Vatican documents: TLM was tolerated to neutralise resistance to new religion
While many are focusing on the rupture between the Bishops' survey and Traditionis Custodes, they are missing the deeper point revealed in Diane Montagna's documents.
While many are focusing on the rupture between the Bishops' survey and Traditionis Custodes, they are missing the deeper point revealed in Diane Montagna's documents.
(WM Round-Up) – has obtained explosive documents that expose an aspect of the Vatican’s own strategy: to permit the old Mass only in order to pacify, absorb, and neutralise resistance to the new Vatican II religion.
Montagna reports that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Overall Assessment (a summary synthesis of responses to the global bishops’ survey that led to Traditionis Custodes [TC]) “directly contradicts” the alleged rationale behind the suppression of the old Mass, and “raises serious questions” about the credibility of TC itself.
While Francis claimed that most bishops had expressed concern about division and had requested restrictions, the CDF document reveals the opposite: a majority of those bishops who had “generously and intelligently implemented” Summorum Pontificum (SP) “ultimately express satisfaction with it.”
These bishops noted its spiritual fruits, and warned that any legislative changes would cause “more harm than good.”
The story has made headlines, and rightly so: the Vatican claimed consensus for restriction, while privately acknowledging widespread support.
But this is not the real story. The deeper point has gone unnoticed…
A strategy of containment and neutralisation revealed
Montagna’s documents reveal the extent to which some Conciliar/Synodalist bishops embraced SP as a means of containing traditional Catholics, and neutralising their opposition to Vatican II, its new religion, its many errors, and its Novus Ordo Liturgy.
Take the comments in one of Montagna’s documents attributed to Archbishop Allen Vigneron, then of Detroit. Vigneron was a loyal administrator of the Conciliar/Synodal agenda, even if less radical than others.1 While he praises its “good fruit,” he defends the diocesan TLM as a tool for neutralisation.
My advice is to maintain the discipline and norms set out in Summorum Pontificum, and to deal with any problems that are arising by calling priests and people to observe them.
The motu proprio has given us a remarkably successful approach to resolving the contention that existed in the Church about the status of the Extraordinary Form. The discipline it has put in place is bearing much good fruit, especially in the lives of the faithful and in restoring ecclesial peace. There is no question in my mind about the legitimacy of the Extraordinary Form as extraordinary.
These celebrations offer valid experiences of the Church’s sacred liturgy but complement the Ordinary Form. Such celebrations are in no way a threat to the ordinary form established after the Council, and in the Church, they enrich her in her diversity. By my lights Summorum Pontificum has been a remarkable success.2
His position, cited by Montagna, is clear: SP was “in no way a threat” to the “ecclesial peace” necessary for the advance of the Conciliar/Synodal agenda.
The CDF’s Overall Assessment itself is even more explicit about domesticating traditional Catholics:
[S]ome bishops note that it is necessary to protect the stable groups to prevent departures from the Church toward schismatic communities or the SSPX [Society of St Pius X].
In all places where the stable groups are accompanied and supported by the diocesan bishop or by a delegated priest, there are virtually no more problems, and the faithful are content to be guided, respected, and treated as children by their father bishop.3
Others were even more candid. The Diocese of Plymouth observed that many TLM Catholics had been “regarded as ‘strange’ or pushed to the margins”—but could become more manageable if they were made to feel “cared for and pastorally guided.”4
The Archdiocese of Baltimore admitted that many faithful attended as a “form of protest against the general direction taken by the Church”—but expressed a desire “to keep such people close to the Church” in order “to correct these mistaken views.”5
To return to the Overall Assessment:
[I]t is noted that the bishop’s pastoral care has been decisive in calming agitated spirits and clarifying the thinking of certain members of the stable groups.6
The “success” of this strategy completely vindicates the warnings given by traditional Catholics over the decades.
Tolerated to neutralise: how the Indult and Summorum Pontificum were intended to contain tradition
The 1984 Indult permitted the TLM on the following condition:
a) That it be made publicly clear beyond all ambiguity that such priests and their respective faithful in no way share the positions of those who call in question the legitimacy and doctrinal exactitude of the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970.7
Summorum Pontificum stated that the Novus Ordo is the “ordinary expression of the lex orandi;” and both the NO and the TLM “are two usages of the one Roman rite,” and express the same “lex credendi.”8
The Letter to Bishops accompanying SP also expressed the same idea, and stated that priests could not exclude saying the Novus Ordo liturgy “as a matter of principle”:
There is no contradiction between the two editions of the Roman Missal. In the history of the liturgy there is growth and progress, but no rupture. What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful. It behooves all of us to preserve the riches which have developed in the Church‘s faith and prayer, and to give them their proper place.
