Jesse Russell recently published his response to Yves Chiron, Between Rome and Rebellion: A History of Catholic Traditionalism with Special Attention to France (Angelico, 2024) as a book review for Catholic World Report.
As the English-language translator of that work, I should like to make a few comments on what strikes me as an essay presenting Mr. Russell’s views on Catholic Traditionalism, rather than as a review of Chiron’s book.
I shall skip over the first four paragraphs of his piece, which Mr. Russell devotes to John Paul II and the generation often named after him, except to say that they seem off-topic.
The foray into the state of traditionalism in the U.S. (“considered largely a marginal phenomenon” during John Paul II’s pontificate) is also beside the point in the sense that the title of the book under review contains this: “With Special Attention to France.”
Mr. Russell next gets to what is manifestly on his mind: what is wrong with contemporary Traditionalists in the U.S. and how Chiron, in Mr. Russell’s view, refutes notions commonly held among them.
The two defects for which he upbraids (American, it seems) Traditionalists are “internet conspiracy culture” and the mistaken notion among traditionalists that priests who “said some version of pre-1970 Catholic liturgy were immune” to committing sex abuse. Whether or not the latter is true, and if so to what extent, it provides Mr. Russell with a segue to an actual discussion of Chiron’s Between Rome and Rebellion.
Mr. Russell introduces his subject by stating that Chiron “has explored some of the core pillars of traditionalist thinking, providing an objective analysis that topples some of the central trad shibboleths.”
I am afraid this seems rather to be what Mr. Russell was hoping to find in the French historian’s output than what anything the latter actually says.
Here are some examples.
He praises Chiron for depicting Paul VI fairly in his Paul VI: The Divided Pope (Angelico, 2022)—the praise is deserved, but unfair treatment of Paul VI is surely restricted to a narrow band of Traditionalists (and extends to a much broader band of progressives, disappointed by Humanae Vitae and The Credo of the People of God). Most take him to be a complicated man who made imprudent decisions in liturgy and staffing. As for “one of the key trad conspiracies about Paul VI’s personal life,” as Mr. Russell calls it, Chiron deals with it by “noting that this harmful allegation. . . was fabricated by an Italian tabloid.” It is more precise to say that the Italian tabloid in question (it was Il Tempo) published an article by famous French pederast Roger Peyrefitte,1 who in the Propos secrets he was about to publish at Albin Michel in 1977, accused many public figures of sharing his own proclivities, including John XXIII and Paul VI. This gratuitous and baseless accusation has never been a “key trad” concern. Now, there is no reason to doubt that Mr. Russell heard it from a Traditionalist. Level-headed Traditionalists (whom I take to constitute a majority), however, steer clear of the waspish barbs that Roger Peyrefitte made a career of peddling.
What Mr. Russell has gleaned from Chiron’s Annibale Bugnini comes as a surprise to anyone who has read it. The “shibboleth” that he claims has been “topple[d]” here is that “despite traditionalist claims, the archbishop was not even the main architect behind the 1970s missal, nor is there any evidence that he was a Freemason.” There are two claims here.
The more baffling of the two assertions is that Chiron says that Bugnini was “not even the main architect” of the 1969 missal. It is baffling because Chiron devotes the entire biography of the man to the topic of the liturgy. It is baffling also because the book is titled (my bold print) Annibale Bugnini: Reformer of the Liturgy (original title: Mgr BUGNINI (1912-1982) Réformateur de la liturgie). Gleaning through the book, one’s perplexity increases as one reads: “the vast reform whose architect he would be after the Council, Fr. Bugnini. . .” (p. 25); “He was truly to be the architect of the Commission’s work,” p. 62 (granted, Chiron is here speaking of the pre-conciliar commission that wrote Sacrosanctum Concilium); “the secretary, Fr. Bugnini, was truly the architect of the reforms that were about to begin” (p. 106). In fact, page 106 explains in detail why Bugnini deserves to be called “architect,” or in the original French “maître d’œuvre” (pp. 24–25, 68, 91—where the English renders it “manager”—and 120).
