They Think They've Won! - Series

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

They Think They've Won! - Series Mar 14, 2018 16:48:05 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2018 16:48:05 GMT

They Think They've Won!
Part I

SiSiNoNo
August 1993 - No. 3

Pope St. Pius X described Modernism as the synthesis of all heresies. From the beginning of this century, it grew and infected many of the clergy and laity. It teaches that our knowledge of God cannot be certain and that faith comes out of man's need of a God. From these principles, Modernism sets out to destroy dogmas and divine revelation. It seeks to reduce Christ to mere human dimensions, and makes divine inspiration a common gift to all of mankind. This modernism, the coming together of all heresies, is now the “official theology of Vatican II.”

PART ONE: THE APPARENT VICTORY OF MODERNISM EXPOSED AND DENOUNCED BY ST. PIUS X

St. Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi (1907) denounced those modernist "partisans of error" who concealed themselves "in the very womb and heart of the Church" insidiously spreading destruction "from within the Church itself...So that the danger today lies in the very heart and veins of the Church."

This same saint added the pain of excommunication against anyone contradicting the encyclical Pascendi or the decree Lamentabili, which exposed and condemned Modernism.

He also insisted that all bishops and religious superiors be on their guard against modernist infiltration, to carefully screen those chosen as seminary professors, as well as prospective seminarians and priests, saying:

"If any [priest] be found tainted with modernist errors...let them be absolutely forbidden from teaching anything whatsoever. Also any seminarian in any way even suspected of attachment to these condemned modernist novelties and doctrines, must be refused all access to Holy Orders" (Motu Proprio, November 18, 1907).

Pope St. Pius X knew that the modernists sought out followers in seminaries and religious houses, where the future of the Church was formed. In order to do this, they secretly organized themselves into hidden sects.

DENOUNCED BY THE GREAT THEOLOGIAN FR. GARRIGOU-LAGRANGE, O.P.

In 1946, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange wrote a brilliant article entitled: "Where is the New Theology Leading Us To?" To Modernism, he replied. He then proceeded to denounce this work of doctrinal corruption, saying that: "Typed sheets have been distributed among the clergy, seminarians and Catholic intellectuals, containing strange doctrinal assertions and negations." Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange quoted, at length, many parts of those secret sheets - a preview of all the heretical novelties that would emerge in this post-Vatican II era. One example will be sufficient:

"A general convergence of all religions to a universal Christ, which will satisfy them all. This seems to me to be the only possible imaginable conversion for a Religion of the future."

This is the very essence of today's ecumenism, which seeks to bring together all religions, in a Christ separated from His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.

THE CONFIRMATION

Confirmation of this treachery comes to us today, from the very lips of those representing this New Theology. A mouthpiece of theirs is the journal Communio and in an article of November-December, 1990, the Jesuit Fr. Peter Henrici (born 1928) tells us that:

a) In Jesuit seminaries, contrary to papal instructions, the doctrine, method and principles of St. Thomas Aquinas were openly scorned and held in contempt. Henrici assures us that "the official scholastic studies of St. Thomas were merely thumbed through."

b) Behind that facade of official studies, modernist texts and tracts were secretly circulated to the most brilliant and promising seminarians. Those same modernist concepts, secretly passed around, would later reappear as the New Theology. Those who showed interest and promise in theology, would be given the modernist Fr. Henri de Lubac's book: The Supernatural - the most forbidden of forbidden books! Then they would receive another of his books, Corpus Mysticum. This was done to inculcate them with the principle that identical theological terms could have different meanings with the passage of time or when looked at in another context. Thus we say goodbye to unchanging divine and apostolic Tradition! Goodbye to the homogenous development of dogma! Goodbye to unchangeable truths!

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange was right in saying the novelty of this New Theology would deprive the Church of its sound Tradition. Today, the ideas and assumptions of that novelty, make up the premises of the New Tradition, which, though it is living, is no longer coherent.

These treacherous modernist theologians, then condemned, were later rewarded at Vatican II. The aggiornamento (updating) spirit of Vatican II placed the Conciliar Fathers in a position where they had to rely upon the preparatory work done by theologians prior to the Council. In other words, those Vatican II bishops who succumbed to the siren song of the aggiornamento ended up having to rely upon the works of those who had concocted and cultivated a New Theology in direct opposition to Catholic theology.

A great number of these Conciliar Fathers did not know or understand the New Theology. It had been cultivated in secrecy, in closed circles. It was hidden behind traditional sounding terms. The Fathers, ignorant of these facts, gave this often traditional-sounding, New Theology a kind of ecclesiastical orthodoxy and acceptability.

A VETERAN’S TESTIMONY

Similar expressions of modernist triumphalism are found in the work of Fr. Henri Bouillard, S.J. - a veteran of the New Theology. On the occasion of the inauguration of a center known as the Maurice Blondel Archives at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium, Bouillard stresses the influence of Blondel's philosophy on the New Theology: "Blondel's thoughts and ideas have, in their essential theses, progressively won the day." The orthodox teachings, brushed aside and dismissed by Blondel are "no longer valid today."

THE COUNCIL – VATICAN II

For Bouillard, the most conclusive and positive proof of the modernist victory is Vatican II, where "they abandoned the concept of looking at the natural and supernatural orders as two superimposed things neither having any kind of internal link with the other. It is interesting to note that, in none of Vatican II's major documents, will you find the use of the word, supernatural. Bouillard's affirmation is only too true, being well documented and easily proved by the official documents of Vatican II. Under the influence of Modernism, it has deliberately and studiously avoided in its most important documents (especially those dealing with ecumenism) the use of the word, supernatural. Thus its major documents implicitly approve naturalism, which is the essence of Modernism. This naturalism has also proved itself the basis of Blondel's philosophy and of De Lubac's theology.

So, we must ask ourselves today, what is being substantially proposed to us as Catholics in the name of Vatican II? The answer is that same New Theology officially condemned by Pope Pius XII. What lies hidden beneath this billboard? Nothing else but that same modernism condemned by Pius X and which leads to a radical denial of the existence of divine revelation, the divinity of Our Lord and the divine origin of the Catholic Church.

THE WINNERS

Still more recently, in 30 Days (December 1991), we find the same Fr. Henrici saying:

a) that the New Theology condemned by Pope Pius XII in the Encyclical Humani Generis, has now "become the official theology of Vatican II."

b) that the key positions in the Church are already in the hands of the actual representatives of the New Theology, whose mouthpiece is the journal Communio: "Nearly all of the theologians who have been named bishops in recent years, have come up through the Communio line. Their names form a list of important persons destined for the top careers: the Germans, Lehman and Kasper, the Swiss, Von Schonborn and Corecco; the Italian, Scola; the Belgian, Leonard and the Brazilian, Romer.” The Jesuit professor at the Gregorian University, Peter Henrici, slyly laments: "The founding members, Balthasar, De Lubac and Ratzinger, have all become cardinals. Many of the second generation have been chosen as bishops."

He also adds such important names as that of "the Dominican theologian in the Papal residence, Georges Cottier; also Jean Duschesne, press agent for Cardinal Lustiger; the Hegelian André Léonard, Bishop of Namur" who has charge of St. Paul's Seminary, the place where Cardinal Lustiger sends his seminarians. According to 30 Days: "These are the ones (they say!) who have won."

THE BREAK

Similar cries of triumph and indirect confessions of treachery are found in post-Vatican II era, Neo-modernist literature:

A book by Fr. René Latourelle, SJ. entitled Vatican II-1962-87: Results & Views 25 Years Later, was in fact "produced by the Jesuit Universities in Rome." (from the Italian magazine Avvenire). The book has 68 contributors from 20 countries (all, but two, are Jesuits) clearly illustrating the triumph of this New Theology and the favor lavished upon it by Pope Paul VI. One of these contributors, Fr. Martini SJ., says:

"Though it's not quite a case of excommunications being followed by canonizations, nevertheless some notorious theologians who were reprimanded prior to Vatican II, later found themselves playing a major role amidst Vatican II experts, and thus had a great influence in the formulation of Vatican II decrees. In 1950, some of their books were officially removed from library shelves. After the Council, these same authors were named cardinals (De Lubac and Danielou)."

Thus do we see the Encyclical Humani Generis, of Pope Pius XII, quickly being repudiated and disowned by another Pope. Those who had always faithfully adhered to Rome's directives, now wondered to whom they owed obedience: to the Pope of yesterday who was in full agreement with his predecessors, or the present Pope, who had evidently broken with the constant and traditional direction of the Church.

More recently, on the anniversary of De Lubac's death, the Vatican newspaper L 'Osservatore Romano (September 1992) devoted an entire page to Cardinal De Lubac and “the great theses of a precursor of Vatican II.” In it we read:

"Our thoughts turn to Blondel, Gilson, Mounier, Maritain, De Lubac, Chenv and many others, who prepared the philosophical and theological positions which later emerged in many themes of Vatican II."

Therefore, we must admit that the New Theology, officially condemned by Pope Pius XII, as being nothing but a heap of "false opinions, which threaten to overthrow the very foundations of Catholic doctrine," has now become "the official theology of Vatican II" (Fr. Henrici).

This open Neo-modernist war against the Church is a grave reality, especially since it is waged by persons occupying such high positions in the Church. The reason why we are exposing the current situation in such detail is to shake people out of their indifference or numbness, and to put them on their guard against this very real danger threatening their souls.

It is nothing less than that long-standing "often passive, but nevertheless real resistance" of the bishops themselves, which paved the way for the present crisis in the Church, a crisis that is simply the triumph of Modernism in the Catholic Church. Therefore, it is necessary to know a little more about those who think they have won and just what it is that they are after. They think that they have won the day simply because they do not believe in the words of Jesus Christ "And I say to thee: that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it! (Matt 16:18)"

PART 2: TRUE AND FALSE RESTORATION

(Translator’s note)

MAGISTERIUM: The Church’s divinely appointed authority to infallibly teach the truths of Religion, “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. (Matt. 28:19-20)”

MAGISTERIUM SCORNED

“The Church insists that its future priests be formed in the philosophical disciplines 'according to the method, doctrine and principles of the Angelic Doctor’ (St. Thomas Aquinas). The reason being that experience over many centuries has proven (to the Church) that the method of St. Thomas Aquinas, whether informing young minds, or sounding the depths of the deepest truths, stands high above all others by its singular merits; his doctrine is in complete harmony with Divine Revelation and in perfect accord; it is particularly useful and efficient in laying, in all safety, the foundations of Faith, as well as in reaping, in a sure and useful manner, the fruits of true progress.” - Pope Pius XII, Humani generis

Those who think themselves to be “winners” are those neo-modernist faithful (if we can use this expression) to the line of the founding fathers of the “New Theology,” and particularly to the (tortuous, involved and obscure) line drawn by the Jesuit Henri de Lubac and that of the ex-Jesuit Hans Urs von Balthasar. "The representatives of the New Theology are celebrated as if they constituted the cornerstone of the Church" rightly recorded the famous thinker and writer Dom Jules Meinvielle.

But before presenting you with these "holy fathers" of the post-Conciliar Catholic world, it would be most opportune and useful to briefly illustrate the very essence of the "new theology."

THE SIMPLE PRINCIPLE OF A COMPLEX HERESY

The German priest and theologian Johannes Dörmann, in his best book The Strange Theology of John Paul II and the Spirit of Assisi writes:

"The 'New Theology,' although many-sided and varied, is really quite simple in its principle, and that is why its multiple forms can be grouped together under the same title. Its different forms ALL HAVE ONE THING IN COMMON: THEIR STUDIED REJECTION OF TRADITIONAL THEOLOGY. (p.55)"

The author then provides us with a concise and effective explanation of what is meant by the "rejection of Traditional theology," referring to the last Council which deemed it necessary to abandon the Church's scholastic language or terminology for "pastoral" motives:

"The chief theologians (who were actually directing the Council) saw very clearly that in this question of scholastic language, both theology as well as the Faith itself were at stake. For scholastic terminology was indissolubly linked to scholastic philosophy which itself is linked to scholastic theology which is, in its turn, closely knit to the Dogmatic Tradition of the Church." (p.52)

And consequently, this abandoning of scholastic language would end up, in the last analysis, in saying farewell to the Divine and Apostolic Tradition so faithfully kept and guarded by the Church.

"This rejection or abandonment of the 'language of the Scholastic school' by the Council Fathers (Dörmann writes) constituted for them (those theologians directing the Council) the SINE QUA NON or indispensable condition which would assure a complete rupture from traditional dogmatic teachings, in order to set the 'New Theology' in place after having ceased using 'the previous traditional theology' and discarding it once and for all. (p.53)"

SHEER UTOPIANISM

And just what was the motivation of this dumping of Traditional theology? ...They were motivated by "this simple and seductive idea: a 'New Theology' consonant with modern, scientific characteristics, as well as with the modern image of the world and history. (p.55)"

In other words they were motivated by the old and constantly recurring Utopia of the Church being reconciled with the modern world, that is with modern philosophical thought, and with which Pope Pius IX (Syllabus, Proposition 80) declared that the Church cannot and must not reconcile itself, seeing its essentially anti-Christian character and outlook:

"(Modern) men are, in general, strangers to truth and supernatural benefits and graces, thinking as they do to be able to satisfy themselves exclusively by human reason and in the natural order of things as they (vainly) expect to reach in them their own perfection as together with their own happiness" (Vatican I, preparatory outline of Catholic Doctrine).

"For those partisans of the 'new theology' (Dörmann continues), the slogan, 'aggiornamento' simply meant a resolute opening-up on the part of the Church to modern thought (which is totally alien to Truth as well as supernatural treasures and values) in order to end up with a completely new and different theology from which would be born a new secularized Church, adapted to its modern time. (p.54)"

This is nothing but modernist Utopianism. "Where is the new theology taking us? It is taking us in a straight line to modernism," wrote Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. in 1946.

