Asuntos Tradicionalistas

Misa dialogada - CLVIII

El Sillon y la mística de la democracia

Dra. Carol Byrne, Gran Bretaña

Un testigo contemporáneo, N. Ariès, que tenía conocimiento personal del Sillon, escribió una crónica extremadamente detallada de su constitución, objetivos y actividades desde su inicio hasta su supresión por el Papa Pío X en 1910. De esta fuente de primera mano se desprende que se exigía a los Jóvenes Guardias un compromiso total con la causa de la Democracia. Una especie de Orden de Caballería orientada a imponer la Democracia. Bajo la dirección espiritual de Sangnier, se sometían a una ceremonia llamada “veillée d’armes”, vigilia de armas ¹ – la primera de las cuales fue, según su propio relato, celebrada el 20 de diciembre de 1901, en la cripta del Sacré-Cœur, París.

La Basílica del Sagrado Corazón en París & su cripta donde los miembros del Sillon rindieron homenaje a Sangnier

Arrodillados ante el altar, los nuevos reclutas debían hacer un voto de dedicar sus vidas totalmente al Sillon y a la causa de la Democracia. ² Henry du Roure, quien quizá fue el más cercano de los lugartenientes de Marc Sangnier, afirmó que el homenaje se hacía al propio Sangnier como el señor feudal de los nuevos caballeros: Sentían “la necesidad de creer en la visión providencial de Marc y prometerle una confianza absoluta e incondicional.” ³

Según Mons. Eugène Beaupin, antiguo capellán de la Joven Guardia, la fórmula de oración que acompañaba el homenaje fue compuesta por el mismo Sangnier. ⁴ No era, sin embargo, una oración de fe, sino de presunción. Estaba sutilmente redactada para transmitir la seguridad de que Dios tiene que conceder un resultado exitoso a los Jóvenes Guardias porque son “buenos soldados de Cristo” y porque sus planes para “democratizar” la Iglesia ciertamente harían que el Reino de Dios viniera a la tierra.

También sabemos por las palabras de Louis Cousin, quien estuvo al tanto de la formación inicial de los Jóvenes Guardias en el Colegio Stanislas, que se referían a su labor por la Democracia como una “Causa Sagrada” por la cual eran exhortados a dar toda su vida incluso hasta el punto de la muerte, con la promesa de inmortalidad. ⁵ En este punto, un espíritu vertiginoso entró en escena, que influyó a los jóvenes a rechazar el control jerárquico como “paternalismo” y avivó los fuegos de la independencia y la autosuficiencia.

Ariès observó que, desde el momento en que se unían al Sillon, la personalidad de los Jóvenes Guardias experimentaba un cambio con una obsesión – “idée fixe” – acerca de su papel como promotores de la Democracia. Se dedicaban a un exigente calendario de actividades diseñado para impedirles pasar tiempo a solas o pensar por sí mismos. Esta constante ronda de actividades incluía distribuir el periódico del Sillon regular e infaliblemente a las puertas de las iglesias, asistir a círculos de estudio, organizar interminables reuniones y congresos locales, colocar carteles, dirigir un comité de propaganda y una oficina de trabajo social, y en general mantener el “espíritu del Sillon.”

Como su líder, Sangnier aceptaba la adulación de sus seguidores comprometidos mientras exigía su aceptación total de su ideología modernista. Era el deseo de Sangnier que tuvieran como lema Conciencia y Responsabilidad – palabras susceptibles de infinita maleabilidad.

Esta nueva Orden de Caballería se convirtió en una herramienta eficaz para lograr el proyecto de Sangnier. Él adoctrinó a los jóvenes militantes haciéndoles creer que habían sido “llamados” a una “vocación” para combatir el buen combate; y su responsabilidad era cumplir sus órdenes al pie de la letra.

Una reunión en la sede del Sillon

Pero el combate era para promover valores modernos y progresistas – Democracia, libertad e igualdad – dentro de la Iglesia. No pasó mucho tiempo antes de que la orientación exclusiva del Sillon hacia la Democracia se identificara con la Fe Católica.

