|
|
The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century |
||
|
HE IS RISEN! |
|||
|
No 70 |
Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes |
July 2008 |
|
|
|
The Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 21st century |
||
|
HE IS RISEN! |
|||
|
No 70 |
Editor : Abbé Georges de Nantes |
July 2008 |
|
|
He will return with his immense
heart, with his heart of fire, his poor man's soul |
|
OUR LADY OF
FATIMA CAMP 2007
PASTORAL CONSTITUTION ON THE CHURCH
(GAUDIUM ET SPES BY THE ABBÉ DE NANTES
CHAPTER I At the Council, the Church put itself « in the service of man ». It was in the Preface of this constitution Gaudium et Spes (1 - 3). To do so, it was better to know « the situation of men in the modern world » (4 - 10), and it must be admitted that it was not an easy matter… The Church wanted to encourage the modern world by showing great enthusiasm for its innovations and its progress in all fields, but she also wanted to avoid the dangers and the anxieties that it caused, in such a manner that she would be allowed to advise it in sensitive questions where she reckoned that she has a real and rare competence. The first of the questions listed previously (11, 3) is this: What does the Church think of man? Here is the answer: MAN IN GOD’S LIKENESS. It is only a deceiving title. 12. § 1. « According to the almost unanimous opinion of believers and unbelievers alike, all things on earth should be related to man as their centre and crown. » I am flabbergasted! I already pointed out to you that it is the Council’s way of thrusting forward right from the first words some great principle or remarkable affirmation, without supporting references, proofs, or arguments. There is nothing! When crushed by such an unexpected blow, the audience, or reader in private does not dream of reacting, and temporarily accepts – a temporary acceptance, which after forty years can be considered definitive – as strongly as an obvious fact. Here this insane and pernicious proposition, which is appalling to our faith, is particularly lightweight. a) It is based on an alleged general agreement of all men (!), believers or unbelievers… I ask: What is such an agreement worth? Who could have manipulated, as enormous and inert masses, all humanity on a subject that might be said, as a philosopher or a moralist, an empty idea, which does not correspond to any reality, but on the other hand, is well-suited to undermine all human order? b) All the more is this so inasmuch as this proposition is decreed in normative terms, which forces the whole world to make man the centre and the crown of its thoughts, its wills, and its works. Ideally, it can be understood and verified because in all thoughts and concrete activities, even building, cultivating, inventing systems, in the end it is always for one’s fellow men and for himself that man works. But what man? That is the decisive question: first I, one would say; no, the poor first, and then us! In another group: the family first; and in another, the Party first… The cacophony will be all the more deafening because the great principle put forward will have maximised to excess the claims for the dignity and the interest of the kind of man, or group, or individual of its choice. Do not forget that the title of this chapter indicates the reason for this sensational introduction: it is “The Dignity of the Human Person” that suddenly pulls him out of his dunghill, from his dust, in order to raise him to the level of kings, wise men and heroes. There lies the evil. The trouble comes from the number of persons who have been charitably convinced of their « dignity », in such a manner as here they are promoted: centre and crown of creation! c) Let us let the consequences appear in the remainder of this text, in order to show the error and the established harm. A lone consideration seems necessary to me to be made from the first moment. Did our bishops think that a man, only one in the world had indeed claimed this universal supremacy, this kingship on earth, in Heaven, and in the Underworld, this superior authority and this central responsibility over all, absolutely all, Our Lord Jesus Christ, about whom Pilate said mockingly: « Behold the Man! » Jesus Christ Himself announced that this supereminent place belonged to Him and would be recognised to Him, when He would have consummated His redeeming Sacrifice. He said: « Now is the time of judgement on this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And when I am lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men to Myself. » Then, the universal man, who is “no one”, promoted to the crown and the centre of the world by universal acclamation to which a Roman Council joins its unanimous approbation, appears to us to supplant Jesus Christ on the suggestion of the Prince of this world, who although thrown down, seems to have regained strength. When the Council gives this paragraph the title of « man in God’s likeness », this man without religion, without nation, without any perfection other than being man, seems to me here to be on the part of an apostate world, the object of an autolatric cult! § 2. « But what is man? » This is an amusing regression. No one knew what he was and already, by world-wide acclamations, the peoples had proclaimed him the centre and crown of their universe! Who is he then? There is no answer. For us, Catholics, He who deserves to be it and who already truly is it, is Jesus Christ. But who is His rival? No one. So what is it? An abstraction. What else? Already we are thrown into strange perplexities: « About himself (man) he has expressed, and continues to express, many divergent and even contradictory opinions. In these he often exalts himself as the absolute measure of all things or debases himself to the point of despair. The result is doubt and anxiety. » Too obsequious, the Council adds: « The Church certainly understands these problems ». The aim of this kindness is to give itself the right to intervene: « Endowed with light from God (ah, at last!), she can offer solutions to them, so that man’s true situation can be portrayed and his defects explained, while at the same time his dignity and destiny are justly acknowledged. » I will explain the tortuousness of the discourse. Why are there twenty pages of totally naturalistic considerations to end up in desperation giving to the world, and first to its own Catholic faithful, a good lesson of catechism that the infallible Church takes from divine Revelation? Why? I answer infallibly: in order to mitigate the Faith by the various opinions that were expounded beforehand with incredible fervour and, once both the dignity and the secular vocation of man were laid down as inviolable principles, to pour into this concrete of lies all the elements of the Christian Faith that can be put into it. I am warning you: the entire catechism lesson that follows will seem Catholic to the innocent faithful who reads with confidence the Conciliar Act! It is in fact rigged, as I will have the honour of pointing out to you line by line: § 3. « For Sacred Scripture teaches that man was created “to the image of God,” is capable of knowing and loving his Creator, and was appointed by Him as master of all earthly creatures (the use of this last word enables the Council to avoid speaking of the « Angels » whom Gaudium et spes ignores) that he might subdue them and use them to God’s glory. » This carefully prepared! turn of phrase saves them