Mr. Russell correctly states that Bugnini’s membership in Freemasonry is something “some Traditionalists claim,” starting with Archbishop Lefebvre. Chiron, however, does not close the door; he merely says that rigorous historical criticism (documentary authenticity, sourcing, etc.) provides no evidence, and goes on to say: “Whatever the case may be, the accusation of belonging to Freemasonry was not the determining factor in Archbishop Bugnini’s dismissal” (173–74). That Chiron should write “[w]hatever the case may be” despite Bugnini’s private (in a letter to Paul VI) and two public protestations of innocence in this respect may gauge how seriously Chiron takes these denials. To exonerate Bugnini of the accusation that he was sacked for his membership in Freemasonry, Mr. Russell would have been better served by quoting Cardinal Stickler’s categorical answer to Alcuin Reid (the answer is in Dom Alcuin’s foreword to the Bugnini book, p. 7): “No, it was something far worse.” For those who wish to pursue the issue of Bugnini and Freemasonry, more has come to light since Chiron’s book.
After these two points, Mr. Russell turns to the book under discussion: Between Rome and Rebellion.
It is a “comprehensive and sympathetic portrait of the traditionalist movement”—Mr. Russell is surely correct here—“while also, as he does in other works”—this point is not settled, as the “architect” and “Freemason” misunderstandings indicate—“providing some major clarifications.”
The first “clarification,” that the Traditionalist/Modernist opposition predates Vatican II, is actually not a clarification, as Mr. Russell admits: “This point is well-known throughout traditionalist and non-traditionalist circles.” This covers pretty much everybody.
Mr. Russell’s summary of this pre-Vatican II opposition provides him with the occasion to bring up present-day commentators when he mentions “the current age of social media magisterium, in which individual laymen appear to claim the ability to anathematize popes and to reject the canonization of saints.” He seems to mean—I may be wrong—those who signed the Easter 2019 “Open Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church” accusing Pope Francis of the canonical delict of heresy, and those who contributed to an anthology edited by Peter Kwasniewski, Are Canonizations Infallible? Revisiting a Disputed Question (Arouca Press, 2021). This obiter dictum, in my view, is out of place here.
The next two “clarifications” concern Archbishop Lefebvre, the central figure of post-conciliar traditionalism. He calls them “clear criticisms” on the part of Chiron.
The first of these is a misunderstanding on Mr. Russell’s part: he considers it “shocking” that “Lefebvre. . . claimed to have received a vision in the cathedral at Dakar so he could found an international seminary.” The wording “claimed. . . so he could” is awkward and seems to invite an uncharitable inference. The claim attributed to Lefebvre would be shocking if indeed Chiron had spoken of a “vision.” But he does not, and neither did Lefebvre. The actual terms used are: “Archbishop Lefebvre. . . had long been pursuing a ‘dream’ that God had ‘made him glimpse one day in the cathedral of Dakar’” (p. 204, quoting M. Lefebvre, Itinéraire spirituel [Tradifusion, 1991], 5). The French words are rêve and entrevoir. Anyone who has made a decision after due and prayerful consideration recognizes what Lefebvre here means; one does not see that it calls for the excursus on “private revelations” Mr. Russell provides as commentary. As for the term “vision,” Mr. Russell may here be misremembering Bernard Tissier de Mallerais’s account, Marcel Lefebvre (Angelus Press, 2004), 408, where it clearly has the obvious, natural meaning one associates with corporate “vision statements.”
The second “criticism” concerns the solicitude that two men who knew Lefebvre had for his mental capacity towards the end of his life. Mr. Russell is here again correct: in the chapter on Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Chiron devotes about a page to “The Psychology of Archbishop Lefebvre.” He quotes unpublished material in which one learns that Dom Jean Roy, Abbot of Fontgombault, and Cardinal Siri had independently reached the conclusion that Archbishop Lefebvre might suffer from arteriosclerosis or some other “mental derangement” (Between Rome and Rebellion, 258–259). In this connection, however, it may be worth noting that all the information on that score relies on the testimony of Dom Jean alone.
