of Christ is the commandment of Love: “Love one another as I have loved you.” Christ is our model on how to love our neighbor. “I solemnly assure you, whatever you have done to the least of my brothers, you have done it to me.” We must love our neighbor because we love Christ.

Christ’s law of love is the essence and perfection of the Ten Commandments:

  1. I am the Lord your God.  You shall not have strange gods before me.
  2. You shall not speak the name of the Lord your God in vain.
  3. Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.
  4. Honor your father and your mother.
  5. You shall not kill.
  6. You shall not commit adultery.
  7. You shall not steal.
  8. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
  9. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife.
  10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods.

These laws must be the basis of the laws of our country.  They must be enshrined in our courtrooms, unlike in the US where they are now forbidden.  If we want a more detailed analysis of these laws, we must read the Catechism.  There you shall find all concepts that the Catholic Church has compiled in her two thousand years of thinking about the Ten Commandments:

  1. Doubt, Heresy, Apostasy, Schism, Despair, Presumption, Indifference, Hatred of God, Superstition, Idolatry, Divination and Magic, Irreligion, Atheism, Agnosticism
  2. Blasphemy, Perjury
  3. Sunday Rest
  4. Respect for Parents and Authority
  5. Legitimate Defense, Homicide, Abortion, Euthanasia, Suicide, Scandal, Drug Addiction, Experimentation on Humans, Organ Transplants, Kidnapping, Hostage Taking, Terrorism, Sterilizations, Amputations, Mutilations, Cremation, Anger, Hatred, Just War, National Defense
  6. Chastity, Lust, Masturbation, Fornication, Pornography, Prostitution, Rape, Homosexuality, Conjugal Fidelity, Fecundity of Marriage, Periodic Continence, Contraception, Gift of Child, Large Families, Adultery, Divorce, Separation, Polygamy, Incest, Free Union, Trial Marriage
  7. Private Property, Universal Destination of Goods, Theft, Promises, Contracts, Commutative Justice, Legal Justice, Distributive Justice, Restitution, Games of Chance, Slavery, Integrity of Creation, Economic Activity, Social Justice, Economic Initiative, Responsibility of the State, Business Enterprises, Access to Employment, Just Wage, Strike, Social Security Contributions, Unemployment, Rich Nations, Direct Aid, Full Development of Human Society, Lay Faithful, Works of Mercy, Human Misery
  8. Witnesses to the Gospel, Martyrdom, False Witness, Perjury, Rash Judgment, Detraction, Calmny, Flattery, Adulation, Complaisance, Boasting, Irony, Lie, Duty of Reparation, Request for Information, Secret of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, Professional Secrets, Civil Authorities, Sacred Art
  9. Concupiscence, Modesty, Purification of Social Climate, Moral Permissiveness
  10. Envy, Poverty of the Heart

These are a mouthful.  Volumes of Books have been written about them by the Catholic Church.  Many laws were made based on them by Catholic States and Monarchies.  The Ten Commandments is the prescription for the happiness of man while he is still on earth, and the prescription for gaining heaven in the next life.  The Ten Commandments should, therefore, come before the Constitution of the State.  The Ten Commandments should be the basis of the laws of the State.  This is the yoke of Christ.  The State must govern under the yoke of Christ.  Christ promised:

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves. For my yoke is easy, and my burden light. (Mt 11:28-30)

If men refuse to the yoke of Christ, the wooden yoke of the cross, God will give them the yoke of Muhammad, iron yoke of the crescent (c.f. Jer 28:13). And this is what happened to Europe. They removed God and Christianity from their constitution and they ended up inundated by waves of Islamic colonization.  The Muslims refuse to integrate because they obey a different law, the Shariah law.  Europe is now dotted by mosques.  Arabic is now spoken in many European enclaves.  Women wear veils.  And the clerics preach hatred against the Christians and Jews.  In 2050, because of Europeans low birthrate after decades of contraception and abortion, Christian Europe shall be forgotten and the continent shall be called Eurabia.  As foretold by the Prophet Jeremiah:

Beware, I will bring against you a nation from afar, O house of Israel, says the LORD; A long-lived nation, an ancient nation, a people whose language you know not, whose speech you cannot understand. Their quivers are like open graves; all of them are warriors. They will devour your harvest and your bread, devour your sons and your daughters, Devour your sheep and cattle, devour your vines and fig trees; They will beat flat with the sword the fortified city in which you trust. Yet even in those days, says the LORD, I will not wholly destroy you. (Jer 5:15-18)

To Philippine Congress: Seven reasons why the Reproductive Health Bill (HB 5043) must not become a law

We strongly oppose the passage of the Reproductive Health Bill (HB5043) for the following reasons:

  1. AS EMPLOYERS, we do not want to be compelled to provide free reproductive health care services, supplies, devices and surgical procedures (including vasectomy and ligation) to our employees, and be subjected to both imprisonment and/or a fine, for every time that we fail to comply. (Section 17 states that employers shall provide for free delivery of reproductive health care services, supplies and devices to all workers more particularly women workers. (Definition of Reproductive Health and Rights Section 4, paragraph g, Section 21, Paragraph c and Section 22 on Penalties)
  2. AS HEALTH CARE SERVICE PROVIDERS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or a fine, if we fail to provide reproductive health care services such as giving information on family planning methods and providing services like ligation and vasectomy, regardless of the patient’s civil status, gender, religion or age ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraphs 1 to 5 and Section 22 on Penalties)
  3. AS SPOUSES, we do not agree that our husband or wife can undergo a ligation or vasectomy without our consent or knowledge. (Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Letter a, Paragraph 2)
  4. AS PARENTS, we do not agree that children from age 10 to 17 should be taught their sexual rights and the means to have a satisfying and “safe” sex life as part of their school curriculum. (Section 12 on Reproductive Health Education and Section 4 Definition of Family Planning and Productive Health, Paragraph b, c and d)
  5. AS CITIZENS, we do not want to be subjected to imprisonment and/or pay a fine, for expressing an opinion against any provision of this law, if such expression of opinion is interpreted as constituting “malicious disinformation” ( Section 21 on Prohibited Acts, Paragraph f and Section 22 on Penalties)
  6. We also oppose other provisions such as losing our parental authority over a minor child who was raped and found pregnant (Section 21, a, no.3) 7. We also do not agree to the provision which reclassifies contraceptives as essential medicines (Section 10) and appropriating limited government funds to reproductive services instead of basic services (Section 23) Thus, we urge you to immediately stop deliberations on the bill and stop wasting taxpayers money

Source: This was posted by James Bardos in apologia-ph yahoo group.

How Fr. Joseph A. Galdon, S.J. scolded me when I got an F in math

I was a Freshman when I first met Fr. Galdon.  I was lining up in his office, the Office of Admissions and Aid.  It was the end of the first Semester and scholars who failed in a subject or who were not able to meet the required Q.P.I. (Quality Point Index) must meet the Director.  A student left his office, crying.  It was my turn.

Fr. Galdon was looking at my grades and records.  He asked me to sit down.

“Why did you get an F in mathematics?”  he asked.

“Our teacher gave us a beautiful math problem on linear diophantine equations,” I replied.  “I spent the whole semester thinking about it.”

Linear diophantine equations are equations of the form ax + by = c, where a, b, and c are integers.  The problem is to find integers x and y that solves the equation.  Our teacher taught us how to solve it using the Euclidean algorithm for finding the greatest common factor.  I sought a general formula and I ended up playing with concepts like ordinal factorials and fractal combinations.  Fascinating.

Fr. Galdon looked at me.  “You know what you are? ,” he asked and wrote down on a clean bond paper six large letters: S T U P I D.  “You are stupid.”