from holding God for the ultimate end of creation: its crown is man, but alongside man, worship can be given to God. This kingship of man concerns Paradise before sin, as though nothing had changed! A quotation from Psalm 8, which is found everywhere because it is the only one that praises man to the pleasure of our modern pride! Here it is: « What is man that You should be mindful of him? A mere mortal that you should care for him? You have made him little less than a God, and crowned him with glory and honour. You have given him rule over the works of Your hands, putting all things under his feet (Ps 8.5-7) » This quotation constitutes an abuse because the authentic Hebrew, which the Greek of the Septuagint retains, reads: « You have made him little less than the angels (sic) », and the conclusion that the Epistle to the Hebrews draws is that man whose glory and splendour is related here, far from being « the man » about whom the Council is concerned, is Jesus Christ Himself, as the whole of the Patristic tradition has always taught (cf. He 2.9). It is quite simple: in order to exalt man, they pinch from Jesus His divine titles… § 4. « But God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning “male and female He created them” (Gn 1. 27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential. » These slight slips seem insignificant but they would have serious consequences if they were not picked out immediately. Here it is: before Eve, there was God, and their first personal relationships or « interpersonal communion » were established between God their Creator and Father, through the gift of supernatural grace, to each of them as His children. This establishes this earthly Trinity in the likeness of the divine Trinity: God the Father, Adam His Son, and Eve, God’s daughter first! and Adam’s wife. The binary relationship that the Council establishes here ignores God in order to bring Adam and Eve face to face as equals, and as having unlimited sovereignty over the universe.. It is an invention of human pride in which feminism finds itself strengthened (see our Kerygmatic study: L’amour devant Dieu, CRC no 65, fév. 1973, p. 3-14; published in CCR no 77, Aug. 1976, pp. 4-19). The final words: « unless he (man) relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential », provides Adam with a secular identity card: as though he were alone in Paradise, thus unable to survive, as though God had created a failure… The Council forgets that God was with them, and that His conversation was the source of their wisdom and happiness… § 5. « Therefore, as we read elsewhere in Holy Scripture God saw “all that He had made, and it was very good.” (Gn 1.31) » This is exact and it must be retained for this first time of Creation, without insidiously secularising it: when everything was the work of God, created by Him and for Him. For man, at that time was for God, and woman was for her husband according to what God had instituted, for God also. SIN. We were quite right to be wary… 13. § 1. « Although he was made by God in a state of justice (and of holiness, do not forget!), from the very onset of his history (you know nothing about it) man (do not forget woman already) abused his liberty, at the urging of the Evil One. Man set himself against God and sought to attain his goal apart from God. » His goal – why pass it over in silence – was in accordance with the urging of the Evil One, already! to be like gods, God’s rival; yes, really, did it bother you to say it? Because of your first universal principle, above, 12.1! What follows is good: « Although they knew God, “they did not glorify Him as God, but their senseless minds were darkened” (Rm 1. 21-25) and they served the creature rather than the Creator. » But… is this not exactly what you do in your studies on man, on his human situation in which God, after having created the world expects nothing else from man, and man asks nothing of Him either? « What divine revelation makes known to us agrees with experience. Examining his heart, man finds that he has inclinations toward evil too, and is engulfed by manifold ills which cannot come from his good Creator. Often refusing to acknowledge God as his beginning (and his end! you seem not to want it!), man has disrupted also his proper relationship to his own ultimate goal (I would like to know what you mean by that) as well as his whole relationship toward himself and others and all created things. » It is excellent. What follows is also. Yes, but… § 2. « Therefore man is split within himself. As a result, all of human life, whether individual or collective, shows itself to be a dramatic struggle between good and evil, between light and darkness. Indeed, man finds that by himself he is incapable of battling the assaults of evil successfully, so that everyone feels as though he is bound by chains. » This is the sombre evocation of evil that is in man, and is he able to work his salvation? Yes, yes! But… « But the Lord Himself came to free and strengthen man (oh! oh! here are rather secular restorations!), renewing him inwardly and casting out that “prince of this world” (Jn 12.31) who held him in the bondage of sin. For sin has diminished man (it does not seem to be mortal), blocking his path to fulfilment (It is a pity, but that is not essential) ». There you are! In the twinkling of an eye, a clever, expert eye! Man’s situation that was magnificent before original sin, lamentable afterwards, was re-established, not perfectly equal, but sufficiently for man to be able to cope on his own (with the Church’s advice) and fulfil his vocation. Question: When did this re-establishment take place? From Jesus Christ. – Do you find it conclusive? – Not really! but it is precisely because the message of the Council was lacking. § 3. « The call to grandeur and the depths of misery, both of which are a part of human experience, find their ultimate and simultaneous explanation in the light of this revelation. » Here is an odd anomaly: it seems as though Jesus intervened to repair the motor, indicating the breakdown, then went away again when it was repaired; the repaired auto works fine… without baptism, faith, and worship! So, here is present-day man. THE CONSTITUTION OF MAN. 14. § 1. « Though made of body and soul, man is one. Through his bodily composition he gathers to himself the elements of the material world; thus they reach their crown (!) through him, and through him raise their voice in free praise of the Creator (what a charming view of the spirit!). » But, be careful! The « buts » and the « thus » that begin new themes without warning are insidious. Here for example « Thus man is not allowed to despise his bodily life »! This proposition is naturalistic; with an initial alleged « ban », it runs counter to Catholic asceticism, to the spirit of « sacrifice ». For every disciple of Jesus, Jesus crucified, it reveals an impious spirit that will be shown in what follows. « Rather (!) he is obliged to regard his body as good and honourable since God has created it (oh! what a fine pretext that is) and will raise it up on the last day. » Would it be that he already needs to be cleansed for resurrection day? Here I find a tone of paganism resembling that of Julian the Apostate, with a secret spiteful anger and contempt of all the renunciation of Jesus’ disciples to the flesh, to the vanities of this world that passes, and to narcissism. « Nevertheless, wounded by sin, man experiences rebellious