After dealing with the irresistible “what if” speculation about the episcopal consecrations (would Rome have been more accommodating if Lefebvre had waited longer and for just one bishop?), Mr. Russell turns to Lyndon Larouche on the Traditional Catholics he tangled with in Northern Virginia. Mr. Russell may be familiar with the facts of that particular case and may agree with Larouche’s assessment that Traditional Catholicism is “a gnostic cult that has nothing to do with authentic Christianity,” but one fails to see how this bears on Chiron’s account of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX in France.
In his abrupt conclusion (one would like to hear more about the other chapters of the book) Mr. Russell puts forward the claim that Chiron “has demonstrated” that “at least some (if not all) of the trad conspiracies [he means “conspiracy theories,” surely] are false, and there have been major issues and pathological behavior among some traditionalists since the beginning.”
May I propose that this will not do? Mr. Russell appears to have seen in Chiron’s meticulous and even-handed book just what he wanted to see in it: the trads are wrong. He can be forgiven for not knowing that Yves Chiron has long worked at an SPPX school, at whose chapel he heard Mass nearly exclusively until 1988 (after that date, he also attended Mass at Ecclesia Dei monasteries: Fontgombault; Randol; Le Barroux, and, since his retirement in 2008, “where he can”). For my part, I translated Chiron’s Between Rome and Rebellion as well as his Annibale Bugnini, and I helped copy-edit his Paul VI: The Divided Pope—and I am afraid I recognize none of those books in Mr. Russell’s essay.
Endnote:
1 See “Pope Paul Denounces ‘Horrible Insinuations’,” The New York Times, 5 April 1976, p. 12.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Here’s an easy one, Dr. Pepino: was Bugnini a Freemason? You just noted that Chiron notes that “rigorous historical criticism provides no evidence” to support this claim but then you seem to still want to play footsie with this idea (“…more has come to light since Chiron’s book.”).
And since we’re going down the rabbit hole here, was Paul VI also a Freemason?
Just trying to figure out where you separate the wheat from the chaff of TradBro fever dreams about Masonic conspiracies.
Murr, Fr C.T. “Murder in the 33rd Degree. The Gagnon Investigation into Vatican Freemasonry”.2022.
Forward by Dr Roberto de Mattei.
My paragraph here on the topic was merely to point out that Chiron did not intend to topple that tradbro (if I may use the term) shibboleth as categorically as Mr Russell claims. Yves Chiron read the text above, and confirms the way I put it.
Again, my purpose was merely to clarify what Chiron claims. It was not to intrude whatever my own opinion may be, if I even have one. That was the point.
Annibale Bugnini was a Freemason. His name is on the Italian registry of freemasonry. His serial no. 1365-75. His initiation date was April 23, 1963.
Independent of this indisputable fact of membership in a syncretist cult is that he was a dedicated syncretist of his own accord, which is to say, a heretic.
It’s telling that you won’t answer the question, John. Seems like a layup.
Also, your explanation of just clarifying Chiron’s stance on the topic doesn’t really hold water when you go on to add that “more has come to light since Chiron’s book.”
He did answer the question. It is telling that you cannot seem to understand the answer.
It’s also telling, Tim, that you threw a fit when Weigel mocked RFK Jr’s nonsense about vaccines causing autism. Wait, let me guess: the MMR vaccine is actually a Masonic plot?!
Vince, No reply on your last post, so here I’ll submit that your contention that anyone is out of line for criticizing Weigel’s ignorant, very unscientific, mockery of the very scientific theory of RFK, who merely cited evidence of a link between vaccines and autism, does represent an unconscious submission to a socially agreed upon implicit conspiracy of liberal tyranny. As far as masonic syncretist tyranny in principalities of power in Europe, the Vatican, and elsewhere goes, a denial of their existence and demonic influence is like standing at the bottom of the ocean and denying the existence of moisture.
If we don’t know what causes autism, whether it’s a combination of factors, whether the broadening of the definition of autism creates more cases reported, etc., I don’t think questions re. delivering multiple vaccines at one time to infants is “nonsense.”
RFK Jr. has seemed a bit “out there” at times in the past but certainly asking questions is a good thing.