Fr. Galdon knows how to write well.  He is a professor in English Literature and has written several books.  I have seen one of them: “The Mustard Seed: Reflections for Daily Living.”  He also wrote a primer on English for Freshmen, which was given to scholars before the semester began.

“I am not stupid, Father,”  I calmly said.    It didn’t yet dawn on me that my future hangs in a balance at that moment: without my scholarship, I could be out of Ateneo for good.

“Oh, yes.  You are stupid.”

“I am not stupid, Father.”

“You are stupid.  You should have worked on that problem without neglecting the rest.”

“I am sorry, Father.”

It was a humbling experience.  As a Freshman Merit Scholar, I should have skipped a Mathematics and an English course, because my entrance test results are good enough.  But only Ma 11 can be skipped.  I took Ma 18 and I flunked it.  I should also have skipped En 11.  But on the first day of class, we were asked to write two paragraphs describing a friend.   I flunked it, too.  So I was sent to Remedial English class.

“Ok.  I will give you one last chance.  That is L A S T  C H A N C E.”  And he wrote it down below S T U P I D.  “Do you know what grade you need to get next time?  You should get a C.”

I looked at the letter.  A C is better than an A.

“Thank you, Father.”

Fr. Galdon dismissed me and I left.

Math 18.  I repeated it one year after and got a C+.  Because Ma 18 is a prerequisite course, all my major subjects were moved.  And because all my English subjects were also moved–En 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 26–I ended up staying in Ateneo for five years instead of four. .  I promised myself I will never ever go back to Fr. Galdon again.  I learned to take notes, read books, and solve problems.  But I still never got an A in math, only a series of B’s.  Then I took two math electives on Number Theory and Group Theory: both are C’s.  Creative repetition.  Heroic couplet.  At least, I did not fail Fr. Galdon.

Maybe Fr. Galdon is 80 years old now.  I heard that he cannot remember much anymore.  He would surely not remember me.  But I remember him.  I cherish his memory.

Notes on Iglesia ni Cristo: Chesterton on the Arian Heresy

The whole great history of the Arian heresy might have been invented to explode this idea. It is a very interesting history often repeated in this connection; and the upshot of it is in so far as there ever was a merely official religion, it actually died because it was merely an official religion; and what destroyed it was the real religion. Arius advanced a version of Christianity which moved, more or less vaguely, in the direction of what we should call Unitarianism; thought was not the same, for it gave to Christ a curious intermediary position between the divine and human. The point is that it seemed to many more reasonable and less fanatical; and among these were many of the educated class in a sort of reaction against the first romance of conversion. Arians were a sort of moderates and a sort of modernists. And it was felt that after the first squabbles this was the final form of rationalized, religion into which civilization might well settle down. It was accepted by Divus Caesar himself and became the official orthodoxy; the generals and military princes drawn from the new barbarian powers of the north, full of the future, supported it strongly. But the sequel is still more important. Exactly as a modern man might pass through Unitarianism to complete agnosticism, so the greatest of the Arian emperors ultimately shed the last and thinnest pretense of Christianity; he abandoned even Arius and returned to Apollo. He was a Caesar of the Caesars; a soldier, a scholar, a man of large ambitions and ideals; another of the philosopher kings. It seemed to him as if at his signal the sun rose again. The oracles began to speak like birds beginning to sing at. dawn; paganism was itself again; the gods returned. It seemed the end of that strange interlude of an alien superstition. And indeed it was the end of it, so far as there was a mere interlude of mere superstition. It was the end of it, in so far as it was the fad of an emperor or the fashion of a generation. If there really was something that began with Constantine, then it ended with Julian.

