Personajes heterodoxos y subversivos del Sillon

Dra. Carol Byrne, Gran Bretaña

Otro sacerdote francés, el P. Emmanuel Barbier, fue un formidable e incansable opositor de todas las formas de Modernismo religioso y Liberalismo a comienzos del siglo XX, como puede verse en sus prolíficas publicaciones. Era un sacerdote eminentemente bien calificado, más que capaz de desafiar las pretensiones de Marc Sangnier en el campo teológico y de exponer los errores en los que el Sillon cayó bajo su liderazgo.

En esta tarea fue apoyado, entre otros, por los obispos de Cambrai, Beauvais, Montpellier, Nancy y Quimper, quienes criticaron abiertamente al Sillon por causar división entre los fieles en sus diócesis.

En una carta al P. Barbier, el obispo de Nancy, Mons. Charles-François Turinaz, explicó cómo sucedía esto. Cuando el Sillon entraba en una diócesis, decía, sus miembros desafiaban las órdenes de León XIII y Pío X, así como la autoridad del obispo local, e introducían división donde antes no existía, donde florecían organizaciones caritativas y reinaba la paz entre el clero y el pueblo:

Mons. Charles-François Turinaz, obispo de Nancy, un fuerte crítico del movimiento Sillon

“El Sillon crea divisiones entre el clero, entre la juventud católica, entre los fieles en las ciudades y en el campo. Lo hace rechazando a todos aquellos que no están dispuestos a admirar sus ideas sobre la República y la Democracia, y tratándolos como los enemigos más peligrosos de la Iglesia. Crea división entre, por un lado, los trabajadores y, por otro, sus empleadores, a quienes desean eliminar del ámbito laboral; entre los propios trabajadores al promover los sindicatos ‘rojos’, es decir, sindicatos de la Revolución y del Internacionalismo, y al criticar a los sindicatos que mantienen una relación armoniosa con los empleadores.” ¹

Es evidente que el problema de raíz es la creación de dos partidos y dos lealtades que obligan a sacerdotes y fieles a tomar partido a favor o en contra de las estructuras de autoridad de la Iglesia. San Pío X dijo célebremente que los católicos deben elegir “el Partido de Dios”, y León XIII enseñó que la cuestión social es ante todo una cuestión moral y, por tanto, religiosa, y no puede resolverse mediante medios ajenos al catolicismo.

Esto nos lleva al exhaustivo análisis histórico del P. Barbier sobre el Sillon, su naturaleza, métodos y objetivos. En su libro, Les Erreurs du Sillon (Los errores del Sillon), ofreció un útil resumen (pp. 366-368) de los muchos puntos en los que esta organización falló la prueba de la ortodoxia católica en su intento de construir la “ciudad futura” de los sueños de Marc Sangnier. Los siguientes puntos, cada uno de los cuales está meticulosamente investigado y verificado con evidencia documental, son los más relevantes y muestran las transgresiones del Sillon en materia religiosa, política y social:

Popularizó, en Francia, la herejía del “Americanismo” ² – condenada en 1899 por León XIII – que valoraba la acción por encima de la contemplación, eludía la autoridad docente de la Iglesia y fomentaba la confianza en la conciencia individual alegando una inspiración directa del Espíritu Santo;

