Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Misa dialogada - CLVIX

Errores teológicos del Sillon

Dra. Carol Byrne, Gran Bretaña

Uno de los primeros ejemplos de un miembro del clero que criticó al Sillon por motivos de falta de ortodoxia fue el P. Charles Maignen, un sacerdote francés contemporáneo conocido por su oposición a todas las formas de Liberalismo en la enseñanza social de la Iglesia. Después de una investigación profunda sobre esta organización, no pudo evitar la conclusión de que los jóvenes miembros del Sillon estaban impulsados por una implacable sed de novedad: Rerum novarum cupido (para usar las palabras iniciales de la Encíclica de León XIII), lo que los llevó a preferir una teología “dinámica” en lugar de una “estática”. ¹

P. Charles Maignen

Estas palabras nos resultan ahora familiares porque han sido retomadas por los defensores de la Nueva Teología y utilizadas para describir la “superioridad” de las nuevas ideas progresistas sobre la doctrina tradicional de la Iglesia. Algunos años antes de que Pío X condenara el Modernismo, el P. Maignen advirtió que esta tendencia anunciaría el toque de muerte para la Tradición Católica:

“La Iglesia había creído hasta este momento que el amor a la novedad era el mayor obstáculo para la fe. La nueva teología ha cambiado todo eso.” ²

Continuó señalando que la situación respecto a la verdad y la falsedad había sido puesta patas arriba. En la nueva disposición, la Tradición pasó de ser garante de la certeza de la verdad a convertirse en un mal que debía evitarse e incluso en un enemigo contra el cual luchar. De repente, “es el apego a la tradición del pasado, la obstinada negativa a seguir la evolución de una idea” lo que, según la mentalidad modernista, conduciría a la “decadencia … en el orden de la religión.” ³

La plena magnitud y los efectos perjudiciales de este espíritu de novedad en la Iglesia no eran, por supuesto, tan evidentes en 1902, cuando el P. Maignen escribió estas líneas, como lo son hoy. Pero sí explica la por lo demás incomprensible antipatía hacia la Tradición mostrada por la jerarquía moderna que ha sido influida por el Vaticano II y su hermenéutica “dinámica”.

Curiosamente, Romano Amerio ha proporcionado un ejemplo de este tipo de pensamiento entre el Episcopado francés (herederos del Sillon): en su Misal dominical de 1983, se pedían oraciones “por los fieles que están tentados de quedarse fijos en sus certezas.” ⁴ Esta era una insinuación evidente dirigida a los tradicionalistas.

El libro del P. Maignen denunciando al Sillon

Sangnier aplicó una hermenéutica “dinámica” en la construcción de su sociedad ideal para asegurar la mayor medida de autonomía para cada ciudadano:

“Pedimos una tradición viva que esté siempre en movimiento, una fuerza evolutiva que nunca vuelva a posiciones anteriores; queremos una jerarquía que no sea exterior y simbólica sino interna, cada día más cercana al objetivo de una aceptación unánime.” ⁵

En este esquema de cosas, tanto la Tradición como la Jerarquía eran simplemente conceptos abstractos. Sin embargo, desempeñarían papeles útiles para el florecimiento de su tipo de democracia: la Tradición para ayudarla a echar raíces y crecer, la Jerarquía para darle estabilidad y dirección en la vida de la Iglesia. Podemos deducir de estas ideas que Sangnier no tenía un verdadero respeto ni por la Tradición ni por la Jerarquía, sino que simplemente explotaba su autoridad como herramientas para impulsar sus propias ambiciones.

Lo más condenatorio de todo es que el P. Maignen presentó pruebas de que el Sillon, en su revista, Le Sillon, promovía la obra del principal defensor del Modernismo, el P. Alfred Loisy, y su teoría de la evolución de la doctrina; en el mismo número también había un artículo sobre el P. André de la Barre, SJ, quien profesaba la misma noción de cambio dogmático. ⁶ (Ambos, por cierto, eran profesores en el Instituto Católico de París). El siguiente pasaje está citado del número del 25 de mayo de 1899 de Le Sillon:

“Así como, en el mundo de la naturaleza, las semillas incorporan en sí mismas los elementos nutritivos que han extraído del aire y de la tierra que las rodea, así también las semillas del dogma necesitan, para alcanzar su pleno desarrollo, buscar en el medio circundante de ideas filosóficas o populares todos aquellos principios que puedan considerarse compatibles, y asimilarlos.” ⁷

El P. Maignen señaló el error teológico fundamental en este pasaje que colocaba la Revelación – la fuente del conocimiento y de la vida sobrenatural – al mismo nivel que el proceso natural y orgánico del crecimiento de las plantas, sin distinción de esencia. Esta es una ilustración de la mentalidad modernista que no puede aceptar la validez de la Verdad que viene “de arriba”, sino que insiste únicamente en adaptar cualquier teoría hecha por el hombre que se encuentre en el aquí y ahora, y que cambia según las exigencias de los tiempos.

El autor del artículo del Sillon, señaló el P. Maignen, continuó sugiriendo que el novedoso concepto de evolución debería incorporarse en los estudios teológicos corrientes, de los cuales el plan de estudios de los seminarios sería el principal ejemplo.

P. Alfred Loisy, el principal defensor del Modernismo e inspirador del Sillon

Otro importante alejamiento de la ortodoxia católica fue publicado en una serie de artículos en el Sillon a comienzos de 1899. Los artículos fueron escritos por un joven seminarista bajo seudónimo (apenas cuatro meses después de comenzar sus estudios y probablemente, por lo tanto, aún en su adolescencia), quien se tomó la libertad de erigirse en juez de la Encíclica de León XIII Aeterni Patris, que pedía el renacimiento de la teología escolástica y el estudio de Santo Tomás de Aquino.

En las páginas del Sillon, el seminarista descartó el valor de la Teología Escolástica, diciendo que no tenía ningún valor como instrumento de apologética, sobre la base espuria de que sería incapaz de convencer al hombre moderno. ⁸ Esto era una contradicción directa de la enseñanza del Papa León, quien afirmaba que el Escolasticismo era el modelo por excelencia e indispensable para los estudios teológicos precisamente porque las mentes incluso de los escépticos más endurecidos, de los espíritus más rebeldes y obstinados, quedarían obligadas (“nectendis mentibus”) a reconocer su perfecta armonía con la razón.

Parece probable que el seminarista no hubiera leído la Encíclica por sí mismo y que simplemente estuviera repitiendo las ideas de sus maestros modernistas. No obstante, su contradicción directa de la enseñanza de León XIII, que representaba la perspectiva católica tradicional, puede describirse – sin llegar a acusarlo de lèse-majesté – como un ataque contra la autoridad y la dignidad del Sumo Pontífice en su oficio magisterial de enseñanza.

Continuará

Charles Maignen, Nouveau Catholicisme et Nouveau Clergé (Nuevo Catolicismo y Nuevo Clero), París: Victor Retaux, 1902, p. 311.
Ibid., p. 303.
Ibid.
Romano Amerio, Iota Unum: A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century, Angelus Press, 1996, p. 339, nota 13.
M. Sangnier, L’Esprit Démocratique, p. 174.
André de la Barre, Vie du Dogme Catholique: Autorité – Évolution, París: Lethielleux, 1898, p. 178.
C. Maignen, op. cit., p. 314.
Ibid., p. 323.

Publicado el 16 de marzo de 2026

Comparta

Síganos

______________________

Temas de Interés Relacionados

______________________

Obras de Interés Relacionadas

Volume I	Volume II	Volume III
Volume IV	Volume V	Volume VI
Volume VII	Volume VIII	Volume IX
Volume X	Volume XI	Special Edition

Traditionalist Issues

Dialogue Mass - CX

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders

Dr. Carol Byrne, Great Britain

When we compare the traditional view of Minor Orders with the treatment they received at the hands of liturgical reformers in the 20^th century, it becomes evident that the two positions stand in dire contrast to each other. To illustrate this point in greater depth, let us turn again to the exposition of Minor Orders made by Fr. Louis Bacuez who modestly introduced his magnum opus as follows:

Starting the whittling away of respect
for the Minor Orders...

