He will return with his immense heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul
and his smile. He will return! And the Immaculate Heart of Mary will triumph!

OUR LADY OF FATIMA CAMP 2007

THE SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL

« DE FONTIBUS » ... « DEI VERBUM »

THE SOURCES OF THE FAITH FORBIDDEN  

The dogmatic Constitution “Dei Verbum”, which was promulgated on 18 November 1965 by the Second Vatican Council, is « one of the pillars of the entire conciliar edifice », Pope Benedict XVI declared during the Angelus on 16 September 2005, recalling that he had participated « as a young theologian in the lively discussions that accompanied its drafting ». The Holy Father has decided that the next Synod of Bishops will take place in Rome in October 2008 and will have as its theme: « The Word of God in the life and mission of the Church ». He has expressed his wish « that the Word of the Lord spread to the ends of the earth, in order that through the proclamation of salvation, the whole world believe, and by believing hope and by hoping, love ».

One “Peritus” among all the others, but one with no other “mandate” than that of his fidelity to the “sources”, the Abbé de Nantes also took part in the conciliar controversy, but from here, our Maison Saint-Joseph. His powerful “intervention” in the Letter to My Friends n° 186, 15 October 1964, surely did not go unnoticed in Rome; his writings were passed round there clandestinely. This Letter is a masterpiece in six full, compact pages. It is all there!

The question is whether, as the Holy Father states, « the impact made by Dei Verbum, which profoundly re-evaluated the fundamental importance of the Word of God has engendered a renewal in life of the Church, above all in her preaching, catechesis, theology and spirituality, and even in the ecumenical process »; or whether, as the Abbé de Nantes had already observed, six years after the Council: « Today it is only too certain that the sources of the Faith are forbidden to the mass of the faithful, the infidels, and to everyone’s children, those of practicing Catholics above all. » ¹

Who will decide between them in this dispute?

FIRST DOCTRINAL CLASH

An initial schema entitled “De Fontibus Revelationis” that was drafted by Cardinal Ottaviani’s Theological Commission in perfect accordance with the traditional doctrine of the Church on the « two sources » of Revelation, Scripture and Tradition, was put aside in November 1962 after a violent show of opposition by the reformists, who were led by Cardinal Liénart.

« This schema displeases me, the Archbishop of Lille declared peremptorily as soon as the debates opened on 14 November. There are not, there never were two sources of Revelation; there is only one, the Word of God, the Good News that the prophets announced and that Christ revealed. The Word of God is the unique source of the Revelation. This schema is nothing but a cold, scholastic treatise, while Revelation is a supreme gift of God, of this God who addresses Himself directly to us [sic!]. We would do better to think a little more like our separated brethren who have so much love and veneration for the Word of God. Our duty at the present moment is to cultivate the faith of our faithful and to stop condemning. Thus I propose that this schema be completely revised. » ²

While Cardinals Ruffini and Siri flew to Ottaviani’s aid, the heavy artillery of the reformist minority took up position. Following rapidly one after another, Cardinals Léger (Montreal), Koenig (Vienna), Alfrink (Utrecht), Suenens (Mechelen), and de Smedt (Bruges) rose to demolish the schema that was proposed to the Fathers. The coup was well staged. Their arguments were borrowed from the counter-schemata that had been prepared by the German theologian Rahner, assisted by Ratzinger and the Dutchman Schillebeeckx, reassured by the support of the leaders of the German, Austrian, Dutch, Belgian and French episcopates…, who had not consulted their flocks! The tension was extreme. When relating the meeting that the German theologians had on the afternoon of 14 November, Heribert Schauf, peritus at the Council, speaks « of a plot and a political gathering rather than a theological discussion ». It is difficult to see in this febrile agitation the mark of the Holy Spirit!

JOHN XXIII SUPPORTS REVOLUTION

But our revolutionaries were covered. They quoted abundantly the speech of 11 October, “Gaudet Mater Ecclesia”, in which John XXIII had invited the Fathers to find a new language, one better adapted to the modern mentality than the ancient dogmatic language:

« It is necessary for this certain and unchangeable doctrine, which must be respected faithfully, to be studied and expounded in a way that meets the requirements of our time. For, the deposit of Faith, namely the truths that our venerable doctrine contains, is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another, preserving nevertheless the same meaning and the same import. »

At the same time as he affirmed the necessity of new expressions of the Faith, the Pope announced that the Church would no longer condemn errors, on the grounds that they « exclude each other » and, « as quickly as they arise, they vanish like fog before the sun » (sic!). To change the formulas and then to announce that the Church would no longer condemn is, our Father said, as though a pharmacist were to give orders to his employees to change the labels of all the flasks of his pharmacy, guaranteeing them impunity in case of error or crime.