But there was something that did not end. There had arisen in that hour of history, defiant above the democratic tumult of the Councils of the Church, Athanasius against the world. We may pause upon the point at issue; because it is relevant to the whole of this religious history, and the modern world seems to miss the whole point of it. We might put it this way. If there is one question which the enlightened and liberal have the habit of deriding and holding up as a dreadful example of barren dogma and senseless sectarian strife, it is this Athanasian question of the co-Eternity of the Divine Son. On the other hand, if there is one thing that the same liberals always offer us as a piece of pure and simple Christianity, untroubled by doctrinal disputes, it is the single sentence, ‘God is Love! Yet the two statements are almost identical; at least one is very nearly nonsense without the other. The barren dogma is only the logical way of stating the beautiful sentiment. For if there be a being without beginning, existing before all things, was He loving when there was nothing to be loved? If through that unthinkable eternity He is lonely, what is the meaning of saying He is love? The only justification of such a mystery is the mystical conception that in His own nature there was something analogous to self-expression; something of what begets and beholds what it has begotten. Without some such idea, it is really illogical to complicate the ultimate essence of deity with an idea like love. If the modems really want a simple religion of love, they must look for it in the Athanasian Creed. The truth is that the trumpet of true Christianity, the challenge of the charities and simplicities of Bethlehem or Christmas Day, never rang out more arrestingly and unmistakably than in the defiance of Athanasius to the cold compromise of the Arians. It was emphatically he who really was fighting for a God of Love against a God of colorless and remote cosmic control; the God of the stoics and the agnostics. It was emphatically he who was fighting for the Holy Child against the grey deity of the Pharisees and the Sadducees. He was fighting for that very balance of beautiful interdependence and intimacy, in the very Trinity of the Divine Nature, that draws our hearts to the Trinity of the Holy Family. His dogma, if the phrase be not misunderstood, turns even God into a Holy Family.

That this purely Christian dogma actually for a second time rebelled against the Empire, and actually for a second time re-founded the Church in spite of the Empire,, is itself a proof that there was something positive and personal working in the world, other than whatever official faith the Empire chose to adopt. This power utterly destroyed the official faith that the Empire did adopt. It went on its own way as it is going on its own way still.

Source: G. K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man, part 2, chapter 4: Witness of the Heretics

Archbishop Malcolm Ranjith on the Sunday Liturgy: Circular Concerning Various Movements and Services

Most Reverend Dr. Malcolm Ranjith
By the grace of God and the favor of the Holy See
Archbishop of Colombo

Liturgy Circular-No. Lt Cr/01

Circular Concerning Various Movements and Services

To all Reverend Fathers, Brothers, Sisters, and lay faithful of the diocese of Colombo

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

Of late a number of Catholic renewal movements and individuals have been conducting many paraliturgical exercises outside the normal parish liturgical time-table. While appreciating the many conversions, witness values, the renewed enthusiasm for prayer, vibrant participation and thirst for the Word of God, I, as the diocesan bishop and chief steward of the mysteries of God in the particular church entrusted to my care, and being therefore, the moderator, promoter and guardian of the whole liturgical life of the Archdiocese of Colombo, solicit your kind attention on the liturgical and ecclesiological aspects connected to this new situation, and earnestly urge you to adhere to the guidelines set forth in this circular with immediate effect.

***

I. The Eucharist is the celebration of the Paschal Mystery par excellence given to the Church by Jesus Christ Himself.  Jesus Christ is the beginning of all liturgy in the Church and therefore all liturgy is primarily of divine origin.  It is the exercise of His priestly office and therefore, is not certainly mere human enterprise or wishful innovation.  In fact it is inaccurate to call this a mere celebration of life.  There is much more to it than that.  It is the source and summit of all from which all divine graces flow into the Church.  This most sacred mystery was handed down to the apostles by the Lord, and the Church has painstakingly been guarding the celebration of this mystery over the centuries, thereby giving rise to a sacred tradition and a theology which do not yield to an individual or private interpretation.  Therefore, no priest, be he diocesan, religious, or someone invited to conduct special religious programs from outside the Archdiocese or from any other country, is allowed to change, add, or subtract anything in the sacred rite of the mass.  This is nothing new and was stated in the Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Dogmatic Constitution of the sacred liturgy of the Second Vatican Council in 1963, No. 22/3, and later repeatedly reiterated in documents such as Sacramentum Caritatis, No. 55 of His Holiness Benedict XVI, Ecclesia de Eucharistia, No.  55 of Pope John Paul II of revered memory.