stirrings in his body ». Not only rebellious stirrings! « But the very dignity of man... » Ah! Here is what reveals Modernist impiety! It is not for love of Jesus and the imitation of His virtues that the Council demands everyone to preserve his body in honesty, but it is the new divinity « … that postulates that man glorify God in his body (it is worthwhile to point out the roundabout way: via dignity, one arrives at concern for divine praises) and forbid it to serve the evil inclinations of his heart. » Another problem! This passage on man’s soul and heart is worthless, but it lets it be supposed that man, whoever he may be, is in continual conversation with God. It is all cheap illuminism. § 2. « Now, man is not wrong when he regards himself as superior to bodily concerns, and as more than a speck of nature or a nameless constituent of the city of man. » It is the word « nameless » that makes this egoistical and proud irreducibility accepted; no man is not a number, but he is an element of the « city of man », which is very noble. « For by his interior qualities he outstrips the whole sum of mere things. He plunges into the depths of reality whenever he enters into his own heart; God, who probes the heart, awaits him there (we are in a complete confusion of a doubtful natural and a unlikely supernatural); there he discerns his proper destiny beneath the eyes of God (it is fiction but someone who takes it seriously can only pride himself on so many undeserved praises!). Thus, when he recognises in himself a spiritual and immortal soul, he is not being mocked by a fantasy born only of physical or social influences (!), but is rather laying hold of the proper (!) truth of the matter. » All of this is in accordance with present-day, concrete man! But the tone was rising in order to elevate human dignity degree by degree until the « eminent » summit, with a false note that would mess everything up. FROM ONE LEVEL TO THE NEXT, THE RISE IN POWER OF THE DIGNITY OF MAN. Let us summarise before tackling the summits. 12. Man who is created to the image of God is the centre and crown of the universe. He is master of the earth, as God is of Heaven; he governs his domain while praising and glorifying God. For he is capable (!) of knowing and loving his Creator (it is quite natural… to serve Him, There is no question of it). 13. He wanted to realise his full development outside of God, against Him. There resulted a thousand evils, a dramatic struggle, in which man knows that he is defeated in advance. But the Lord (who?) came to restore his liberty and his force, to throw out the Prince of this world (when? How?) The fact remains nonetheless that man is, because of sin, prevented from reaching his fullness. This revelation enlightens man well (anyone and everyone) on his profound wretchedness, but also on the sublimity of the human vocation. It is not said, but it forms an inclusion: it is a question for man to regain the lordship of Adam on the earth and, to glorify God since he is capable (!) of knowing and loving Him by his own strength… 14. The dignity of man is thus recognised, practically by all our contemporaries. We can specify the degrees: the human body must be esteemed and respected because it is created and must rise from the dead. Tempted by the rebellions of his body, his dignity imposes on man that he glorify God in his body. We remarked the double imperium that is exerted on man: here, it is his dignity that requires a moral effort from him; and there, it is he himself who, because of his dignity, glorifies God! But it is in the depths of his inner being that man recognises in himself a spiritual and immortal soul « where God awaits him ». Such is « the laying hold of the proper truth of the matter ». There are discovered the summits of breathtaking dignity: of intelligence, conscience and freedom, but… DIGNITY OF INTELLIGENCE, TRUTH AND WISDOM. We are off again to sing man’s glory, and of course, there is some truth in it… 15. § 1. « Man judges rightly that by his intellect he surpasses the material universe (the sentence is enigmatic; I would like to hope that it is an antidote for the very pernicious Kantian axiom, according to which human science cannot break through the barrier of the world as perceived by the senses; thereby it rejects any « metaphysical » demonstration and truth), for he shares in the light of the divine mind (that is true; according to St. Augustine, God is the sun of minds). By relentlessly employing his talents through the ages (this constantly admiring style is not proper to an ecclesiastical assembly, and what is more to an assembly of such quality !) he has indeed made progress in the practical sciences and in technology and the liberal arts. In our times he has won superlative victories (same comment as above, with a touch of irritation) especially in his probing of the material world and in subjecting it to himself (Gagarin impressed Pope Paul VI much more by walking on the moon than did the Virgin Queen of Heaven by moving the sun at Fatima! ). « Still he has always searched for more penetrating truths, and finds them. For his intelligence is not confined to observable data alone (should the scepticism of my remark on the ambiguous sentence which is quoted above be retracted? But of course, if I believe what follows...), but can with genuine (sic) certitude attain to reality itself as knowable (thus, metaphysical), though in consequence of sin that certitude is partly obscured and weakened. » This is contrary to the universal domination of Immanuel Kant, and to his odious mutilation of the human mind. Well done! In this power of the intelligence to go to God, I admire with the Council the dignity of the human being, yes! § 2. « The intellectual nature of the human person is perfected by wisdom and needs to be, for wisdom gently attracts the mind of man to a quest and a love for what is true and good. Steeped in wisdom, man passes through visible realities to those which are unseen. » I agree, and it would be a new title of glory for « the person »…; re-read the Book of Wisdom and the other Sapiential Books. But alas! these scribes of the Old Testament, later on the Apostles, and then the Doctors of the Church are less optimistic than Vatican II: divine Wisdom, according to St. Paul, is a folly for the Greek, and for the Jews a stumbling block! To be able to embrace it one must have received the Holy Spirit through Baptism! On the other hand, the Council sets no conditions on acquiring Wisdom, and appeals to no light, no life, and no grace. It is given or won by man without his deviating from secularism! What follows will make us think about the mental health of the renowned assembly… § 3. « Our era needs such wisdom (it is very loosely defined by the way) more than bygone ages (why?) if the discoveries made by man are to be further humanised (if it is a question of humanising, we are going round in the narrow circles of secularism!). For the future of the world (here come the great slogans!) stands in peril unless wiser men are forthcoming. » But our era hands over its time to this: Mitterrand, John Paul II, and UNESCO elect them at great expense, with a great to-do. They are all nonentities whose promotion deadens the mind. This is where our bishops make me laugh: « It should also (they are ashamed of the stupidity that the social communication media have used as propaganda and by which they have the vague feeling that they are the ones who have