Yet, to say that one would no longer condemn anyone is tantamount to betraying the faith of the Church: « The faithful, priests, bishops and even the Pope are only members of the Holy Church, our Father wrote, insofar as they adhere to the apostolic Faith and reject all that contradicts it, insofar as they are faithful to the Unique Bridegroom of their souls and hostile to impious seducers and idols of Satan. They owe their Master and Lord this twofold witness to their fidelity, to profess everything that the Holy Church their Mother holds to be revealed and to condemn with anathema all that she has reproved. “He who is not with Me is against Me, Jesus declared, and he who does not gather with Me scatters.” No one can refuse to condemn error, on whatever grounds, without outraging God and lowering His Word to the level of the diverse and uncertain opinions of men. A “liberal” faith is neither sincere nor upright, its hope diverges from divine will, and its charity is nothing more than crime and adultery. » ³

THE END OF THE COUNTER-REFORM

For six days the combat raged. The whole orientation of the Council depended on this debate. « The week of 14 to 21 November constitutes the decisive turning point of the Council and thus for the Catholic Church. » Ruggieri wrote. ⁴

« If tomorrow the schema falls, the event is grave, Cardinal Siri, Archbishop of Genoa wrote on 19 November. Etenim serpit modernismus... Modernism is slithering. Lord, help us! Blessed Virgin, St. Joseph, pray for us! Cunctas hæreses sola interemisti in universo mundo. »

On 20 November, to the question: « Must discussion on the schema continue or not? » 1368 Fathers voted in favour of an interruption, 822 for a continuation. This result meant the rejection of the schema. Nevertheless the regulations required a two-thirds majority. The debate thus resumed. But the next day, to everyone’s surprise, Pope John XXIII, on the advice of Béa and Léger, decided to carry on regardless and to send the contentious question before a Joint Commission composed of members of the Doctrinal Commission and the Secretariat for Unity. The devil take the regulations! The battle was lost for the traditionalists.

« The enthusiasm of the non-Catholic observers was evident. A bishop who was a friend of theirs went towards their tribunal gallery and said to them a friendly and ironical: “Long live the Pope!” The Council, without yet putting it into writing, carried out perhaps one of the most important mutations in the doctrinal evolution of the Catholic Church: the option for “pastoriality” in her doctrine… A new era had begun. » ⁵

Fr. Rouquette rejoiced. Giving a review of the first session of the Council, he wrote:

« One may consider that with this vote on 20 November the age of the Counter-Reformation has ended and a new era with unforeseeable consequences is beginning for Christianity. » ⁶

Well, no! Ever since Jesus Christ instituted the new and eternal Covenant, there cannot be a « new era ». The only novelty that He and the Apostles announced was that of the apostasy that the Antichrist would provoke, putting man in God’s stead and dragging humanity to its ruin. Furthermore, the “innovators” had invented nothing. Cardinal Ruffini, the eminent Archbishop of Palermo, exclaimed with dread: « We have opened the door to Luther, to rationalism, to Modernism! »

The day after John XXIII’s decision, Rahner, Küng and Schillebeeckx decided of one accord to create Concilium, a progressive theological review, « in the spirit of the Council ». Joseph Ratzinger, the young personal theologian of Cardinal Frings of Cologne, approved of the first issues of the review and contributed them.

THE FAITH GOING ADRIFT

Another schema originating from the Béa-Ottaviani Joint Commission – with Liénart acting as reporter! – was sent to the Fathers in the spring of 1963. Then, for two years, no one spoke about it, at least officially. The new text was « no longer polemical », but « not yet ecumenical »; therefore it pleased no one. It was known, however, behind the scenes that the Commission was divided over it, with a majority of reformists (17 votes out of 24), who were attempting to impose its « new theology » on the minority who resisted because they discerned in it a clever corruption of the Faith.

In order to make understood what was at stake in this debate on “the sources” of the Revelation, the Abbé de Nantes compared the Divine Truth that is contained in our Creed to living water of which Jesus Christ is the historical earthly source and the Apostolic College is its resevoir. Church Tradition, by its worship, its dogmas, its discipline, conveys it and throughout the centuries is its sole and continuous channel. Finally the distribution system is the teaching Church, the infallible Magisterium, from which we ask for nothing other than the water of the Source, and not the fetid or sugared water of their wells nor the wine of their barrels.