And in fact, digging a little more deeply into the matter, we find beneath the simple principle of the new theology, that same perversion of the notion of truth which serves as the very foundation of modernism: "Truth is no more unchangeable than man himself, for it evolves with him, in him and by him. (Pope Saint Pius X, in his Decree Lamentabili, condemned proposition #58)"

From all this, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P. who, laying aside all pretense at prophesying, simply came to these logical conclusions in 1946 (16 years BEFORE Vatican II):

"And where is this New Theology headed with its new masters from whom they seek to draw their inspiration? Where is it heading if not for the road to skepticism, whims and heresy"? ("La nouvelle theologie. Ou va-t-elle?" In Angelicum #23-1946, p.136)

A BLAMEWORTHY UTOPIA

This attempt to reconcile the Church with the "modern world" cannot be considered an innocent utopia. The Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs, has, over and over again, blocked the way to such moves, particularly Popes Gregory XVI (Mirari Vos, 1832), Pius IX (Syllabus, 1864), Saint Pius X (Pascendi; 1907) and, on the eve of the last Council, Pius XII (Humani Generis, 1950).

In this last encyclical, scorned, disavowed and buried by those very same persona whom it condemned, Pius XII, illustrating the (theological) climate preceding the Council, points out "with anxiety" and clarity the dangers of the "New Theology" which, seeking its basis outside the enduring philosophy, endangers the entire structure of Catholic Dogma. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Pope Pius XII does not hesitate one moment to underline in red the scorn heaped upon the Magisterium, an underlying scorn borne out by its attitude:

29. But reason can perform these functions safely and well, only when properly trained, that is, when imbued with that sound philosophy which has long been, as it were, a patrimony handed down by earlier Christian ages, and which moreover possesses an authority of even higher order, since the teaching authority of the Church, in the light of Divine Revelation itself, has weighed its fundamental tenets, which have been elaborated and defined little by little by men of great genius. For this philosophy, acknowledged and accepted by the Church, safeguards the genuine validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles of sufficient reason, causality and finality, and finally the mind's ability to attain certain and unchangeable truth.

30. Of course this philosophy deals with much that neither directly nor indirectly touches faith or morals, and which consequently the Church leaves to the free discussion of experts. But this does not hold for many other things, especially those principles and fundamental tenets to which we have just referred (validity of human knowledge, the unshakable metaphysical principles, etc...). But never may we overthrow it, or contaminate it with false principles, or regard it as a great, but obsolete, relic. For truth and its philosophic expression cannot change from day to day, least of all where there is question of self-evident principles of the human mind or of those propositions which are supported by the wisdom of the ages and by Divine Revelation.

32. How deplorable it is then that this philosophy, received and honored by the Church, is scorned by some who today call it outmoded in form and rationalistic, as they say, in its method of thought. While scorning our philosophy, they extol other philosophies of all kinds, ancient and modern, oriental and occidental, by which they seem to imply that any kind of philosophy or theory, with a few additions and corrections if need be, can be reconciled with Catholic dogma. No Catholic can doubt how false this is, especially where there is question of those fictitious theories they call immanentism, or idealism, or materialism, whether historic or dialectic, or even existentialism, whether atheistic or simply the type that denies the validity of the reason in the field of metaphysics.

34. It would indeed be unnecessary to deplore these aberrations from the truth, if all even in the field of philosophy, directed their attention with the proper reverence to the teaching authority of the Church, which by divine institution has the mission not only to guard and interpret the deposit of divinely revealed truth, but also to keep watch over the philosophical sciences themselves, in order that Catholic Dogmas may suffer no harm because of erroneous opinions."

Thus do we see confirmed that which we have been repeating for years: we have irrefutable as well as unmistakable proof that although they are members of the Catholic Hierarchy, the neo-modernists have disobeyed and continue to disobey the constant and therefore infallible Magisterium of the Catholic Church and their own "obedience" which they, in turn, seek to impose in their style of new Church, results in the moral obligation of the true and faithful Catholics to disobey the false orders of their new-style Church.

THE BREAK- A number of the exponents of the "New Theology" who are mentioned in this article.

(Top to bottom) Maurice Blondel, Father Alfred Loisy, Cardinal Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Ratzinger

TRUE AND FALSE "RESTORATION"

From what we have just seen, it logically follows that true restoration can only come by traveling along in a reverse direction from the one which led to the rupture or breaking away from the Doctrinal Tradition of the Church: a return to constant and durable philosophy, and therefore to Scholastic Theology, therefore to the Dogmatic tradition of the Church in faithful obedience to the constant directives and teachings of the Magisterium of all the Popes. Those neo-modernists following the modern “line” of de Lubac and of von Balthasar are now posing as “moderates and even as “restorers,” but they categorically refuse to repudiate or renounce their “New Theology” from which – whether they like it or not - arose this crisis which today paralyses the life of the Church.

“Our line” (the one we follow) - declared, sure of himself, Fr. Henrici S.J. to (the review) 30 DAYS (December 1991) – “is the one of the extreme centre. No excessive attention (sic!) to the Magisterium, nor CONTENTION. No right, nor left. Attachment to tradition (which in the language or “Newspeak” of de Lubac and of the “new” theologians, is not - as we will see - the Dogmatic tradition of the Church) in the line of the new theology of Lyon (seat of de Lubac as well as that of the other “founding fathers” (of the new theology), which underscored the non-opposition (i.e. identification) between nature and supernature, between faith and culture, and which has become the official theology of Vatican II.”

“That same ‘New Theology’ Pope Pius XII officially condemned in his Encyclical Humani Generis as simply being a whole heap of “false opinions threatening to lay waste the very foundations of Catholic Doctrine!” It is, therefore, even more imperative to bring to light just what is behind the “moderation” of these neo-modernists of the “extreme centre,” yes, but still modernists just the same.

Hirpinus

Translated from Courrier de Rome, March 1993
[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]

Part II
Part III
Part IV

Last Edit: Mar 14, 2018 16:48:43 GMT by Admin

"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Archbp. Lefebvre 1980

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

They Think They've Won! - Series Mar 14, 2018 17:28:33 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2018 17:28:33 GMT

They Think They've Won!
Part V

SiSiNoNo - April 1994 - No.7

THE MONTINI-DE LUBAC ALLIANCE: PAUL VI AND THE MASTERSTROKE OF SATAN

The "new theology," as our readers who have followed us thus far have been able to discover, is not, as Pirandello would say, something to be taken seriously in itself. On the other hand, what is extremely serious is the fact that in order to force itself upon the Catholic world, it was and still is able to count on the strength of the one who is the successor of Peter in the Church. It is, therefore, of utmost importance to make a careful and close study of "Satan's master-stroke": the putting of the supreme Authority of the very person whose divinely-appointed task it is to defend the Faith, at the service of Modernism, the "synthesis of all heresies" (Saint Pius X).

GIOVANNI BATTISTA MONTINI - "DEVOTEE OF THE NEW THEOLOGY"

In 1970, Father Raymond Dulac wrote,

"It was (often) whispered that Giovanni Battista Montini (who would later become Pope Paul VI) was a keen devotee of the 'Philosophies of Action' which were made popular here through the efforts of Laberthonniere, Blondel and Ed. Le Roy." ("The New Presentation of the Novus Ordo Missae." Courrier de Rome, #74).

These "whispers" have now been confirmed to a large extent by the book Paul VI Secret (ed. Desclee de Brouwer, 1979) in which the author, Jean Guitton, a personal friend of Pope Paul VI, has gathered and published after Pope Montini's death, those intimate notes that he had taken in the course of their friendly chats. The upshot of all these notes was that Montini proved himself to be a breathless, wonder-stricken admirer of the "new theology," and specifically of de Lubac's brand.

On page 110, he says:

"September 8, 1969: the Pope speaks in praise of Fr. de Lubac. He speaks highly of his spirit, as well as of the soundness and vast extent of his research; he is surprised that some people view him as already out of date" [such is the fate awaiting theological innovators].

On page 141, he writes:

"April 28, 1974: The Pope, in my presence, praises today's theologians to the skies. He quotes Manaranche, de Lubac, whom he considers the very best, also citing Congar, Rahner (whom he finds quite confused), as well as Cardinal Journet (whom he judges to be a bit too scholastic)."

This aversion for scholasticism, together with his admiration for the "new theology" was not an unusual state with Montini.

Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, with Pope Pius XII.

A LETTER FROM PlUS XII

At the critical time, when the most bitter of controversies raged in France concerning the orthodoxy of Blondel, he received a letter (as shown) from the Secretariat of State of Pius XII where Monsignor Montini was substitute at the time. This same Blondel was perverting the eternal, unchangeable notion of truth, while bringing down the supernatural to the natural level, and who, while taking up the rule of a "good samaritan," was busy taking care of modern man even while he himself was sinking into the quicksand of "modern philosophy."

Montini to Blondel

The Vatican,
December 2, 1944

Dear Professor,

Your trilogy on Christian Spirit and Philosophy, the first volume of which you have already published, is proving to be a veritable monument of great and beneficial apologetics; and how could the expression of your filial homage to His Holiness [Pius XII] not be pleasing to him? No one can miss the importance of such a subject wherein the relations between Christianity and philosophy, those between Faith and reason, as well as those between the supernatural and natural are studied with such sagacity. Simultaneously, you underscore very well their 'incommensurability’ without however, excluding their 'symbiosis' nor that unique end which no man is legitimately able to elude. This end (of man) constitutes a mystery full of the infinite goodness and mercy of God and which all noble and concerned souls cannot fail to embrace to their own greater intellectual and moral progress as well as to their greater and true happiness.

Your philosophical speculations, therefore, totally respectful as they are of the transcendence of revelation, are fruitfully applied to the entirety of the mysteries of the Faith, making them better known to a generation overly imbibed with the autonomy of reason whose failure is all too evident today. You have done this with as much talent as faith, and with the exception of a few expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be couched in more precise terms, your

speculation can and must bring to cultivated circles a precious contribution to a better understanding and acceptance of the Christian message, which remains the unique path to salvation as much for individual souls as for society itself.

As a matter of fact, today's tortured world is so much in search of truth and the ways leading us the most surely to it! And while we are on the subject, would it not be opportune to recall to mind once again that, even considering it from the sole point of view of philosophy, the speculation, the speculation proceeding from traditional philosophy does really offer to those apparent antinomies found in the universe, positive solutions which are the most suited to satisfy (man's) intelligence, without pretending, of course, to quench a thirst for a greater light? [...] Your intellectual charity, comparable to that of the good samaritan, seeking as it does to take care of wounded humanity while striving to understand it and speaking its own language, will efficiently contribute to replacing it in the inevitable and saving perspectives of its divine vocation.

And so, greatly delighted at the good news regarding your improving state of health, the Holy Father expresses his wishes that you may have the strength required to bring your important work to a successful conclusion, and most cordially gives you His Apostolic Blessing.

Please accept, dear professor, the respectful assurance of my religious devotion.

Giovanni Battista Montini,
Substitute

Acting Secretary, Msgr. Montini

MORE MONTINI THAN PACELLI

Thus, it was that Blondel's work, "with the exception of a few expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be couched in more precise terms" was approved all together and by someone at the highest level in the Vatican, both disarming and silencing most effectively his critics and detractors, who had been severely reproving him in the name of the constant and unchangeable doctrine of the Church.

To Blondel's opponents (de Tonquedoc, Labourdette, Garrigou-Lagrange, etc..) as though the very foundations of the faith were not at stake but merely a theological dispute on points still debatable, this letter gave the little satisfaction of faint praise to traditional philosophy under the timid form of a question and without excluding the possibility of "a greater light." And what of all those rigorously well-researched critical studies on all of those as well as explicit deviations of Blondel's thought? They were all simply thrown into the wastepaper basket in an unbelievably offhand manner.

There was, however, a "but" in all of this. That letter sent to Blondel certainly constituted a kind of recognition sent in the name of Pius XII, but bearing Montini's signature together with that expression of his "religious devotion."

Actually, the content of his letter is more Montinian than Pacellian. Later on, when Pius XII would personally speak on the "new Theology" and the "new philosophy" underlying it in his address to the Fathers of the Society of Jesus (1946) and then again most solemnly in his encyclical Humani generis (1950) (Cf. Courrier de Rome, no.146 of May, 1993). He expressed a judgement completely opposed to the contents of the above letter and did so in an incomparably more logical manner.

Moreover, concerning Montini's evident dishonesty and obvious breach of faith during all those years spent in the papal secretariat of state, there can be no doubt at all due to the stack of concordant and irrefutable testimony available today coming from sources never known to be hostile to him in any way.

PIUS XII's "DISTRUST"

Among those mysteries involving the isolation marking the pontificate of Pius XII, there is the particularly striking case of Montini's hasty dismissal from the Roman Curia. It is known that he was named Archbishop of Milan, but what is very significant is the fact that Pius XII refused to make him a cardinal, although Milan is a cardinalate see. Thus, Pope Pacelli simultaneously removed him from the Secretariat of State and excluded him from the next conclave, making it abundantly clear to his successor, by this tacit refusal of making him a cardinal, that his ousting had been a “promoveatur ut amoveatur” (a promotion-removal) and this for very grave reasons.

Time, however, has begun to lift the veils covering this mystery. In his book, Paul VI Secret, Jean Guitton (an intimate friend of Paul VI), referring to the uproar raised by the memorable encyclical Humanae vitae, writes of Paul VI,

"He is going through a trial similar to the one inflicted on him by Pius XII: the one of diffidentia. In the case of Pius XII, the distrust came from the summit since Pius XII seemed to have lost the trust he had previously placed in him. Paul VI feels that his encyclical Humanae vitae is about to inflict upon him a trial in the reverse order, where the mistrust will be coming no longer from the summit, but from the bottom" (Paul VI Secret p.144).

A Jesuit by the name of Martina, in his book Vatican II - An Appraisal and Prospects, also mentions Pius XII's "distrust" of Montini. On page 29, he refers to

"the eviction of Montini, the 'substitute,' who was 'promoted' Archbishop of Milan, (but) never named cardinal, and never even once received by the Pope (with whom he had previously had daily contacts over a period of several years) in private audience."

