|
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 poi- son 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 encyctical 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).
| |
Fr.
Ignace de la Potterie, S.J.
|
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.
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 be 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
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)
|