« The entire effort of the Innovators consists in attacking the joints of this Tradition, in order to dissociate its elements; then they advocate another marvellous way, the modernist way, of knowing the Word of God, a different faith! »⁷

In order to explain to his readers what was at stake in this battle, the Abbé de Nantes compared the Catholic Faith on the one side with the new Christianity on the other.

THE CATHOLIC FAITH

« I will betroth you to Myself with faithfulness
and you will come to know Yahweh. » (Ho 2.22)

« We believe with full certainty that the Son of God made man revealed during His earthly life all the divine truth that it pleased the Father to make known to us for our salvation: He thus brought to fullness once and for all the knowledge that men should have of divine mysteries. The Apostles saw and heard this subsisting, unique divine Word. Inspired very specially by the Holy Spirit for this work, they taught and thus fixed in human language all this life and this doctrine, these divine and historical facts and these spiritual revelations that form the sacred sources and foundations of our religion. »

Divine and historical facts: Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, preached, worked miracles, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, was buried, and descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into Heaven… Spiritual revelations: if He suffered in this way unto death on the cross, it was to redeem us. It is the mystery of Redemption.

« At the death of the last Apostle, this deposit was closed, completed either in oral recommendations and preaching or in writings; the Church would only have to conserve this deposit, explain it, and interpret it in order to faithfully transmit its divine teaching to souls. »

Oral recommendations and preaching, for example, on the manner of celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pardoning sins, and distributing the Sacraments. Writings, gathered together in the New Testament.

« Thus we have access through the Church to the apostolic Tradition in which we hear and read the Word of God, without any other veil than that of the Faith. The work of the Church herself has consisted of a continuous “Tradition” faithful to this initial Revelation to successive generations. She has fulfilled this mission by translating the original words according to the languages of men, by precisely condemning false interpretations or developments that appeared here and there, by defining and gathering into a corpus of doctrine what the apostolic Tradition taught in a divine manner, no doubt more perfectly, but less adapted to us. The dogmas, liturgical prayer, the Creeds and quite simply our catechism are thus the works of ecclesiastical Tradition, in which we truly and conveniently find God’s authentic Revelation. The Church has done the work well, under the fully solicitous authority of her Pastors and by having frequent recourse to their infallibility. » For example in 1854, in order to define the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and in 1950, to define the dogma of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

« Thus the Holy Spirit guarantees this zealous and attentive work of the servants of God’s Word. We must not distinguish between the Church and Jesus Christ, between the Church’s Tradition and Revelation; they are one and the same thing. It is through this total teaching, through and in her formulas and rites, that the Catholic reaches by means of faith the very mystery of God and achieves union with his Saviour. We can read Holy Scripture, rediscover the teachings and customs of the early Church – this is even recommended – but we will always find therein the same teaching as that of the modern-day Church, the same faith, the same truth. Nevertheless, the teaching most adapted to us, the surest, is obviously the faith of the catechism as explained by our good parish priest in keeping with the Church the whole earth over and recapitulating or evoking the teaching of all his predecessors.

« No revolution is possible, no historical evolution either, no alteration due to exterior influences, no foreign contribution. If the Church develops her teaching, it is by drawing from her apostolic treasure these new things in keeping with the ancient, without denying or changing anything. On the contrary, it is the apostolic deposit that then seems better known, and the new teaching appears lucidly drawn from the Tradition. Thus, there is nothing nebulous, fanciful, “prophetic” in this Magisterium, and we believe in it precisely because of this fidelity and this lucidity. It itself affirms that no other revelation or divine illumination can contradict it. The teaching of the Church is the Faith, and the Faith is the Tradition through the Church of the Word of God received from Jesus Christ and first taught by the Apostles. It is clear. »

And it is obligatory! « This divine Truth, which is made accessible to anyone, must be preached to every man, and everyone must adhere to it under pain of damnation. It is their only salvation and is accompanied by such certain signs that no one can resist them if he has a correctly formed conscience and if he is docile to the light. Incontestable reasons prove the error of the other alleged religions and systems; solid historical proofs lead every man of goodwill to consider Christian preaching most worthy of belief. Among all the others, the continuous miracle of the Church, faithful to her Founder, is the most decisive sign of “credibility”. Then, in full objectivity, equipped with all the intellectual and affective forms of satisfaction and ascertainment that can be rightfully demanded, assisted by grace, man enters the Church through faith, which earns him to justification and salvation. Thus we see that faith in the teaching of the Church that dispenses to us the revelation of Jesus Christ – a faith agreed to on God’s authority, is the first basis of all unchangeable and steadfast Christian life. »

THE PERFIDY OF A NEW CHRISTIANITY

« Since My people have committed a double crime:
they have abandoned Me, the fountain of living water,
only to dig cisterns for themselves,
leaky cisterns that hold no water. » (Jr 2.13)

In his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which was promulgated on 8 September 1907, St. Pius X set out the steps taken by apostasy during the last five centuries in these terms: « The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism; the second is made by Modernism; the next will plunge headlong into atheism. » (55)

« The first step in this direction was taken by Protestantism », which places Holy Scripture above everything else and against the oral Tradition received from the Apostles. Unlike previous heresies that attacked some article of the Creed, a material object of the Faith, the novelty of Protestantism challenged the very Authority that teaches it to us, a formal object of the Faith.