Otro testimonio importante, esta vez de un miembro del Sillon, ofrece una visión interna de la organización. El periodista y comentarista social Joseph Folliet señaló que, como resultado de lo que él llamó este “confusionnisme politico-religieux” [confusionismo político-religioso], nadie – incluidos los propios sillonistas – podía estar seguro de si el Sillon era un “movimiento religioso con tendencias sociales y políticas o un movimiento político de inspiración religiosa.” ⁶ De cualquier modo, la credibilidad de la Iglesia como organización de origen sobrenatural quedaría comprometida.

En este sentido, el perspicaz análisis de Folliet arroja luz sobre la razón fundamental por la cual Pío X finalmente suprimió el Sillon, y merece ser citado con cierta extensión, en traducción:

“El peligro de la confusión era que produciría una especie de naturalismo humanitario que eventualmente pondría a Cristo y a la Iglesia al servicio de la Democracia, es decir, terminaría subordinando lo espiritual a lo temporal…

Marc Sangnier pronunciando un discurso

“En la raíz de esta confusión y peligro yace, creemos, el antiintelectualismo del Sillon, su desprecio por explicaciones y definiciones precisas, su negativa a aceptar doctrinas con contornos claramente definidos, que han sido expresadas con demasiada firmeza. ‘Ve adonde la vida te lleve’ es una buena fórmula, pero puede entenderse de dos maneras opuestas; también debemos esforzarnos por vivir la vida, lo cual no puede hacerse sin un mínimo de claridad intelectual y razonamiento lógico. El Movimiento Sillonista carecía en cierto modo [doctrinalmente] de firmeza – una deficiencia tanto más perjudicial porque era un movimiento para jóvenes, algunos de ellos muy jóvenes, ardientes, activos, entusiastas, inclinados a dar rienda suelta a sus emociones… Su imprecisión de pensamiento debía conducirlos, si no al error, al menos a una confusión doctrinal.” ⁷

La evaluación de Folliet fue correcta, pero no fue lo suficientemente lejos. Es cierto que los sillonistas no tenían interés en promover la objetividad y la verdad, pero describirlos como doctrinalmente confusos es quedarse corto. De hecho, hubo algunos miembros del clero, sacerdotes y Obispos en varias partes de Francia, que los acusaron de promover positivamente el error doctrinal y también de extraviar a muchas almas jóvenes.

Tampoco tenían intención de obedecer a los Obispos. Cuando, por ejemplo, el Obispo de Quimper prohibió a sus sacerdotes tener cualquier relación con el Sillon, Marc Sangnier replicó que no prestaran atención a su orden y añadió: “Puede que me acusen de ser anarquista, pero no me importa en absoluto.” ⁸

Continuará

La ceremonia de la veillée d’armes, originada en las órdenes caballerescas medievales, era un paso significativo hacia la caballería. Antes de recibir el espaldarazo, el aspirante a caballero realizaba una vigilia nocturna de meditación y oración para asegurar su preparación para la batalla.
N. Ariès, “Le Sillon” et le Mouvement Démocratique, París: Nouvelle Librairie Nationale, 1910, p. 226 .
Hughes Petit, L’Eglise, le Sillon, et l’Action Française, París: Nouvelles Édtions Latines, 1998, p. 17.
Eugène Beaupin, "La vie religieuse au Sillon" (Vida religiosa en el Sillon), Chronique Sociale de France, vol. 60, No. 2, marzo-abril 1950, p. 77.
L. Cousin, op. cit., p, 26.
Joseph Folliet, "Essai de jugement équitable sur le Sillon" (Juicio ecuánime sobre el Sillon), ibid., p. 126
Ibid.
Adrien Dansette, Religious History of Modern France, vol. 2, Herder, Freiburg-Nelson, Edinburgh-London, 1961, p. 284

Publicado el 19 de febrero 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

______________________