'The One Catholic Mass' – Notes on the lost article by l'Abbé de Nantes and the CRC
Today, the CRC insist on attending the New Mass, and condemn those who don't. But de Nantes said: 'None may set up his conscience as a marginal magisterium in order to bring accusations of sin.'
By popular demand!
We have just made a long-lost text available, possibly for the first time ever online.
This text was written in 1975 by l’Abbé Georges de Nantes, founder of French group La Contre-réforme Catholique (CRC).
We’ve made this text available as a matter of historical interest. As far as we know, this text has only been available online in English, and it seems quite unlikely that many of those attached to the CRC are aware of its contents.
This text also contains opinions which we consider to be false, misleading and dangerous. Indeed, l’Abbé de Nantes warns about some of the dangers of his own conclusions in the text itself. In the French version, we included some notes and comments within the text itself to explain these points.
This article consists of these notes and comments in English.
De Nantes was an important figure in the early traditionalist milieu. In those days, he famously wrote a “Book of Accusation,” against Paul VI, accusing him of heresy, schism and scandal. This book has been responsible for some clergymen reaching their conclusions about the post-Vatican II claimants.
Our reasoning for providing this text, and some context on the CRC group and its ideas, are available here.
The form for the consecration of the chalice
L’Abbé de Nantes asserts that the words following “This is my Blood” can be omitted or modified without affecting validity.
This is one opinion, held by some theologians.
It is, however, rejected by many very weighty authorities. Such authorities argue forcefully that the longer form is necessary for validity, such that a substantial change in the meaning of the words would invalidate the sacrament.
This particularly and most certainly applies to changes to what is common in the meaning and essential signification conveyed in all the longer forms used in the different rites throughout the Catholic Church. One example would be the change of the words “for many” to “for all.”
The authorities which hold that the longer form is necessary include the following :
St Thomas Aquinas1
“All the earlier Thomists up to Cajetan”2
The Catechism of the Council of Trent3
De defectibus (the part of the Missal which deals with defects)4
The Carmelites of Salamanca (Salmanticenses)5
Omlor also states :
Very many great theologians, including Saints, Popes and Doctors of the Church, have claimed that the words "This is (the chalice of) My blood," alone by themselves, are not sufficient for the validity of the wine-consecration, but that the entire form including "for you and for many unto the remission of sins" is absolutely essential.
Among these "Pars Negativa" exponents we may include St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Antoninus, Pope St. Pius V, Pope Innocent III, the authors of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P., those brilliant Thomists, the renowned Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca known as the Salmanticenses, Herveus, Capreolus, Sylvester, Tabiena, Armilla, Peter de Soto, Viguerius, Bartholomeus Spina, Arauxo, Marcus Huertos, John Nicolai, Gonet, John Vincent Asturicensis, John Gonzalez, N. Franciscus, Thomas Argentina, Richardus, N. Philippus, N. Cornejo, John Gerson, Aegidius Columna, Andrew Victorellus, Lorca, Thomas Hurtado, Pasqualigo, Petrus de Palude, Henry Henriquez, S.J., Francis Amicus, S.J., John of Freiburg, Jacobus de Graffiis, O.S.B., F. Macedo, O.M., and Père Maurice de la Taille, S.J.6
Questions might be raised about how essential the words “Mysterium fidei” are for validity, given that they are omitted in many other rites.
The exact phrasing is not necessary for validity. However, it also remains true that all traditional forms are of “the same definite type”, as the English bishops said of another set of sacramental rites. No such traditional form fails to specify that Christ’s blood is shed “for many”.
Even preconciliar theologians who held that the shorter form was all that was necessary for validity also held that, in practice, the longer form should be treated as essential, due to the principles of sacramental theology. This would mean, for example, repeating the words of consecration if any part of the longer form was changed so as to suffer a substantial change in meaning.
This point cannot be evaded by saying that the Church has the right to change sacramental rites. She has the right to change certain elements of the rites, so long as these do not “pertain to the integrity and necessary parts of the sacraments.”7
St Pius X and Pius XII were even more clear :
"(I)t is well known that to the Church there belongs no right whatsoever to innovate anything touching on the substance of the sacraments."8 (St Pius X)
"(A)s the Council of Trent teaches, the seven sacraments of the New Law have all been instituted by Jesus Christ, our Lord, and the Church has no power over the 'substance of the sacraments,' that is, over those things which, with the sources of divine revelation as witnesses, Christ the Lord Himself decreed to be preserved in a sacramental sign."9
The validity of the Novus Ordo
De Nantes asserts that the the essential and intrinsic validity of the traditional Mass and the Novus Ordo “are absolutely equivalent,” and that both are equally apt to determine the consecratory action of the sacrifice of Christ.