been duped) be pointed out (did you notice that? As for me, it is distinctly the contrary!) that many nations (which ones? Tell us!), poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in wisdom (now, don’t make me laugh! Kathmandu is rich in gurus, Marrakech in postcards...) and can offer noteworthy advantages to others. » It is absolutely false, obviously. Nevertheless, when someone reads such stupidity, I imagine that he could find hundreds of thousands of poor persecuted Catholics in Vietnam, Lebanon, or the Sudan, whose simple, supernatural, “integrist” remarks would prove to be infinitely « wiser » than the « wisdom » of conciliar texts like this one! Then there is a backlash. § 4. « It is, finally, through the gift of the Holy Spirit that man comes by faith to the contemplation and appreciation of the divine plan. » Note: « cf. Si 17.7-8 ». So here I stop and explain what a perfidious Modernist and what a gnosis are, because many, even among our attentive readers, have not yet understood. It is like two apartments that a landlord has you visit; they resemble each other so much, from the way he talks, that after giving the sales pitch for the first one, he does not waste his time, or ours, by going up to see the second one. Let us examine this paragraph 4. In the context, it is absolutely not a question of the Catholic Faith, of Christian worship, of Pentecost, confirmation, the last Judgement, Heaven or Hell, but only of a Revelation that the Church has made to each man, believer or non-believer. Increasingly admiring of the perfection of man, of any man, she finally comes out with the secret that she had given herself the mission to communicate to all with the aim of allowing them to attain the « fullness » of their humanity (13, 2). Do you get it? Read on: A Catholic interpretation: « Through the gift of the Holy Spirit, on the day of his Baptism and again through his Confirmation, the Catholic who is in a state of grace, with faith, making use of the Sacraments, as well as the discipline of the commandments, succeeds in contemplating through grace, in savouring through the exceptional gifts called charisms the mystery of the divine Will according to which God Himself indicates to him His Good Pleasure and leads him to the eternal Life of Heaven. For such is the loftiest, the most fruitful mystical Wisdom. » A Gnostic interpretation: « By the gift of the Spirit spread throughout the universe and in every man, with the inner adhesion of the soul to his inspirations in the light of some religion, irreligion, atheism, pantheism, humanism, or especially philanthropy, each and everyone succeeds in contemplating and savouring the mystery of the divine poured out in everything and everyone… It is mysterious, delightful, and all the more divine because it is so human in us. » We must have the courage to say that the Council itself performs a Modernist work, advocates an antichrist gnosis, with total perfidy, because it wraps it in an identical manner as it ordinarily does for its usual merchandise. The conclusion of this forceful digression is: it is true, there is an eminent dignity in the loftiest exercise of human intelligence; when a human being is raised by the divine gifts of grace and the charisms of which the Catholic Church is the lone dispenser, he is as though « deified », « divinised », and thus disposed to enter into intimate communion with the Most Holy Trinity. But the apostate totally loses all his dignity when he worsens his culpable abandonment of the faith that he received through Baptism, when he uses the usual Catholic vocabulary and perfidiously spreads a Luciferian gnosis characteristic of the times of the Antichrist. It indeed appears as though this sin is the one that Jesus Christ pronounced as being against the Holy Spirit and that will be without forgiveness in this world and the next (Mt 12.32; Mk 3.29). DIGNITY OF THE MORAL CONSCIENCE. Another step towards the summit! 16. « In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience (by whom, by what, why?). Always summoning him (it is an exaggeration) to love (?) good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart (?): “do this, shun that”. For man has in his heart a law written by God; » This explanation is imposed on the reader, on all men! by our bishops, and I am not of an opposite opinion, but if we credit them with authority or even infallibility in this, we would have to accept the rest of the sentence: « to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged ». If it is as our bishops say, the Creator has put an automatic moral alarm system in our hearts, as can be done for a heart patient, as soon as he exceeds a dangerous alcohol level. Thus our conscience functions autonomously. God, the maker, remains far off, in Heaven above. What will force « man » thus equipped to follow the incitements or the bans of his electronic moral regulator? The bishops say it is his « dignity ». They add – must we still believe them? – that it is this « dignity » that will « judge man ». No, this is impossible! One might plug in an alarm system… but to be able to finish his bottle with his friends, « man » is quite capable of unplugging the alarm, and the control, and thus the conscience’s « judgement ». I insist because this small debate shows that the Council, or rather the modern gnosis that pervades it, moves out of the domain of our living God and of our living and visible Church, one by one, all the elements of our religion that are acts of worship of Jesus Christ in the Church, in order to find them in the heart of man, conversing with himself, judging or adoring himself, submitting to his dignity, in short, giving himself self-worship in a totally secular climate. As a result, he situates his person in the consideration of his own dignity, in the centre of himself and at the crown of the world. Here is the proof: « Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, whose voice echoes in his depths. » What is amusing, if you wish to believe me, is that I read a sentence from the Council, I comment while I am at it… and, when I resume my reading at the word where I had left off, I see that the Council says what I just attributed to it, verbatim! Being unaware of what it was going to say, I anticipate precisely the enormity that it would be led to concluding if it let itself go to the point of absurdity… And that is where it goes. Is it so absurd? It is diabolically logical to lay a flattering principle down before the eyes of man and to let things drift to its conclusion, which is, for him, to adore himself in his « dignity » and, for the Devil, the victory, at last imminent, of the third temptation in the desert. They are jubilant now; they are « prophets of happiness » by order of the Popes at that time, supposing of course that all will go well thanks to the new automatic regulator of morality: « In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbour. » The ancient regulator was the Mosaic law, but St. Paul had seen from experience that it did not prevent sin; on the contrary, it worsened the responsibility and remorse. They continue: « In fidelity to conscience (which assumes here a sort of half-collective, half-divine, impersonal reality), Christians joined with the rest of men (all work, connected to the same control, through the internet?) must (and if they must, they will do it?) search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. » This is the « secular » Christian morality that has replaced in practice in the Church and in society all that still remained standing of the ancient Jewish and Christian morality, which had God for legislator, man for subject and, as motivation, the desire of Heaven and fear of eternal Hell… All that is finished! To be complete, the author brings two traditional solutions to two classical problems, without bothering to anticipate their application on a disorganised terrain where all points of reference have disappeared: 1o« Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. » Pardon me! but in your conscience where God has imprinted His law, there is no longer anyone who can denounce a doubtful conscience, in you or in others. Today there is no longer the thickness of a cigarette paper between objective morality and subjectivity. Besides, listen to people talking: « There are no longer any problems; I am my own conscience. It approves of everything that I do, and, I do everything that I say to myself. » There you are, nonplussed! 