| Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes | N° 78 – March 2009 |
|
THE APPEAL FROM THE POPE TO THE POPE
The controversy raised by lifting the excommunication incurred by the four bishops whom Mgr Lefebvre ordained in 1988 has once again cast light on the need to appeal to the Pope, as we wrote to Mgr Simon. The latter did not reply to us, as was foreseeable, because what reply can be given to people who are right? To appeal to the infallibility of the Pope is tantamount to proving oneself wrong…infallibly!
The abundant letters to the Editor published by La Croix on this occasion provide a redundant demonstration of this. The first of these letters sets the tone (below).
The repeated will of Pope Benedict XVI is to support and maintain a « hermeneutic of continuity » between the teaching of Vatican II and the ordinary, traditional, and infallible teaching of the Catholic Church. In other words, to square the circle! This is in spite of the “hermeneutic of rupture” that this letter illustrates and that has prevailed and still prevails in the whole of the Catholic world, both in the ranks of the teaching Church and in those of the taught Church.
VATICAN II, AN ATHEISTIC COUNCIL
« The avowed and categorical aim of the integrists is to call Vatican II completely into question. According to them, we do not even have the same faith. In order to be convinced of this, it is necessary to have read their documents and those of Vatican II, and, for the latter, to have appropriated them. In any case, one cannot merely be content with playing the card of emotional reaction, taking umbrage at lifting the excommunication or acquiescing to the fact that everyone can have his place. This tolerance, which is meant to be respectful of both unity and communion, has a price. How can it be believed that the divergent understandings of God-Men relations can cohabit in the hearts of the faithful and within communities? As for us, we are atheist as to the God that they put forward, even if it is the One that was proclaimed by the majority in the past centuries.
« We must not fear to say that Vatican II initiated a rupture, even though we have not yet fully taken its full measure and exploited all its riches.
« Until now, in the handling of the Lefebvrist schism, in the affair of the integrists’ return to Rome, of the return of integrism (?), no one has ever really expressed the substance of what is theologically at stake beyond ecumenism, liberty of religion and of conscience, interfaith dialogue, relations with the modern world, and collegiality.
« Who will finally dare to take the time and the means for making it apparent and denouncing the archaic vision of God-Men relations into which we risk being re-immersed with the lifting of the integrist excommunication by Rome? If the announced dialogue leads to a dogmatic consensus, to a two-sided theology (how could it be otherwise unless the excommunication is reactivated?), will we Catholic Christians thus have the vocation of becoming theologically schizophrenic?
(“The Hand Outstretched to the Integrists”),
La Croix, Tuesday, 27 January 2009
TWO HOSTILE RELIGIONS
The people who signed it declare that they cannot « merely content themselves with playing the emotional card, taking umbrage at lifting the excommunication or acquiescing in the fact that everyone has his place ». How can we not adhere to this categorical refusal of an irenic tolerance that would permit two religions within the same Church?
They in fact define the teaching of Vatican II that they claim to adhere to with perfect precision when they add: « This tolerance, which is meant to be respectful of both unity and communion, has a price. How can it be believed that divergent understandings of God-Men relations can cohabit in the hearts of the faithful and within communities? » This would be tantamount to « becoming theologically schizophrenic ».
Since religion is nothing other than what those who sign this letter call « God-Men relations », their letter has the virtue of highlighting the opposition of two religions within the Church since the Second Vatican Council. How can we not acknowledge them to be in the right when they affirm that these two religions cannot « cohabit in the hearts of the faithful and within communities »? One must chose – it is one or the other – or else « become theologically schizophrenic ».
For their part, they choose the new religion born of the Council, in a profession of faith, or rather a profession of atheism, gravely insulting to the Living and true God, without incurring the indignation of La Croix or the Conference of Bishops:
« As for us, we are atheist as regards the God that they put forward, even if it is the One that was proclaimed by the majority in the past centuries. We must not fear to say that Vatican II initiated a rupture, even though we have not yet taken its full measure and exploited all its riches. »
Can there be a worst “revisionism” than denying the existence of the God of our Fathers?
