1 September 2014

The Anglican Patrimony

What is that Anglican Patrimony which we are supposed to have brought into the Ordinariates? I feel that it must be more than just a few little liturgical goodies, favourable though I am to the BCP structure of the Divine Office (although not, sadly, to the totally un-Anglican and non-traditional lectionary which has been tacked onto it here in England) and to the Anglican Use Eucharistic Rite, with its BCP and English Missal components (I would be reassured to be told that the Sunday propers which BCP inherited from Sarum, and thereby from the early lectionaries of the Roman Church, were going to be authorised, at least optionally, for the Ordinariates; it will be another tragic missed opportunity if they are not).

A few weeks ago I was putting together a talk on 'Modern Biblical Scholarship', that tired old construct of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I decided to formulate my critique exclusively through the insights of writers who were Anglicans or who, if they became Catholics, had been Anglicans when they wrote. I gathered together R A Knox, C S Lewis, Dorothy L Sayers, E L Mascall. (I think I also mentioned Austin Farrer and Abbot Butler; and that towering champion of Catholic Truth E B Pusey and some of his contemporaries.) I found in these writers a coherent critique, although I discern no links of indebtedness between them. They wrote, not as members of the cosy self-referencing and self-affirming club of European or North American Protestant "Biblical Scholars", but as people trained in literary criticism (in Mascall's case, Mathematics and Logic!) who brought their own rather different skills to the task of exposing the non-existence of the Emperor's Clothes, aka "the assured results of modern scholarship". "That", I triumphantly concluded my talk, "is the contribution which the Ordinariate is called by God to make".

A similar methodology could be extracted from Dix, Jalland and Mascall for expounding the Petrine Ministry; from Dix, Ratcliff, Willis, Moreton for critiquing "Modern Liturgical Scholarship". In so many cases, the Anglican input would have the result of questioning assumptions which some more recent "Catholic" "Scholarship" has gullibly borrowed from necrophiliac Protestant Modernism. In a recent post on this blog, I revealed my own surprise at discovering a close similarity between an exposition given by C S Lewis, and a treatment of the same subject by Archbishop Lefebvre. Such an 'Anglican' input would make a valuable contribution to vindicating a Hermeneutic of Continuity; to insisting that the documents of Vatican II must be understood, and understood only, in reference to and in subjection to the teaching of the Church's Magisterium over the two preceding millennia. Its value would rest partly on the sheer intellectual distinction of such writers as I have mentioned, but also on the fact that they wrote at times when a Catholic, advancing the same arguments they were advancing, would have had to listen to the accusation "Ah, but you have to say that because you're a Roman Catholic".

I think the most succinct summary I know of what the Anglican Patrimony must mean is in a phrase which Cardinal Manning used in condemnation of Blessed John Henry Newman."I see much danger of an English Catholicism of which Newman is the highest type. It is the old Anglican, patristic, literary, Oxford tone transplanted into the Church"*. Exactly. That is precisely what we are, and what we have brought into the Church packed into our luggage. I pray that we may be able to make our own powerful contribution to the essential reconstruction of a Catholic Church which has been so weakened, and much of its life so corrupted, by the heterodoxies and heteropraxies of the last half-century.
*Gary Bennett, in his 1987 Crockford's Preface, saw our distinctiveness in "the conservative theological tradition of the English universities with their strong links with the Church of England. Even into the mid-twentieth century it was received opinion among continental Protestant theologians that Anglican academics lived in a world of their own and set up a firm resistance to the kind of biblical criticism which was commonplace in European theological faculties. English scholars tended to do their theology through a study of church history and it was hard to deny that most of their work was done within the usual Anglican assumptions about the authority of Scripture and the normative character of patristic usage". Indeed. Knox and Lewis made the same sort of dismissive remarks about 'German Scholarship' that Pusey had made half a century or more before.