MANEUVERS TO THE LEFT

In his turn, in the book, Pius XII in the Eyes of History, Monsignor Roche, a close collaborator of Cardinal Tisserant, reveals a precise motive for Pope Pius XII's "distrust": Montini, the substitute, flying in the face of the Pope's specific orders and (of course!) without his knowledge, had established secret contacts with Stalin in the course of the Second World War.

Pius XII was later informed of this treachery via the good offices of the protestant Archbishop of Upsala, who had received direct evidence to this effect through the Swedish Secret Service. Later on, in 1954, the Holy Father received a secret report from the Archbishop of Riga who had been imprisoned by the Soviets. This message indeed confirmed that "there had been made in his name (the Pope's) contacts with the persecutors by a highly placed personality in the Secretariat of State."

In the wake of Montini's treachery, Monsignor Roche continues,

"his (Pius XII's) grief and bitterness were such that his very health was severely shaken and so he resigned himself to the idea of governing alone the work of external affairs of the Vatican's Secretariat of State" (cf. Courrier de Rome, no.53, October 1984; "The Montini-Stalin agreements of 1942" and Si Si, No No of April 15, 1986, p.5: "An Historical Fact: Msgr. Montini's Treachery").

We can now be quite certain, therefore, that Montini was politically active behind Pius XII's back and these covert activities were favoring the political left in order to achieve those utopian ideals of his youth:

"It is possible to collaborate with the left, but not with the right" (see Frappani-Molinari. Montini Giovane [The Young Montini], ed. Marietti).

Pope Paul VI pledged rapid execution of the "holy deliberations" of the council. "A true Christian," he told Protestant observers, "is a stranger to immobility."

ALSO AGAINST HUMANI GENERIS

It is now unmistakably clear that Montini went behind the back of Pius XII as he set about achieving those philo-modernist and utopian dreams of his youth which had prompted him to associate (and he was the only priest to do so) with Count Gallaratti-Scotti's salon. This was the same Gallaratti-Scotti who represented the essence of modernism in Lombardy and Montini, having become Paul VI, and whose tenth anniversary after death was celebrated in these unmistakable terms by L'Osservatore Romano on July 7, 1976:

"In his (the Count's) last years, a great consolation came to him from the Vatican Council since he felt that all that bitterness of spirit that he had endured in his younger days [coming from all those condemnations of Modernism] had not been suffered in vain; the Church was now well on to its hard and difficult way in which, nevertheless, many things we had been hoping for in the past were now in the process of becoming a living reality."

Now it is Jean Guitton himself who is going to expose Montini, while still Substitute, in the very act of treachery against Pope Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis. In his book, Paul VI Secret, he faithfully transcribed that very same evening, those notes which he had taken down during a chat with Msgr. Montini concerning the great encyclical against neo-modernism, which had just been published.

To Guitton's expressed fear that Humani generis might be interpreted as an obstacle to the "progress of thought," Montini, still Proto-Secretary of State under Pius XII, answers:

"You have doubtlessly noticed for yourself the shades of meaning to be found in this pontifical text. For example, the encyclical never once refers to errors (errores). It speaks only of opinions (opiniones)[as if errors were not also and precisely opinions!]. This indicates that the Holy See does not aim at condemning actual errors, but rather those ways of thinking, which could give, rise to errors, but which in themselves remain respectable.

On the other hand, there are 3 reasons why this encyclical should not be deformed: first, there is the expressed will of the Holy Father. The second reason is the French episcopate's frame of mind, which is so broad-minded and receptive to contemporary currents of thought.

Without doubt, any given episcopate is always liable (for it is in direct contact with souls, since it must be faithful to its mandate, which is a pastoral charge, as they say)...it is liable, I say, to broaden the ways of doctrine and the faith [in this sentence is to found, in embryonic form, the entire 'spirit' of Vatican II's pastoral care]. And, admittedly, it would be justified in doing so. Here is Rome; we also have the duty of watching over the doctrinal aspects (of the Faith). We remain particularly sensitive to everything, which could corrupt the purity of (Catholic) doctrine, which is truth. The Sovereign Pontiff must keep the deposit of the Faith, as St. Paul says. And now for the third reason. It will be short; the French are intelligent."

BETRAYAL

Montini the Substitute's dishonesty proved to be of unequalled gravity. Pius XII, in Humani generis, had condemned the "new theology" in the gravest and most solemn of terms as he had underscored its fatal consequences for the Faith. He had also charged, so as not to be wanting in his "sacred Duty," the bishops and the superiors general of the religious orders, "and binding them most seriously in conscience" to take most seriously "that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or to the faithful." The teachers of Catholic institutes, continued the Pope, "know that they cannot with tranquil conscience exercise the office of teaching entrusted to them, unless in the instruction of their students they religiously accept and exactly observe the norms which we have ordained."

And there we have, barely a stone's throwaway from the Pope, in the very bosom of the Secretariat of State, Montini unscrupulously declaring that these errors condemned by Pope Pius XII were, on the contrary, "respectable" opinions. Indeed, he was actually promoting them by confidentially assuring people that such was the "formal will" of Pius XII himself.

Montini claimed that he [Pius XII] had drafted Humani generis alone and in spite of himself. Given the weighty task of authority, he could not allow himself to do otherwise (a typically modernist theory of authority, to which we will presently return), but also claimed that Rome trusted in the French episcopate's "broad-mindedness" which would favor the widening of the "ways of doctrine and of the faith" and - with one last wink - he, Montini, was fully aware that the French were "intelligent," and... a word to the wise is enough! And so, thus it was that as Pius XII slammed the doors to neo-modernism, Montini, his Substitute in the Secretariat of State, was busy opening them again behind his back.

Yet, once again betrayal was standing at Pius XII's door. G. Martina S.J .in his previously quoted work, Vatican II-An Appraisal and Prospects, (pp. 56-57) after having drawn our attention to the interpretation of Humani generis as proposed by the Substitute Montini to his close friend Jean Guitton, continues,

"But [Montini's] effort to dilute the purpose and aim of that solemn pontifical document was not to succeed thanks to Pius XII, who went straightaway to the editor of Civilta Cattolica to protest against the underhanded efforts being used to minimize his encyclical, which did not simply constitute a grave and solemn warning, and who also deplored and complained of the shocking carelessness of those agents and members representing the Society of Jesus to whom he had turned in 1946, exhorting them to faithfully follow his Pontifical orders."

Disciplinary measures were immediately taken against de Lubac and his "gang" by the Society, as well as against Montini by Pius XII, who promoted him to Archbishop of Milan, but who never named him Cardinal; neither did he ever wish to receive him in private audience thereafter.

POWER OF AUTHORITY AT THE SERVICE OF ERROR

Things being as they were, and coming back to the letter "of Pius XII" to Blondel, we can hardly be surprised to learn one day that Pius XII, who had never even signed it, knew practically nothing about it and what he did learn, he learned only bit by bit, and badly at that. Montini, who was acting as if he were the Pope without being so, put the supreme authority of Peter's successors at the service of the "new theology." And from that very moment, the effects of that betrayal have proven to be extremely disastrous.

On July 8, 1945, La Documentation Catholique published a letter carrying the signature of the Substitute Montini and under the title of "the Pope's letter to Blondel," together with a highly flattering account of Blondel's "main works and doctrine." This statement (falsely attributed to Pope Pius XII!) deplored those "two erroneous exclusivisms: rationalism and... Catholic theology which for opposite reasons had shown "ostracism" and "incomprehension" towards Blondel's new "Christian philosophy" which on the contrary - the article triumphantly concluded - has been completely ratified by this statement of His Holiness Pope Pius XII which we are pleased to publish at this time."

Shortly after this, Bruno de Solages, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Toulouse and a friend of de Lubac, entering the fray in Blondel's defense, confronted Father Garrigou-Lagrange with the argument of...authority: that is, the letter "sent by Pius XII via Monsignor Montini" "significantly praising" Blondel's works (cf. A. Russo, Henri de Lubac...p.347). Then, in 1946, Gerard Phillips, writing in Erasmus (pp. 202-205) used this same letter in defending the naturalized supernatural of de Lubac:

"If Fr. de Lubac has resolutely refuted the possibility of pure nature, he is not any more blameworthy than the Augustinian authors whom the Holy See, on more than one occasion, has seen to protect, just as it has recently done in favor of Maurice Blondel" (quoted by H. de Lubac in Memoria Intorno Alla Mia Opera [Memoirs concerning My Works] Jaca Book, p.68).

In Italy, Monsignor Natale Bussi, whom Mgsr Rossano later unmasked as being a philo-modernist (cf. Courrier de Rome no.134, April 1992), in the Italian translation of Falcon's apologetics (ed. Paoline 1951), annihilated the strict as well as rigorous refutations of Blondel's errors by the following asterisk added to note 1 on page 39:"Obviously, we are not able to fathom Blondel's ideas by the use of those developments which L. Laberthoniere (condemned by the Holy Office) has brought to the principle of immanence although Blondel, in the last few years, received assurances from the highest (Vatican) authorities regarding the orthodoxy of his doctrine. These assurances were given in a letter dated December 2, 1944 coming from the Secretariat of State (of the Vatican), a letter expressing, however, one single remark concerning several of Blondel's own expressions which theological rigor would have wished to be stated in more precise terms."

"SATAN'S MASTERSTROKE"

In short, "Pius XII's" letter, carrying Montini's signature, constituted an early type of testing-ground for the post-conciliar disasters: the "new theology" would be in a position to sweep away all resistance and impose itself on the Catholic world only on the support, even if ever so "discreet," of the Catholic Church's supreme authority. It was afforded this opportunity with Montini's accession to the Chair of St. Peter.

Ever since his exile to Milan, the archbishop of Milan (Montini) never ceased stirring up the "new theologians" against Pius XII and his encyclical Humani generis (against neo-modernism), and finally, under Pope John XXIII, he was able to favor them even more, given the influence he had over Roncalli (Pope John XXIII). In his work, Henri de Lubac - Sin Organisches Lebenswerk, Urs von Balthasar bears witness to this fact in the following terms:

"In 1946,Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange launched a full-scale attack against de Lubac and his friends as well as their "new theology" and Pope Pius XII, now really annoyed, joined in the fray with the L'Osservatore Romano publishing his speeches. Jannsens, the Father General, showed himself loyal to de Lubac, but as the attacks coming from all quarters and from all countries intensified, the more his behavior took on a diplomatic hue. They even went so far as to scrutinize that which could possibly appear suspect in other works. With the advent of Humani generis, papal thunderbolts came crashing down upon the Lyons Scholasticate and de Lubac was singled out as the chief scapegoat... his books, henceforth defamed, were taken off the shelves of the libraries of Society of Jesus and withdrawn from bookstores..."

Then, little by little - according to von Balthasar - the climate began to clear up in favor of the neo-modernists:

"From Archbishop Montini came words of support and encouragement. It was he who later on, having become Pope Paul VI, insisted that de Lubac speak on Teilhard de Chardin at the close of the Thomistic Congress in the great chancery Hall... To the point of John XXIII's naming de Lubac as consultor in the drafting plans for the Commission on Theology together with Fr. Congar."

Having been made Cardinal by John XXIII who thus paved the way to the Pontifical Throne in spite of Pope Pius XII's efforts to deny him this possibility, Montini was finally elected Pope Paul VI and immediately set out to put all the strength of his newly-acquired authority - and what authority! - at the service of the "new theology.”

THE PERSISTENCE OF THE “HESITANT POPE”

Enthroned as Paul VI, Montini began to open wide the conciliar doors to the "new theologians" to a much greater extent than he had previously succeeded in doing through his influence over John XXIII.

"Many well known theologians [some still under suspicion by the Holy Office and some having already been condemned] absent at the beginning (of Vatican II) began to gradually join the circles of experts (periti), thanks to Paul VI's discreet influence as he showed them his favor and received them in private audiences, concelebrated with them and praised them for their close collaboration" (R. Latourelle S.J., Vatican II – An Appraisal and Prospects, ed. Citadelle-Assise, a joint project carried out three university institutes of the Society of Jesus in Rome together with the participation of the Paul VI Institute of Brescia).

Paul VI exerted the same "discreet influence" on the Council Fathers who not knowing what was actually happening and putting all their trust in "Peter" were gradually being brought around to the point of accepting and ratifying that very same "new theology" which Pius XII had already condemned in Humani generis.

Recalling to mind that which the Jesuit Henrici (recently named bishop!) wrote:

"As for the 'aggiornamento' [aggiornamento: an updating, especially with regard to the policy of modernizing Roman Catholic institutions, one of the goals of the Second Vatican Council, 1962- 1965], the Council Fathers had to depend (they could not do otherwise) on the work previously done by the theologians before the Council...To those texts approved by the Council, the Council fathers gave, so to speak, a kind of ecclesiastical authentication. If those texts seemed strangely new, it was only because the work of the (new) theologians as well as the state of Catholic theology at the end of the 1950's were, to a great extent, unknown to those who were strangers to these new texts and ideas (and many council Fathers could be found in this group). Another reason why these texts seemed new was the fact that now a part of the results of this work, which until quite recently had been (strongly) censured (by the Church), was henceforth considered as being orthodox" (Communio, Nov.- Dec. 1990).

The "prudence" shown by Paul VI who, as Msgr. A. Bugnini testifies, only wished to avoid foreseeable as well as undesirable reactions (cf. A. Bugnini La Reforme Liturgique, pp. 297-299), served to bolster the legend of his being a hesitant or indecisive Pope, but the facts are there, proving that Paul VI knew what he wanted. He acted with "discretion," indeed, but also with a still greater obstinacy: "With a stubborn and methodical firmness which gives the lie to an equally stubborn legend, he [Paul VI] steers the barque," de Lubac wrote with admiration in 1963. (Memoirs Concerning My Works, Jaca Book, p. 420).