Certain elements should be specifically stated in this regard:

  1. Priests are not permitted to change or improvise the Eucharistic Prayer or other immutable prayers of the Mass, even if it is meant to elaborate on an already existing element therein, by singing various choruses or various explanations.  We need to understand the liturgy of the Church is strongly linked to its faith and tradition: Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi; the rule of prayer is the rule of faith!  It is the Lord who gave us the liturgy and no one else; therefore no one else has any right to change it.
  2. The so-called “Praise and Worship” elements are not allowed during the entire rite of the Mass.  Inordinate and loud music, clapping, long interventions and gestures which disturb the sobriety of the celebration are not permitted.  It is very important that we understand the religious cultural sensibility of the Sri Lankan people.  Majority around us are Buddhists whose culture of worship is thoroughly sober; and Muslims and Hindus too do not create commotion in their worship.    In addition, there is a strong opposition to the Fundamentalist Christian sects in this country, and we as Catholics, have been striving to explain that Catholics are different from these sects.  However, some of these so-called praise and worship exercises seem to resemble more of the Fundamentalist religious exercises than those of the Roman Catholics.  Let us respect our cultural diversity and sensitivity.
  3. The Word of God prescribed cannot be changed haphazardly and the responsorial psalm must be sung without replacing it with meditational hymns.  The contemplative dimension of the Word of God is of utmost importance.  In some of the para-liturgical services people nowadays tend to become extremely verbose and vocal.  God speaks, we need to listen; and listening needs more silence and meditation than cacophonic exuberance.
  4. Priests should preach the Word of God and on the Liturgical Mysteries celebrated.  Lay preachers are strictly prohibited to preach during liturgical celebrations.
  5. The most holy Eucharist must be administered with utmost care and reverence only by those who are authorized to do so.  All such ministers, both ordinary and extraordinary, must be vested with proper ministerial vestiture.  I would recommend all faithful, including the religious, to receive Communion reverently kneeling and on the tongue.  The practice of self-communion is prohibited, and I would humbly request any priest who are allowing people to come and receive on their own, to immediately suspend this practice.
  6. All priests are expected to keep the stipulated rite of the Mass, so that there is no room for people to compare and contrast Masses celebrated by some priests as superior to other Masses said by the rest of the priests.
  7. The Tetragram YHWH is not to be pronounced in prayers or hymns because of its sacred nature (Holy See Decree “NAME OF GOD” Prot. N. 213/08/L).  This takes into account the sensitivity of the Jewish community in this regard, from whom we inherited much into our worship.
  8. Liturgical blessings are reserved only to liturgical ministers; i.e., bishops, priests and deacons.  Anyone may pray over another.  But it is earnestly recommended not to use gestures that lead to illusion, confusion or misinterpretation.

II.  The Sunday Eucharistic celebration of the parish community is to be considered the most central liturgical exercise of the Catholics.  Pope John Paul II exhorted in his Apostolic Letter Dies Domini of 1998 to uphold and cherish the Sunday Eucharist as the central event that binds all faithful of the local community together.  An important teaching therein is to know that Dies Domini is Dies Ecclesiae.  Therefore, all priests, religious and lay faithful within the parish boundaries should strive to attend this Sunday mass of their parish Church, without seeking “convenience masses” or special Masses celebrated by special groups or movements outside their parish boundaries.

Religious movements, even if they are  approved, should not organize any parallel celebrations on Sundays within the same parish.  Religious houses which have masses on Sundays due to the sick and elderly inmates, or because of the enclosed religious communities, should earnestly urge the religious and lay attending those Masses to return to their parish community Masses.  Pope John Paul II explains the reason for not allowing small groups to have their own celebrations on Sundays.  Under the guise of seeking better and more vibrant liturgies the integrity of the parish community is seriously damaged and gradually destroyed.  Parallel Sunday services indirectly nurture personality cults and therefore lead to cracks and divisions in the main body of the Lord in the parish.  GIRM 2002 No. 95 says “Thus they (lay people) are to shun any appearance of individualism or division, keeping before their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other.”