31 August 2014


I imagine that in quite a number of English Catholic parishes, priests and people are saying good bye to each other as clergy move to take up new appointments under the authority of the bishops into whose dioceses they are incardinated. The prayers of many will go with these clergy as well as with the 'old' parishes which are losing them and the 'new' parishes which are getting them. I particularly have in mind Fr Sean of the Valley of the Adur, a learned Church Historian, who was so immensely kind to Pam and me when not everybody in the English Catholic Church seemed very keen to have me. He is a priest in a million.

Perhaps the highest profile transferee is the distinguished and erudite blogger, Fr Tim of Blackfen. In accordance with the mind of the Church and the wishes of Sovereign Pontiffs, he has ensured that not only are the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite both generously available in his present parish, but even the Anglican Use. Indeed, he is a very dear friend both to the Ordinariate and to its priests. How he manages to run a busy and vibrant parish, and to lecture at Wonersh, and to discharge a blogging ministry to thousands, is quite a marvel. He saw off a less than positive intrusion into his parish by unfriendly journalists from a predictable stable. He is the very model of a modern major general parish clergyman (perhaps somebody could think of words which would preserve Gilbert's and Sullivan's alliteration?).

A priest I shall particularly miss is Fr Nominis Obliviscor, whose church I have occasionally attended when visiting family. His parish, he proudly proclaims, is "A Vatican II Parish". So, when in his congregation, I have been careful to memorise the various markers of this arcane culture in case I ever need to practise within that unfamiliar idiom. For example: it is, I have noticed under his tutelage, "Vatican II" to involve the laity in reciting parts of the Eucharistic Prayer (employing the ecphonesis "All together now"). And never to preach on Sundays in August. (If anybody ever publishes an Anglican-style Church Directory for Catholics, I suppose the abbreviation NSA could stand for 'No Sermons in August'.)

The hostility of the enlightened Fathers of Vatican II to the reactionary, pre-Conciliar, sin-obsessed, obscurantist, rigid, formalistic, medieval, and thoroughly disgusting practice of preaching in August is something which, I feel, deserves to be much more widely known. I wonder if Fr Obliviscor will immediately set about converting his new cura into 'a Vatican II Parish'. The English Catholic Church would be that bit poorer without his particular eccentricities.

Back in the days of the Church of England, cuius animae propitietur Deus, it was not unknown for parishioners (especially unmarried ladies) to sell their properties and to buy new homes in a parish to which a priest whom they favoured was himself moving. They naturally wished to continue to enjoy things like "Western Rite" and "Full Catholic Privileges". I wonder if Zoopla will notice a spike in business during the first half of September.

30 August 2014

Autumn, and Mortality (NOT FOR ANTIPODEANS)

Oh dear! Today, the ORDO says "INCIPIT PARS AUTUMNALIS BREVIARII". (I recall that back in the fifties, when as a schoolboy I took up the use of a diurnale Romanum, some ORDOs were a bit more chatty about it: "Seposita parte aestiva Breviarii Romani, sumitur pars Autumnalis")***. Will this last summer prove indeed to have been the last summer of my life? Four times a year, one is reminded of one's mortality in the dry, deadpan, matter-of-fact, sort of way that rubricians do have. I find it far more chilling than revivalist sermons or even the warnings of the great Father Zed about imminent asteroids.

Mind you, things could have been worse. Summer could have been even shorter. The great John Grandisson, Bishop of Exeter in the fourteenth century, notes on August 21 **Estas finitur. Autumpnus oritur. Incidentally, he also reminds us on September 5 that Dies caniculares finiuntur. How interesting. This is just the sort of information last-year seminarians should be given when they are being prepared to hear confessions. For you will remember the sage warning of Hesiod, that during the Dog Days women are at their most lustful (makhlotatai) while men are at their most feak and weeble (aphaurotatoi) because Sirius parches the head and knees.