“This little book is a sequel to one we have published on Tonsure. God grant that those who make use of it may conceive a great respect for Minor Orders and prepare for them as they should! The dispositions with which they approach ordination will be the measure of the graces they receive, and on this measure depends, in a great part, the fruit that their ministry will produce. To have a rich harvest the first thing necessary is to sow well: Qui parce seminat parce et metet; et qui seminat in benedictionibus de benedictionibus et metet. (2 Cor. 9:6)” (1)

Little did he realize that when he wrote these words every vestige of respect for the Minor Orders would be whittled away by the concerted efforts of progressivists with a negative and dismissive attitude towards them; and that the Liturgical Movement, which had just begun when he published his book, would be dominated by influential liturgists discussing how to overturn them.

Long before the term “Cancel Culture” was invented, they presented the Minor Orders as a form of class-based oppression perpetrated by a clerical “caste” and as a form of spiritually empty legalism, and they went to great lengths to make them look ridiculous.

Far from showing due respect, this involves quite a considerable degree of contempt, not only for the generations of seminarians who were formed within this tradition, but also for the integrity of the great institution of Minor Orders that had served the Church since Apostolic times. In fact, so great was their animosity towards the Minor Orders that they could hardly wait to strip them of their essential nature as functions of the Hierarchy and turn them into lay ministries.

A tree is known by its fruits

These, then, were the hate-filled dispositions that inspired the progressivist reform, and would determine the graces received and the fruit to be produced by those who exercise the new lay “ministries” as opposed to, and in place of, the traditional Minor Orders.

Fr. Bacuez, who wrote his book in the pontificate of Pius X, could never, of course, have envisaged the demise of the Minor Orders, least of all at the hands of a future Pope. He was concerned lest even the smallest amount of grace be lost in the souls of those preparing for the priesthood:

Blighted fruits from a sick tree

“We shall see, on the Last Day, what injury an ordinand does to himself and what detriment he causes to souls by losing, through his own fault, a part of the graces destined to sanctify his priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father: Modica seminis detractio non est modicum messis detrimentum. (St. Bernard)” (2)

We do not, however, need to wait till the Last Day to see the effects of a reform that deliberately prevents, as by an act of spiritual contraception, the supernatural graces of the Minor Orders from attaining their God-given end: “to sanctify the priesthood and render fruitful the fields of the Heavenly Father.” For the evidence is all around us that the tree of this reform produced blighted fruits.

First, we note a weakening of the hierarchical structure of the Church and a blurring of the distinction between clergy and laity; second, a “contraceptive” sterility resulting in vocations withering on the vine and below replacement level, seminaries and churches closing down, parishes dying, and the decline in the life of the traditional Catholic Faith as seen in every measurable statistic. The conclusion is inescapable: those who planted this tree and those who now participate in the reform are accomplices in a destructive work.

Advantages of the Minor Orders

A substantial part of Fr. Bacuez’ exposition of the Minor Orders is devoted to the inestimable benefits they bring to the Church. These he divided into the following three categories:

The honor of the priesthood;
The dignity of worship;
The perfection of the clergy.

It is immediately apparent that the Minor Orders were oriented towards the liturgy as performed by the priest and his ministers. In other words, they existed for entirely supernatural ends invested in the priesthood.

A significant and entirely appropriate omission was any mention of active involvement of the laity in the liturgy. Fr. Bacuez’ silence on this issue is an eloquent statement of the mind of the Church that the liturgy is the preserve of the clergy.

We will now take each of his points in turn.

1. The honor of the priesthood

“A statue, however perfect, would never be appreciated by most people, unless it were placed on a suitable pedestal. Likewise the pontificate, which is the perfection of the priesthood, would not inspire the faithful with all the esteem it merits, if it had not beneath it, to give it due prominence, these different classes of subordinate ministers, classes inferior one to another, but the least of which is superior to the entire order of laymen.” (3)

Toppling statues has become popular today:
above, Fr. Serra in central Los Angeles, California

It is an example of dramatic irony that Fr. Bacuez unwittingly chose the theme of a statue supported by a pedestal to illustrate his point. He was not to know that statues of historical figures would become a major source of controversy in the culture wars and identity politics of our age.