2o « Conscience (of others!) frequently (!) errs from invincible ignorance… » The supposition is obsolete because it concerns people who do not know the moral law that was learned in catechism and that society took upon itself to recall to you bluntly! Yet, now, the Council tells us that our inner regulator is so perfected that we are free of every law, as long as our heart directs us! What is amusing is to see our bishops taking care of the honour of man, whose conscience is failing. If he makes a mistake in this way, there is no need for him to get angry if he is told so, for it is « without losing his dignity ». Nice charity, isn’t it? If it is acquired, no executive power would be able to apply the scale of punishments that is set for any crime or offence, in the case, easily foreseen in which the killer’s lawyer would explain that his client had killed because his conscience made it his duty to do so. Do we find an echo of these debates and of this gap in the law in the last remark of this paragraph, which contrasts with the exaltation of the ensemble? It was said that the man whose conscience errs (sic), does not lose his dignity for all that. This is what has caused the chaos in the Court of Assizes for twenty years… A calm mind must have proposed all the same this amendment that is rich in consequences: « The same cannot be said (that a man whose conscience « errs » keeps his complete, inviolable, and undying dignity) for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. » This was voted, promulgated, and the silence fell, somewhat embarrassed, somewhat satisfied but ashamed. Why? Because the intelligent, prudent and wise author of this paragraph, whose aim is to save justice, civilisation, and religion by divesting certain human beings, vermin of the earth, of their alleged dignity, like St. Martin knocking over the idols, just committed against « man » the worst insult, by knocking down his statue like an obscene and diabolical idol. This is the first false note in the system of the Rights of Man! THE GRANDEUR OF FREEDOM It is the highest summit, on earth as it is in Heaven. According to Venerable John Duns Scotus, the divine Name that is the least reductive is not to describe God as “perfect”, “perfection”, but the Infinite, on the condition that the intuition of the Infinite really speaks to you and leads you to giving worship. Now, according to the Subtle Doctor, the positive, intelligible, and splendid contents of this Infinite is freedom! Afterwards, one can only remain silent before the ineffable mystery, or listen to the Word of God, because God alone speaks well about God… It is a fruitful quest because, through faith, all the Mysteries are open to us. Freedom, which is so super-eminent in God, must be a very desirable perfection in creatures. As usual, the Council thrusts forward a principle from which it is going to draw the greatest advantage without deigning to prove what it is advancing and still less asking for our opinion: 17. « Only (a tirade that begins with only!) in freedom can man direct himself toward goodness. » This is obviously false… but it would be tantamount to plucking a few feathers off of this proud person to let it be said that most of his good actions are part of life’s routine, a routine in which old and new constraints make him act uprightly, on condition that he finds what is useful to him, and even imposed on him, pleasant. « (Thus) our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. » What a pity it is to see our Church “in a state of Council” trailing behind a global pseudo-opinion or will that is fabricated by the media of social communications, which are highly paid for creating mass movements… and for proving right this shady world that scorns this ecclesiastic sycophancy. Because obviously, this quest for a freedom that she has not yet been able to define, can only be passion for licentiousness and anarchy, oh come on! « And rightly to be sure », the Council agrees. But it is degrading to descend so far into the street to follow the demonstration! « Often however they (our contemporaries) foster it (sic!) perversely as a license for doing whatever pleases them, even if it is evil (indeed, it is perverse, to say the least!). » « For its part … » After the slight criticism of this “dear freedom”, which is only licence, the dithyramb gets going again: « For its part, authentic freedom is an exceptional sign of the divine image within man. » Duns Scotus is in agreement as are all the saints, but it is necessary as soon as possible to distinguish and define the two freedoms, the « true » one and the other that I do not dare call the false one, but which is certainly dangerous… The Council continues: « For God has willed that man “be left to his own counsel,” (cf. Si 15. 14) so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. » From one landing to the next, from one sentence to another, man ascends towards the throne of his glory, which is proportional to his freedom. It is rather staggering, but it is worth great attention, and suspicion… Primo: God willed that man be left to his own counsel in order that his quest for his Creator and his adhesion to Him may be purely the fruit of his freedom, thus without any coercion of any sort; in consequence, when he would reach his goal, he might enjoy the feeling of fullness that results from a decision taken in an act of infinite freedom. Is it a sort of « divine freedom », according to what Duns Scotus says about it? Precisely. God would not permit Himself, it would seem, to intervene, warn, or contribute, in order to leave man the glory of having decided in accordance with his lone and autonomous will. In support of this audacious, humanist theology, the Council does as Luther had done: it invokes a passage from Holy Scripture. Not two, one! There is but one in the entire Bible to support this essential theory on the freedom to chose for or against God without being influenced by anyone, not even, and above all! by God! I said « as Luther had done », because as Luther, the Council made the bad choice and falsified the text. The Word of God that was chosen to prove the indefensible novelty is probative, yes! but it proves the contrary. I will take my time because it is an important point in the controversy for or against Vatican II. The conclusion will involve all the rest. First, here is the context in ten verses, under the title that the Jerusalem Bible chose, “Man is Free”: 11. Do not say: « The Lord was responsible for my sinning », for He is never the cause of what He hates. 