Thinking along very much the same lines, the Use of Sarum has an interesting piece of doggerel advice for August. Quisque sub augusto vivat medicamine iusto. Raro dormitet **estum coitum quoque* vitet. Balnea non curet nec multa comestio duret. Nemo laxari debet vel phlebotomari. Quite uncanny, isn't it, in its proleptic description, and condemnation, of the modern popular package holiday: going somewhere hot; sunbathing; hopping in and out of the pool; overeating and overdrinking; pursuing venerem et scortilla. Hesiod, likewise, goes on for several lines about hezomenos en skiei and eating boos hulophagoio kreas ... stirring up in me exquisite memories of lunches in Gardone this summer, sitting in the shade with a plate of vitello tonnato.
* I assume this should be punctuated estum, coitum quoque, vitet.
** In medieval Latin, ae is pronounced and written e.
*** Reminders to clerics to put aside the Summer Volume of the Breviary and to get out the Autumn Volume.

29 August 2014


I reprint this piece from June (with its thread) because of its relevance to the Feast today of the Decollation of my Patron S John Baptist. 

I am moved by the great fear that many traddies have of the slightest change to the Missal of 1962. Truly, people have been wounded. But:
(1) S John Baptist, whom we celebrate today, is at least as great a Saint as S Joseph. One could even argue that, in popular devotion, recent centuries have seen S John Baptist overshadowed in the Western Church by S Joseph. Now ... if it was OK to give S Joseph a preface in 1919, why would it be completely beyond the pale for S John Baptist to be given a Preface in 2019?
(2) In fact, this has been done already. There already is a "Gallican" preface for S John Baptist, authorised before 1962. In the SSPX French language ORDO, it is marked as ad libitum. Are those who oppose any change to '1962' arguing that somebody should go round and tear this preface out of all the SSPX missals?
(3) Why, in any case, is '1962' so sacrosanct? It is at least arguable that the 'Conciliar period' began with the election of Pius XII, who commissioned Annibale Bugnini and others to effect the extremely radical 'reforms' which came on stream in the 1950s. And feasts galore of our Lady were added in that Pontificate on impulse, rather as if a child were randomly playing with a rubix cube. Before Pius XII, for example, May 31 was in very many places the Feast of our Lady Mediatrix of All Graces; a fine and edifying Mass which would benefit us all by being brought back and made universal. This feast was displaced by our Lady, Queen ... which would be very suitably observed on the Octave of the Assumption ... etc etc..
(4) After S Pius V promulgated his recension of the Roman Missal, in every generation the feasts of 'new' Saints were added to the Calendar and the Sanctorale. Every pontiff did it. Just have a look at any pre-1962 Altar Missal preserved in any Sacristy throughout the world: you'll discover the 'new' masses glued in by the parish priest as they arrived hot off the press from Rome. Glue was an essential liturgical accessory in the pre-Conciliar period. The fact that no addition has been made since 1962 is thus, in itself, paradoxically, very profoundly untraditional. This does not mean, by the way, that every saint canonised was promptly added to the Universal Calendar. Quite the contrary. Accretions were gradual and cautious.

I feel that informed traddies do have a duty gently and sensitively to educate the more fearful. Complete, rigid, preservation of the very unsatisfactory Missal of 1962 is far from ideal. It would be best for a representative commission to take the status quo of 1939 as its starting point and then, very very gently, discern the sort of extremely light and gradual and organic developments which could have occurred if Pius XII had not ushered in an era of violent 'reform'.

28 August 2014

Pignus futurorum bonorum ...

Rorate has a nice little video of an SSPX clergyman saying Mass in S Peter's in Rome; a votive of our Lady ... in red vestments ...... presumably because, when he said it on August 9, the sacristy had red vestments laid out for S Edith Stein, and Father didn't want to put the Sacristy to the trouble of finding vestments of the right colour ... I'm sure this is the way ahead!

27 August 2014

Francesco de Zurburan

... died 350 years ago today, and the always admirable Rorate blog has a good piece with two videos. I add:

(1) Z featured in the Sacred made real exhibition at the National Gallery in London 2009/10. So if you went to that and were wise enough to buy the Catalogue, today is a day to fish it out and revisit Z.
(2) That exhibition emphasised the significance of Z's early work as one who painted polychromatic wood-carvings.
(3) One of the videos provided by Rorate shows an American Art Historian talking about Z. What she ... like most Art Historians ... fails to understand or to know is that the Man from Nazareth is God. They refer to Him ... usually reverently ... as the [Most High] Son of God; but without realising the Truth of Nicea. This means they miss (for example) the point of S Gabriel kneeling before the Annunciate Virgin ... because what is in her womb is God.