Nor could he have foreseen that toppling monuments – both metaphorical and concrete – was to become a favorite sport of the 20^th-century liturgical reformers, their aim being to exalt the status of the laity by “active participation” in clerical roles. And never in his wildest imagination would he have suspected that a future Pope would join in the iconoclastic spree to demolish the Minor Orders about which he wrote with evident pride and conviction.

'Don’t put the priest on a pedestal'

However, the revolutionaries considered that esteem for the Hierarchy and recognition of its superiority over the lay members of the Church was too objectionable to be allowed to survive in modern society. The consensus of opinion among them was that clergy and laity were equals because of their shared Baptism, and placing the priest on a pedestal was not only unnecessary, but detrimental to the interests of the laity.

“Don’t put the priest on a pedestal” was their battle cry. It is the constant refrain that is still doing the rounds among progressivists who refuse to give due honor to the priesthood and insist on accusing the Church of systemic “clericalism.”

But the fundamental point of the Minor Orders – and the Sub-Diaconate – was precisely to be the pedestal on which the priesthood is supported and raised to a position of honor in the Church. When Paul VI’s Ministeria quaedam dismantled the institutional underpinnings of the Hierarchy, the imposing pedestal and columns that were the Minor Orders and Sub-Diaconate were no longer allowed to uphold and elevate the priesthood.

The biblical underpinnings of the Minor Orders

Fr. Bacuez made use of the following passage from the Book of Proverbs:

“Wisdom hath built herself a house; she hath hewn out seven pillars. She hath slain her victims, mingled her wine, and set forth her table.” (9: 1-2)

An ordination to the minor order of exorcist, one of the seven columns

He drew an analogy between “the seven columns of the living temple, which the Incarnate Wisdom has raised up to the Divine Majesty” and all the clerical Orders (four Minor and three Major) that exist for the right worship of God. In this, he was entirely justified. For, in their interpretation of this passage, the Church Fathers concur that it is a foreshadowing of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass performed, as St. Augustine said, by “the Mediator of the New Testament Himself, the Priest after the order of Melchisedek.” (4)

In the 1972 reform, no less than five (5) of the seven columns were brought crashing down from their niches in the Hierarchy to cries of “institutionalized clericalism,” “delusions of grandeur” and “unconscious bias” against the laity.

To further elucidate the affinity of the Minor Orders to the priesthood, Fr. Bacuez gave a brief overview of the cursus honorum that comprised the Orders of Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest before going on to explain their interrelatedness:

“These seven powers successively conferred, beginning with the last, are superimposed one upon the other without ever disappearing or coming in conflict, so that in the priesthood, the highest of them all, they are all found. The priest unites them all in his person, and has to exercise them all his life in the various offices of his ministry.” (6)

After Ministeria quaedam, however, these rights and powers are no longer regarded as the unique, personal possession of the ordained, but have been officially redistributed among the baptized. It was not simply a question of changing the title from Orders to “ministries”: the real locus of the revolution was in taking the privileges of the “ruling classes” (the representatives of Christ the King) and giving them to their subjects (the laity) as of “right.”

The neo-Marxist message was, and still is, that this was an act of “restorative justice” for the laity who had been “historically wronged.” For the liturgical progressivists, 1972 was, apparently, the year of “compensation.”

Continued

Louis Bacuez SS, Minor Orders, St Louis MO: B. Herder, 1912, p. x. “He who soweth sparingly shall also reap sparingly; and he who soweth in blessings shall also reap blessings.”
Ibid., St. Bernard of Clairvaux, Lenten Sermon on the Psalm ‘Qui habitat,’ Sermones de Tempore, In Quadragesima, Preface, § 1: “If, at the time of sowing, a moderate amount of seed has been lost, the harm done to the harvest will not be inconsiderable.”
Ibid., p. 6.
St. Augustine, The City of God, book XVII, chap. 20: "Of David’s Reign and Merit; and of his son Solomon, and of that prophecy relating to Christ, which is found either in those books that are joined to those written by him, or in those that are indubitably his."
These were the four Minor Orders and the Major Order of the Sub-Diaconate.
L. Bacuez, op. cit., p. 5.

Posted December 10, 2021

______________________