12. Do not say: « It was He who led me astray », for He has no use for a sinner. 13. The Lord hates all that is foul, and no one who fears Him will love it either. 14. He Himself made man in the beginning, and then left him to his own counsel. 15. If you wish, you can keep the commandments; to behave faithfully is within your power. 16. He has set fire and water before you; put out your hand to whichever you prefer. 17. Man has life and death before him; whichever a man likes better will be given him. 18. For vast is the wisdom of the Lord; He is almighty and all-seeing. 19. His eyes are on those who fear Him, He notes every action of man. 20. He never commanded anyone to be godless; He has given no one permission to sin. The text is admirable; it is of such wisdom, enlightenment, profoundness that divine inspiration is apparent. What mercy, what « philanthropy » to speak as St. Paul does (Tt 3.4)! It is not surprising that these ten verses of ordinary and ancient catechetics, that was once Jewish, then Christian, that is, Catholic, can overthrow this delirious paranoia of the modern philosophers for whom the Council has become the poodle here. A simple verse by verse commentary will denounce the imposture: 11. God cannot go against Himself by causing man to sin. 12. God cannot want to make man a sinner. 13. So true is it that God and His faithful loathe sin. Reflection: Then, how is it that He lets man sin? 14. It is God who created man free to act according to his own common sense. 15. The contract of freedom from Father to son is: You are free to obey or disobey Me. 16. He puts you to the test, look at His promises and His threats: Heaven or Hell! 17. It is not a snare that you will not know: it is to see if you love Him. You will either live with Him always or, rebellious against Him, you will die. 18. For infinite is God’s freedom, which man will never be able to take away from Him. 19. He remains the Master of all things, but He wants to be our Master out of love. 20. He has opened the two ways, His own and the other. He warned man that he holds his fortune or misfortune in his own hands. There is only one thing lacking in the explanation of this terrible game of life and death, something that Jesus Christ « offered » and St. Paul explained: the grace of faith and faith in grace, in order to pray to the Almighty and Merciful Father to inspire us and lead us according to His way, His truth and His eternal life. May His will impose itself on us, even against our will… this is what we beseech Him to do « Etiam rebelles, Domine, compelle voluntates nostras (secret of the 4th Sunday after Pentecost, quoting Luke 14.23) « Compelle intrare », « Make them come in »). The Council’s indescribable crime with its pestilential gnosis, is on this decisive point, to have positively, consciously sinned by omission, by making human freedom a sovereign perfection without an exterior limit, and thus without any threat of punishments on the part of any legitimate authority, not even on the part of God… Do everything that you want, in total freedom only obeying your conscience and according to what your dignity prefers. Dragged into this folly by its cult of man, the Council will gradually drift into a practical atheism. It will observe a silence that effectively denies Hell, eternal damnation, which has been established as an unavoidable alternative along with eternal Life, eternal Salvation (words that are absent from the index of Vatican II!). Is it Quietism? Yes. Not to show concern for one’s eternal salvation and to believe in love (God’s love for us and ours for Him) is indeed an indication of this heresy. But Madame Guyon’s reprehensible lack of concern was based on the wild love that she claimed to have for God. Yet here, it is for Man’s exaltation with pride in his Freedom that the modern Church has removed all the barriers of Fear and Love of God; the purpose is to exalt the eminent dignity of man – this nothingness! – who tomorrow will have to answer for his stupid pride at the judgement seat of the sovereign Judge, whose sentence is known to us: « He who is enthroned in the Heavens laughs: “It is grotesque!” » He says, before « He speaks to them with wrath, and He terrifies them with His fury. » (Ps 2.4-5) What did these poor wretches do? They did what the Council compliments them for: « They unite against Yahweh and His Anointed, saying: “Let us break their shackles asunder, and cast off their yoke!” » (ibid., 2-3). And the Council applauds. Read it again: « Our contemporaries make much of this freedom and pursue it eagerly; and rightly to be sure. » And even though « they often foster it perversely (...). For (it is in the contract of our creation) God has willed that man “be left to his own counsel,” so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him ». Secundo. According to the Council, the occasions of free choice – without the intervention of any prompting, passionate « motives », rational « purposes », advice or external coercion from man, the angels, or God – are happy moments in the life of a person, whose dignity grows greatly; it promotes life and even finds itself magnified. Read on: « Hence man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that is personally motivated and prompted from within, not under blind (this oratorical precaution aims at avoiding the censure!) internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. » This is clear. An exact psychology becomes the support here of a religion or metaphysics of freedom. What follows shows well that although required (sic) by human dignity in each individual, every free thought, word, or action increases this dignity: « Man achieves such dignity (he certainly earns each time a stripe, a new merit badge?) when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion, he pursues his goal in a spontaneous choice of what is good, and procures for himself through effective and skilful action, apt helps to that end. » These texts are rather abstract or formal, it is true. But what they say shows well the esteem in which their authors hold the initial fact, in itself mysterious, of the free act, more or less free, finally perfectly free. It is tempting to pass from this to glorify and celebrate as a hero, a wise man, or a blessed the one who has made it his ideal and reached it. This theory is not only amoral, it is immoral. This personalism leads to a cult of self totally opposed to divine law as well as the human laws that apply man to the service of God and neighbour. We know what theories lead to this exaltation of total freedom: those of the superman who supposes his grandeur lies in transgression. Tertio. Obviously, the Council magnifies this dignity of the free man by only envisaging the case of such freedom placed in the service of good and not evil. But what will the public say if, repeating their expressions exactly, someone shows their application in cases of the opposite extreme. That of demons? that of Dostoyevsky’s Kirillov, in “The Diabolicals”, who kills himself in order to prevail over God as regards freedom? Certainly, they would protest, but I do not know if in the secret of many souls there would not be a certain contrary movement to admire in themselves the case of Lucifer as a « value », and that of the Diabolicals also, not hesitating to magnify freedom in all circumstances as a human