These assertions are begging the question in a number of ways.
First, with regards to the validity of Masses in which the longer form has suffered a substantial change in meaning (as discussed above). This is was the case in almost all vernacular translations following the Council.
Second, at the time of his writing, most priests had been ordained in the traditional rites, by bishops similarly so ordained and consecrated. This is no longer the case today, and as such this insistence does not take into account doubts raised about the validity of
the new sacramental rites for holy orders ;
the administration of these ordination new rites, even if valid in themselves ; or
the actual baptisms of the men ordained in the conciliar milieu (cf. the very shocking cases of several “priests” who discovered that they had never even been baptised).
Third, as de Nantes himself writes :
“It is not a narration, an evocation or a “ simple memorial ”. It is a reiteration of the action. It is a new act of Christ.”
The moralists McHugh and Callan state that the intention to act in the name of Christ is essential for validity such that reciting a narrative form would be invalid.
“Duties as regards Valid Consecration.—Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient.”10
De Nantes also neglects to note that the General Instruction of the (Novus Ordo) Roman Missal refers to “the institution narrative and consecration”11 and that the words of consecration are now often referred to simply as “the institution narrative in common parlance. The effects of this are unclear to this writer, but they seem sufficient to cause concern.
Various objectionable statements
De Nantes makes a number of assertions with which we do not agree.
For example, we do not agree that the liceity of the Novus Ordo is indisputable; nor that questioning the legitimacy of Paul VI etc. is an act of schism; nor that noticing a wholesale change in religion from that which was practiced by our grandparents is a “Lutheran appeal to a holy spiritual Church of dreams.”
He states that if the Novus Ordo was invalid, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed. On the contrary, the body which gave us the Novus Ordo is not the Church. If the Church had given us a rite which is as bad as de Nantes describes, it is then that the gates of Hell would have prevailed.
He states that the Novus Ordo was legitimately promulgated, but that we could not know that it disposes its participants towards receiving its fruits, or that it is free from error and malice, until “tradition” works “its work of assimilation and rejection.” We can ordinarily trust the pope and the Church, he says, but sometimes this could be mistaken.
This is a denial of a very standard thesis, taught indeed by the magisterium, that the universal disciplinary rites of the Church (of which the Novus Ordo would have, prima facie, all the hallmarks) are “infallibly safe” and contain nothing out of harmony with divine revelation. The idea that there needs to be some “work of assimilation and rejection” before we could be sure appears to be a relic of Gallicanism.
The legitimacy of different opinions on the Novus Ordo
Towards the end, we arrive at what is, for us, the most interesting and important part of this document – in which de Nantes explicitly states that the question of “what to do” in the face of the Novus Ordo is an open question.
As for us, we consider the Missal of Paul VI to be the work of men’s malice. Its definition of the Mass is perversely heretical, its inventions are copies of protestant rites, and its minor alterations are inspired by a doctrinal relativism and an infectious spiritual lethargy, which gradually poisons and misleads those who make use of it. Finally, it has given the green light to every kind of degradation of the sacred rites, even the very worst profanations. Such at least is our opinion, demonstrated, proclaimed, and never refuted.
Under these conditions, what divine and ecclesial good is there in this Mass? The good still reaches those who celebrate or participate in this Mass with a Catholic faith, a sincere obedience to the Church, and a pure intention, and who furthermore preserve themselves from the snares of error or lukewarmness. On the other hand, to be attached to the New Mass through a liking for heresy and profanation is a crime. Those who have adopted the heretical intention of the authors of this rite commit the sin of heresy during the very Mass itself and, by profaning it, they cover themselves in sacrilege. Their crime is proportionate to the importance of their participation in the Action and the number of faithful who are thereby led astray. Finally, those who follow the orders of their superiors out of a blind and therefore disordered obedience, place themselves in grave danger of being caught in the trap laid for them.
Thus, according to de Nantes, those who take different opinions on this matter – even to the point of avoiding the Novus Ordo Mass “absolutely” – have the right to do so.