Among some of the greatest of de Lubac's opponents stood the Rector of the Gregorian University (in Rome), Father Charles Boyer, whom we have already quoted. In the following lines, de Lubac himself reveals with just what "discretion" and "firmness" Paul VI humiliated and forced this highly-skilled and well-known theologian to surrender in humiliation while at one fell swoop, he rehabilitated without any form of reason other than his own (papal) authority, those two representatives of neo-modernism, de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, whose works had been previously condemned by a monitum from the Holy Office:

"In Teilhard Posthume," de Lubac writes, "I referred to a conference that I was asked to make on him in Rome in 1963. The invitation had been extended to me by Fr. Charles Boyer, Prefect at the Gregorian. I have just come across his letter. When we realize that Fr. Boyer was formerly Teilhard's greatest adversary in Rome (and just as much mine!), this letter takes on its full meaning. (See letter below)

BOYER TO DE LUBAC

The Roman Pontifical Academy of
St. Thomas Aquinas and of the Catholic Religion

Rome. June 10, 1963

Reverend Father,

Pax Christi. You must have already received the notice concerning the sixth International Thomistic Congress. I well understand that your various occupations have prevented your taking any interest in it. But here is the reason that I venture to bring it to your notice once again.

Having been received by the Holy Father [Paul VI] in the last few days, I have had the opportunity to see for myself the high esteem he has for yourself and for your writings. At the same time, he expressed, albeit with certain reservations, an opinion on Fr. Teilhard (de Chardin), which would not have displeased you. Further considerations on this matter have led me to think that, at this Congress, we should hear an exposition casting a favorable light on Teilhard de Chardin's thought on our theme ("de Deo"). No one could do this better than yourself.

I beg you, therefore, to simply participate in our congress which will take place just prior to the opening of the fourth session of the Council: from the 6th to the 11th of September. (If you prefer), you could come for the last days (of the congress), and if too pressed for time, you could merely read a paper on the subject..."

(Henri de Lubac. Memoirs Concerning My Works, p. 451)

Thus, it was that de Lubac, thanks to Paul VI's will of iron and at the invitation of one of his (former) most courageous adversaries was able to exalt Teilhard de Chardin S.J. in the stately hall of the Chancery at the end of the...Thomistic congress! Nothing could have served better to highlight the veritable triumph of the "new philosophy" and the "new theology" over "traditional philosophy" and Catholic theology! Henceforth, the road to "scepticism, fancy and heresy" was opened.

It was with that same "stubborn and methodical firmness" that Paul VI bent to his will, discouraged and crushed (as in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre) all other resistance and, what is even worse, placed the Vatican's key posts in the hands of the "innovators" in view of strengthening, in the future, their grip upon the Church by a whole series of reforms including those relative to the election of the Roman Pontiff.

In the presence of all these disasters mounting about him, Paul VI also seems to have gone through his own personal crisis, but again, in his case, as it was for de Lubac and the "new theologians" it was not to result in his conversion, but rather in a vain attempt to deny his responsibility for the part he willingly played in the rising tide of so much ruin and destruction, the blame for which he sought to shift upon the "abusive" innovators.

However, we will discuss the point in more detail later on. For the moment, it will be sufficient to recall by way of demonstration of the aforementioned tragedy, that in 1976, that is, two years after the ringing warnings concerning the Church's "self-destruction" and "the smoke of Satan" in the Temple of God, and two years before his own death (1978), Paul VI wrote the following lines to de Lubac on the occasion of the latter's 80th birthday: "You have, dear son, built a monument more lasting than bronze for the admiration and utility of the enquiring minds of researchers."

How true it is that the modernist perversion of the intellect robs us of our last hope of repentance!

One of Trent's chief products was a series of anathemas on Protestant errors. "Enough of condemnations!" said Pope John before the first session:...

Hirpinus (to be continued)

Translated from Courrier de Rome, July/ August 1993

GLOSSARY

ANTIMONY - A contradiction between two ideas; self-contradiction or paradox

[Red font emphasis - The Catacombs]

Last Edit: Mar 14, 2018 17:35:00 GMT by Admin

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

They Think They've Won! - Series Mar 14, 2018 20:17:44 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2018 20:17:44 GMT

They Think They've Won!
Part VII

SiSiNoNo - August 1994 - No. 9

POPE JOHN PAUL II's PONTIFICATE: A PERIOD OF GRAVEST TRIBULATION FOR THE CHURCH

A TREMENDOUS ORDEAL

And in the case where a "new theologian" should one day accede to the chair of St. Peter? In such a case, the Church undoubtedly suffers an unparalleled ordeal of stupendous gravity and proportions. And this for several reasons.

First of all, since it is a question of neo-modernism, "They lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers" (St. Pius X, Pascendi). Moreover, these theological errors are destined to profoundly influence the Catholic world, since Catholics are quite used to the (mistaken) idea that the pope's personal faith is identified with the Faith of the Church.

Also to be noted is the fact that in the Catholic Church, more than in any other society, has been borne out that old saying, Ad instar Principis totus componitur orbis: (The whole world falls into line with the see, the seat, of the Prince - Peter). And for this reason, a pope is able to impose de facto, without any formal imposition whatsoever, a heretical orientation to the entire Church. We have witnessed this with Pope Paul VI's "discreet" activities favoring neo-modernism or the "new theology."

The test we are now facing is one of tremendous proportions, but in no way is it insurmountable. Let us proceed step by step.

Pope John-Paul II

KAROL WOJTYLA AS A "NEW THEOLOGIAN"

If Pope Paul VI proved to be an authentic admirer of the "new theologians," John Paul II is, on the other hand, personally quite in favor of the "new theology." Fr. Johannes Dörmann, the famous German theologian, absorbed in thought over the scandalous Assisi affair, has proven this to be true in his dispassionate, objective and scientific study of Karol Wojtyla's writings, L'étrange théologie de Jean-Paul II (soon to be published in English by Angelus Press with the title: Pope John Paul II's Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions at Assisi).

This work, the first volume of a three-volume series, carefully considers the "theology" which inspired the ecumenical initiative of Assisi. The author finds that this same "theology" was already clearly evident in Wojtyla's writings whether in his capacity as professor, bishop, or cardinal. Fr. Dörmann then sets out to demonstrate that the self-same "new theology" constitutes the core recurring theme in John Paul II's doctrinal encyclicals (second volume) and has also served to inspire his pastoral trips to Africa and Asia (third volume). We will now outline the contents of the first volume:

The basic error in Pope John Paul II's "theology," which serves as the foundation of his ecumenism and therefore of the Assisi initiative, is expressed in the following: not only did Jesus Christ die for all men [as the Catholic Church teaches], but [and herein lies the innovation] each and every human being is "whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not, in the faith" (K. Wojtyla, Segno di Contradizione, chap. 11). Each is, from the very beginning, since his birth, in a state of effective redemption even if he is unaware of this fact. And this holds true for all men of all ages and places.

This thesis flies in the very face of Holy Scripture, Tradition, as well as the Catholic Church's dogmatic teachings, and according to Fr. Dörmann's personal judgment, has no solid base even in the texts of the last Council. It is, on the other hand, found to be tied in with the "new theology" which affirms the unconditional salvation of all mankind, a universal redemption not only objective but subjective as well. Not only can everyone be saved, but all are, as a matter of fact, already saved (this reminds us of Von Balthasar's "Hell does indeed exist, but it is empty"). This "new" conception of subjective redemption or universal justification has served as a springboard to launch a "new" ecclesiology together with a new concept of Revelation and Faith.

A NEW ECCLESIOLOGY

If the Son of God, as Wojtyla the "theologian" would have it, has, by His Incarnation, united Himself to "every man," if "existence in Christ" is the religious "dimension of every human being, of every real and historical man" from the very first instant of his existence "whether he wants it or not, whether he accepts it or not" (and therefore independently of the Faith or of Baptism) is supernaturally united to Christ, it must then follow:

1. that every human being belongs, in some way or other, to the {Catholic} Church;

2. that the Church coincides with all of humanity, which, with Christ, constitutes an organism naturally supernatural, so to speak.

It is evident that the resulting notion of the Church is essentially changed under these conditions while the distinctions between nature and grace, between Church and humanity, are utterly destroyed. All of which, we might add, Blondel and De Lubac were precisely aiming at all along, since the modernists, going against the teachings of the Church considered such a distinction as an intolerable "dualism" to be discarded at all costs.

A “NEW” NOTION OF REVELATION

Thus, according to John Paul II's "new theology," there remains no essential difference between the Church and humanity in their "profound being" since the same "profound being" is the very same "existence in Christ." They can only be distinguished by the degree of awareness they have of their profound being (this is in substance, Karl Rahner, S.J.'s theory of "anonymous Christians" as well as Von Balthasar's "anonymous Christianities"). And here we behold the emergence of a "new" notion of Revelation.

Neo-modernism would have us believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ did nothing else than "fully manifest man to himself," not at all by revealing to man (as the Catholic Church has always done) his original state of sinner as well as his radical and essential need of redemption, which he is able to attain only through Baptism and the true Faith. Contrary to the Church's constant teaching, modernists want to make us believe that Our Lord came to make known to men their original state of unconscious but automatic and real redemption, that is, their state of being naturally "supernatural." As a matter of fact, neo-modernism claims that it is only this state of unconsciousness, which distinguishes the Christian from the non-Christian. This external "revelation" of Christ is considered to be of secondary importance and not at all strictly necessary, since there may exist, and there also does indeed necessarily exist, an interior revelation, common to all men (faithful as well as infidels) and to all religions (amongst which, therefore, we are no longer able to distinguish the true one from the myriads of false ones).

A “NEW” NOTION OF FAITH

In such a fool's paradise, "faith" becomes nothing more than a vague awareness of that which pre-exists in man, of some innate original "supernature" implicit in human nature. This same awareness may occur, yes, thanks to Christ's revelation; but it also may occur and indeed does necessarily manifest itself in the "faith" of the "anonymous Christians" (who, therefore, are no longer infidels) as well as in the "anonymous Christianities" (which can no longer, therefore, be considered false religions).

THE "THEOLOGY" OF ASSISI

It is from such a "most admired disorder" that the "irreversible" ecumenical dialogue has come about; a dialogue which, as we must add, constitutes the "new" notion of mission. From these obviously non-Christian origins appeared that scandalous initiative of Assisi, the "spirit" of which is indeed evident in Pope John Paul II's "new theology":

"Universal redemption is the common base…All religions contain true revelations, knowledge and have experience of God. Faith includes all of the 'faithful' of all religions. Faith is faith in humanity. But that ‘revelation offered to mankind in Christ,’ the Christian Faith, therefore is...the faith which truly and definitively explains the 'mystery of man,' 'the existence in Christ' [whence comes the appeal to Christ in John Paul's final speech at Assisi].

This 'offer' is not, however, at all necessary for salvation, nor is it exclusive or unique. Indeed, there are also to be found in other religions revelation, faith, and experience of God. It is on the basis of religious liberty, of inter-faith dialogue, together with fraternal exchanges of religious experience with a view of mutual enrichment that can now be seen open before us that path paved with gold leading to religious peace" (Dormann, op. cit. pp. 150-151).

Space prevents the publication of the entire quotation in this issue, so we refer our readers to Fr. Dormann's work for full data relating to this text.

BACK TO MODERNISM

There is no denying the fact that, with Pope John Paul II's "new theology," we have come full circle back to modernism which reduces the Faith (as well as Divine Revelation itself or at least its principles) to the level of religious sense and (religious) experience: "is it not God manifesting Himself, indistinctly, it is true, in this same religious sense, to the soul? ..." (St. Pius X, Pascendi). (This helps to explain Pope John Paul II's favoring a charismatic Church more or less based on people's feelings).

There necessarily follows the complete elimination of all trace of difference between natural and supernatural religion together with the equivalence (i.e., practical equality) of all religions, which are simultaneously able to claim to be both natural and supernatural. According to this false line of "reasoning," Christianity just like the other religions which have sprung up from religious "geniuses" would have taken its origin not from heaven, but from Christ's religious subconscious, "a man of exquisite nature, the like of which had never been seen before nor will ever be seen again" (ibid.) and from primitive Christian communities.

Revelation, for man, is simply reduced to some consciousness of his personal relationship with God and is common to all religions. Christian revelation has been the awareness of this relationship for the man Jesus; in the other religions it was for Buddha, Mohammed, etc. As for Tradition, it does not consist in the transmission of divinely revealed truths, but rather in the renewal of this personal and subjective religious experience for each and every individual in the course of time and successive generations, and in this sense, it constitutes what is now called a living Tradition.

As a consequence, "some, in a thinly disguised manner, others quite openly, hold all religions to be true…In this contest of religions, the most that can be said in favor of the Catholic religion is that it is the truest one," given the "exquisite nature" of Christ; and we should bring the non-believer to experience the Catholic religion...the same one founded by Jesus Christ, that is to say, that product of a progressive development of the (religious) germ which he brought to the world" (ibid.).

"The study of anthropology," wrote Tyrell (English leader of modernism), "does not allow us to affirm...that God has not gradually revealed Himself in each soul's moral and social life and especially in Christ's soul as well as in the life of all religions and particularly in the life of Christianity…"

In future times, religiosity will be the result of inductive reflection on past and present forms of religion, of their study in so far as they are inspired by that light of Truth which enlightens every man coming into this world, and to the extent that each one (of these forms) represents, in a special manner, an effort on the part of the Divine Spirit to make himself intelligible to man in harmony with the other degrees of his moral, mental, and social development" (Rinnovamento, July-August 1907, "Per la sincerita").

This provides us with a precise description of the "spirit of Assisi," while also bringing to light those secret motivating forces behind John Paul II's constant "pastoral" trips to Asia and Africa (including his "ecumenical" encounter with voodoo sorcerers).

"If you see me traveling the length and breadth of the whole world in my efforts to meet with people of all civilizations and religions, it is because I have faith in the seeds of wisdom which the Spirit has planted in the conscience of all these various peoples, tribes and clans; from these hidden grains will come the true resource for the future of mankind in this world of ours" (John Paul II's speech to youth in Ravenna, May 11, 1986, quoted in Tutte le encicliche dei Sommi Pontefici, ed. dall'Oglio, p.1821).

Fr. George Tyrell, S.J.