Sub Conditione (1)

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church that certain Sacraments leave a mark (character) upon the soul which can never be erased  ... or duplicated. An apostate may renounce their baptism with all the formality they can devise .... but they are still baptised and, if they repent, will be absolved but never rebaptised. A disgraced priest may be laicised and forbidden even to dress as a priest, but he is still a priest and, in extreme circumstances, may absolve the dying. (Confirmation is the third such Sacrament.)

But what if there is some doubt about the validity of a Sacrament? That doubt needs to be removed; but simply to repeat the Sacrament would be sacrilege if the original administration of that Sacrament was, after all, valid. So the Sacrament is administered sub conditione; Si non es baptizatus, ego te baptizo etc..

I believe there are two areas where Conditional Administration ought to be part of the Church's normal practice. The first regards the baptism of converts. In a less ecumenical age, converts were always conditionally baptised in England in case their baptisms had not been adequately carried out in another ecclesial body. But nowadays, since there is no doubt that Anglican baptism, according to the rites authorised in the Church of England, is certainly valid, current Catholic praxis rightly accepts it.

But these assumptions are no longer safe. We hear of fashionable Anglican churches with fashionable, indeed episcopable, clergy where, contrary to the rules of the Church of England, baptism is invalidly done in the name of Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier. It is probable that such aberrations will become more, not less, common (indeed, an Australian Catholic parish proved to have been doing exactly the same). The baptismal register of such churches will not record that this illegal and invalid formula was employed. Baptismal certificates may then subsequently be issued certifying that N or M was baptised "according to the rites of the Church of England", when this will be untrue.

Former Anglicans need no 'rebaptism' when there is evidence that the Sacrament was validly administered in accordance with the rites and ceremonies authorised in the Church of England. But I believe that a mere certificate of baptism is no longer adequate proof of this, and that when this is the only evidence provided, Baptism should be administered to a convert conditionally.

A safe rule of thumb would be to apply this praxis to Anglican baptisms done later than, say, 2000. Or 1990?

26 August 2014

Cardinal Hume

People criticised me for recently describing Cardinal Basil Hume as 'admirable'. They tell me that he was responsible for a collapse in English Catholicism. To which I would reply that post hoc ergo propter hoc is a flawed logical assumption. As well as a massively simplistic way of doing history.

I rather admired him and certainly found him easy to respect, as well as downright lovable. But I do think it can be argued that, faced with bullies, he lacked gumption. Two examples of which I had knowledge.

One Thursday, in Archbishop's House in the 1990s (how many readers remember those Irish Country Dancing Classes?), vested in his elderly black cardigan, he revealed to the assembled Anglican clergy that the Anglican episcopate had requested that, when Anglican clergy had entered the priesthood of the English Catholic Church, they should renounce their Church of England pension entitlements. A noisy rumble of anger echoed round the room. Basil looked awkward. "You would not be prepared to do this?", he nervously enquired. There was an even louder, even angrier, rumble. "Very well", he said. He did not look to me like a man who relished carrying this negative answer back to his Ecumenical Partners in Dialogue.

Not only his Anglican episcopal 'friends', but also his fellow Catholic bishops, were prepared to bully him. His first reaction to the attempt in the mid1990s to find a corporate solution for Anglican Catholics was to say "Perhaps this is the Conversion of England for which we have always prayed". First thoughts are so very often the best thoughts! But it wasn't long before this grace-filled openness to a movement of the Spirit was knocked out of him by some of his colleagues, and replaced by their cautious and hostile negativity. This, of course, is why Benedict XVI, when the same question arrived on his desk fifteen years later, decided to play his cards rather close to his chest. Cuius laus in aeternum manebit!

Basil Hume was kind and gentle and holy, a true Father Abbot. There must be thousands whom he helped to find their way to the Lord Jesus. May he rest in peace.