It is through the authority of Christ, who received it from His Father and who gave it to His Church, that she preaches, baptises, teaches and governs, with an apparatus of functions and powers that give the faithful access to the treasure of the divine mysteries, in the Faith.

Luther, on the other hand, studied the Bible in isolation. He interpreted it according to his “ private judgment ”, without any other guarantee than his not too lucid intelligence, and an alleged assistance of the Holy Spirit that he declared – motu proprio – he possessed. On the strength of this, « every Protestant is Pope, a Bible in his hand » !

Thus there is a chasm between the Catholic Faith and this pretension of Luther, which leads to mental and moral anarchy, with its two substitutes between which the world won over to the new Gospel is divided: pietism or charismatism on the one side, and rationalism or scientism on the other.

« The second step is made by Modernism », which does not pit the individual who freely interprets Scripture against the Church who interprets it in the light of the Tradition, but which pits the modern generation against those of antiquity.

« Loisy believed that he would save the Faith from the criticisms brought against it by science, by recognising that the Faith had indeed greatly changed throughout the centuries, but always to correspond to men’s religious sentiment and by adopting the continual evolution of science. Dogmas and rites were inventions, elaborations of the Church, but under the pressure of a divine instinct that always made faith in Christ the most perfect expression of man’s religious sentiment. Thus, instead of preaching to all ages the same Word of God conveyed by the Apostles, the Church should at every age renew her formulas and reinvent her dogmas in order to correspond to the aspirations and demands of the new humanity. Faith is no longer received from Jesus Christ; it ferments in us under a divine influence. »

Thus, from the beginning, it is not St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, or St. John who related Jesus’ life; it is the early community, the first generation of Christians, who « invented » Jesus’ story with the help of the Old Testament. For example, the account of the multiplication of the loaves was to have been inspired by the story of the manna in the desert. Afterwards, the Church subsequently elaborated Eucharistic dogma and worship. « For Modernism finds in this religious sentiment not faith only, but with and in faith, revelation. » St. Pius X wrote.

Exit Tradition; let us make a clean sweep of the past. « Our conscience, our religious experience reveals God to us better than the conceptions of a by-gone era! »

Semi-modernism. « This is when the most brilliant distorter of the Faith, Maurice Blondel, intervened. He proposed a new system that reconciled this evolutionism with Catholicism, dogmas with history, the permanent with the changing. »

« He would explain the past and open wide the doors to the future. His “pan-Christianity” consisted quite simply in making Christ live, act and speak again in His Church. The latter, instead of indefinitely repeating out-dated, unsuitable truths that the Apostles heard on the lips of Jesus, only has to “become aware” of His “Mystery”, contemplate and listen to the ever-living Christ in her collective soul in order to understand the new Revelations that correspond to the signs of the times. Thus Christ augments and increases in stature, continues and perfects His revelation throughout the ages, escaping from – and His Church along with Him – ancient formulae and human traditions… The Church only has to listen to Christ-God speaking in the collective conscience of humanity, of all humanity, in order to start thinking in terms of the modern world, to renew herself and correspond to everyone’s expectations.

« Only, by means of a fraud without comparison in history, Blondel adopted the same word “Tradition” to designate this inventive and innovative Life of Christ in His Church – “Tradition”, which until then had been used to designate the faithful transmission of an unchangeable and sacred deposit that had been formed once and for all and received by the Apostles. The Faith in this latter Tradition was submission to Jesus Christ, the new faith in this “living Tradition” is, on the contrary, affirmation of novelty and evolution, which prohibits past dogmas and recreates an ever new Word of God thanks to Christ living in us. Equivocation was in the heart of the Faith! »

St. Pius X prophesised, « The next step will plunge headlong into atheism ». This is where we are now.