Here we have people who are « atheist » as regards the thrice Holy God adored by the generations that preceded us, who pour out appalling blasphemy, indulging in the denial of apostates… and no one becomes indignant? The reason is that they are in line with the Council. At least they affirm so. They certainly include the Holy Father Benedict XVI in the « we » designating those who have not yet taken the full measure of the “rupture initiated by this Council”. Without their knowing it, or perhaps with full knowledge of the fact, they denounce the irenicism of Benedict XVI, his refusal, hardened in him from the time of his clerical youth, to proceed with any condemnation. They judge and irrevocably condemn the two-millenium-old Catholic religion.
When he condemned Modernism, St. Pius X had anticipated that the heresy’s next step « would plunge headlong into atheism ». Benedict XVI enjoined Mgr Williamson to retract his statement on the subject of Shoah. Will he anathematise this declaration of disbelief in the God of « God-Men relations » prior to Vatican II? His responsibility obliges him to do so under pain of becoming complicit in and thus guilty of this rupture, this apostasy.
Thus we must renew the appeal to the Pope that the Abbé de Nantes has been uttering in the desert for forty years, with more insistence than ever.
It is in fact up to the Holy Father to judge the « essence » by showing, if he can, that those who signed this letter are mistaken by affirming this conciliar rupture with the Catholic God of past centuries:
« Until now, in the handling of the Lefebvrist schism, they write, in the affair of the integrists’ return to Rome, no one has ever really expressed the substance of what is theologically at stake beyond ecumenism, liberty of religion and conscience, interfaith dialogue, relations with the modern world, and collegiality. »
What an error! The Abbé de Nantes, theologian of the Catholic Counter-Reformation in the twentieth century, « really expressed the substance of what is theologically at stake », denouncing as an apostasy the conciliar conception of « God-Men relations » in his Book of Accusation addressed « to our Holy Father John Paul II by the grace of God and the law of the Church sovereign judge of all Christ’s faithful », in the form of a « complaint against our Brother in the faith, Karol Wojtyla, on account of heresy, schism, and scandal. »
The Abbé de Nantes accuses Pope John Paul II of « blasphemy » and « apostasy » for having substituted « the transcendence and kingship of man » for « the divinity » and the « kingship of Jesus Christ ». This is « the substance of what is theologically at stake » in the conciliar Decrees and Constitutions repeated by the Roman Pontiffs who have succeeded one another in the See of Peter since 7 December 1965. The Abbé de Nantes « really expressed » it, and Rome knows it so well – the theologian Ratzinger more than anyone else – that she left his extremely serious complaints without answer… without sanction, other than an unprecedented “disqualification” that is beyond the orbit of canon law. It is a re-enactment of the derision of which Our Lord was the victim on the part of Herod: « Herod and his soldiers treated Him contemptuously and mocked Him, and after clothing Him in a rich garment, he sent Him back to Pilate. » (Lk 23:11)
By means of this “disqualification”, Rome eluded all doctrinal judgement on « the substance of what is theologically at stake », knowing full well that if she were to answer these accusations in accordance with canon law, she would be led to acknowledge that the Abbé de Nantes is in the right. Mgr Sandri, now a cardinal, head of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, admitted so to me…
Yes, pro-conciliar and post-conciliar Rome knows that if she re-entered the ways of the traditional Magisterium, stating what is not the Faith and what is, she would have to abjure the « cult of man » proclaimed by Paul VI at St. Peter’s on 7 December 1965, and return to the cult of God, as He was held to be and adored always, everywhere and by everyone, of the God who will come to judge sovereignly the living and the dead, opening Heaven to some and condemning others to Hell. What will become of those who say that they are « atheists » regarding this God of Catholic tradition? What will become of them in die illa, “on that day”?
In fact, the innovative conception « of God-Men relations », in other words the new religion introduced by the opening to the world by Vatican II, has a hidden face: forgetting eternal Hell. When he evoked the « twenty centuries » of the life of the Church in his speech on 11 October 1962, Pope John XXIII recognised as their law and ultimate end only concord among men and world peace. This would be the object of Gaudium et Spes. The supernatural order of the last things and the means to be implemented in order to obtain forgiveness, justification by the Cross, and the reward of Heaven, is totally reduced to an assistance that cannot even be called “religious” but moral and cultural, an assistance that is proportioned to exclusively temporal ends that are so much sought after. All darkness has been effaced: Satan, Hell, original sin, the partisans of Satan, mortal opposition to the Church of God. Nothing of all that subsists.