Needless to say, in order to experience full communion, the priests of the communities adhering to the former usage cannot, as a matter of principle, exclude celebrating according to the new books. The total exclusion of the new rite would not in fact be consistent with the recognition of its value and holiness.9
Those who made use of Benedict XVI’s motu proprio at least tacitly assented to all these compromises and manifest falsehoods. These provisions were designed to bring traditional Catholics under the authority of Conciliar authorities, and to bring them to an acceptance of the post-conciliar religious settlement.
This was precisely what men such as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned about for decades.
Archbishop Lefebvre’s attitude towards doctrine and the liturgy
In 1986, Archbishop Lefebvre said the following:
For I think that many Traditional Catholics enjoy the traditions; they like the old Mass, they like the old sacraments, they like the old teaching of the Church, but they do not really believe in Jesus Christ as the one and only Saviour, God and Creator.10
This is why, after discussions with Rome broke down, he emphasised the centrality of doctrine rather than the liturgy:
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level:
“Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ?
“If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.”
Thus, the positions will be clear.
The stakes are not small. We are not content when they say to us, “You may say the traditional Mass, but you must accept the Council.” What opposes us is doctrine; it is clear.11
Lefebvre explained how the failure to adopt such principles led to a former collaborator falling into the same trap:
This is what Dom Gérard did not see, and what confused him. Dom Gérard has always seen the liturgy and the monastic life, but he does not clearly see the theological problems of the Council, especially Religious Liberty. He does not see the malice of these errors. He was never too much worried about this. What touched him was the liturgical reform and the reform of the Benedictine monasteries. He left Tournay, saying, “I cannot accept this.”
Then, he founded a community of monks with the liturgy and with a Benedictine spirit. Very well, wonderful. But he did not appreciate enough that these reforms which led him to leave his monastery were the consequences of errors in the Council itself.
As long as they grant him what he wanted—this monastic spirit and the traditional liturgy—he has what he wants and is indifferent to the rest. But he has fallen into a snare: the others have given up nothing of their false principles.12
By contrast, he said to Cardinal Ratzinger:
“Eminence, even if you give us everything—a bishop, some autonomy from the bishops, the 1962 liturgy, allow us to continue our seminaries—we cannot work together because we are going in different directions. You are working to dechristianize society and the Church, and we are working to Christianize them.
“For us, our Lord Jesus Christ is everything, He is our life. The Church is our Lord Jesus Christ; the priest is another Christ; the Mass is the triumph of Jesus Christ on the cross; in our seminaries everything tends towards the reign of our Lord Jesus Christ. But you! You are doing the opposite: you have just wanted to prove to me that our Lord Jesus Christ cannot, and must not, reign over society.”13
Faithfulness to the whole Catholic religion is what animated the early traditionalists—not just the traditional liturgy.
Rejection of ‘indults’ continued by the Society of St Pius X
These attitudes were maintained by the SSPX after Lefebvre’s death. In an early edition of the widely circulated Most Asked Questions about the Society of Saint Pius X, one chapter states:
The SSPX could never profit by Rome’s Indult (the traditional Latin Mass as allowed by Quattuor Abhinc Annos, 1984 and Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, 1988):
first because of the conditions attached to it, and, in particular, that of acknowledging the “doctrinal and juridical” value of the Novus Ordo Missae which is impossible
and second, but more fundamentally, because such acceptance of the Indult would amount to saying that the Church had lawfully suppressed the traditional Latin Mass, which is certainly not the case.14
This chapter went on to ask whether Catholics may legitimately attend what was then called “the Indult Mass”:
If we have to agree to the doctrinal and juridical value of the Novus Ordo Missae, then NO, for we cannot do evil that good may ensue.
This condition may not be presented explicitly, but by implication, such as:
by a priest who celebrates the Novus Ordo Missae on other days of the week or at other times,
using Hosts consecrated at a Novus Ordo Missae,
or with communion in the hand;
new lectionaries, Mass facing the people, etc.,
by sermons that are modernist in inspiration (much to be feared if the celebrant habitually says the Novus Ordo Missae); or
by offering only the revised forms of the other sacraments, e.g., penance.15
It concluded with very prescient words:
This brings up the whole context of the Indult Mass. It is:
a ploy to keep people away from the SSPX (for many bishops allow it only where there is an SSPX Mass center),
intended only for those who feel attached to the traditional Latin Mass but nevertheless accept the doctrinal rectitude and juridical right of the Novus Ordo Missae, Vatican II, and all official orientations corresponding to these.