25 August 2014

More on the Formation of the Clergy

In Veterum sapientia, which S John XXIII signed on the High Altar of S Peter's in the presence of the body of Cardinals, that great Saint had insisted that the Latin language must remain central to the culture of Western Christianity. That Letter is not primarily about the language of worship; it desires Latin to remain a living vernacular for the clergy and not least for their formation; and it is explicitly based upon the belief that, by being latinate, a clerisy will have access to a continuity of culture. As C S Lewis's Devil Screwtape confessed, "Since we cannot deceive the whole human race all the time, it is most important thus to cut every generation off from all others; for where learning makes a free commerce between the ages there is always the danger that the characteristic errors of one may be corrected by the characteristic truths of another". Both in secular culture and within the Church, there is a risk that the educated class will be cut off and imprisoned in the narrow confines of a particular culture - victims of its particular Zeitgeist. A literate clerisy is one that reads what other ages wrote, which means that it will at least be able to read Latin; and the sign of such a clerisy, in practical terms, will be that it can with ease read its Divine Office in Latin.

It is in this context that we must see the requirement of Vatican II (SC 101): "In accordance with the centuries-old tradition [saecularis traditio] of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in reciting the Divine Office". And it is highly significant that it goes on to make any use of the vernacular an exception which bishops can grant only on an individual basis. One might plausibly surmise that this exception may have been envisaged as useful in areas where resources for clerical formation were limited. I wonder how the Council Fathers - or a sizable proportion of them - might have reacted to the information that in less than a decade the bishops of Western Old Europe (whose culture both religious and secular had been based upon Latin for nearly two millennia, the continent of the great universities in which the civilisation of the Greek and Roman worlds had been transmitted) would regard both this conciliar mandate, and the directions of Optatam totius on seminary training, as an irrelevant dead letter.

Readers of this blog are probably familiar with the other prescriptions of Vatican II for the retention of Latin, and I will not labour the point. I emphasise that I am not basing an argument for the retention of a living Latin culture simply and nakedly upon the words of the Council. The auctoritas for that retention is very much more broadly based, as the Council Fathers themselves emphasised by calling it a saecularis traditio. The concilar mandate is merely an affirmation of the continuity and abiding prescriptiveness of that Tradition; the guarantee that in an age of revolutions the old securities are still in place. Without these words of the Council, it might have been plausibly argued that a radical cultural and intellectual shift had invalidated the previous assumptions. In view of the explicit orders of the Council, such a thesis can only be advanced as a deliberate repudiation of the explicit words of the Council ... as well as of the centuries preceding it. 

Recently, one of our English Catholic archbishops, in an engagingly matter-of-fact sort of way, explained why he would not require all his clergy to learn how to celebrate the Vetus Ordo. Among other (very understandable) reasons, he also gave this one: "You have to be practical as well. There is the Latin to learn ...". Really? What an interesting cat to let out of the bag! So, despite Canon 249, the clergy have not learned Latin as part of their seminary formation? One can hardly blame the present generation of English bishops for a problem which may have arisen more than half a century ago. But it is a problem which has not, I gather, entirely gone away. Surely the bishops have some say about the syllabuses taught in seminaries? Surely they have some responsibility for the formation of their own clergy? Are they happy that seminaries are run in a way which pays only very selective regard to the Magisterium of S John XXIII, so recently canonised, and of the Second Vatican Council (vide Optatam totius 13, on the role of Latin in seminary education)?

The admirable Cardinal Basil Hume, back in the 1990s, reminded Anglican enquirers (and the reminder rather upset some of us because we knew it already) that Catholicism was table d'hote, not a la carte. Surely this gives an ex-Anglican some right to wonder whether this principle applies also to those who run or supervise seminaries?