THE "MASTERS"

Which road did Wojtyla the theologian take on the pilgrimage to modernism? He simply followed the crooked paths and byways of the "new theology." Those who "think they have won" are today indeed much less discreet than they were in former times (e.g., before Vatican II) and so, in one of the addresses delivered at the inauguration of the "Maurice Blondel Archives Center" affiliated with the (formerly) Catholic University of Louvain, it is made unmistakably clear that for Blondel "the supernatural is not a nature to which something (grace) has been added; it is, in reality, simply the liberation of all nature, it is the participation in divine liberty" (Center d'Archives Maurice Blondel. Journees d'inauguaration 30-31 mars 1973. Textes des interventions, p. 59).

This radical distorting and tampering with the basic Catholic notion of supernature, consisting in a falsification obstinately upheld and defended by modernists such as Blondel and De Lubac, is absolutely bound to take them down that same blind alley where John Paul II's "new theology" is to be found at the present time: to the abolition of all distinction between nature and grace (if the supernatural is implicit in human nature, all men are therefore in the state of grace "whether they know it or not, whether they accept it or not through faith") and inevitably to the heresy of subjective universal redemption, to the identification of humanity with the Church, to the corruption of the idea of Revelation and of Faith, and so on.

For example, already for De Lubac, the manifestation of supernature being implied in human nature and which therefore can be explained by this same human nature turns Christ's revelation into a fact of secondary importance, of minor interest:

"From this it follows that strictly speaking, man does not need another revelation to know his God: quite apart from any supernatural intervention, this 'natural revelation' would be quite sufficient in itself": Sulle vie di Dio, p.210).

This quotation from a "master of modernism" serves quite well to make us understand that the "new theology" does indeed lay the axe "not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the Faith and its deepest fibers" (Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi).

PAPAL AUTHORITY AT THE SERVICE OF THE "NEW THEOLOGY"

This can easily be verified by the ecumenical initiative of Assisi. However, given the extreme gravity of this assertion, we will now quote yet other facts which, taken in their entirety, will be quite sufficient to dispel any lingering doubts.

Already in the very heart of the inaugural encyclical of his pontificate (Redemptor Hominis), John Paul II reveals his thesis of a universal and subjective redemption which Pope John Paul II reads into Gaudium et Spes (no.22), and to the drafting of which he had collaborated during the Council: "By His incarnation, He, the Son of God, has in a certain way, united Himself with each man"(Tulle le encicliche dei Sommi Pontifici, ed. dall'Oglio).

And now, as if to confirm the fact that the inspiration of John Paul II has not changed, Christoph Schonborn warns us in L'Osservatore Romano that the "key text" of the new "Catechism" is taken from Gaudium et Spes (no. 22) (L'Osservatore Romano, 12-1-1993).

We have already mentioned John Paul II's worldwide voyages. All the ecumenical initiatives and speeches of the present pontificate have their basis and explanation, not in Catholic doctrine, but in the aforementioned "new theology": everything is centered upon man and his full development which is supposed to also comprise an awareness in himself of an immanent supernature within each man independently of Faith and Baptism "whether he knows it or not, whether he accepts it or not by faith."

If Paul VI chose to celebrate Teilhard de Chardin at the closing ceremonies of the Sixth International Thomistic Congress, John Paul II went even further still: On May 12, 1981, on the occasion of the centennial of the birth of the monistic-pantheistic Jesuit, Teilhard de Chardin, the Secretariat of State sent "in the name of the Holy Father" a highly laudatory and favorable letter to the rector of the Institut Catholique of Paris. And in this message the Pope praises

"the wonderful repercussions of his [Teilhard's] research and investigations as well as the marked influence of his personality and the richness of his thought."

In this note, Teilhard is described as a man seized by Christ in the depths of his being, ever anxious to hold in high regard both faith and the answer of reason, thereby containing almost by anticipation, John Paul's appeal:

"Be not afraid; open, open wide the doors to Christ, those immense fields of culture, of civilization, of development."

All in all, [de Chardin was] a precursor of Wojtyla's pontificate (cf. L'Osservatore Romano, June 10, 1981, and SI SI NO NO, June 15,1981).

And yet, barely twenty years earlier, the Holy Office had promulgated a monitum against Teilhard. Even though he had restrained himself somewhat (this was at the time of John XXIII, and Montini's influence was making itself felt), he was warned that his writings "are full of such ambiguities, and even of the gravest of errors, which constitute an outrageous attack upon Catholic doctrine." And again recently, on February 11th, 1993, Pope John Paul II sent - this time under his own signature and always in the same line of (modernist) thought - a public message to the Archbishop of Aix to celebrate the centennial anniversary of the publication of Blondel's L’Action:

"As we recall that work, we wish, first of all, to honor its author who, in his thoughts as well as in his life, succeeded in blending the most rigorous critique and the most courageous [or bold-spirited] philosophical research with the most authentic Catholicism by drawing, as he did, from those rich sources of dogmatic, patristic, and mystical tradition" (L'Osservatore Romano, May 12, 1993, p.5).

This is nothing but the posthumous ratification or approval of Blondel's (and later on, De Lubac's) heretical pretensions of having discovered, after a rather long lapse of two thousand years, what is called "authentic Christianity" (cf. Courrier de Rome, 146 [336], May 1993).

Nor is this all. We have presented documented evidence of Blondel's open and obstinate contempt for the Magisterium of the Church, and have also recalled his "reflections," that is, his (vain) attempts, which never convinced anyone, to "explain" in an orthodox sense his own erroneous ideas in order not to bring down upon himself the righteous censures of the Church which would certainly have delayed as well as embarrassed him no end (cf. Courrier de Rome, 145 [335], April 1993). Pope John Paul II, however, on this same occasion, has nothing but praise for this modernist's "courage as a thinker, together with his unfailing loyalty to, and love for, the Church." And Pope John Paul II goes one step further as he urges "today's philosophers and theologians" to follow in Blondel's footsteps who "relentlessly pursued his work while untiringly and obstinately (sic) explaining his thoughts without ever repudiating their inspirations" (cf. L'Osservatore Romano op. cit.).

THE TACIT REPUDIATION OF HUMANI GENERIS

Under Pope John Paul II's pontificate, the other founding fathers of the "new theology" were able, already in their lifetime, to bask in their share of (the modernistic) glory. On February 2, 1983, Pope John Paul II bestowed the cardinal's hat on De Lubac who was then almost eighty years of age. This papal action constituted a de facto rehabilitation, absolutely unjustified, as well as an unjustifiable repudiation of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Humani Generis. In the Catholic world, this was taken as a certain sign of the new pope's "new" theological direction. On January 7, 1983, Present, a Parisian daily (newspaper) made the following pointed observation:

"We have often wondered for what reason Fr. Wojtyla, who had studied theology in Rome under Pope Pius XII, had, subsequently, almost never referred to that great pope's doctrinal teachings. The explanation lies simply in the fact that he had theologically chosen to follow De Lubac (one of the "fathers" of the "new theology") rather than Pius XII. This fact is more readily understood at the present time."

On the occasion of the venerated Card. De Lubac's death, L'Osservatore Romano (May 9, 1991) made public, on its first page, the contents of two telegrams sent by His Holiness John Paul II: the first one, to Card. Lustiger, Archbishop of Paris, and the other one to the Superior General of the Company of Jesus (Jesuits).

The first telegram is as follows:

"Recalling the long and faithful service accomplished by this theologian who succeeded in collecting and saving the best of Catholic tradition in his meditations on the Church and the modern world, I fervently beg Christ the Savior to grant him the reward of His eternal peace."

And the second telegram:"For many years, I had greatly appreciated the vast culture, spirit of self sacrifice, and intellectual integrity, which have all served to make of this model religious an outstanding servant of the Church, particularly on the occasion of Vatican Council II."
There followed, on page 6, the deceased's curriculum vitae prepared by L'Osservatore Romano's editorial staff which, on the 8th and 11th of September, went right on celebrating the memory of the "father" of "new theology," previously condemned by Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Humani Generis.

While alive, Hans von Balthasar was glorified by Pope John Paul II. And not only he, but also the lady whom he had described as being his theological "better half" Adrienne von Speyr. In 1985, with the publicity being provided by L'Osservatore Romano, a symposium was held in Rome on Adrienne the "mystic," and Von Balthasar in Premessa, and Il Nostro Compito, made it publicly known that this event constituted the realization of a "desire expressed in 1983 by the Holy Father." Von Balthasar himself was promoted to cardinal (June 1988) but died on the very eve of being awarded his "well-deserved honorary distinction" (Card. Ratzinger). However, Ratzinger himself declared in his funeral oration:

"That which the Pope wished to express by this gesture of gratitude and acknowledgment or, rather, of honor, remains valid."

How can we blame him (for publicly declaring the unvarnished truth of the matter)? Nevertheless, it 'is' a fact that this gesture of gratitude, or rather, of honor, on the part of the Pope, has been addressed to the pseudo-theology of a pseudo-theologian who has wearily trudged "along the path of sheer personal fancy, of error, and of heresy". (cf. Courrier de Rome, 147 (337) June 1993; for Cardinal Ratzinger's homily, see H.W. von Balthasar, Figura e opera, p.541).

SUPREME CONTROL OF "NEW THEOLOGIANS" OVER THE CHURCH

In 1981, Pope John Paul II appointed the "new theologian" from Germany, Card. Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith. And recently, the Pope confirmed him in this awesome office for yet a third five-year term (lustrum). This constitutes still one more clear and significant "gesture of gratitude or of honor" in favor of the "new theology." How, in these years of unparalleled crisis in the Church, has the ex-Holy Office (Congregation of the Holy Office: founded by Pope Paul III in 1542 "to combat heresy" - Ed.) defended orthodoxy (belief in the true Faith founded by our Lord Jesus Christ) against the most vicious attacks launched with impunity by the neo- modernists? Let us go back to Card. Ratzinger himself for an unmistakably clear answer to this vital question:

"The myth concerning the Vatican's severity with regard to progressive deviations appeared as being the result of wild and useless imaginings. Up to this very day and in no case whatsoever have we ever resorted to, nor imposed canonical sanctions or penalties (on anyone): we have simply limited ourselves to admonishing the guilty wrongdoers" (keynote-speech delivered at the Christian Episcopal Conference, cf. Courrier de Rome, 97 [287] November 1988).

To the "new theologians," on the other hand, Joseph Ratzinger did guarantee effective supremacy (control) over the Church (cf. Courrier de Rome, September 1993).

In 1985, there was held in Rome a Synod on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of Vatican II (1962-1965). Still another "new theologian," Walter Kasper, another of Ratzinger's "old friends," was appointed (the official) theologian of that synod. Yet Kasper openly denies the historical authenticity as well as the reliability or trustworthiness of the Holy Gospels. Also, "in the light of the criticisms of forms" (or Formgeschichte), he considers that the miracles wrought by Jesus have simply been invented, from the calming of the tempest (Mt. 8:26) to the resurrection of Lazarus (Jn. 11), including Jesus Christ our Lord's bodily Resurrection, Whom Kasper does not even believe to be God the Son (cf. W. Kasper, Jesus le Christ and Courrier de Rome 105 (295) July-August 1989). In 1989, this same Kasper who is also a member of the International Theological Commission, was appointed Bishop of Rottenburg-Stuttgart... without withdrawing one iota of his formal heresies. There is no question here of personal favors between "old comrades," or, in any case, not only of that, but first and foremost, it is always a question of significant "gestures of gratitude" (or "honor") in favor of a very specific "theological" current (i.e., modernism). Careerists (those intent mainly on personal advancement and success in this life) know quite well to which devil they are required to sell their souls.

COMMUNIO'S SUPPORTER

In 1992, under Ratzinger's patronage, a celebration took place in Rome in commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the review Communio, the official mouthpiece of "those who think they have won." On May 29th, Pope John Paul II received in audience the editors and writers from several countries and later gave a solemn speech in which he recalled "with gratitude the memory of two of its original promoters, eminent theologians of catholicity: Card. Hans Urs von Balthasar, and Fr. Henri de Lubac."

He went on to exhort the editors of Communio to always be a ferment of communion and of "unity in diversity" according to the thought of Von Balthasar. In a reminiscent mood, he confided: "In my capacity as Archbishop of Krakow, I had the occasion of encouraging and promoting the Polish edition (of Communio)" (cf. Communio June-July 1992). We can then well understand why De Lubac, while Paul VI was still very much alive, used to tell his friends, "the day when we will need a (new) pope, I have my candidate: Wojtyla" (30Days,July 1985: Angelo Scola's interview with De Lubac).

Space compels us to bring this study to a close. But before doing so, and in order to complete the overview of the present modernist crisis, let us just mention George Cottier, official theologian of the Papal Palace, and other Communio collaborators who have been appointed bishops. These pass themselves off as conservatives, when in reality they are modernists. Also, let us consider that the nominations to the various Roman Commissions and Congregations are introducing more and more "new theologians" into the councils of the Church's governing body.

Can the reader entertain doubts to the direction, which Cardinal Wojtyla increasingly gives to the Church? Even Civilta Cattolica" always considered to be the indicator of the Holy See's intentions and orientations, has transformed itself into an official "new theology" mouthpiece. Yes, the so-called Catholic press, from Avvenire to the small parish bulletin, falls in (the modernist) line, for the saying goes: Ad instar Principis totus componitur orbis (The whole world falls in line with the see, seat, of the Prince-Peter).

OUR PRESENT GRAVE AND FATEFUL DUTY

No wonder, then, after having taken all these clearly substantiated and irrefutable facts into consideration, that the current crisis now striking the Church has been aptly compared to the Arian crisis, which constituted “a menace for the entire Church," (St. Vincent de Lerins, Commonitorium). Any sound theologian knows that papal infallibility "does not mean personal steadfastness or firmness in the Faith," "nor does it guarantee him some personal infallibility" (Bartmann, Manuel de Theologie Dogmatique). Such a theologian is also fully aware that, in the present case, papal infallibility is completely out of the question.