Therefore, attending it because of the priest’s words or fellow Mass-goers’ pressure, or because of the need to pander to the local bishop just to have it, inevitably pushes one to keep quiet on “divisive issues” and, distance oneself from those who do not keep quiet i.e., it pushes one to join the ranks of those who are destroying the Church. This one cannot do.
The Indult Mass, therefore, is not for traditional Catholics.16
Following Summorum Pontificum, this book was updated in light of what the SSPX held to be the changed legal situation of the TLM. Nonetheless, it still maintained:
[T]he practical situation of the Mass, due to the attitude of the majority of the bishops has hardly changed from the previous state. Practically speaking, the bishops continue to limit the celebration of the traditional Mass by seeking to grant a permission which is no longer necessary, oftentimes in addition to other arbitrary conditions.
In other words, for the time being, there is in general hardly a difference from the previous situation with the Indult Mass, though in certain particular places there might be a better treatment for the Mass, the priests and the faithful.
This obliges us to invite the faithful to the same prudence as before about attending the Indult Mass.17
While this updated chapter expresses a hope that this situation “will gradually change and that the reasons which oblige us today to be very restrictive will little by little disappear,” it acknowledges that “for now this is only a wish and a dream, apart from some exceptions.”
It is no less a wish and a dream today, as events and Montagna’s documents prove.
Rejection of ‘Ecclesia Dei’ groups continued by SSPX
The same principles apply to the SSPX’s analysis of the Fraternity of St Peter (FSSP) and other such “Ecclesia Dei” groups:
Since the introduction of the new sacramental rites, Rome had allowed no religious society or congregation exclusive use of the older rites. Then on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated four bishops to ensure the survival of the traditional priesthood and sacraments, and especially of the traditional Latin Mass.
Suddenly, within two days, Pope John Paul II recognized (Ecclesia Dei Afflicta, July 2, 1988) the “rightful aspirations” (for these things) of those who wouldn’t support Archbishop Lefebvre’s stance, and offered to give to them what he had always refused the Archbishop. A dozen or so priests of the SSPX accepted this “good will” and broke away to found the Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP).
The Fraternity of St. Peter is founded upon more than questionable principles, for the following reasons:
It accepts that the Conciliar Church has the power:
to take away the Mass of all time (for the Novus Ordo Missae is not another form of this),
to grant it to those only who accept the same Conciliar Church’s novel orientations (in life, belief, structures),
to declare non-Catholic those who deny this by word or deed (An interpretation of "Everyone should be aware that formal adherence to the schism [of Archbishop Lefebvre] is a grave offense against God and carries the penalty of excommunication." Ecclesia Dei Afflicata), and,
to professes itself in a certain way in communion with anyone calling himself “Christian,” and yet to declare itself out of communion with Catholics whose sole crime is wanting to remain Catholic (Vatican II, e.g., Lumen Gentium, §15; Unitatis Redintegratio §3).
In practice, the priests of the Fraternity, having recourse to a Novus Ordo bishop willing to permit the traditional rites and willing to ordain their candidates, they are forced to abandon the fight against the new religion which is being installed:
they reject the Novus Ordo Missae only because it is not their “spirituality” and claim the traditional Latin Mass only in virtue of their “charism” acknowledged them by the pope,
they seek to ingratiate themselves with the local bishops, praising them for the least sign of Catholic spirit and keeping quiet on their modernist deviations (unless perhaps it is a question of a diocese where they have no hopes of starting up), even though by doing so they end up encouraging them along their wrong path, and
note, for example, the Fraternity’s whole-hearted acceptance of the (New) Catechism of the Catholic Church, acceptance of Novus Ordo professors in their seminaries, and blanket acceptance of Vatican II’s orthodoxy.18
It presented the following consequences:
This being so, attending their Mass is:
accepting the compromise on which they are based,
accepting the direction taken by the Conciliar Church and the consequent destruction of the Catholic Faith and practices, and
accepting, in particular, the lawfulness and doctrinal soundness of the Novus Ordo Missae and Vatican II.