« HERESY IS IN THE COUNCIL. »

It was in September 1964, at the opening of the third session, that the text that was to become the Constitution Dei Verbum was communicated to the Fathers. For the reformers who intended to prevail in the course of this session, the stakes were considerable: the discussions that were already underway concerning religious freedom, ecumenism, Judaism and relations between the Church and the modern world required « a new definition of the principles that would command the new attitudes » to face the problems that no other Council had experienced. « What authority would they have, in fact, if they did not rely on the Word of God and were not its expression? » ⁸

Since the Joint Commission had not succeeded in coming to an agreement, two reporters of the proposed text were appointed. The first, for the reformist majority, was a Roman theologian who had « rallied round » to the novelty: Mgr Florit, Archbishop of Florence, who had defended Ottaviani’s preparatory schema in 1962. The manoeuvre was clever, but Florit was not sure that he was right: « My report seemed bold. I am afraid of the responsibility that I am assuming », he noted in his diary. To reward his good offices, he would be named cardinal in February 1965…

Mgr Franic, the Bishop of Split, who had not faltered, was the spokesman of the defenders of the Faith.

The debates took place from 30 September to 6 October 1964. They were stormy. Our Father followed them with extreme attention and concluded: « Heresy is in the Council. » ⁹

A NEW PRINCIPLE

Now is the time to look at the text of the Constitution Dei Verbum, which « is in a certain manner, as Mgr Florit recalled, the first of all the Constitutions of this Council, in such a way that its preamble introduces all of them. » Here, then, is the cornerstone of the whole Second Vatican Council.

« Hearing the word of God with reverence and proclaiming it with faith, the sacred synod takes its direction from these words of St. John: “We announce to you the eternal life that dwelt with the Father and was made visible to us. What we have seen and heard we announce to you, so that you may have fellowship with us and our common fellowship be with the Father and His Son Jesus Christ » (1 Jn 1.2-3). Therefore, following in the footsteps [vestigiis inhærens] of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine on divine revelation and how it is handed on, so that by hearing the message of salvation the whole world may believe, by believing it may hope, and by hoping it may love. » (n^o 1)

Our Father’s commentary is compelling:

« No one objected anything to this solemn preamble of the first Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council? It is perfect? Admit that you have nothing to criticise here. The Council announces that it is going to teach us. Is this not within its power and right?

« Honour to Cardinal Ruffini who declared this text “inept” in his intervention on 30 September 1964. ¹⁰ ». Honour to the minority that understood the alarming sleight of hand that changed, from the first word, the substance of our religion!

« But what is inept therein?

« The Council took itself for the College of the Apostles, immediate witness to Christ and inspired by Him. St. John, who is quoted abusively, had “seen” and “touched” the Word of Life, and he related, with the assistance of the divine inspiration that was granted to the Apostles, what he himself had heard and seen Christ say and do. But neither Paul VI, nor Cardinals Alfrink, Suenens, Marty, etc., nor the Council as a collegial whole, saw, touched or heard Christ. At Vatican II, there was no apparition or illumination! To claim so is the first imposture. A second one is to pretend that the Holy Spirit was there to inspire the Fathers just like the Prophets of the Old Testament and the Apostles of the Gospel. » ¹¹

VISIONARIES AND PROPHETS

After relinquishing the idea of exercising its supreme and infallible authority in dogmatic and moral matters, the Council laid claim to a prophetic power of evangelical Reform in the Church, equal to that of the College of the Apostles, as though they enjoyed the same privileges from which the latter alone benefited to found the Church: « It claimed to be “pastoral”, not to make itself less than the previous dogmatic Councils, but to appear more than them altogether. » ¹²

The first words of the Constitution Dei Verbum clearly show on what that claim is based: the Fathers affirm that they are in direct, immediate and inspired contact with the Word of God Himself in order to found freely a new Church. “Therefore, we continually hear the Fathers state, when the text pleased them: “The Holy Spirit is here. This schema is obviously inspired by the Spirit’, etc.” ¹³

For the first time ever in the history of the Church, a Pope and a Council along with him consider themselves new Apostles and a new St. Peter. How can it be that they are the first and the only ones in nineteen centuries to be in direct contact with God and immediately listening to His Word? This is quite simple. In his opening speech of the second session, Pope Paul VI invited the assembly to reform the face of the Church to resemble that of Her Lord: “The Church wants to see herself in Him as though in a mirror.” This comparison and contrast only make sense, our Father remarked, if the Church contemplates Christ separately, without any kind of mediations. « This “interior illumination of the Holy Spirit” becomes the supreme rule of faith; it frees the one who enjoys it from all submission to the dogmas and traditions or to the Scriptures that would be contrary to it.” ¹⁴

MAIN BREAK

Since the Second Vatican Council, the faithful people no longer have access to the source of the Faith for a quite simple reason: the channel has been obstructed; the Magisterium of the Church is no longer exercised. It is not a question of “hermeneutics”, to speak as Benedict XVI does when he advocates a “hermeneutic of continuity”. For the way that he exercises his Magisterium, or rather that he does not exercise it authoritatively, constitutes a rupture that separates him from all his predecessors, from St. Peter to Pius XII. This “rupture” is precisely this “schism” that our Father denounced in his “BOOKS OF ACCUSATION” against Paul VI and John Paul II. This is the result of the entire Modernist effort that for a hundred years endeavoured to divert the Magisterium of the Church by no longer situating it as the very channel through which Revelation reaches us, but on the margins, like an ancillary function of control and interpretation. At the Second Vatican Council, it succeeded.