FOR A NEW SYLLABUS
This « new humanism », that Pope Paul VI proclaimed solemnly in his Closing Address for the Council on 7 December 1965, is already implicit in the speech of 11 October 1962. It can “really be expressed” in eight points or « heresies » against which we appeal to the infallible judgement of the reigning Pope Benedict XVI.
FIRST HERESY: IDOLATRY OF MAN
« We, more than anyone else, we have the cult of man! » Paul VI declared. Consequently, the Catholic faith in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three divine Persons, is no longer anything more than a ferment, thanks to which secular humanism is capable of attaining its twofold ideal of perfection of the human person, recognised and protected in all his dignity, and of world unity, which alone is able to attain visible, earthly peace.
To adhere to the Council is to admit that every man and all men have two overlapping ends to be attained successively: to build a human, fraternal world and to work out their salvation by seeking God and serving Him. It is understood that the latter cannot exclude the former. It is a real dilemma.
These two ultimate ends are a heresy: « You cannot serve God and Satan, money, and the world… » This is the first rupture with the old religion that professed the necessity of believing in Jesus Christ not only for the advantage of a better earthly life, but in order to avoid eternal Hell and to be admitted into the happiness of Heaven.
SECOND HERESY: ILLUMINISM
A second rupture is marked by the Pentecostal illuminism that is apparent in the Opening Address of John XXIII. Claiming that he had an inspiration, confirmed by « a beam of heavenly light » that fell on the interfaith assembly gathered at St. Paul Outside the Walls during the proclamation of the Council, on 25 January 1959, the Pope did not hesitate to compare Vatican II to « a second Cenacle ». This insinuates that between the first Cenacle, from which the Church was born on Pentecost day, and the « second », the twenty ecumenical Councils – mentioned with the highest praise at the beginning of the speech – do not count.
In other words: the Second Vatican Council founded a new religion.
Anathema sit !
THIRD HERESY: PROPHECIES OF HAPPINESS
The authoritative condemnation of the « prophets of doom » constitutes a third rupture with the tradition of the « prophets » of all time, from Elijah to Lucy, the seer of Fatima. It is a difficult path, a Calvary, to accept such a role from God, such an unrewarding mission, and this already pleads in favour of their sincerity, and even in favour of the truth of their oracles. They all have Jesus Christ Himself for patron in the Gospel, and Our Lady of the Holy Rosary at La Salette, at Fatima. Their « prophecies of doom » are incentives to penance, moral conversion, return to the true faith in Christ and true obedience to the Church. Announcements of happiness, on the other hand, are debilitating, intoxicating. They therefore do not do any good and very probably do not come from God unless they are, as always in Holy Scripture, the announcement of a liberation after a harsh punishment (Isaiah 40 - 50), or the announcement of a flood of graces at the request of the Most Blessed Virgin on a people docile to Her demands.
The contempt, irony, and sarcasm of the pontifical discourse has only one explanation: in 1960, everyone was expecting the publication of the third part of the Secret of Fatima. John XXIII did not want it and used his affability and his happy nature as an excuse for shirking his duty.
FOURTH HERESY: IDOLATRY OF THE WORLD
The fourth rupture is the corollary of the preceding one: the Church, Spouse of Jesus Christ, solely concerned with pleasing Him, had always worked « in the world » for her unique Lord. A spirit of adultery led her to turn towards « the world » for which « Jesus did not pray » (Jn 17:9). It did so with « a boundless sympathy », as Paul VI said in his Closing Address, not at all in order to reprimand and condemn it with a view to its conversion to Jesus Christ, but in order to know it better so as to please, love, and serve it.
Anathema sit !