I remember when my children were small, Europe had a more spaced out scheduling for children’s vaccinations. The way we do it in the US seems more for assuring compliance numbers than for the individual patient’s benefit. It’s the same way I vaccinate my cattle-shoot everything into them at the same time so I don’t have to round them up again.
And if my cows are a little autistic, oh well. They’ll still taste the same on the grill.
🙂
Vince-Sheriff-of-Truth:
Nothing says “I am not to be taken as a serious person” more effectively than mixing one’s comments with one’s insults.
I for one definitely regard people who in indulge in conspiratorial ramblings about Freemasonry and the Novus Ordo as very ‘serious people’, Chris.
I guess you never reached a point of leaning to know that a social ethos, with all manner of its corruptions, is a conspiracy of consent. We deny our sins individually and as members of a community, a conspiracy, even communities of billions.
In 77 years I’ve rarely attended a Tridentine Mass (save in my pre-Vatican II youthful days). That said, I have NEVER heard of anyone who attends or supports the Extraordinary Form of the Mass advocate giving an award to a politician who has supported, funded and voted on behalf of murdering babies in their mother’s womb.
Why is that????????
You have really hit the nail on the head. We are talking about two entirely different religious faiths, not merely two liturgies. That is why there is so little real communication between devotees of the Traditional Latin Mass and those who want to see it abolished. The urge to destroy the past does not end with liturgical prayer. It extends to everything Catholics have always believed, practiced and held sacred.
Many of us who attend the Traditional Mass and assent to traditional morality left st. mediocre parish when they became faintly aware of what had been robbed.
They slowly learned what their grandparents had and what their grandparents sacrificed for. They compared it to the liturgical banality and innovation at st. mediocre Parish in suburbia.
They learned that the sugar-coated and watered-down version of the Faith that they were fed in st. lukewarm not-really -Catholic School or CCD program between 1965 and now was patently garbage. Further, through modern media and more traditional means, they encountered what was missing in their spiritual lives and their desire for holiness.
Some of us were even told our time and talent were not needed in said parishes. Spiritually homeless and begging our pastor for more reverence, we found the traditional Mass. Once experienced for a few months, a soul seeking holiness will be home.
Most of these folks just want to worship in peace. Whether Bugnini was a Mason, whether Paul VI was a Saint, or whether Abp. Lefervbre lost his mind at the end, these are irrelevant in helping us get to heaven. Most Old Mass Catholics are busy raising their kids and seeking holiness in daily life.
As Michael Matt suggests, let us unite the clans and set the world on fire.
The Old Mass and true traditional morality convert and cause reversions. Squabbles over minutiae and conspiratorial fisticuffs keep people stuck where they are.
Ave Maria!
Waking up to the reality of what took place in the 70s is a difficult place to be.
Realising that it was an unholy union of Catholicism with New World Order that generated Post-Conciliarism is rude.
That Novos-Ordo was scripted by a freemason is a fact.
And that Bugnini was not acting in isolation is also a fact, attested by Fr Charles Murr is the book referenced above.
“attested by Fr Charles Murr is the book referenced above.”
Three cheers for Catholic grifters!
“Anyone I don’t like is a grifter.” You are the Catholic version of the “Anyone I don’t like is Hitler” crowd.
No, I’m just familiar with the track-record of Father Murr. Fortunately for you, Tim, ignorance apparently doesn’t preclude you from posting.
Speaking of ignorance, are you still stewing about Weigel mocking those who push the nonsense that vaccines cause autism?
“The two defects for which he upbraids (American, it seems) Traditionalists are “internet conspiracy culture”…”
*******
In my experience this has actually been the case for many traditionally minded Catholics I know. Even in my own family.
But it works the same way in other sectors of our culture today. Internet conspiracy narratives are everywhere & people just pick & choose between them per their ideological bent. It’s a perfect way to manipulate & divide us as Catholics & as a nation. You wonder: who benefits?
Why be so quick to accept the disparagements conceived in Catholic anti-Catholicism? Do you believe everyone, who seeks to sustain Catholic devotion that is actually Catholic, are part of an “internet culture” even if they have no desire to own a computer or involve themselves in dialogue with strangers?
