Mass of Ages Spring 2019

FEATURE

‘Useless bickerings’ The following is an extract from Una Voce: The History of the Foederatio Internationalis Una Voce 1964–2003 by Leo Darroch. Darroch summarises the Una Voce Newsletter of February 1971, which came from the pen of its President, Eric de Savanthem. At this date the Una Voce Federation already had a widespread membership, and an ‘Indult’ for the saying of the Vetus Ordo had been gained for England and Wales. Catholics were still in a state of shock at the radical nature of the ‘reform’ unveiled on the 1st Sunday of Advent 1969, and dissent from the teaching of the Church, by theologians holding official positions in Catholic universities and even some bishops, above all about contraception, was disturbing the Faithful everywhere. (The ‘Dutch Catechism’ referred to below was later roundly criticized by a panel of Cardinals specially convened by Pope Paul VI.) In this context the pressure on Una Voce groups to drop their objections and embrace the New Mass, while focusing their energies on other issues, was intense, and we see the beginning of the parting of the ways between ‘Traditional’ Catholics, who saw the liturgy as key to the life of the Church and its doctrinal and spiritual orientation as essential to the wider crisis of doctrine, and ‘conservative’ Catholics who, while often deeply involved in the battle to uphold the Church’s teachings on contraception, abortion, and other matters, wished to concede the issue on the liturgy. 12

I

n glancing through the different ‘traditionalist’ publications which waited on his desk he [Eric de Saventhem] had noted a tendency, on the part of certain spokesmen of the so-called ‘moderate’ groups to criticise those who, like Una Voce, considered the maintenance of the Mass of St Pius V a matter of cardinal importance. It was argued that since the reigning Pontiff had approved the reform of the Mass in every particular, the resulting orthodoxy of the New Ordo was guaranteed. To say that the New Ordo was ‘favouring heresy’ was, therefore, tantamount to implying that the reigning Pontiff was either gravely derelict in his duty to protect the faith or was himself a victim of heretical leanings. Such implications were—it was being suggested— incompatible with the loving respect and unwavering obedience which every faithful Catholic owes to the Pope, and whoever held such views could not therefore be counted among those who fight pro Pontifice et Ecclesia.

SPRING 2019