FIFTH HERESY: MODERNISM
The fifth rupture is a direct consequence of the preceding one: Modernism triumphed at the Council by virtue of the principle set out by John XXIII according to which « the deposit of the Faith itself, that is to say the truths contained in our venerable doctrine, is one thing, and the form under which these truths are presented, while still preserving their same weight and meaning, is another thing ». Despite this final restriction, John XXIII laid the foundation of a “Reform” that would drastically change dogmatic theology, without respecting « the meaning » or « the weight » of the dogma of the Faith.
SIXTH HERESY: RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
A sixth rupture attests to the Reform, which was already contained in the words of John XXIII: « Men are more and more convinced that the dignity and perfection of the human person are very important values that demand serious efforts. » The declaration Dignitatis humanæ made this proposition explicit and the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes drew all the consequences from it. They can be summarised thus: « The dignity and perfection of the human person are such that it is no longer fitting to use violence or coercion, but to acknowledge that everyone has the liberty and full responsibility for their thoughts, their choices, their social and political commitments. »
Anathema sit !
SEVENTH HERESY: ECUMENISM
This heresy consists in attributing to Our Lord Jesus Christ a desire for unity that He never had and substituting it for His true plan, which He Himself inaugurated by His Cross: gathering into His Body and through His Blood the Jews and the pagan nations, a divine work that renews all the past Covenants, pulls down the objective barrier established by God between the two peoples, in order to make of them henceforth only one.
From Pentecost on there is only the Church, to which all peoples are called, but there are no religions outside her. The error was to have broken with the dogma according to which « outside the Church there is no salvation », and to have given a certain legitimacy to heresy and schism as doctrine, worship, and discipline of some value, conceding that they are means of salvation in a real although imperfect « communion ».
Once this error is set forth there are two possibilities: either the One Church, reconstituted, is the sum, harmony, and fullness of the 360 communities of the wcc plus the Roman Church… or else she is only the Roman Church, but she has been mutilated because she has amputated and rejected so many of her members. No Catholic can accept that because, in both cases, it is the triumph of Luther. Already when he called on the Church to “Prepare Vatican III” on 14 October 1971 in the great hall of the Mutualité, the Abbé de Nantes summarised the work of Vatican II under these headings: “The Return of Luther”, and “Luther Surpassed” (CRC no 50, November 1971, p. 10). Benedict XVI persists and signs. At the general audience on Wednesday, 4 February 2009, he rehabilitated Luther, affirming that the increasing number of points of agreement between Catholic and Protestant exegesis concerning the Epistles of St. Paul, « during the last two hundred years », had allowed the arrival of « a remarkable consensus precisely on the point that was at the origin of the greatest historical disagreement ». The Pope did not specify what this point was.
He only continued, saying: « It is thus a great hope for the cause of ecumenism, central for the Second Vatican Council. »
We must therefore appeal from the Pope to the Pope on this matter, and also on an eighth heresy that further develops the first one.
EIGHTH HERESY: APOCATASTASIS
There exists today in the whole of the “human race”, according to John XXIII, a « unity of esteem and respect » that raises hopes for the salvation of all men even though « they do not yet participate in the sources of grace that reside in the Catholic Church ». At the Council, Karl Rahner thoroughly exploited this affirmation by giving these men the name of « incognito » or « anonymous Christians ».
It was, however, Karol Wojtyla, the young bishop of Cracow, who provided the justification for it by declaring that by the sole fact of the Incarnation of the Word of God, all men are united to Him « in some fashion », thus saved… in some fashion. This was the guiding principle of the declaration Nostra ætate.
This is to forget that every religion or irreligion, every form of dissidence from the Catholic Church, every system of atheism or agnosticism presents in its principle and foundation a key conceptthat contradicts the Christian Faith in its form as well as its contents… Whatever the common points may be, or the parallelism of the various “faiths” and morals, all these personal beliefs or these religious or anti-religious groups, underestimate and despise our holy religion.
We say this without prejudging individual salvation.
Yes truly, all the principles of the conciliar revolution are already contained in the Opening Address of John XXIII of 11 October 1962. They are not new ideas, but the daring and authoritarian formulation of already condemned errors. We are waiting for Pope Benedict XVI to renew, to confirm these condemnations in order to confirm his brethren in the faith.