to speak to you of a very serious novelty: the New Code of Canon
Law. I had not seen any necessity for a change. But if the law
changes, the law changes, and we must make use of it, for the
Church can ask nothing evil from her faithful.
when one reads this new code of Canon Law one discovers an
entirely new conception of the Church. It is easy to be aware of,
since John Paul II himself describes it in the apostolic
constitution which introduces the new Code.
that which constitutes the fundamental novelty of Vatican Council
II, in full continuity with the legislative tradition of the
Church (this is to deceive), especially in that which concerns
ecclesiology, constitutes also the novelty of the new Code.
the novelty of the conception of the Church according to the
Council is equally the novelty of the conception of the new Code
of Canon Law.
this novelty? It is that there is no longer any difference between
the clergy and the laity. There is now just the faithful, nothing
else, on account of the
doctrine according to which all the
members of the people of God, according to the mode which is
proper to each, partake in the triple priestly, prophetic and
royal function of Jesus Christ. To this doctrine is likewise
attached that which concerns the duties and rights of the faithful
and particularly the laity, and finally the Church's involvement
is the definition of the Church (Canon 204):
The faithful are
those who, inasmuch as they are incorporated in Christ by baptism
are constituted as the people of God, and who for this reason,
having been made partakers in their manner in the priestly,
prophetic and royal functions of Christ, are called to exercise
the mission that God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the
all faithful, members of the people of God, and we all therefore
have ministries! It is clearly said in the Code: all the faithful
have ministries. They therefore all have the responsibility to
teach, to sanctify and even to direct.
continue our commentary on this Canon 204:
…having been made
partakers in their manner in the priestly, prophetic and royal
function of Christ, they are called to exercise the mission which
God entrusted to the Church to accomplish in the world, according
to the juridical condition proper to each one.
without exception, without distinction between clergy and laity,
inasmuch as they are the people of God, has the responsibility of
this mission entrusted by Jesus Christ properly to the Church.
There is no longer any clergy. What, then, happens to the clergy?
It is as
if they said that it is no longer parents who have the
responsibility to give life to children but the family, or rather
all the members of the family: parents and children. This is
exactly the same thing as saying today that bishops, priests and
laymen have all responsibility for the mission of the Church. But
who gives the graces to become a Catholic? How does one become
faithful? No one knows any more who has the responsibility for
what. It is consequently easy to understand that this is the ruin
of the priesthood and the laicization of the Church. Everything is
oriented towards the laymen, and little by little the sacred
ministers disappear. The minor orders and the subdiaconate have
already disappeared. Now there are married deacons, and little by
little laymen take over the ministry of the priests. This is
precisely what Luther and the Protestants did, laicizing the
priesthood. It is consequently very serious.
quite openly explained in an article in L’Osservatore Romano
of March 17, 1984:
role of the laity in the new Code. The active function that the
laity has been called on to exercise since Vatican II by
participating in the condition and mission of the entire Church
according to their particular vocation is a doctrine which, in
the context of the appearance of the concept of the people of
God has brought about a reevaluation of the laity, as much in
the foundation of the Church as for the active role they are
called on to develop in the building up of the Church.
the inspiration of the whole new Code of Canon Law. It is this
definition of the Church which is the poison which infects the new
can be said for the Liturgy. There is a relationship between this
new Code of Canon Law and the entire liturgical reform, as Bugnini
said in his book The Fundamental Principles of the Changing of
The path opened by the Council is destined to
change radically the traditional liturgical assembly in which,
according to a custom dating back many centuries, the liturgical
service is almost exclusively accomplished by the clergy. The
people assist, but too much as a stranger and a dumb spectator.
What? How can one dare say that the faithful are present at the
sacrifice of the Mass as simply dumb spectators so as to change
the Liturgy? How must the faithful be active in the sacrifice of
the Mass? By the body or spiritually? Obviously spiritually. One
can draw a great spiritual profit from assisting at Mass in
silence. It is, in effect, a mystery of our Faith. How many have
become saints in this silence of the true Mass!
long education will be necessary for the Liturgy to become an
action of all the people of God." Without a doubt. Then he
adds that he is speaking of "a substantial unity but not a
uniformity. You must realize that this is a true break with the
past." This past is the twenty centuries of prayer of the
was the key man in the liturgical reform. I went to see Cardinal
Cicognani when this reform was published and I said to him: "Your
Eminence, I am not in agreement with this change. The Mass no
longer has its mystical and divine character." He replied: "Excellency,
it is like that. Bugnini can enter as he likes into the Ppope's
office to make him sign what he wants." This is what happened
to the Secretariat of State. This is how all these changes
happened. They agreed on it beforehand, and then obtained
signatures for some changes, and then others, and then others.
to Cardinal Gut:
Your Eminence, you are responsible for Divine
Worship, and you accord permission for the Blessed Sacrament to be
received in the hand! They will know that this was published with
the agreement of the Prefect of the Congregation for Divine
Excellency, I do not even know if I
will be asked for it to be done. You know, it is not I who
command. The boss is Bugnini. If the pope asks me what I think of
Communion in the hand, I will cast myself on my knees before him
to ask him not to do it.
You see, then, how things happened
at Rome: a simple signature on the bottom of a decree and the
Church is ruined by numerous sacrileges... The real presence of
Our Lord is ruined, for it is no longer respected. Then, nothing
sacred remains, as was seen at the large reunion at which the Pope
was present, where the Blessed Sacrament was passed around from
hand to hand between thousands of persons. Nobody genuflects
anymore before the Blessed Sacrament. How can they still believe
that God is present there?
this same spirit which inspired the changing of the canon Law as
that which inspired the changes in the Liturgy: it is the people
of God, the assembly, which does everything. The same applies to
the priest. He is a simple president who has a ministry, as others
have a ministry, in the midst of an assembly. Our orientation
towards God has likewise disappeared. This comes from the
protestants who say that eucharistic devotion (for them there is
neither Mass nor sacrifice: this would be blasphemy) is simply a
movement of God towards man, but not of man towards God to render
Him glory, which is nevertheless the first (latreutic) end of the
Liturgy. This new state of liturgical mind comes likewise from
Vatican II: everything is for man. The bishops and priest are at
the service of man and the assembly. But where is God then? In
what is His glory sought? What will we do in heaven? For in heaven
"all is for the glory of God," which is exactly what we
ought to do here on earth. But all that is done away with, and
replaced by man. This is truly the ruin of all Catholic thought.
that the new Code of Canon Law permits a priest to give Communion
to a protestant. It is what they call eucharistic hospitality.
These are protestants who remain protestant and do not convert.
This is directly opposed to the Faith. For the Sacrament of the
Eucharist is precisely the sacrament of the unity of the Faith. To
give Communion to a protestant is to rupture the Faith and its