P. Emmanuel Barbier; abajo, su libro sobre los errores del Sillon

Propagó nociones falsas de dogma, especialmente las ideas evolucionistas del P. Alfred Loisy que negaban o disminuían las verdades y principios católicos para conciliar a los no creyentes y adaptar la Iglesia a los tiempos modernos;
Pidió una reforma de los estudios eclesiásticos; denigró la autoridad de Santo Tomás de Aquino, declaró que la escolástica no tenía valor alguno, negó cualquier vínculo necesario entre filosofía y teología, y sustituyó las pruebas racionales de la existencia de Dios por sentimientos y experiencias interiores;
Condenó públicamente la idea de una religión de Estado, aprobó la separación de la Iglesia y el Estado y respaldó con entusiasmo la Ley de Separación de 1905 del gobierno francés, que despojó a Francia de su herencia católica y causó un profundo dolor a San Pío X; ³
Se opuso al patriotismo, ⁴ utilizando expresiones propias del socialismo internacional y del humanitarismo, y consideró la defensa militar de la patria como “inmoral”; ⁵
Alteró el orden social al participar en actos revolucionarios contrarios a la Ley Natural y a la moral católica, sembrando división por doquier;
Predicó una mística de socialismo humanitario, confundiendo su acción republicana democrática con la doctrina social de la Iglesia, y utilizó los Evangelios para justificar sus errores doctrinales;
Denunció la propiedad privada como incompatible con el espíritu cristiano, y la redujo al mínimo por considerarla un obstáculo para la construcción de su proclamada “ciudad futura” basada en principios colectivistas;
Predicó la nivelación de las clases, despertó la codicia y el resentimiento entre los trabajadores contra sus empleadores, se negó a buscar una solución en una relación armoniosa entre ellos, y quiso que los sindicatos excluyeran a los empleadores para que los trabajadores pudieran lograr su propia emancipación y eliminar a los patrones;
Planificó una reorganización radical de la sociedad sobre una base socialista: todos los servicios públicos en manos de capitalistas debían ser expropiados por el Estado; la propiedad de las pequeñas empresas privadas y los medios de producción – en la industria, el comercio y la agricultura – debía ponerse en manos de los trabajadores;
Este era el programa de reforma de Sangnier, que expuso en un discurso pronunciado en una conferencia del Sillon en julio de 1908, cuando fue interrogado por un representante del combativo sindicato de izquierda, la Confédération Générale du Travail, que luchaba por la propiedad social y el control obrero.

Card. Louis Luçon: ‘El Sillon es un flagelo’

Otro testimonio de peso provino del arzobispo de Reims, el cardenal Louis Luçon, quien se opuso a los intentos de establecer un círculo sillonista en su archidiócesis.

En la edición de diciembre de 1908 del Bulletin du Diocèse de Reims, el Sillon fue descrito como un “fléau” (un flagelo) por las siguientes razones:

“En lo que respecta a la organización política y social llamada Sillon, el resultado más común de sus acciones es fácil de ver: consiste en sembrar división, apartar a los jóvenes de las obras católicas y alejarlos de la influencia del clero en los asuntos sociales.

“La influencia del Sillon es abominable, y el estado de ánimo que crea en sus seguidores es deplorable: hace que incluso los mejores entre ellos pierdan la noción exacta de la verdad y del recto juicio, así como el sentido del respeto.”

Continuará

Emmanuel Barbier, Les Erreurs du Sillon: Histoire Documentaire (Los errores del Sillon: Historia documental), París: Lethielleux, 1906, p. 10.
Antes de ser denominado y condenado por San Pío X en la encíclica Pascendi Dominici gregis, el Modernismo era conocido como Americanismo, debido a sus primeras manifestaciones en los Estados Unidos. Ambos tienen la misma inspiración y los mismos errores.
San Pío X condenó este principio en Vehementer nos (1906): “que el Estado deba separarse de la Iglesia es una tesis absolutamente falsa, un error sumamente pernicioso.”
Según la enseñanza católica, rechazar el patriotismo, que forma parte de la virtud de la piedad, es una violación del Cuarto Mandamiento y una falta de caridad y justicia hacia la propia patria. Dirigiéndose a republicanos y socialistas en una reunión pública, Sangnier afirmó: “Amamos a Francia apasionadamente, pero la consideramos como el terreno de uso de toda la humanidad, y somos en cierto sentido patriotas internacionalistas.” Ibid., p. 119.
La posición de Sangnier fue refutada por Mons. Turinaz, obispo de Nancy, quien habló extensamente sobre la virtud del patriotismo y citó el ejemplo de Juana de Arco como “la encarnación del patriotismo más puro y heroico.” (Charles-François Turinaz, Discours Patriotiques (Discursos patrióticos), París: Roger & Chernoviz, 1901, p. 102.
El discurso de Sangnier fue reportado por Mons. Théodore Delmont en Modernisme et Modernistes en Italie en Allemagne, en Angleterre et en France (Modernismo y modernistas en Italia, Alemania, Inglaterra y Francia), París: Lethielleux, 1909, p. 446.
Ibid., p. 447.

Publicado el 13 de abril 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

______________________

Personajes heterodoxos y subversivos del Sillon

Pre & Post Liturgical Movement Attitudes to Minor Orders