A Prophetic Voice at the Vatican Council: Bishop Giovanni Battista Peruzzo

Edit: the following is an excerpt taken from the Protocols of the Second Vatican Council. It is taken from Roberto de Mattei's new book on the Vatican Council, Concilio Vaticano II. Una storia mai scritta (The Second Vatican Council: a story which has never been told.). It has met with some controversy, and is not presently available in English.

Wikipedia of Bishop Peruzzo

From the Protocols of the Council

I am the last [who  speaks], but I am old, the eldest in your midst, and perhaps I have understood little; so try to see things my way, if some of my  expressions are distasteful to you.  I have heard many observations and proposals against the sacred tradition of the precious use of the latin language in the Sacred Liturgy and many words have been cause for anxiety and concern.  I would like to shortly contribute something where my remarks will not rest on theological, but on a historical basis.  The anti-Liturgical movement is not so telling because of its origins.   It is more significance importance to be concerned with the noteworthiness of the origins of families, institutions, circumstances and instruction: who is the father, who is the mother and who is the leader.  If the source [of origin] as the beginning is done well, they will easily remain healthy over time.  If the source was contaminated, it will be difficult to clean.  While I draw on these principles, I would like to look the origin of the anti-Liturgical Movement in the eye.

Their fathers, their leaders, this movement was begun at the end of the 15th and as the 16th century began.

The first anti-Liturgists were the humanists, true and real pagans in Italy, better-minded in France and the Nordic countries, led by Erasmus, but all wavering in Faith.   Among them were many of our brothers who joined the contest and later left the Catholic Church.  From them the Jansenists arose, in Italy the participants in the Synod of Pistoia and finally the Modernists: this is the society, who are in many ways comparable.

On the other side is found not a single sainted Bishop who was a promoter of this movement.  From St. Charles Borromeo to Saint Anthony Mary Claret, to St. Francis de Sales to St. Alfons, old as new, all held fast onto the Latin Tradition.  These facts must raise concern about these proposals for novelty.   One quickly leaves the "old way", which is safe; but the new ideas, what voids might we encounter and fall into!

 Erasmus wrote the forward to his Gospel of St. Mathew as follows:  "It seems incongruous and ridiculous that the that the common people and women murmur the Psalms and the Sunday prayers like parrots in a constant repetition, while they do not understand their significance."

The University of Paris condemned this opinion, the simply and justifiably appears as Godless, and promotive of new falsities: one reads in Duplessy.  This condemnation which appears to us as exaggerated, turns out to be really prophetic. All of those, who are of one or another type favoring the reduction of the Latin language, brought to the Liturgy, in the past as today,  the same grounds:  so the people might better understand and come to a stronger faith and greater love of God.

In the Augsburg Confession there was nothing more proposed than that the songs of the people would be  in the common language during the celebration of Mass. But what happened?  The general introduction of the people's language in the Mass was the first act of separation from our Holy Mother the Church.  This harsh statement is not mine, but was that of Abbot Dom Guéranger who is truly the father of the Liturgical Renewal.  So here are his words:

"The separation of the liturgical language for some unexplained motive, which we do not know, has almost always done well in obtaining a dispensation from the Pope, to the schism and the complete separation of the Catholic Church."  

He demonstrates this assertion also, as one can glean this in the 3rd Volume of his "Institutions Liturgique". These words, these facts must make us proceed in this matter very carefully.

I will briefly mention a third evident reason: the loyalty of the bishops, more than any other, have always proved to be to the Holy Father.  Since about five centuries the Popes have steadfastly defended Latin in the Sacred Liturgy against the requests, recommendations and threats.  In more recent times, from Leo XIII. to the reigning Holy Father, they have pronounced on the necessity of the Latin language in the Sacred Liturgy  in various Apostolic Letters.

Bretheren, are these instructions merely suggestions, or do they include an order? Opposing points of discussion are allowed;  actually it will show me right, if  you are content to be silent and in obedient subjugation to the Holy Father.  We all desire that today's men become better Christians. Are we all bent on reaching this goal?  History teaches us in fact that the sanctity of souls is bound with the Liturgy, but it requires that  it, especially our holiness, our strength of faith, heroism of apostolate, prayerfulness, intellect, penitence and also outward devotion would lead people to God.  Please look beyond my vanity and pray for me too!

The Address of Mons. Giovanni Battista Peruzzo, Bishop of Agrigento, a 29 October 1962, quoted from Acta Synodalia sacrosancti Concilii Oecumenici Vatican II: Roberto de Mattei: The Second Vatican Council. A hitherto unwritten story. Ecclesiastical Umschau Edition, p. 278 ff  

[Roberto De Mattei holds to that Peruzzo was ridiculed for this talk by the "progressives" in the auditorium.]

Translated from Elsa's Nacht[b]revier...