24 August 2014

S Bartholomew?? He could Mutually Enrich you

Those of you who keep by you for your enlightenment the Saint Lawrence Press Ordo Recitandi Officii Divini Sacrique peragendi (an admirable guide to the state of the Roman Rite before the process of reforms initiated by Pius XII got under way) will be aware that today ought to be the Feast of S Bartholomew. The 1962 rules reduced him to a Commemoration at Low Mass, and according to the post-Conciliar dispositions, the Apostle rests in complete oblivion for this year. In the Church of England, the observance of these Doubles of the Second Class on Green Sundays was never abolished; under Common Worship the festal option is the first possibility listed, although transference to Monday (or even a more convenient feria ... but never complete suppression) is sanctioned. Catholics who are enthusiastic ecumenical admirers of all things Anglican will be impressed by this. It is what is known as Mutual Enrichment.

There was a time when the Roman Calendar was encrusted with commemorations linked to a particular Sunday in a particular month (and comparatively minor festivals could displace a Sunday). This meant that the old 'green' propers from the ancient Roman Sacramentaries continued to be printed but were very rarely heard. Adrian Fortescue wrote "The liturgical student cannot but regret that we so seldom use the old offices which are the most characteristic, the most Roman in our rite, of which many go back to the Gelasian or even Leonine book. And merely from the aesthetic point of view there can be no doubt that the old propers are more beautiful than modern compositions ... We obey the authority of the Church, of course, always. But it is not forbidden to hope for such a pope again as Benedict XIV who will give us back more of our old Roman Calendar."

In a footnote Fortescue added: "Since this was written the hope has already been in great part fulfilled [by S Pius X in 1911]". It is difficult not to point out that Fortescue's fulfilled hope was to be rubbished only seventy years later when the post-Conciliar reforms again robbed priest and people of "the old offices ... the most Roman in our rite". And it is difficult not thus to adapt his words: "It is not forbidden to hope for such a pope as Benedict XIV or Benedict XVI who will give us back our old Roman propers."

I agree with Fortescue's judgement. I would not wish to see, in the Vetus Ordo, the old 'green' propers submerged again. But there is a great deal to be said for the arrangements left in place by S Pius X, whereby Doubles of the Second Class do supersede a Green Sunday. This means that Sundays-only worshippers would, once every six years, be exposed to these festivals. Would that really be such a terrible thing? Many of them are, of course, Days of Devotion; that is to say, days which were originally of obligation but which have had the obligation suppressed (Common Worship includes a broadly identical list  of "Festivals which are not usually displaced"). The Novus Ordo lists many of them, including S Bartholomew, as days on which the Roman Canon, the First Eucharistic Prayer, should for preference be used.

A final footnote. According to the pre-1939 rules, the Sunday Mass would not be entirely lost when S Bartholomew got his once-every-six-years showing. It would be commemorated by having its Collect, Secret (=Prayer over the Offerings) and Post-communion, read after those of the Sunday. And the Sunday Gospel would be read in place of the "Last Gospel" from S John at the end of Mass.

23 August 2014

Do Moslems and Christians worship the same God? The Council says ...

The Conciliar decree Lumen gentium does not say that Moslems have the faith of Abraham; it calls them fidem Abrahae se tenere profitentes ['they claim to ...']. Which is certainly true; Ibrahim is a very common Islamic name. The Conciliar text (signed, incidentally, by Archbishop Lefebvre) then does indeed go on to say that nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, misericordem, homines die novissimo iudicaturum. I take this to be an indication of an overlap between the attributes of the Gods of Islam and Christianity. Nostra aetate (3) I take to be engaging in this same process of analysis. If the Council had wished to make and impose a formal doctrinal statement of the identity of the God whom Christians worship, and the object of the Islamic cult, I presume that it would have needed to so clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously. The Ecclesia docens has never left her dogmata definitive tenenda lurking in a clause within a statement uttered obiterDeum cui Musulmani* cultum exhibent haec Sacrosancta Oecumenica Synodus sollemniter profitetur eundem esse quem Ecclesia Catholica adorat. Something similar to this would have needed to be said. The Conciliar Fathers could not, of course, say anything remotely like that, because we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, which Moslems fiercely deny as blasphemous. By identifying common features of predication the Council implicitly assumes recognition of features of non-identity.