fact separable from all other norms. The Council’s text leads to it, and this is how. Coming back to the two sentences that we are dissecting, something hallucinating is going to appear. Read on: « God has willed that man “be left to his own counsel,” so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously (or ignore Him, reject Him, fight Him, hate Him, if he wants), and come freely (or eliminate Him from his own world by means of blasphemies and crimes) to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. » The tragic words are « utter and blissful perfection » (Latin: plenam et beatam perfectionem). They evoke poorly the happiness of the elect of Paradise. On the other hand, they might for a Nietzschean evoke the triumph of Satan who freely chose contempt of God, suffers from his punishment, but will never give up his revolt, finding in it, in the manner of the damned, « a blissful perfection ». These words smell of brimstone. « Man achieves such dignity when, emancipating himself from all captivity to passion (or also to advice, recommendation, remonstrance), he pursues his goal (which for one is holiness, for the other, the hellish world of drugs, crime, or sacrilege...) in a spontaneous choice of what is good (or what is evil, decreeing that it is a good for himself), and procures for himself through effective and skilful action (in Latin: sollerti industria), apt helps to that end ». Here as well, these words, “skilful action”, smell of brimstone, and we are worried by the fact that an Act of the Council is able to give off such a mephitic odour ! Catholic parents! Do not adopt as a principle to educate your children in the cult of freedom! Re-re-re-read these monstrous texts, for fear of finding one fine day your adolescent girls and boys dedicated to Satan, to lust, to murder… and saying the same blasphemous and libertarian things that are taught in many sects and that they will have learned from their chaplains who comment on the constitution Gaudium et Spes ! As we might expect, a few apparently « Christian » lines put the thoughtless off the scent: « Since man’s freedom has been damaged by sin, only by the aid of God’s grace can he bring such a relationship with God (if the fancy takes him!) into full flower. » This is said without specifying what this « God’s grace » is, without Gaudium et Spes having once evoked the words « God’s grace » or the reality that they signify, with no enlightenment on how to « bring (man’s freedom into) such a relationship with God into full flower ». Even if someone took the bait, he would ask not for the Catholic Faith or Baptism, which put freedom in the domain of earthly things that he must renounce, but for the address of some guru or charismatic shepherd where he can “have a ball” in joy and freedom. It is a few pages further on, guided by the book’s index, that I discover freedom in Heaven, yes, in Heaven! And in good company: « For after we have obeyed the Lord, and in His Spirit nurtured on earth the values of human dignity, brotherhood and freedom, and indeed all the good fruits of our nature and enterprise, we will find them again, but freed of stain, burnished and transfigured [...]. On this earth that Kingdom is already present in mystery. When the Lord returns it will be brought into full flower (on this earth?). » (no 39, § 3) Do you really believe that it is in Heaven? Question: But do they say that freedom, that dignity are already present, and are already, alas! in Hell among the Devils and the damned? Well! I cannot answer you: between « enfants (children) » and « enseignement (teaching) », in the index, « enfer (Hell) » does not exist! Yet, the last sentence of this enormous paragraph 17 acts as a buffer. There is not only that, but it is more pronounced than the rest. It was necessary to say it in order that their silence not make the stones cry out to indict them: « Before the judgement seat of God each man must render an account of his own life, whether he has done good or evil. » Here it will no longer be a question of more or less dignity acquired by acts that are increasingly perfect: « Render an account »! It is indeed the first time that we hear these words; « before the judgement seat of God », this word will come up eight times in the totality of Vatican II’s texts. This capital sentence, and which comes at the end, is in fact required by the following paragraph, the last one devoted to the « situation of men », and which focuses on his ultimate event: death. It is revealing that it is death that leads to speaking about the « judgement seat of God ». In any case, having arrived at this limit, we will be able to judge the rest. THE MYSTERY OF DEATH. 18. § 1. « It is in the face of death that the riddle of human existence grows most acute. » It is a truism, but if we do not want to impose from the outset the principle of our Catholic Truth concerning death, there is nothing else to say other than the banal reflections or thoughtlessness of uninspired journalists. The Council, however, intends to explain « to all men » (2, 1) what they think or feel at the approach of death. It is a « sign of the times » that the Council only speaks to each one about his own death and not at all about the death of others. It is an enormous omission! Then, I am alarmed by what little it finds to say about it. It only seems to know the tenth or the hundredth of humanity, its least interesting part, whose feelings concerning death are certainly the most base, vile, cowardly: it is Western society deprived of its age-old traditions (the cult of the dead!) and its Catholic Faith; on the other hand, it is cooped up in its comfort, medicines and leisures. So, death? Here are the feelings of this materialistic, egotistical, incredulous, and impious mob, us, as we were made, and our whining… But I warn you: each time that the Council will write « man », thinking of the insult made to nine-tenths of the inhabitants of the planet, poor destitute persons who are worth more than is said here, I thought: “the citizen of the consumer society”, no it is too long. Ah! I’ve got it: « In the face of death, not only is the Consumer tormented by pain and by the advancing deterioration of his body, but even more so by a dread of perpetual extinction (even this is a fiction). He rightly follows the intuition of his heart (this Council is still as toadying as ever!) when he abhors and repudiates the utter ruin and total disappearance of his own person (Come on! let us be lucid: they just have one idea: to be cured, hang on a while longer, enjoy and, after, have an injection that does not hurt me!) ». « He rebels against death (if he is eternal, why does he rebel against death?) because he bears in himself an eternal seed (ah! what a fine formula, if only Mitterrand had known it! It is a pity...) which cannot be reduced to sheer matter. All the endeavours of technology, though useful in the extreme (we think of François who curried favours up to the end of his life), cannot calm his anxiety (that is sure; the “Consumer” does not want to suffer or die but to come back to the good life); for prolongation of biological life (the scientific word is less frightening than the one that quite simply suits: medicine) is unable to satisfy that desire for higher life which is inescapably lodged in his breast. » [In the line with the highlighted text, could it be “of Francis who acted nobly until the end of his life”?] I do not believe a word of it. For