To account for this, our Father uses a comparison, a “parable”. He compares us traditionalists to a child who has been exiled to a foreign land, who receives a letter from his father still in Baghdad:

« If you ask him through how many hands this letter has passed, he will look at you surprised. He does not care! Is not the important thing that he has the letter? But if it is a telegraphic message that must have been subjected to successive transcriptions and translations, from Iraqi to Arabic, from Arabic to Italian, to French? Therefore, the whole point is to know if there is a feeling of confidence…

« Well, because we have faith in the Church that infallibly teaches us the Revelation of God, thanks to the help promised her, countless transcriptions and successive translations matter little: we receive the Revelation in its full Truth from the Church. Whether this Message comes to us through twenty generations or whether it comes from the Scripture or from the apostolic Tradition, by means of the liturgy or the Fathers, through Church traditions or the decisions of the Magisterium, we do not care: it is our Credo. »

But in their claim to reach God’s pure, living, present and immediate Word, the reformers – from the twentieth century as well as those from the sixteenth century – abolished, reversed all the relays that were regarded as so many obstacles to “getting back to the Bible” in order to find “the Spirit” again. From the telegram received in French, I return to the obviously better Italian formula, then to the Arabic text. I question the latter in turn to suppose the content of the Iraqi one. And from there, off I go! I free myself from the hypothetical original text, without further ado, to imagine my father himself talking to me as though he were in front of me: the text no longer serves as a vehicle to the message but as a doubtful support and insufficient to my spiritual union with my father.

« Is that all? No, not yet! For what does everything that God did long ago mean to a man of today? Even transcribed in modern words, this Revelation is an Act of the past and, therefore, out of date. It is only interesting and even meaningful in virtue of the analogy that it suggests with what God’s Act is today, the only one we care about. Abraham is devoid of interest unless Abraham is not revealed as present in me, in you. Abraham is you, he is me! God speaks to us as to him. I read his story to help me hear God Himself speak to me today, as he did to Abraham long ago. To awaken the prophetic Spirit in me, to hear God’s Word in me, I relive Abraham.

« Thus, the Council ended up raising the “sensus fidelium” to the status of an absolute source of the Word of God. This equates to making of it the infallible sense that the People of God has of this Word, the prophetic “charisma” that makes them speak, that makes them say the Word of God and accomplish it. When, two or three of them are gathered together, Christ is there among them. Then there is the Celebration of the living Word, as later on, the Sharing of the living Bread. God speaks and things are. The Word of God is what happens, it is the event, it is Life, and it is History! We read it on the newspaper each morning; and in our own hearts!

“God’s Word is thus His plan at work today: it is the creation of the world by the hands of men, it is the gathering of God’s People in community, it is the “sign of the times”, the success and happiness of man.

“DEI VERBUM! God’s Word!

“The circuit is completed. One pipe after another, the entire channel of transmission of the Revelation is dismantled, made useless. The People of God, who have become “witnesses”, are in direct contact with God, who speaks to them without an intermediary and awakens “the Spirit” in them, the Spirit as Christ had Him. Thus they have “the Gospel”, they have the Spirit, who creates whatever He wills and who does all that He says, the Spirit Creator. And this People bear witness by their whole lives. It is a Word of God. ¹⁵

This is the poison that is diluted in the constitution Dei Verbum, which is concealed under occasionally admirable formulas. Today this poison is spread throughout the whole body of the Church. Numerous traces of it can be found even in the Pope’s book on “Jesus of Nazareth”.

AN IMPLACABLE CONFLICT

Before the newly amended text of Dei Verbum was finally adopted, there was a last battle, first in the aula and then in the Commission that had been set up to examine, reject or integrate the amendments of the Fathers. Most of the modi that had been presented by the traditionalists began to be dismissed, in the name of an alleged « textual balance » that had already been reached.