The Council, addressing the circumstances of its time, looked optimistically at what Islam and the true Faith could be said to hold in common. A different context could be said to require a different emphasis: of what radically divides two such different religions. This does not imply that the Council was wrong to say what it said, when it said it.
*Musulmani in Lumen gentium; they have metamorphosed into Muslimi in Nostra aetate.

I am reprinting a relevant earlier piece of mine.

"They have uncrowned Him" (2) False Religions?

I here reprint a piece from last March, because the topic it deals with ... Do Christians and Moslems worship the same God? ... seems to be topical. I was reviewing a volume by Archbishop Lefebvre.
Continuing to consider this book, from my own background in Catholic Anglicanism, I discern in it quite a whiff of that admirable Anglican Ulsterman, C S Lewis. Not that Archbishop Lefebvre, I am sure, will have read him; but because Christian thinkers often, laudably, converge. Take a particular tricky theological problem: explaining how souls rooted in a false religion may find their way to God, without asserting - or leading others to think you mean - that all religions are more or less as good as each other: 'syncretism' or 'indifferentism'. Mgr Lefebvre writes " ... in the false religions, certain souls can be oriented towards God; but this is because they do not attach themselves to the errors of their religion! It is not through their religion that these souls turn towards God, but in spite of it! Therefore, the respect that is owed to these souls would not imply that respect is owed to their religion". And: " ... these religions [he has just mentioned Islam and Hinduism] can keep some sound elements, signs of natural religion, natural occasions for salvation; even preserve some remainders of the primitive revelation (God, the fall, a salvation), hidden supernatural values which the grace of God could use in order to kindle in some people the flame of a dawning faith. But none of these values belongs in its own right to these false religions ... The wholesome elements that can subsist still belong by right to the sole true religion, that of the Catholic Church; and it is this one alone that can act through them"*.

I think this is admirably expressed, and it reminds me strongly of the penultimate chapter in Lewis's The Last Battle. A young Calormene, brought up in the worship of the false god Tash, meets the Lion Aslan, the Christ-figure in Lewis's rich narrative. "Then I fell at his feet and thought, Surely this is the hour of death, for the Lion (who is worthy of all honour) will know that I have served Tash all my days, and not him. ... But the Glorious One bent down his golden head and touched my forehead with his tongue and said, Son, thou art welcome. But I said, Alas, Lord, I am no son of thine but the servant of Tash. He answered, Child, all the service thou hast done to Tash, I account as service done to me. Then by reason of my great desire for wisdom and understanding, I overcame my fear and questioned the Glorious One and said, Lord, is it then true ... that thou and Tash art one? The Lion growled so that the earth shook (but his wrath was not against me) and said, It is false. Not because he and I are one, but because we are opposites, I take to me the services which thou hast done to him. For I and he are of such different kinds that no service which is vile can be done to me, and none which is not vile can be done to him. ... Dost thou understand, Child? I said, Lord, thou knowest how much I understand. But I also said (for the truth constrained me), Yet I have been seeking Tash all my days. Beloved, said the Glorious One, unless thy desire had been for me thou wouldst not have sought so long and so truly. For all find what they truly seek".

Whatever in the cult of Tash predisposed the young man to seek the Glorious One still belongs by right to the sole true religion, that of the Catholic Church; it does not belong of right to the cult of Tash. It is not through what is proper to the cult of Tash that he comes to Christ: that is to say, through its errors, but in spite of it. Because Tash and Aslan are opposites.

I add here (August 23) that Nostra aetate  does not say that we respect the Moslem religion; but Moslems. (Ecclesia cum aestimatione quoque Muslimos respicit.) When S John Paul II kissed a Quran which had been given to him, he was, manifestly, showing respect and affection for the donatio and the donantes, not for the donum. 

To continue.
*I think it is clear that Mgr Lefebvre is has here in mind the teaching of Unitatis redintegratio para 4. " ... haec omnia, quae a Christo proveniunt et ad Ipsum conducunt, ad unicam Christi Ecclesiam iure pertinent"  where iure was added to the text on the orders of Pope Paul VI.