Moreover, this scholar knows full well that in Catholic theology, there is also the question of the possibility of a "heretical pope," which has been the object of sharp discussions in some of the darker periods of the history of the papacy. The present ordeal, on the other hand, is particularly intense for those Catholics who, not being grounded in sound theology, are long used to erroneously extending papal infallibility to every single act of the Sovereign Pontiff, especially as a private person. An enormous ordeal indeed, but, as we previously remarked, not insurmountable. To overcome the scandal of the present hour, true Catholics must hold fast to some simple truths of the Faith:

1. God can in no way ever contradict Himself and therefore the Holy Ghost cannot nowadays nor at any time in the future inspire developments in doctrine or customs in contradiction with those He had inspired in previous times.

2. Divine Revelation ceased definitely with the death of the last Apostle, and for this reason neither the Church nor the Pope can add or remove anything whatsoever from it.

3. Neither to the Church nor to the Pope has there been promised the revelation of new truths (and even less of contradictory "truths"), but on the contrary, they have been promised God's help to announce those previously-revealed divine truths as well as in judging, on the basis of divine revelation, any and all eventual doctrinal controversies. Therefore no pope is able to contradict anything, which was formerly always to be found in the "Deposit of Faith."

"To Peter's successors, the Holy Ghost has been promised not in order that they should teach a new doctrine through His revelation but rather, with His assistance, that they should keep and explain in a faithful and godly manner the revelation transmitted through the intermediacy of the Apostles, that is to say, the Deposit of Faith, i.e., the sum total of truths revealed by Christ, taught infallibly by the Church, and witnessed by Scripture and Tradition" (Vatican I Constitution De Ecclesia, Denzinger, 1836).

4. The divine gift of infallibility has been promised not only to the present Pope but to all the popes of all times, and therefore no present Pope can contradict any or all previous popes.

5. Infallibility is not just for the Pope but for the whole Universal Church (that is, for the Church established throughout the world and at all times) (cf. Vatican I, Denzinger, 1839). Therefore no pope can contradict that which, in the Church, has always been believed, everywhere and by all (quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est).

6. That in any conceivable future conflict between the Pope of today and the Popes of yesterday, between the Pope of today and the Church of all times and places, the faithful Catholic must remain firmly attached to the Popes of all time as well as to the Faith of the universal Church as St. Thomas Aquinas rightly teaches (Summa Theologica, Part IIa IIae, Question 2, article 3).

The above basic truths are put forward to sincere Catholics by their sensus fidei as well as their common sense. We may also add that whenever a pope, instead of keeping and proclaiming divinely-revealed Truth which has always been taught since the beginning of the Church, sets out to follow his own erroneous personal opinions which contradict this Truth, he is not at that moment acting in his capacity as pope. It thus follows that he may neither lawfully require others to obey him (in his errors) nor may the faithful be obliged to follow him in his errors.

This may grieve us, but should come as no surprise. The exact notion of infallibility does not, in fact, exclude the possibility of such an unfortunate and tragic circumstance. The divine gift of infallibility simply means that God's active assistance will, with the greatest possible certitude, prevent any pope from imposing formally, ex cathedra, his own errors upon the whole Church, although he may attempt to impose them in fact if not formally (through speeches, writings, acts of his administration, etc).

When, in the course of Vatican I, the final drafting of the Constitution on Papal Infallibility was presented to the bishops, the official and chief editor, Bishop Gasser of Bressanone clearly explained its exact meaning:

"If the entire Church should ever face the danger of being led astray through the bad faith and negligence of a pope... Christ's vigilance... would prevent an infallible declaration (Si per malum fidem et negligentiam pontificis, universalis ecclesia in errorem induci possit... tutela Christi...iudicium tale impediretur, Mansi 52, col. 1212-1214).

Papal infallibility, therefore, does not at all guarantee that the Faith of the whole world will never be exposed to danger by the "negligence" or even by the "bad faith" of one of Peter's successors, but only guarantees that the tutela Christi (the divine assistance) will prevent an infallible declaration, ex cathedra, in such deplorable and unfavorable circumstances. Just as it has, in fact, happened in the present crisis, beginning with Vatican II, which, the Pope assured during the Council, was to be simply of a "pastoral" nature (and not doctrinal as were all the twenty other Ecumenical Councils).

And this is why theologians (we refer here only to true and sound theologians) know that papal infallibility has absolutely nothing to do with the present crisis in the Church. This fact does not, of course eliminate the terribly harsh and cruel ordeal presently inflicted upon the faithful sons and daughters of the Church who, in order to save their souls, must maintain their own Faith intact in spite of the hardships and difficulties in these tragic times. And we must admit that these circumstances depend upon the one presently occupying Peter's Chair. These faithful souls must also now prove their fidelity to Jesus Christ as well as to His Church (which is not at all to be identified with the personal theological theories of a pope).

Today's tragedy will prove to be even graver still for the young who risk knowing only "a false 'Christian' religion, which is far removed from the true Church of Christ" (Pius XI's encyclical Mortalium Animos, which constitutes an early papal condemnation of the present-day false ecumenism).

The gravity of the hour therefore imposes equally grave obligations upon one and all, each according to his state of layman, priest, theologian, bishop, cardinal or pope. Beyond our solemn duties of prayer and penance (so insistently asked for by the Immaculate Mother of God at Lourdes and Fatima) we are all duty-bound to oppose the current modernistic ecclesial direction by resolutely defending not only our own Faith, but also that of our brethren in Christ. To this end, each person must, according to his means, come now to the aid of the Church and even remind (if one's own state in life provides the occasion and even more so if it demands it) the present Pontiff to carry out his papal duties in accordance with his high office (cf. Col. 4:17).

All of this constitutes a grave duty of charity. Failing in these sacred duties would be equivalent to mortal sin, and to act otherwise would be tantamount to betraying Christ yet once again. Such a betrayal endangers one's own as well as other souls' eternal salvation whilst making oneself a wretched collaborator in the "self-destruction" of the Church.

Hirpinus (to be continued)

Translated from Courrier de Rome, October 1993
[Red font - The Catacombs]

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

They Think They've Won! - Series Mar 14, 2018 23:26:27 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2018 23:26:27 GMT

They Think They've Won
Part VIII

SiSiNoNo - October 1994 - No. 10

DISOBEDIENCE TO THE INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM: HALLMARK OF THE "NEW THEOLOGY"

In this series of articles, we have demonstrated that although it had been solemnly condemned and fought by Pope St. Pius X (Pascendi) as well as by his successors up to and including Pope Pius XII (Humani Generis), modernism continued to smolder like a sect within the Church itself. Finally, after several decades, the lengthy disobedience which had remained more or less under cover for so long, literally exploded at the time of the "pastoral" Vatican Council II with the tragic result that the "new theology" or neo-modernism is seen to triumph everywhere today - strong indeed, but not of the strength of truth. And this only because it was favored and promoted by those in ecclesiastical authority at every level, including the summit, to the devastation of the souls it deceives and betrays (and which forbids us, one and all, therefore, to remain silent in the face of such a mortal danger).

We have seen that neo-modernism is based on Blondel's false "Christian philosophy ." This self-deceived imposter, in his illusions of reconciling the Church with the "modern world," that is, with that cancer-ridden modern philosophy, which from its very beginning was fatally struck with the pestilence of skepticism and of subjectivism, perverted, as the modernists are wont to do, "the eternal notion of truth" (St. Pius X, Pascendi) and that of "supernature" and the supernatural order. True restoration in the Church will therefore come about by a return to traditional (Thomistic) philosophy.

We later illustrated the errors of Henri de Lubac, S.J.,"father" of a "new theology" which "evolves with the evolution of things - semper itura, numquam perventura - forever en route or on a journey, without ever reaching its goal" (Pius XII, Allocution of September 17, 1946).

We also expect to have thrown some light on Balthasar's obscure pseudo-theology, which has transferred Hegel's "philosophical delirium" into the ecumenical sphere. Next, we considered the thoughts and behavior of three high-ranking ecclesiastical authorities (although of different degrees of responsibility), and who therefore bear the greatest blame for the present-day triumph of the modernists: Paul VI (whom, properly speaking, we should define as a philomodernist), John Paul II (who is, on the other hand, a devotee of the "new theology") and Card. Ratzinger. We have tried to bring to light, even more than the modernist errors, the contempt shown to the infallible magisterium of the Church - a contempt which the "new theology" wears like a badge. This allows us to judge it for what it really is as well as for what it seeks, even those of us who are neither philosophers nor theologians. This is, in fact, what the "new ecclesiastical direction" is aiming at: the blotting out of every trace of twenty centuries of Christianity, under the pretext of a "return to primitive Christianity" or to an "authentic Christianity" in the name of a "pastoral" Council (which the modernists, post factum, are belatedly striving to change into a "dogmatic" Council!). This is done also in the name of a "living magisterium" of today which heretically claims that the magisterium of "yesterday" is dead. An obviously heretical claim, since it would necessarily lead to the conclusion that "all the faithful throughout all the centuries, all the saints, all those who have kept chastity, continence or virginity, all the clerics, levites and priests, thousands upon thousands of confessors, the countless legions of martyrs, so many busy cities and populous countries, so many islands, provinces, kings, races, kingdoms, nations, in a word, almost the entire universe incorporated to Christ its Head, have all been unaware, have erred, blasphemed and in the course of all those past centuries, have not known or have completely ignored that in which they were supposed to believe" (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium).

THE MYTH OF "RESTORATION"

Finally, we have demonstrated that the so-called "restoration" is simply nothing but a myth having its origin in the modest, moderated, and in itself quite insignificant "conflict" between the "moderate wing" (which presently wields power and authority in the Church) and the "extremist wing" or "integrist" wing of neo-modernism. All of those illusions born of this "conflict" should, by now, have been completely swept away by our study: there is not, nor can there be, any hope of "restoration" by those neo-modernists who obstinately continue to trudge their weary way along the path of "skepticism, fantasy, and of error."

It is of course true that de Lubac, Balthasar, Pope Paul VI, Card. Ratzinger, as well as Pope John Paul II himself have all, at one time or another, deplored some of the more flagrant post-conciliar abuses.

De Lubac, for example, wrote that "the Council has been betrayed...by the actions of what I may be permitted to call a para-council" (Mimoire autour de mes oeuvres). He seems also to share Villepelet's "worries":

"The obvious recklessness of our bishops, the political deviation of their cherished 'Catholic Action,' uncontrolled liturgical disorders, internal moral decay in seminaries, privileged treatment of defrocked priests, contempt for Tradition, notorious doctrinal (the Eucharist) and moral (marriage, etc...) carelessness, the enormous responsibility of certain 'Catholic' reviews..." (ibid.).

And those other neomodernists or philomodernists, "faithful" (to speak as Henrici does) to the "new theological line of Lyon," servilely echoed their "master."

Balthasar deplored the "trend or tendency favoring the 'selling-off of post-Conciliar ecumenism (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Figure et Oeuvre, p.435). Paul VI, in a discourse before the seminarians of Lombardy actually wept over the "self-destruction" of the Church:

"The Church is, at the present time, sick with worry, with self-criticism; I would even say that it is in a period of self-destruction. The Church has reached the point of striking herself with mortal blows" (Il Populo, December 9, 1968).

In a private interview with Guitton (a well-known journalist and personal friend of Paul VI - translator's note), he bemoans the fact that priests "have gotten into the bad habit of using only Canon II, which is the shortest and most expedient one." And in his last discussion, he went so far as to declare: "Inside Catholicism itself, a non-Catholic way of thinking seems sometimes to have taken the upper hand, and it is possible that this same non-Catholic thinking will in tommorrow's world be the stronger one within Catholicism itself. But this new non-Catholic thought will never represent the thought of the Catholic Church. A small flock must survive, even though it be very tiny flock" (ibid., p.168).

Card. Ratzinger, in his book Entretien sur la Foi (Discourse on the Faith), has also deplored those "solitary breakaways ahead" (p. 32) and spoken, like de Lubac, of a "Council betrayed," of an "explosion of latent aggressive and centrifugal force within the very bosom of the Church" (p.31).

And last but by no means least, Pope John Paul II, on the occasion of a conference for the Missioni al Populo (Missions to the People), come directly to the point:

"In the present day Church, it must be admitted (with realism together with a deep and sorrowful awareness, that a very great number of Christians have become troubled, disoriented, perplexed, and even deceived; ideas which are in disaccord with that revealed truth taught by the Church since apostolic times, are currently widespread: veritable heresies have even flooded the fields of dogma and morals, giving rise to doubts, confusion and rebellion; liturgy has been altered; submerged as there are in today's intellctual and moral 'relativism, ' Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, by a vaguely moralistic illuminism [Illu minism: the doctrine of certain marginal religious movements founded on the belief of an interior illumination, or on "revelations" directly inspired by God], by a sociological Christianity without any defined dogmas or objective morality whatsoever" (L'Osservatore Romano, February 7, 1981).

THE DREADFUL REALITY

This declaration as well as others, taken individually, could lead, and in fact, have led many persons to believe that the time for reflecting (on the present crisis) and, indeed, the time for the restoration is at hand. Sad to say, such is not the case; it is quite the contrary. Under the cover of this so called “restoration” the revolutionary “self destruction” of the Catholic Church continues unabated. In fact, all the neomodernist "moderates" should also be included in those remarks intended for Ratzinger.

First and foremost, the "moderates" deplore "abuses" as such, and not at all in relation to their own more moderate (and therefore even more dangerous) form of modernism which they have absolutely no intention of repudiating, and which they continue to uphold with a tenacity worthy of a better cause. The "conflict," neither deep nor serious, has already been described as a simple skirmish between those who think de Lubac to be already out of date (cf. Paul VI Secret, p.110), and those who have decided to remain "faithful" to him:

"We follow the line of the extreme center. No excessive attention to the magisterium [sic!] nor disputing. Neither right nor left. Our allegiance is to that tradition in the line of the "new theology" of Lyon [cradle of de Lubac's theology] which insists on the non-opposition between nature and supernature, that is, nature and supernature are really identically same things (and consequently) between faith and culture, and which has become the official theology of Vatican II"

explained very clearly by Fr. Henrici in his interview with 30 days of December 1991.