And is it a “pop cultural” phenomenon when Catholics who actually perform dialogue with the likeminded to find their way to locations for TLM, especially when traveling, and soberly discuss an authentic Catholic patrimony? Or is it actually countercultural? Is it idiosyncratic? Internet dialogue, by the way, is what we do on this very forum, and is distinct from the dictatorial modernism from today’s Vatican that absurdly calls their monolithic monologue a matter of a Church in “dialogue.”
How are we to characterize the pop culture that the “synodal Church” epitomizes by aligning with all the principalities of darkness hostile to affirming that truth, since it all comes from God, never changes?
One more point. You ask who benefits? Well Holy Mother Church benefits when Catholic anti-Catholicism is confronted, eactly as Our Lord commanded us to do.
Mr Baker, if you were replying to my comments, it’s difficult to see that in the format on my phone screen, I was speaking from personal experience.
Some Traditional Latin Mass attending Catholics that I know, including those in my family, have been caught up in conspiracy narratives. But so are many other people in our society.
We just follow different narratives according to our ideology but they can divide and manipulate us into warring tribes.
Division in the Body of Christ doesn’t come from God.
It stands to reason that when a group of people used to thinking for themselves find out that government officials have been lying on many fronts (it’s kinda obvious, from what each side of the aisle says, that at least one side is lying profusely), and the news media as well, that they will start believing conspiracy theories. About the only way to avoid that sort of thing is to recognize that there isn’t enough information to conclude anything at all, since we can no longer conclude that government and media people are telling the truth. Or, you know, to have people in the government and media who tell the truth… but that doesn’t seem to be an option here.
If people spent half the time they spend complaining about conspiracy theorists, protesting liars and calling for prison time for perjury, there’d be far fewer conspiracy theorists.
The media has always put a spin on the information they give us. It’s nothing new. Nor are conspiracy theories.
Sir: That was merely an invitation to Mr Russell (and others, including you now), who manifestly is interested in the topic, to read further. I have read further (in fact I contributed to Chiron’s chapter on the accusation of Freemasonry, as you will see when you read Chiron’s Biography of Bugnni) and so far I find the evidence inconclusive from a historiographical point of view, as Chiron does. I hadn’t meant to publish my opinion, but as you’ve expressed interest in it twice and in public, you now have it.
If you wish to discuss Chiron, Bugnini, or other topics with me, you can send a letter to me at my residence (I am in the white pages), or even ring the doorbell and meet me in person. Then you can tell me what you mean by “layup.”
Good day.
Dr Roberto de Mattei is no Conspiracy Theorist Mrs Cracker.
He is a highly esteemed historian in Italy. His Foreward to the book referenced above further validates the narrative of Cardinal Gagnon’s holy secretary Fr Murr during the Investigation conducted under obedience to Pope St Paul VI.
Fr Murr’s personal experience – recounted from his diaries of the period in Rome – is tragically a long way from being a Conspiracy Theory: He personally delivered one of the existing copies of the 3 volume report to the Vatican Archive.
It’s also an easy read.
Thank you Mr. Nut. I wasn’t thinking about Dr Roberto de Mattei in my comments.
I love the TLM but I don’t have a dog in this particular hunt. I’ll attend any reverent Mass.
Quite understood Mrs Cracker
Rather than read about the truth of the matter, you are more comfortable sticking with your own narrative…
Be seeing you 😉
Mr Nut
Honestly Mr. Nut, I’m not someone who’s especially concerned about Freemasons. I have quite a few in my family tree. I understand that Freemasonry looked different in Europe & Latin America but I’m not worried about it in the US.
The narratives I hear at TLM gatherings re. the Masons are pretty bizarre. Too weird to put into print here.
You have a blessed day.
It is also bizarre to imagine that the CIA ran mind control experiments on children.
But also, they admitted it publicly.
Determining whether something is weird or not is no substitute for determining whether it is true or not, as anyone who believes there are duck-billed-platypi should know.