But there remained one modus that had been presented by one hundred eleven Fathers and that aimed at defining the complementary nature of Scripture and Tradition: « Latius patet Traditio quam Scriptura. » Yes! Tradition is more open, has a broader scope than Scripture. In order for example to found the faith in the Assumption of the Holy Mother of God…

If this truth was maintained, the traditional doctrine was saved and the Protestant observers would have to submit or withdraw. If, on the contrary, as the reformers demanded, the Council established that Tradition teaches nothing more than what is in Scripture, they triumphed.

The difficulty was referred to Pope Paul VI who found the way to settle the conflict… in favour of the reformers. To the unambiguous ancient text: « The Church does not draw from holy Scripture alone the total contents of Revelation », he added one word: « does not draw from holy Scripture alone her certainty on the whole content of the Revelation. » He wanted to say: I agree with the Protestants; Tradition teaches nothing more than Scripture, but if one wants to be perfectly sure about what holy Scripture teaches us, it is necessary to have exterior help from the Church, the witness of Tradition.

Some of the Fathers from the minority thought that all had been saved. « But the correction was false for two reasons, our Father noted: if Scripture does not give certitudes, if one must have recourse to the Tradition for Scripture to be certain, then it is no longer inspired. Secondly, it affirms that the total contents of the Revelation are in Holy Scripture, which I deny. »

A CONFUSED TEXT THAT FOSTERS HERESY

In the constitution Dei Verbum, Scripture is first; it becomes the sovereign Rule of the Faith, even though, in Number 10, a key text, the role of the Magisterium was recalled at the demand of the minority, a reminder that was regretted by the others, which has since then been ignored.

The Protestant theologian Karl Barth observed that « of the six chapters of our (sic!) Constitution, four are precisely devoted to a doctrine of Sacra Scriptura... One would wait in vain for a corresponding exposition on “Tradition” and the “Magisterium”. » (…)

« Many had obviously abandoned the traditional view. But there was not sufficient unanimity to formulate a clear declaration on the new view. The ancient formulations were an almost insurmountable obstacle for any radically new view. The schema was an expression of this unresolved theological situation. The fact that such a text passed was promising. Not only did it open the way for new discussions on the problem of Scripture and Tradition, but it also constituted solemn proof of the fact that there can be uncertainty on questions that seemed resolved long ago. This fact raised the entire problem of doctrinal continuity. It is possible that the confusion that reigns concerning Chapter II is a beata confusio. » ¹⁶

It was a diabolical confusion with serious consequences!

FORTY YEARS OF ILLUMINISM

The Dogmatic Constitution Dei Verbum was adopted on 18 November 1965 by 2,344 votes against 6! After the last modifications that were imposed by the Pope, papolatristic integrism collapsed. The manoeuvre was to be renewed more than once… Alberigo was thus able unashamedly to entitle his last chapter: “The Church under the Word of God” ¹⁷, by quoting Number 10 of the Constitution: « The Magisterium is not above the Word of God, but serves it. »

« In the past, this Word was that of Jesus Christ, our Father wrote, today it is recorded by listening to the World, it is in the prophetic conscience of the Christian People, according to Blondel, “the idea always enriched by life and by the suggestions of the Spirit of novelty”. The Spirit of novelty is the new Spirit that blows in the wind of the History of Salvation. But is it still our Holy Spirit? »¹⁸

That is the crux of the matter. For forty years, the modern, postconciliar, reformist clergy has no longer been teaching the Catholic Faith from the pulpit of truth. It no longer want to, by virtue of the principles laid down by the Second Vatican Council, the first of which, the basis of all the others, is religious freedom, which forbids imposing on modern man a ready-made, doctrinal, dogmatic truth, which has “fallen from above”.

Where does this originate, if not in the Council!

HOW CAN « TRADITION » BE RESTORED?

« Obviously, the best solution would be to propose at the opening of Vatican III that a global anathema be cast on the Reform of Vatican II, on its principles, on its Acts and on all its decrees specifying how it was to be enforced. »

But, our Father hastens to add, « it would be insufficient to say: let us go back to the schemata that the preconciliar Commissions had prepared. They were undoubtedly not damaged by the errors that were added to or substituted for them, but they did not explicitly reply to them; they did not sufficiently foresee them. They are precious, privileged witnesses to the true Catholic Faith on the eve of the Reform, but the proof of their insufficiency is that they were unable to defend themselves per se from modern error, i.e., they afforded no protection to their authors nor for their own integrity. Entered now upon this good way, this Catholic way that it will have rediscovered, Vatican III must make the effort to produce a new, more explicit dogmatic exposition, must deduce more precise truths and formulate a series of anathemas that will authorise dismissal of ambiguities and exclusion in an irreformable and definitive manner of the error that endangers the Faith. »

First of all, « it is true that we listen to God and listen to His Word! »; but through the channel of the human word of the Church and by no other means, whoever we are. We neither listen to the Word of God through new revelation, nor through esoteric tradition, nor through an illumination of the Spirit. Our fundamental principle consists, thus, in this: if man today wants to drink living Water, he can only take it from the tap, and he must. If he does, he will be in the best of health. Anathema on anyone who claims to go to drink directly at the source, who argues that tap water, is not to his taste or that it is tainted.