And we have shown what the "line" has proven to be in this series of articles. Therefore, when de Lubac complains that the "Council has been betrayed," he means betrayed in relation to his own personal views and expectations, not in objective relation to the Catholic Faith. When Card. Ratzinger defends the "authentic Council," he means the Council interpreted in the light of the "new theology," and not at all in the light of Catholic Tradition. When John Paul II speak of the Council interpreted in the light of Tradition, he means: in the light of de Lubac's "tradition in the line of the "new theology" or with a tradition evolving with the evolution of the times and not in the light of unchanging Catholic Tradition. Villepelet's "worries" in his book Mimoire autour de mes oeuvres, nevertheless writes immediately after,

"Our 'post-Conciliar' age is certainly, even though it is going over some rather rough bumps, being visited, by the Spirit of God; I also believe such signs are beginning to make themselves manifest more and more [sic!] and I would like to repeat on my own behalf this sentence from a person who has recently written to me: 'Hope no longer seems to me to be a duty, but (to be) a springtime" (p.389).

These illusions concerning the "springtime of the Church" are having a hard time disappearing, thanks to the "new theology." Especially when their disappearance directly depends on the humbly confessed avowal of one's own errors and personal responsibilities in the present day disaster. And in fact, the "father" of the "new theology" maintained right to the very end of his life that he had never "found the means nor felt the need to clarify anything else" (30 Days, July 1985) regarding his false notion of "supernature" (or of the supernatural order), which is, nevertheless at the base of all the errors and heresies of today's pseudo-theology, as Card. Siri masterfully pointed out in his book Gethsemani, and as L 'Osservatore Romano itself admitted (on September 8, 1991):

"Henri de Lubac is, without the slightest doubt, one of the great founding fathers contemporary Catholic theology. Neither Karl Rahner nor, even less, Hans Urs voh Balthasar, is think able without him."

As for Balthasar, even though deploring the "trend to selling off' present-day (false) ecumenism, he does not in the least renounce his "ecumenical delirium," of a "catholicity which leaves nothing out," of, a super-Church without any "confessional determination at all," And de Lubac, which (but now this is Pope Pius XII speaking) everybody, yes, will be united, but in a common ruin" (Humani Generis). And although Pope Paul VI weeps over the "self-destruction" of the Church, and in Paul VI Secret deplores the fact that priests are in the "bad habit" of using "the shortest and most expedient" Canon, yet does he continue to maintain that with the liturgical reform

"not only have we retained the past, but we have once again found the source which is the most ancient, the most primitive tradition and which is also the closest to the Church's origins. Now over the centuries, the light of this tradition was 'hidden under a bushel,' and particularly at the time of the Council of Trent" (Paul VI Secret, p.158).

Unbelievable, incredible, words coming from a Pope's lips, yet tragically true. In any case, what would the Catholic Church be if it had hidden or caused to be hidden that vital Tradition, and was only now beginning to rediscover it? In such a case, it surely could not be the Church of Christ to which infallibility had been promised for the unaltered protection of the "Deposit of the Faith." And although Pope Paul VI, in his last interview with Jean Guitton, prophesying in the manner of Caiphas (Jn.11:51 ff), foresaw a general apostasy and a very small "remnant" of true faithful, yet this same Paul VI demonstrated very clearly, through his unjust judgment of Archbishop Lefebvre and the latter's undeserved condemnation, his hostility towards the "little flock" which through love for the Church disapproved of his tenacious work of destruction.

As for Ratzinger, if in his Entretien sur la Foi (Discourse on the Faith) he deplores those "solitary breakaways ahead of the pack," in the very same breath he excludes "any possibility of a return to the Church's pre-Vatican II status":

"If by 'restoration' a return to a pre-Vatican II position is meant, then there is no possibility of a restoration. The Church is marching along the road of History's fulfillment, its eyes riveted upon the coming Lord. No, we have no intention of going back nor can we do so" (Entretien sur la Foi, p.40).

And what in the world would Card. Ratzinger have liked and would still like to see? A "quiet evolution" of doctrine where "quiet" does not at all mean coherent and in harmony with two thousand years of Christianity:

"We must remain faithful to the present day, not to its past, nor to its future. And this present day of the Church consists in the documents of Vatican II in their authenticity" (Entretien sur la Foi, p.32).

Those sections are included where those documents (cf. Nostrae Aetate, Dignitatis Humanae, etc.) are in flagrant contradiction with the constant, traditional teaching of the Church.

And even though John Paul II, at the beginning of his pontificate, deplored the fact that veritable heresies had even then (February 1981) flooded the fields of dogma and morals, he has, nevertheless declared that the new ecclesiastical course is "irreversible," and he continues to support and defend it with a resolution and firmness worthy of that cause which is its exact opposite. If needed, confirmation of what has been affirmed here is seen in the consistent behavior of those invested with (supreme) authority in the Church with regard to extreme modernists: neither Paul VI, nor Ratzinger, nor John Paul II has ever engaged his unquestionable authority to repress those very same "abuses" that each had personally and publically deplored. Then, in modernist fashion, these same authorities, after having bewailed these "abuses," seem to acknowledge that they do indeed have a stimulating role to play in the "evolution" of the Church's doctrine and institutions (cf. St. Pius X - Pascendi, and Courrier de Rome, September 1993).

Their aversion and their disciplinary measures (from ostracism to excommunication) are reserved for those who resist so as to remain faithful to the doctrine of the Church.

NOT MODERATED, BUT INCOHERENT

If, therefore, we stop to simply consider the criticism leveled at some of the post-Conciliar frenzy, we are indeed able to accept and agree with those many declarations of de Lubac, of Balthasar, of Paul VI, of Ratzinger as well as of John Paul II. If, however, we consider what those authorities seek to establish in God's Holy Church, we behold that they only seek to lay down and impose those very same bases from which have sprung the countless "abuses" which they now deplore. At this juncture, their so called "moderation" is seen for what it really is: either a typically modernist tactic to block undesired and/or delayed-effect reactions, or simply the inability of going to the very bottom of things in order to draw all the conclusions from their own modernist errors.

Already at the dawn of this century, Pope Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi, while making a clear distinction between a "moderate" type and an integrist version of modernism, observed that the latter was more coherent than the former, both starting out with the same false assumptions; the "extreme" modernists leap immediately to find conclusions, while the "moderates," on the contrary, take it step by step. In order to dispel any illusion that it is possible to remain in a half-way position, the Holy Pontiff St. Pius X in this admirable encyclical went to great lengths to draw forth all the ruinous consequences flowing from those errors upon which modernism had been founded. For so doing, that Holy See was violently taken to task by the modernists of his day (as well as by those of today), who accused him of exaggerating the consequences and repercussions of modernism.

The simple truth of the affair, however, is that, however unable and/or unwilling as they are to go to the very bottom of the matter so as to draw all the conclusions from their own erroneous bases, this does not alter the fact that once these false propositions are laid down and accepted, disastrous consequences will inevitably follow. A "small" initial error on the level of principles will most certainly result in great and grave consequences which many, while upholding an error of principle, are utterly unable to foresee.

And yet, St. Pius X solemnly declared: "Further, we admonish professors to bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St. Thomas Aquinas, especially in metaphysical questions, without grave disadvantage" (Pascendi, no.45).

Parvus error in principio est magnus in fine, says St. Thomas. (A small error in principle becomes great in its end results). And Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P., develops the point,

"They (the modernists) will certainly accuse us of exaggerating, but even a slight error on first notions and principles will inevitably have incalculable consequences which were not at all foreseen by those who have deceived themselves in this manner. The far-reaching consequences of these new theories of which we have just spoken [the "new theology"] will therefore spread way above and beyond any and all estimates of those authors quoted above [de Lubac, Bouillard, Fesard, etc...]" (Where Is the New Theology Taking Us? previously quoted).

And we know only too well, through bitter direct experience, that this is indeed what we are all seeing today.

THE "ORIGINAL SIN" OF MODERNISM

There is no moderation of modernism in sight, only cunning and trickery, or at the very best, an intellectual incoherence which, however, can by no means wash away the "moderate" modernists' "original sin" (modernism). A simple and humble act of true obedience to the infallible magisterium of the Church would have saved them from their own restrained delirium.

Lacordaire, following his harrowing "liberal" crisis wrote:

"After ten years of futile efforts in trying to imagine the true role of philosophy in the Church, where have I come to? To the very same ideas held by those who, unworried and untormented, have relied more on the mind of the Church than on their own. How deeply have I felt with admiration the superiority of the Church, that inexpressible instinct pressing it on its way, together with its divine discernment always unfailing in brushing aside even the shadow of illusion!"

Then, referring to Lamennais, who had fascinated him earlier, he confessed with great humility,

"It is truly a wonder to me how a philosophy, whose fatal weakness I now perceive so clearly, had been able to hold my powers of reasoning suspended, and for such a lengthy period of time. I finally came to realize that, struggling against an intelligence vastly superior to my own, I was fighting against impossible odds. For truth is sometimes not a sufficient aid to re-establish the equilibrium of forces; otherwise, error would never triumph over truth. Therefore, there must exist in this world a power able to support weak intellects against powerful intellects, and which delivers them from the most terrible oppression, that of the spirit...I learned from my own experience that the Church is the great liberator of the human spirit; and since all the other forms of liberty spring from intellectual liberty, I finally perceived under their true light, those burning questions dividing today's world" (Lacordaire, Considérations sur le systeme philosophique de M. de la Mennais).

This is precisely where the "original sin" of the modernists (moderate or not) is to be found: relying on their own fallible intellects, rather than trusting to the infallibility of the Church which alone could preserve them from error as well as from their own intellectual weaknesses. And this is precisely what all true sons of the Church must practice to oppose the modernist "novelties": a humble submission to the Church's infallible magisterium which alone is able to free our error-prone intellect from the oppression of false beliefs. It is of the utmost importance, however, never to confuse the Church's infallible magisterium with the personal theology of a "present-day pope," especially if he proves himself to be literally at odds with that same two-thousand-year-old magisterium which has always been found to be in constant harmony with all the popes of all ages, as well as with all the bishops of every times and place who were in communion with the Apostolic See: that which has always and everywhere been taught and believed by all in the Holy Church of God.

THIS IS YOUR HOUR AND THE POWER OF DARKNESS

It is only through the resolute return to Tradition on the part of the visible head of the Church (the pope) together with all his fellow members in the hierarchy that the vital and long-hoped-for restoration will finally come to pass. This alone can overcome the present ecclesiastical crisis which has been brought about through a prolonged period of "passive but real resistance" for Catholic Rome's sound directives. Nothing short of this will ultimately serve to wipe the slate clean of the deplorable long-standing "sin against the light coming from Rome, a light shining with the doctrinal treasures of the past" (La vie spirituelle 1923, pp.174-175, quoted by Aubry in L 'tude de la Tradition, p.102).

We can all rest assured that the blessed day marking the return of Catholic Tradition will ultimately dawn bright and clear. This is of Faith. If the present desolation to which the Church is reduced is not enough to show that "those who think they have won" have, quite on the contrary, already lost, it would suffice to simply recall Christ's promise: Portae inferi non praevalebunt; (the gates of Hell will never prevail against the Church of God.) Haec est hora vestra et potestas tenebrarum, (this is your hour and the power of darkness.)

This period of darkness behind us, someday all that will remain of the "new theology" and its partisans will be but a sad and unfortunate memory.

To us who, in this hour of darkness, must orient ourselves, whoever we may be, toward the door of eternal salvation, it appertains to resist fortes in fide (strong in Faith)(St. Peter), by praying, by opening our hearts to grace, and also by helping in the spiritual necessity of this grave hour those neighbors whom Divine Providence has put in our path.

Hirpinus.

Translated from Courrier de Rome, Novenber 1993
[Red font - The Catacombs]

Admin
Senior Member

Posts: 5,838

They Think They've Won! - Series Mar 14, 2018 23:49:00 GMT

Post by Admin on Mar 14, 2018 23:49:00 GMT

They Think They've Won
Part VIII

SiSiNoNo - December 1994 - No. 11

THE TRIUMPH OF MODERNISM OVER CATHOLIC EXEGESIS

In our last article we showed how those in modernist Rome "think they've won" even in the field of Catholic exegesis, an apparent and ephemeral victory, as we are assured by the divine promise-non praevalebunt (They will not prevail). Yet, this modernist victory has had devastating repercussions on the entire life of the Church, and threatens to eradicate the faith of Catholics, from the clergy down to the simple faithful. To prove this, it is simply a matter of considering the heresies that are propagated concerning Holy Scripture, or of casting a glance at the humblest of parish bulletins.

Starting in the reign of Pope Pius X until the year 1960, it seemed as though the Church had triumphed over the assaults of the modernist heresy. Actually, the forces of evil lay hidden in the shadows, preparing for the explosion of the neo-modernist crisis in the Second Vatican Council. St. Pius X himself had warned that the:

...(M)odernists have not abandoned their schemes of disturbing the peace of the Church. In fact, they have never stopped looking for new followers, whom they gather together in secret associations (Motu Proprio, Sacrorum Antistitum, September 1, 1910).

Even before the last Council, alarming symptoms of a fresh outbreak of modernism were making themselves felt here and there in the Catholic world, especially in Biblical studies. We may well point out that just as it was in Biblical studies that modernism first came to maturation through Fr. Alfred Loisy, it was also in the same domain that the rebirth of modernism made its formal reappearance. This time, however, it was not in Paris at the Institut Catholique that modernism was reborn, but rather in Rome, at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. This Institute had been established by Popes Leo XIII and St. Pius X to defend and protect Biblical studies from modernism, which is the poison that St. Pius X had exposed (Pascendi, 1907) as being hidden "in the very veins and in the bowels" of the Church, and which was now even attacking Its head.

In order to explain this phenomenon, no one has seemed to us to be more competent than Msgr. Francesco Spadafora who, together with Msgr. Romeo (now deceased), opposed it openly as soon as it made its appearance in 1960. (The titles and subtitles are added by sì sì no no.-Ed.)