That is why a Catholic ought not to attend their Masses.19
Almost all this applies, not just to the “Ecclesia Dei” groups, but also to the Masses offered under the auspices of the Conciliar/Synodal Church.
In sum, traditional Catholics have long warned that such Masses are offered as a trap. Montagna’s exposé vindicates those warnings, and shows that while such silence was a condition, it was also an intended effect of the various TLM provisions.
The TLM and all manner of smells and bells would be permitted, but only on the condition of Catholics giving up their objections to the New Mass—as well as the conditipn of accepting ecumenism, religious liberty, and the false doctrines of the Council. The TLM would be for those who did not challenge the new religion, and allowed themselves to be slowly absorbed by it.
The two approaches of the Conciliar/Synodalists
Among the Conciliar/Synodal authorities, there have been two principal approaches to the Traditional Latin Mass.
Some—like Vigneron and others quoted in Montagna’s documents—sought to pacify and neutralise traditional Catholics by permitting the old Mass within the new religion of Vatican II.
Others took the opposite view. They saw clearly that the TLM, if widely available, would inevitably undermine the Novus Ordo regime—not merely by attracting the faithful, but by forming them in an entirely different theology. As Bishop Donald Sanborn, a former SSPX priest and now an American sedevacantist bishop, explained:
The coexistence of the TLM and the NOM leads to disunity for the reason that they represent two differing and opposing doctrines, and that each is an agent of indoctrination in these opposing doctrines.
The TLM teaches pre-Vatican II Catholicism, the religion of the true Church. The NOM teaches Vatican II “catholicism,” which is a new, heretical, even apostatical religion which is claiming to legitimately occupy the structures of the true Church.
As much as light expels darkness, the TLM will expel Vatican II catholicism. Conversely, the NOM will expel the true Faith, and introduce in its place the darkness of heresy, apostasy, faithlessness, and immorality.20
Traditionis Custodes seems to be victory for the latter party of modernists—those who sought a purge, rather than containment.
However, we should not discount factors such as Francis’ notorious belligerence; nor should we consider that his rejection of the co-existence/neutralization strategy disproves the arguments of the traditionalists menitioned above. Montagna’s documents confirm the effectiveness of the first approach: several bishops explicitly praised Summorum Pontificum for calming opposition and “clarifying” the minds of traditional Catholics under their supervision.
It is an observable fact that many of those who attend the TLM under Conciliar/Synodal auspices have indeed been neutralised on the crucial questions of the day. They have shown that they are content to remain the High Church wing in a broad church, and have a very limited sense that the Anglicanized ecclesiology which they adopt is anathema to Catholic doctrine.
As Bishop Bernard Fellay said in 2003:
Their perspective is pluralism. Their thinking goes something like this: “Oh, look, if we have progressive people who do silly things as members of the Church, then we should also have a place for those who like tradition—a place in the middle of this circus, of this zoo, a place for dinosaurs and the prehistoric animals”—that’s our place (!).
“But just stay in your zoo cage,” they will train us, “You can get your food—the Old Mass; that’s for the dinosaurs, but only for the dinosaurs. Don’t give that food to the other zoo animals; they would be killed!”21
Conclusion: the fundamental importance of doctrine and a wholistic approach
The TLM does not exist today because of the Conciliar/Synodal Vatican’s permission; nor does it exist because of those who merely preferred it to the Novus Ordo, or were content to be the High Church wing in a Broad Church zoo.
It exists because Catholics—priests and laity—rejected the Novus Ordo at the time of Vatican II. It continued, not because of preferences, but because of a rigorous doctrinal rationale on the nature of the Mass, expressed by Cardinal Ottaviani before the Novus Ordo was even promulgated:
[The new rite] represents, overall and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was elaborated [at] the Council of Trent which, by permanently fixing the “canons” of the rite, erected an insurmountable barrier against any heresy which could undermine the integrity of the Mystery. […]
[The new rite] renounces actually being an expression of the doctrine that the Council of Trent defined as being of divine and Catholic faith. Yet the Catholic conscience remains forever bound to this doctrine. As a result, the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass puts every Catholic in the tragic need to choose.22
Not only that: the continuation of the TLM was and is inextricably linked to a principled stand for the integral Catholic faith, and against the whole new religion of Vatican II, its uncrowning of Christ the King, and its false doctrines of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, religious liberty, and so on.
