|
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he is surprised that some people view him as already out of
date" [such is the fate awaiting theological innovators].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 [a
solemn warning] 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
| |
|
|
| |
|
One
of Trent's chief products was a series of anathemas on
Protestant errors. "Enough of condemnations!"
said Pope John before the first session:... |
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!
Hirpinus
(to be continued)
Translated
from Courrier de Rome, July/ August 1993
GLOSSARY
ANTIMONY
A contradiction
between two ideas; self-contradiction or paradox
Courtesy of the Angelus
Press, Kansas City, MO 64109
translated from the Italian
Fr. Du Chalard
Via Madonna degli Angeli, 14
Italia 00049 Velletri (Roma) |