A QUESTION OF VITAL IMPORTANCE

She [Perpetua] finally arrived, shamelessly, with a large cabbage under her arm, as if nothing had happened, leaving the poor Don Abbondio to his suffering, after he had pleaded with her for a solution to his problem.

This passage from Manzoni (I Promessi Sposi [The Betrothed] ch. II) came to memory when I read that long-awaited document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, first spoken of some time ago, and published last November under the title: Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Libreria editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1993, 126 pages). This document was prefaced by the speech given by his Holiness John Paul II on April 23, 1993 during an audience which he gave commemorating the centenary of Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Providentissimus Deus and the fiftieth anniversary of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, both of which dealt with Biblical questions.

It was during this audience that Card. Ratzinger presented John Paul II with the document prepared by the Pontifical Biblical Commission:

It is with great delight that I receive this document, the fruit of a collegial effort undertaken on your initiative, Carinal Ratzinger, and pursued with umost perseverance over a number of years. It provides an answer to one of the concerns which I take to heart, since the interpretation of Holy Scripture is of capital importance for the Christian Faith and for the life of the Church…

This preamble is followed by an explanation of the value of the two Encyclicals by Leo XIII and Pius XII devoted to Biblical questions. This explanation was summarized in the following manner by Msgr. Gianfranco Ravasi in the October 1993 edition of Gesù: the encyclical Providentissimus (1893) by Leo XIII against rationalism (modernism), is "apostolic." Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) by Pius XII, on the contrary, holds strictly to a positive line, urging Catholic exegetes to make scientific studies of Holy Scripture, and to make use of the instruments now made available through the progress of the various auxiliary sciences, like archaeology, philology and literary criticism, etc.

In his address on this occasion, John Paul II did not even touch upon this problem which has so troubled the Church since 1960. At the same time, the Pontifical Biblical Institute has openly adopted the two latest rationalist systems, Formengeschichte (R. Bultmann, H. Dibelius, 1920) and Redaktiong-eschichte (1945), completely disregarding the magisterium's precise doctrinal teachings found in all of its official documents. These new systems repudiate those three pillars of truth which serve as the foundation of Catholic exegesis: the divine inspiration of Holy Scriptures, their absolute inerrancy, and the historical authenticity of the four Holy Gospels.

These three basic truths of the Catholic Faith, constantly reaffirmed up to the time of Vatican II (see its declaration on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum), are now denied. The modernists now offer an interpretation of the Conciliar text, prepared by the Jesuit Fathers of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, with Card. Carlo Maria Martini, presently Archbishop of Milan, as their head. The document drafted by them, which was approved by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, states that they "do not claim to take a definite position on all the questions concerning the Bible, such as, for example, the theology concerning its inspiration" (p.28). It is as though they were dealing with secondary matters, rather than those of "capital importance for the Christian Faith and the life of the Church."

THE (CAUTIOUS) FAVOR OF CARDINAL RATZINGER

In the document's Preface (pp. 21-23), written by Card. Ratzinger himself, we read:

In the history of [Biblical] interpretation, the use of the historical-critical method has marked the beginning of a new era. Thanks to this method, new possibilities of understanding Biblical texts in their original meaning have come forth.

The above statement would seem to be the opinion of an incompetent person, of one who is not only ignorant of the great progress made in authentic Catholic exegesis, from Pope Leo XIII's pontificate to this day, but who is also ignorant of the destruction caused by the so-called "historical-critical method." The Cardinal continues:

Everything that helps us to better understand the truth...offers a valuable contribution to theology. It is in this sense that we can say that it is just that the historical-critical method be accepted in theological work. We must reject everything that limits our horizons and prevents us from seeing and hearing that which is above and beyond what is simply human, so that there is always an opening [to other possibilities]. This is why the appearance of the historical-critical method immediately gave rise to a bitter controversy regarding its usefulness and its true configuration. Up to the present time, this debate has in no way come to a conclusion. In these matters, the magisterium of the Church has, a number of times, taken its position through important documents....Leo XIII in particular expressed various criticisms....Pope Pius XII tended to give more leeway to encouragement of these doctrines...

Such is the thesis put forth by the "innovators" of the Pontifical Biblical Institute:

...but only after the death of that Pope. Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council's Constitution on Divine Revelation (November 18, 1965), takes up all of these issues, bringing together the enduring perspective of patristic theology and the new methodological knowledge of the moderns, giving us a synthesis which remains authorized....The Pontifical Biblical Commission gave itself the task, one hundred years after the encyclical Providentissimus Deus and fifty years after the encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, of seeking to define a position for Catholic exegesis for our times.

Newly confirmed after Vatican II, the Pontifical Biblical Commission is not a branch of the magisterium. Rather, it is a committee of experts who, conscious of their scientific and ecclesiastical responsibilities as Catholic exegetes, take positions on basic problems of scriptural interpretation. They are also aware of having the confidence of the magisterium in these matters....I believe that this document opens up new perspectives, and that it truly supplies valuable assistance in clarifying the matter of finding the right path that leads to understanding Holy Scripture. It follows along the same lines as the encyclicals of 1893 and 1943, and fruitfully extends their line of thought.

JUST A FEW OBSERVATIONS:

"That the historical-critical method be accepted in theological work is just," says Card. Ratzinger.

This is not very clear language. Perhaps it was deliberately meant to cover up the treachery perpetrated against the magisterium of the Church in the domain of Catholic exegesis. Formengeschichte, or the theory of the "history of forms," is understood here to be an "historical-critical method" (see p.32 of the document), and is one of the rationalist methods clearly opposed to the three revealed truths which constitute the foundations of Catholic exegesis: divine inspiration of Holy Scriptures, their absolute inerrancy, and the historical authenticity of the four Holy Gospels. Moreover, this "method" denies the dogmatic principle by which the infallible magisterium of the Church is the "proximate norm" for the Catholic exegete. (We will be later documenting amply what we are simply mentioning here).

For Card. Ratzinger, why is it right "that the historical-critical method be accepted in theological work"? A theologian worthy of the name should realize that what is at stake here is dogmatic in nature, since it concerns the very foundations of the Catholic Church. For this reason, Card. Ratzinger, with his title of Prefect of the Congregation for the Faith, should have intervened a long time ago, in order to bring this scandal to an end - a scandal that has existed since 1960, and which has poisoned, and is now poisoning students of the Pontifical Biblical Institute with its venom.

Card. Ratzinger has declared that the debate on the usefulness of the historical-critical method "has in no way come to a conclusion." If this is the case, what have these "experts" been working on for so long? Why have there been repeated announcements about this document, only to arrive at no conclusion? So, while studies are being carried out in Rome, or rather, while it is said that these matters are being studied, the Church is at the mercy of heretics.

And yet, the reasons for ending the "debate on the usefulness of the historical-critical method" do exist. We have barely alluded to them, but even the least "expert" of readers is able to realize this. The debate has not been closed for the simple reason that those responsible do not want it to come to a conclusion, to the great advantage of error and heresy.

For Card. Ratzinger, however, the debate has somehow come to an end through the "synthesis" of old and new forms of exegesis, a synthesis which, he says, is "authorized." But through which interpretation? In the one circulated by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, since it furnishes this synthesis with its own special arguments?

It is absolutely false that such a document "follows along the same lines as the encyclicals of 1893 (Leo XIII) and 1943 (Pius XII), and extends their line of thought in a fruitful manner." This is easily demonstrated, and we will do so later on.

VAIN ATTEMPTS

When Card. Ratzinger took up his position in the former Holy Office, I made it my duty to provide him with all the necessary information on the rebirth of modernism in the field of Scriptural studies, information which was contained in my book Leo XIII and Biblical Studies (Rovigo, 1976).

My efforts had no effect, however, and when I read the book L 'Esegesi Cristiana Oggi (Christian Exegesis Today) (ed. Piemme, 1991, 246 pages), containing the writings of Ignace de la Potterie, S.J., Romano Guardini, Joseph Ratzinger, Giuseppe Colombo, and Enzo Bianchi. I realized that it was altogether hopeless today to expect a remedy from the Dicastery , which is charged with the protection of Catholic doctrine.

Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, S.J.

Card. Ratzinger's name is thus to be found right next to that of Fr. Ignace de la Potterie, the promoter of the historical-critical method, who denies the historic authenticity of the Gospels, and who advocates the erroneous, heretical interpretation of Dei Verbum.

Once again I felt it was my duty to protest against these matters with Card. Ratzinger in person. I requested an audience with him at the beginning of June, and which I obtained for July 25.

Amongst other things, I told him that "the magisterium is here, and not at the Biblical Institute." Card. Ratzinger answered by mentioning that the Holy Father intended to intervene personally on the question of Biblical studies, after which I was kindly dismissed. Then, on April 23, 1993, John Paul II gave his disappointing speech, which appears at the beginning of this article.

Wishing to leave no stone unturned in defense of the dogmas that constitute the foundations of Catholic exegesis, I decided to try to interest the Italian bishops in these questions. In a meeting that Archbishop Giuseppe Agostino (Vice President of the Conference of Italian Bishops) kindly granted to me, I explained this very grave matter to His Excellency and left him with all the necessary documentation. About one month later, I received the following response:

Dear Professor,

First of all, I would like to express my great satisfaction in having met you. I understand well the seriousness of the problems you have brought to my attention, and have carefully read all the information that you kindly left with me. We must, of course, know how to accept what the magisterium itself proposes to us (cf. Dei Verbum). We are all aware of the fact that in recent times, as you have pointed out to me, various advanced, and sometimes deviant positions have arisen. However, I can say that the Pontifical Biblical Commission establishes norms for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Trusting in the work of the Spirit and in the hope of a humbler and more luminous Church, I remain respectfully yours,

Crotone, June 24, 1993

Giuseppe Agostino, Archbishop

Towards the end of July, I sent the Archbishop the following letter:

Your Excellency,

The Letter that Your Excellency was good enough to send me on June 24 has bitterly disappointed my expectations. However, I allow myself to make a few observations since I am sure of yours Excellency’s comprehension, and confident in your goodness towards me.

There is no truth of Faith as clearly expressed by all the Fathers as that of the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture, a truth that echoes the words of Jesus: Is it not written...Scripture cannot be broken? The infallible magisterium is unanimous on this score. For example, we have Vatican Council I, and Leo XIII’s Providentissimus Deus, which was defined as the Magna Charta for Holy Scripture by Pius XII.

….It was in order to comply with the rationalists, by accepting their two latest systems, Formengeschitchte and Redaktiongeschicte, that the Pontifical Biblical Institute abjured Catholic doctrine (see La Civiltà Cattolica, Feb 20,1993). At the beginning of the Second Vatican Council, the professors of the Pontifical Biblical Institute asked for the restriction of the infallibility of Holy Scriptures to passages concerning dogma and morals. The result of this was to render superfluous the doctrines of the Faith concerning the divine inspiration of the Bible. These matters had already been proposed as part of their teaching, starting in 1960, at which point the Holy Office intervened.

It is therefore not a question of some advanced, and sometimes deviant positions, but of programmatic deviations concerning dogma; true heresies stubbornly upheld and proclaimed, scandalizing the faithful. I would like to point out one final example demonstrating this fact. Recently, on May 6, 1993, before an audience containing many professors and students, Msgr. Romano Penna (professor of Holy Scriptures at the University of the Lateran) had the impertinence to present all the quibblings and inventions of rationalist Protestants as proof against the authenticity and historicity of Jesus’ words concerning the primacy of St. Peter and of his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. He pretends that these texts (Matt. 16:17-19; Lk.22:8-13; and Jn. 21:15-19)are simply belated creations of the second century, thought up by the “Petrine” faction and the Roman community. This is exactly like what Fr. Alfred Loisy, the leader of the modernists, (and excommunicated by St. Pius X), had dreamt up.

As for Card. Ratzinger, we can expect nothing from him. He seems to be completely under the influence of the Jesuits of the Biblical Institute, and particularly under that of Ignace de la Potterie, S J…In short, it seems to be impossible to have any confidence in the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

God knows that I am not lying. Shortly after His Eminence Card. Ratzinger’s arrival in Rome to take up his new duties, I was received in audience with him. For more than one half hour, I was able to inform him of the grave situation caused by the Pontifical Biblical Institute, which has broken with the magisterium of the Church, and which is presently enaged in open warfare with supreme Dicastery of the ex-Holy Office. I left him with my books as documentation.

He graciously agreed with what I put before him. On several other occasions I tried, but always with the utmost difficulty, to obtain an audience with him. However, on July 25 of last year I did succeed after a month-long wait. Again, this time, I was received graciously by His Eminence for about one half hour. In this audience I protested vigorously against the publication of the book, Esegesi cristiana oggi, (Christian Exegesis Today), written by Ignace de la Potterie, the Cardinal, etc. In this book, Fr. de la Potterie denies the absolute inerrancy and authenticity of Holy Scripture, justifying these positions through recourse to Dei Verbum. And so, His Eminence, by participating in Fr. de la Potterie’s book, with a study of R. Bultmann’s Formengeschichte, gives the logical impression of sharing the same heresies.

Finally, given the seriousness of this crisis, which has existed since 1960 with enormous damage to the students of the Pontifical Biblical Institute, many of whom are now professors of the Holy Scripture in universities and seminaries, I decided to speak about these matters to the Conference of Italian Bishops, of which Your Excellency is Vice-President. In the eyes of God, Catholic bishops are seriously bound in conscience to preserve and defend the deposit of the Faith (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 4:7).

CONCLUSION

So, in the end with things being as they are, I felt it was my duty to speak out publicly on those essential points, established by the infallible magisterium (extraordinary and ordinary), which form the basis of Catholic exegesis. It was also my intention to inform readers on the treachery perpetrated against the Church by the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the Pontifical Biblical Institute, which are in favor of the kind of "criticism" that destroys everything supernatural, and which rejects the basic teachings established by the magisterium for Catholic exegesis.
-Msgr.Francesco Spadafora

[Red font - The Catacombs]