***

All movements functioning within the Archdiocese should extend their fullest cooperation to foster and nourish the parish Sunday liturgy, and not be concerned with building up their own little kingdoms.  Where there is a division, there is sin!  The Breaking of the Word celebrations which end with Eucharistic benedictions are not substitutes for the Sunday Eucharist.  In this regard I very clearly request priests of the Archdiocese to obtain permission from me personally to assist at these services to impart Eucharistic benediction.  Of late, some have begun to take the Eucharistic Lord exposed in a monstrance from house to house, as if He is a statue to be taken round.  Eucharistic benediction is to be celebrated with utmost care and reservation, and is not to be misused to give a ‘Catholic appearance’ or camouflage something which may not look very Catholic at the end of a long-drawn session.  Placing the monstrance on the head of the faithful is strictly forbidden.

In the same line of thinking religious movements and groups are not allowed to form their own children and youth groups.  The parish and diocesan structures already provide for these needs and the existing structures are to be made use of without multiplying parallel structures, lest they give rise to comparison and even dissension.  In all these we need to safeguard the unity of the Church.  Jesus prayed for the unity of all His people; He prayed that they may all be one (John 17:12, c.f.)

In the near future I hope to publish a booklet which will spell out in greater detail many more things  about the liturgical life of the Archdiocese of Colombo.  I humbly and respectfully request all priests, religious and laity of the Archdiocese of Colombo to extend your cooperation in safeguarding the sacredness of the liturgy in this local church.  I am sure that these instructions will be put into immediate effect, so that some of the urgent liturgical requests will soon be addressed.

Thank you and may God bless you!

With prayers and my cordial blessing

Yours devotedly in Christ,

† Malcolm Ranjith

Archbishop of Colombo

Source: Archdiocese of Colombo website


Fr. Louis Bouyer: how Cardinal Annibale Bugnini deceived Pope Paul VI on the New Mass

Father Louis Bouyer (photo): I wrote to the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI, to tender my resignation as member of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform. The Holy Father sent for me at once (and the following conversation ensued):

Paul VI: Father, you are an unquestionable and unquestioned authority by your deep knowledge of the Church’s liturgy and Tradition, and a specialist in this field. I do not understand why you have sent me your resignation, whilst your presence, is more than precious, it is indispensable!

Father Bouyer: Most Holy Father, if I am a specialist in this field, I tell you very simply that I resign because I do not agree with the reforms you are imposing! Why do you take no notice of the remarks we send you, and why do you do the opposite?

Paul VI: But I don’t understand: I’m not imposing anything. I have never imposed anything in this field. I have complete trust in your competence and your propositions. It is you who are sending me proposals. When Fr. Bugnini comes to see me, he says: “Here is what the experts are asking for.” And as you are an expert in this matter, I accept your judgement.

Father Bouyer: And meanwhile, when we have studied a question, and have chosen what we can propose to you, in conscience, Father Bugnini took our text, and, then said to us that, having consulted you: “The Holy Father wants you to introduce these changes into the liturgy.” And since I don’t agree with your propositions, because they break with the Tradition of the Church, then I tender my resignation.

Paul VI: But not at all, Father, believe me, Father Bugnini tells me exactly the contrary: I have never refused a single one of your proposals. Father Bugnini came to find me and said: “The experts of the Commission charged with the Liturgical Reform asked for this and that”. And since I am not a liturgical specialist, I tell you again, I have always accepted your judgement. I never said that to Monsignor Bugnini. I was deceived. Father Bugnini deceived me and deceived you.

Father Bouyer: That is, my dear friends, how the liturgical reform was done!

Source: Fr. Z