This principled stand is largely absent from the “mainstream Latin Mass movement,” whose apologists—when they are not promoting esotericism—spend their time trying to reconcile these errors with tradition, whether through contrived mental gymnastics, or new errors about the papacy and the constitution of the Church.
Over time, thanks in part to Summorum Pontificum and notwithstanding the good that it achieved in spite of itself, the idea that “It is the Mass that matters” has come to predominate over such doctrinal questions.
Many thus fell into the trap about which they had been warned for decades, and have been neutralised. Montagna’s documents confirm that the danger to which these warnings referred has indeed been a conscious strategy all along.
This is the same trap into which so many Catholics are walking today. We can already see this in the attitude some have taken with regards to Leo XIV, despite his clear continuity with Francis. Naivety, and a lack of robust doctrinal foundation, renders them vulnerable to the manoeuvres and tricks of the Conciliar/Synodalists, whose strategy Montagna has revealed.
While some may have been woken up by Traditionis Custodes, the problems with Francis were doctrinal in nature; and, in fact, the problems extend much further back than Francis himself. They will not go away simply by Leo XIV overturning the brutality of Traditionis Custodes.
But if Leo XIV does do this, and adopts the permissive strategy discussed in this article—as perhaps was the intention for the leaks being made available in the first place—many will be ripe for the picking.
The TLM will be permitted, but those attending it will have become Latin Mass Anglicans.
Dedicated to .
Afterword
“After all, we must be charitable, we must be kind, we must not be divisive, after all, they are celebrating the Tridentine Mass, they are not as bad as everyone says”—but THEY ARE BETRAYING US—betraying us! They are shaking hands with the Church’s destroyers. They are shaking hands with people holding modernist and liberal ideas condemned by the Church. So they are doing the devil’s work.
Thus those who were with us and were working with us for the rights of Our Lord, for the salvation of souls, are now saying, “So long as they grant us the old Mass, we can shake hands with Rome, no problem.” But we are seeing how it works out. They are in an impossible situation. Impossible. One cannot both shake hands with modernists and keep following Tradition. Not possible. Not possible.
‘Address to his Priests’ (Two Years after the Consecrations), Econe, 199023
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
Notwithstanding some positive contributions in his career, Vigneron was a consistent supporter of the Conciliar/Synodalist agenda, attending an “Interfaith Vigil” at the Islamic Center of America, and affirming “the important and far-reaching issue of religious liberty” in a letter condemning Trump’s planned immigration restrictions.
‘CDF Collection of Quotations Drawn from Responses Received from Dioceses - English,’ available from Diana Montagna.
‘CDF Overall Assessment of 2020 Survey of Bishops on Implementation of Summorum Pontificum - English,’ available from Diana Montagna.
‘CDF Collection of Quotations Drawn from Responses Received from Dioceses - English,’ available from Diana Montagna.
‘CDF Collection of Quotations Drawn from Responses Received from Dioceses - English,’ available from Diana Montagna.
‘CDF Overall Assessment of 2020 Survey of Bishops on Implementation of Summorum Pontificum - English,’ available from Diana Montagna.
The Angelus, July 1986, Vol. IX, n. 7
On a conversation with Cardinal Ratzinger, in Marcel Lefebvre, The Biography, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais
Ibid.
Ibid. The article had one caveat:
One possible exception would be the case of those priests who happen to be saying the traditional Latin Mass under the Indult or with a Roman celebret (permissions given for the old Missal to priests applying to the Ecclesia Dei Commission, in the wake of the consecrations of Archbishop Lefebvre but would be saying it anyway if these were denied them.
Ibid.
Alfredo Ottaviani, Antonio Bacci, et al: The Ottaviani Intervention: A Brief Critical Study of the New Order of Mass. Trans. Rev Christopher Danel. Angelus Press, Kansas City MO, 2015. pp17-18, 48
This is an excellent piece I will be sharing with many family and friends. I discovered the traditional Mass and faith at the same time through the FSSP, and when I did I immediately experienced a change in all aspects of my life - I believed differently, I prayed and worshiped differently, I lived differently. This is a rupture I knew to be true internally, even though for a time I remained within the structures of the conciliar synodal church, I knew I did not belong but it took some time, and the light of the Holy Ghost, to not be afraid of being branded with a scarlet S of sedevacantist. Thank you for this excellent article pointing out the more important part of Monatagna’s reporting, and for all of the other excellent articles and essays
Excellent article. Thanks!