If you intend to refrain from having an opinion, you could simultaneously refrain from sharing your opinion regarding those who do.
Trust me Amanda, the stories I heard about local Masons in our community were total fantasy.
Enjoying fantasy literature is one thing. Believing in it is another.
The problem with a lot of these conspiracy narratives is that people *want * to believe in them.
It is not clear who has written: “Russell’s recent CWR piece is not a review at all, but rather a skewed essay presenting his views on Catholic Traditionalism.”
Does it matter? NO! The quote is true.
Thank you, Dr. Pepino (professor of Greek, Latin, and Church Fathers). Thank you, CWR, for publishing this review of the earlier, unreasonably lopsided and uncharitable review by Jesse B.B. Little Red-Hair (assistant professor of English).
Here is how Fr. Louis Bouyer, a friend of Pope Paul VI, described Msgr. Bugnini, after working directly with him for months on the “Reform of the Mass,” an assignment he accepted at the personal request of Pope Paul VI, and from which he came near to publicly resigning in disgust. Theees descriptions are from the book “Memoirs of Louis Bouyer” ( Angelico Press, 2014), the below extracted from pp 219-230:
A. “…the mealy-mouthed scoundrel…Bugnini…”
B. “…a man as bereft of culture as he was of basic honesty…”
C. “…the despicable Bugnini…”
D. “…under-handed…”
E. The so-called “reform” reached its climax when Bugnini presented a “new Mass” text performed for the Bishops who would be required to approve “the Bugnini Mass.”. It was roundly rejected, despite Bugnini’s several months of manipulation and deceit, because it didn’t even meet minimum contest to be deemed the holy sacrifice of the Mass. At that point, Bouyer and Dom Bernard Botte were called into the Vatican offices and “commissioned to patch up its text…[by] inserting [a menu of minimum Catholic] elements…by the next morning! … I cannot reread that improbable composition without recalling the Trastevere cafe terrace where we had to put the finishing touches to our assignment in order to show up with it at the Bronze Gate [to the papal apartments] by the time our masters had set.”
F. “…I shall point out what subterfuge Bugnini used to obtain…what his handlers managed to pass through him….on several occasions…Bugnini ran into an opposition that was not only massive…but…close to unanimous. In such cases, he would not hesitate to say: ‘But the Pope wills it.’ … weeks later…weeks later…Paul VI himself…was discussing [the Bugnini reform of the Mass] with me, work which he had finally ratified without being much more satisfied satisfied with it than I was, he said to me: ‘Now why did you do [x] in the reform?’ … I answered: “Why simply because Bugnini had assured us that you absolutely wished it.’ His reaction was instantaneous: ‘Can this be? He told me himself that you [the committee members] were unanimous on this!’”
G. After discovering Bugnini’s deceit and manipulation in the “reform of the Mass,” Bugnini continued the same behavior immediately following in Paul VI’s International Theological Commission. Bouyer resigned in disgust. The other members, including de Lubac and Congar, repulsed by Bugnini’s disposal of their own hard work, and Bugnini’s deliberate mistranslation of dubious liturgical books being prepared in France, to conceal the true intentions of the French authors , de Lubac submitted a personal letter of protest to Pope Paul VI, co-signed by Congar and others who were appalled by Bugnini’s deceitful behavior. “Eight days later, Bugnini got the sack from the Pope.”
In sum: a first person account of Bugnini as a mealy-mouthed, ignorant, deceitful, underhanded and manipulative character, whose behavior was mire than sufficient reason for his ultimate sacking by Paul VI, with or without the “freemasonry” file, which Bouyer mentions was delivered to Paul VI by an (unidentified) cardinal.
And do we not notice how -and, that- Paul VI exposed the devil.
Why do so many follow that devil to this day and not that Pope.
“In article by famous French pederast Roger Peyrefitte,1 who in the Propos secrets he was about to publish at Albin Michel in 1977, accused many public figures of sharing his own proclivities, including John XXIII and Paul VI. This gratuitous and baseless accusation has never been a “key trad” concern.”
Taylor Marshall repeated this accusation in his own book?