There results this « positive counterproposal » by way of preamble, replacing that of Dei Verbum:

« Devoutly listening to the voice of the teaching Church, we are certain of receiving the peace, joy, and spiritual fruits of salvation and eternal life through the Church’s ministry, which is the true Word of God. Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit, granted to us in accordance with Christ’s promise, we accept in its entirety the Revelation of these Mysteries that illumines and transforms our soul and heart unto the resemblance of Christ Himself. As for us, according to the status and particular gifts of each, we pass on and teach this doctrine to all men »

« I know Christ only through the ordinary and common traditional teaching of my Mother the Church. I have the assistance of the Holy Spirit in order to hear, receive and love well this teaching through which I have access to Revelation, to the very Word of God. No, the Spirit does not speak to me. He makes me hear what the Church teaches. And the Pope or the Body of the bishops do not hear the Holy Spirit any more than I. He enlightens them and assists them in order to make them understand the teaching of their predecessors and to express, explain and develop it well, by settling every uncertainty and resolving every conflict. But for them as for us, the immediate Source of the Faith is always the global, ordinary, continual and universal teaching of the Church. » ¹⁹

HARMONISATION OF THE SOURCES

« The sin of the Second Vatican Council consists entirely in this extolling of one’s own insights and inspirations as coming from somewhere else other than from the teaching of the Church of the past, and from something above the sovereign and infallible Authority with which she has always been endowed. And if someone continues to place his “Word of God” above the teaching of the Church, let him be anathema! »

« Since the Lutheran Reformation and against its exclusive cult of the Bible, the Church clearly distinguishes two Sources of Revelation: Scripture and Tradition. The theologians of the Counter-Reformation had a tendency to exalt Tradition; and they wanted to prove that it was necessary by means of this decisive argument: it contains elements of Revelation that are neither explicitly nor implicitly contained in Scripture. At least this is a doctrine that has become common; yet the Magisterium has never adopted it solemnly. »

« It seems to me that Vatican III ought to seek a dogmatic improvement along another way: the harmonisation of all this doctrine of the Sources of Revelation, on the basis of our fundamental principle: the Revelation of God reaches us in and through the teaching of the Church where the living Waters of all its sources intimately blend together. There is no lacuna in this teaching, no incoherence, no watertight compartment, not even any real division according to the various contributions. All is interlinked. The distinction of the sources, which is possible in theory, would be difficult in practice, and even impossible in the details of the questions. » ²⁰

Only our Mother and Teacher the Holy Church can harmonise the sources of the revealed Faith. They are so vast, so rich and divine! She is always working to understand these treasures that she takes stock of, meditates on, orders, interprets and translates into languages. Our Father, the Abbé de Nantes, magnificently demonstrated it when he wrote in July 1998 his Profession of faith, in reply to the motu proprio “Ad Tuendam Fidem”. ²¹ We sign it, with the grace of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with our own blood, if necessary.

Brother Bruno of Jesus.

To consult the original unabridged French text

(1) CRC n° 51, décembre 1971, p. 8

(2) Xavier Rynne, La Révolution de Jean XXIII, 1963, p. 124

(3) Letter to My Friends n° 248, 29 June 1967

(4) Alberigo, Histoire de Vatican II, t. 2, p. 281

(5) Alberigo, Histoire de Vatican II, t. 2, p. 319

(6) Études, janvier 1963, p. 104

(7) Letter to My Friends n° 186, p. 4

(8) Mgr Weber, Introduction à la Constitution Dei Verbum, éd. du Centurion, 1966

(9) Letter to My Friends n° 186, p. 6

(10) Unam Sanctam 70a, p. 160, note 8

(11) CRC n° 51, décembre 1971, p. 10

(12) Letter to My Friends n° 212

(13) CRC n° 51, p. 9

(14) CRC n° 50, p. 14

(15) CRC n° 51, p. 10-11

(16) Cité par Alberigo, t. 4, p. 257

(17) Ibid, t. 5, p. 337-437

(18) Letter n° 186, p. 6

(19) CRC n° 51, p. 12

(20) CRC n° 51, p. 13

(21) CRC n° 348, p. 4-6