some, perhaps. For good Christians? Yes! But it is more precise than these awkward and woolly words that you say! In short, this paragraph is monstrous from all points of view. When we think that it is the Church of the Requiem æternam, of the terrible Dies Iræ, but also of the marvellous In Paradisum, that utters this nonsense « in the Holy Spirit » (I do not believe a word of it) to the world. It is absolutely disgusting. Let us see, will the second paragraph, and thus the last, speak a little about religion all the same? Yes, it does! But it is even worse than the silence of the cowardly; it is like an undertaker’s assistants’ show of resourcefulness to do everything so that it be “soft”, in order that the problem not be broached! Read on: § 2. « Although the mystery of death utterly beggars the imagination, the Church has been taught by divine Revelation (this formula worries me: the Church takes the major role for herself, and the Word of God is put into the background) and firmly teaches (you see: the Church of Vatican II herself firmly teaches, which means that she gives her firmness to what she has been « taught » by divine Revelation) that man has been created by God for a blissful purpose beyond the reach of earthly misery. » That is all? It passes rapidly over important mysteries… It continues: « In addition, that bodily death from which man would have been immune had he not sinned will be vanquished, according to the Christian Faith (why do you not say: Catholic?), when man (here, it is Adam in person and who is the head of the human race ) who was ruined by his own doing is restored to wholeness by an almighty and merciful Saviour. » We succeed in following, but it is vague and also somewhat (but it is on purpose!) collectivist. Let us continue… « For God has called man and still calls him so that with his entire being he might be joined to Him in an endless sharing of a divine life beyond all corruption. » We pass from zero to the infinite, from the bottom of the abyss to the breathtaking summit of the mystical life in this world, and of heavenly bliss in the other. Without any solution of continuity? Without penance, conversion, formalities? Without death and resurrection at least sacramental, at most spiritual and finally total with Christ? No, nothing. The explanation is: « Christ won this victory (it is done, and well done!) when He rose to life (cf. 1 Co 15.56-57; it is still another lie about the divine Word, as we shall see), for by His death He freed man from death. » There it is! They wriggle out of it with a totally unpleasant manner of thrusting themselves forward. Read it for yourself: « Hence to every thoughtful man a solidly established faith… » Precisely, this is not very serious, but it is intentional: here the conciliar Church does not invoke her divine authority, which is proved by miracles and marvels that are called the “Marks of the Church”, an authority that teaches what God revealed and that can only be accepted through faith, or refused with incredulity. The Council proposes its opinion by vaunting its human competence, which is verifiable by non-believers as well as by believers. It is fraternal, laid-back and you do as you please: you believe me, or you do not believe me. We dialogue, we can even discuss it. Why so much fuss? Because with divine Revelation (venerably) set aside, we will be freer, at last free! to say what we think today, and chose between the “believable” in the twentieth century and the “unbelievable” that today it is urgent to shelve. Hell, for example… I will only make three comments on this no 18. a) The first one concerns the quotation of the Epistle of Saint Paul to the Corinthians to guarantee the Council’s text. It is inevitably very much summarised. Yes, but it is poorly summarised, falsely summarised. Christ acquired this victory not by rising from the dead but by suffering and dying as an expiatory victim for all men. Obviously, it is from this act that the debt is paid; Jesus took everything on Himself…, but in order for « man » to be saved, he must take a certain number of steps that together are called the Christian life, a life « in Christ ». Its first step is catechumenal instruction and Baptism, which crowns it. b) The second remark deals with the destiny of those about whom the Council no longer speaks at all in this last paragraph, but who were its concern in the preceding paragraphs. I mean lost souls, and there is no lack of them. No further above than number 17, which dealt with the obligation to strive towards perfect freedom, it was necessary to consider a repugnant type of individuals who « cherish » freedom in order to give free rein to their passions, and others, even worse! who, like the rebellious angels, cultivate freedom to the height of paranoiac « transgressions », out of hatred of God and their human brothers. As regards the former, in a moment of forgetfulness of its optimistic and flattering principles, the Council goes so far as to say that it must be admitted that they have « lost their dignity », although the turn of phrase conceals its obvious meaning. So, where will they go to vaunt their freedom and their sacrileges after their death? As regards the latter, about whom the Council does not dare, does not want to speak, those who esteem higher than all else their freedom to do evil without excuses or repentance – they exist all the same! – the demons and their human rivals. In this disjointed, familiar, dialogic explanation, the Council says nothing about them, as though no one has ever thought of them. c) My third remark concerns what follows: « … faith provides the answer to his anxiety about what the future holds for him ». Upon recalling his neighbour, who also exists, a derisory sentence reassures us of his fate: « At the same time faith gives him the power to be united in Christ with his loved ones who have already been snatched away by death (sic!); faith arouses the hope that they have found true life with God. » From the contacts that I have been able to have with souls, I derive this truly universal observation that they have an equal capacity to desire Heaven and fear Hell. These thoughts, these very strong feelings are the powerful motivation for the contrition of the sins that they have committed and for the intention of confessing them, on the one hand, and on the other, the desire to receive Communion, to live in a state of grace, to pray for our deceased, and to think often about Paradise with a great attraction that transfigures life in its expectation. We admire the coldness, the inhuman detachment with which the Council speaks of these things. This sad observation opens horizons that were previously concealed to our eyes. Imagine two spouses who on the day of their marriage put everything in common; or a father with his twenty-year-old son. See how by stages the one of the two who had nothing for his personal use found himself with a job, then with a salary, then with a chequebook, then with savings, then with a car, then with insurance, thus… one fine day, he or she kisses him and says: now we no longer have anything in common. I can manage on my own; this has lasted long enough. I am finally going to lead my life on my own. Well! This is language that the Council uses towards its mystical Bridegroom, the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and the Church of old. When studying this chapter I understood that the divorce was consummated in their hearts.
|
|
|
