|
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 (Pascendt) 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, Pascendl) 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
3O 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
It
is a poor priest rather advanced in age who writes to you.
In my case, your maxim must be applied: what counts is "what
is said"and not "who said it."1...
...My
vocation was born in the midst of Catholic action and its
song: Always with the pope-even unto death. What a beautiful
destiny. Already, as a young priest, that was my profound
attitude. In the parish, the confessional, in preaching,
in teaching; every word of the pope was authoritative. It
was the Magisterium.
Is
it still the case today? The question arises from the disappointment
I experience before a pope in continual contradiction, and
sometimes, on the borderline of heresy
without being fully in it. I am reminded of the diligence
of your paper in pointing out the heretical explanation
by the Pope of descendit ad inferos (he descended
into hell).2
It
was a position of the "Holy Office"; it was not
the only one and it will surely not be the last. Since he
speaks all the time, this exposes him fatally not only to
the inexactitudes of language, but it also renders his doctrine
disputable and in certain cases, suspect of heresy. Yes,
it is truly difficult, even for he who lives the faith to
depend on the present Pope as the expression and the faithful
echo of the Magisterium of all time.
However,
what is infinitely more grave and what does not seem to
phase the judgment of the bishops and the cardinals, not
to speak of the theologians and insignificant journalists
who oppose one to another "the Pope as restorer"
and "the Pope as progressive," is the various
positions of this Pope. The foundation is built upon:
a)
the masonic substitution of anthropocentrism for theocentrism,
that is, man-centeredness for God-centeredness.
b)
the total suppression, in his teaching, of subjective redemption
in favor of objective redemption.
c)
an ecclesiology in which everything is relevant and current
(ecumenical passion, dialogue, etc.), except an authentic
notion of the Church.
In
fact, the consistent repetitions by this Pope concerning
man are known by all. When his discourse falls on "redeemed
man," it no longer concerns the man who has adhered
to Christ, who lives within the Church and by its sacraments,
but man as such, who "whether he knows it or not,"
within the Church or out of it, is "a new creation
in Christ." The lack of objective solidity of his ecclesiastical
vision is then, logical. The three points cited above are
in direct correlation with his blurred leadership. Regarding
the Church, I see an umpteenth confirmation of what I am
going to write below in this recent affirmation: "As
the bishops of the churches which are in Italy..."
No, this is wrong! Every good catechist knows it well. Those
which are here called "churches" are not so, for
in each one of them the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church is present. It is a case then of "dioceses,"
not "churches." By this manner of denumerating,
one easily forgets that Rome is the principle and the foundation
of the Catholic Church's unity. This concerns "fundamental"
theology. Its absence is evident. But can a pope permit
gaps this serious? And what can a poor priest do when he
appeals to the pope, if the latter is no longer the Magisterium
?
FOOTNOTES
1.
Allusion to the maxim of Si Si No No, taken from
the Imitation of Christ: Do not seek to know who said it,
but pay attention to what is said."
2.
Allusion to an article of Si Si No No dated June
15, 1989, under the title "To whom must we import the
discourse of the Pope at the general audience of last January?"
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)
|