Contrariwise, he tells those who do choose to adopt the Novus Ordo not to elevate their own opinions into a “marginal magisterium” and accuse those who have rejected it of sin.
Indeed, when we read de Nantes’ own opinion of the Novus Ordo, it is very difficult to understand why so many of his followers embrace it with such vigour today – not only attending it habitually, but choosing it, where they could choose otherwise, for events such as baptisms, weddings and funerals.
This difficult to understand, even in light of his qualified encouragement in the final paragraphs.
Conclusion
De Nantes acknowledges the legitimacy of following the opinion that we should avoid the Novus Ordo.
Naturally, we do not agree with his final comments on the wisdom of attending the Novus Ordo, and consider even his qualified encouragment to do so to be wrong, dangerous and reckless. We also do not agree with his assertion that we should not encourage others to avoid the Novus Ordo Mass.
But we are not the ones taking de Nantes as an authority, and so his opinions here are of no consequence to us, and there is no inconsistency on our part. The point, rather, is in the following questions:
Why has this article only been available in English until now ?
Why have so many of those who call de Nantes “our father,” “the Theologian of the Catholic counter-reformation in the twentieth century,”12 and “the Mystical Doctor of the Catholic Faith,”13 adopted an attitude quite at odds with what is stated here – both with regards to the Novus Ordo itself, and with regards to those who wish to “flee it absolutely”?
Is it because this position has been repudiated by the CRC?
If so, then is it simply an oversight that it remains available in English?
And if it has been repudiated in light of further consideration, then may we not reconsider several other positions advanced by de Nantes?
I do not ask these questions out of hostility, but rather with the hope that we may have a little more understanding and tolerance between the various groups trying to make sense of the state of the Church in our day.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
Further Reading:
Patrick Henry Omlor explains St Thomas’ opinion as follows:
"24. … Some have maintained," says St. Thomas, "that the words This is the chalice of My blood alone belong to the substance (that is, the essence or necessary part - Auth.) of the form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood; consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression."
25. He continues, "And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, As often as ye shall do this (but not including these words -- Auth)." Otherwise, why would the priest continue holding the chalice until the completion of all these words? "Hence it is that the priest pronounces all the words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands." (Summa Th. III, Q. 78, Art. 3).
He then goes on to provide St Thomas’s explanations as to why each clause and phrase is necessary.
Patrick Henry Omlor, Questioning the Validity of the Masses using the new all-English canon (QTV), nn. 24-5. In The Robber Church (TRC) – The Collected Writings 1968-1997, p 18, PDF format.
According to the Carmelites of Salamanca, see below.
"We are then firmly to believe (certo credendum est)," that the form for the consecration of the wine "consists in the following words: This is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many, to the remission of sins." (Part II, chap. 4, par. 21) And immediately below in par. 22, we read: "Concerning this form no one can doubt (Verum de hac forma nemo dubitare poterit) ... it is plain that no other words constitute the form (perspicuum est, aliam formam constituendam non esse)."
Omlor QTV, n. 21. TRC, p 17.
Omlor, Has the Church the Right? In TRC, p 83.
The Carmelites write:
“[I]t so happens that our opinion and that of the Doctor St. Thomas is, on the one hand, most probable, from a speculative point of view; and on the other hand it is the safer opinion and the one that must be wholly followed in practice. Whereas in reality our adversaries' opinion is solely speculative, and "probable" from, as it were, a metaphysical point of view only, but it is totally devoid of any practical value, since it cannot be reduced to practice because of the danger of not consecrating.”
The Salmanticenses’ Response to de Lugo on the Form of the Consecration of the Wine, (traduction documentaire du père Lawrence S. Brey, avec une introduction de Patrick Henry Omlor). Dans The Robber Church, p 230.
The Necessary Signification in the Sacramental Form of the Holy Eucharist, n. 5. In TRC pp. 282-3.
Pope Clement VI, in Super quibusdam, 1351. In Has the Church the Right? In The Robber Church, 80.
Pope St Pius X, Ex quo, nono (Dec. 26,1910)
Pius XII, Sacramentum Ordinis, 1947.
John A. McHugh OP & Charles J. Callan OP, Moral Theology - A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities. Vol. II, n. 2701 (b). B. Herder, London, 1958.