SOL INVICTUS
Once again, Christmas is here – the feast which, for the pagans of old, celebrated
the victory of the Sun, but which for us Christians represents the Birth of the Word made
Flesh or, to use a parallel symbolism, the Coming of the Morning Star from on High –
the Birth of Jesus of the Immaculate Virgin Mary in the cave at Bethlehem. But we have
reason to fear that, as a result of modern and modernistic fashions in theology and
exegesis, the faith of Catholics may be emptied of its substance and leave them with a
mythology akin to that of the pagan world – that they will come to see, under the
legendary figure of the little Child Jesus, nothing more than the mystery and charm of
human infancy; or even, that the wheel will turn full circle and the people celebrate once
again the re-birth of the sun out of darkness…
Why these grave reflections? Because the threat to the faith of even the best of us is
no mere illusion, but very real. I see evidence of this in a comment made by Professor
Rougier, in reply to my conference on his recent book, "The Genesis of Dogma".
He writes: "If we limit ourselves to the practice and dogmatic teaching of the
Church before and up to Vatican I, then your position is unshakeable. Paul VI’s is
self-contradictory; for he retains all the dogma unchanged (the Credo of the People of
God) but rejects the practice which is derived from it. The result is confusion among
the faithful and laxity in the members of Religious Orders.
But what is the solution? To return to the Syllabus, to Quanta Cura, to
the First Vatican Council, would not be acceptable to the present-day mind. In my view,
the only answer is the re-interpretation of dogma – and that is what is in fact being
done, at least inwardly, by all the Religious of my acquaintance."
And in a subsequent letter, we read:
"I see no objection to your quoting my words on the question of the respective
positions taken by Paul VI and by yourself. Your own point of view on the relationship
between doctrine and practice is perfectly consistent, while that of Paul VI is not. My
own is the exact converse of yours, if we define the latter by saying that ‘practice
must conform to doctrine’ – for I consider that doctrine ought to be
re-interpreted to conform with the new practice set in motion by Paul VI. We have here in
fact three different points of view.
I do not believe that either your position or mine has any chance of being accepted.
The Church will remain in the present state of inconsistency. Doctrine will continue to be
individually interpreted in accordance with one’s affective needs and intellectual
capacity for believing or not believing, and practice will follow suit. The Gospel tells
us that ‘in my Father’s house there are many mansions’. Each individual
will choose his own abode according to his needs. I have always been struck by the words
of Maeterlinck: ‘If I were God, I should pity the souls of men’…"
Louis Rougier’s own solution is understandable when we consider that he is a
self-confessed atheist, who is asking for a return to the comfortable system of ancient
pagan mythology. But it must be clear that no Christian could follow him in this thinking,
which is aimed at emptying the dogmas of their essence, leaving behind only their
fragrance.
But is the position of inconsistency which he notes to be that of Paul VI as well as of
"all the religious of his acquaintance" – a position into which the greater
part of the faithful have followed the Pope – not calculated to lead to just such a
state of scepticism?
We need look no farther than the Pope’s Discourse for the World Day of Peace for
evidence that his outlook, his "practice" of a worldly, democratic humanism,
bears no relation to the Catholic Credo, and is indeed in conflict with our Faith. On
reading this Discourse, we realise that the concept of Peace has here been dissociated
from that of Glory to God on High:
that Paul VI is hankering after a worldly, Masonic kind of peace in which Prayer is
admitted merely as a "supplement" – to give men cheer – but for which
the Mystery of Christmas – the Incarnation, and our Filial Adoption – has no
relevance. The result must inevitably be that the Church of Paul VI will slip into a state
of dogmatic indifference and neo-pagan sentimentalism more decadent even than what
Professor Rougier is recommending.
We are left with the third alternative – to continue to believe, firmly and
unshakeably, in the Mystery of the Son of God made Man for our Salvation. In order
to do this we must be prepare to go against the supposed requirements of the spirit of our
times and to bring our behaviour, our scientific and political convictions, into line with
the teaching of the Church. But we cannot hope for salvation unless we allow the Truth,
the Way, and the Love of Jesus Christ to rule over us totally.
This Christmas Night, we will proclaim our belief in the "Sun Unvanquished"
– in the Word made Flesh – and renew our vow to fight the errors of Modernism
wherever these appear, under their guise of updated, scientific religion. We will pray
also that the pagans of our own day may abandon their myths and mythologies and return to
the one true Mystery – Jesus Christ.
AT LAST, A BISHOP SPEAKS
He is Dr Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg. He merely makes a plea, addresses an
invocation to God and to the Church, that there might rise up an Athanasius of our time
and save the world by his intrepid faith as did the Bishop of Alexandria from the ravages
of Arianism in the fourth century. Dr Graber’s booklet "Athanasius and the
Church of Our Time", written for the 16th centenary of the Saint’s death,
demonstrates how the present crisis is the culmination of a veritable plot prepared within
the bosom of the Church herself by anti-God, occult Powers, aided by their accomplices or
unknowing victims, the Modernists.
We have cause to rejoice when a Bishop sees fit to bring into a cause-and-effect
relationship on the one hand the activities of those very hostile powers with whom Vatican
II sought to effect a reconciliation and with whom Paul VI carries on his
"dialogues" to such a degree that it is no longer possible to denounce or to
attack them, and, on the other, the "deomposition of the Church" for which
people have tried to find any number of different explanations – except the true one
now propounded by the Bishop of Regensburg.
It is a new development that such a denunciation of subversive, Freemason-inspired
forces at work within the Church, and their continuity with the well-known, great enemies
of God in past centuries, should be coming from an episcopal pen. (We have been saying the
same for many years, throughout the nine volumes of Lettres à mes Amis and La
Contre-Réforme Catholique au XXe Siècle.) The evidence produced by Dr
Graber, based on the work of the best-known authorities in the long-standing struggle
against world-wide Judeo-Freemasonry, is impressive.
It is a new development that today, in the reign of Paul VI, a Bishop should recall
– and declare to be still valid – the denunciation of Modernism, "the
meeting-place of all the heresies", by St Pius X, and relate this to its persistence
and resurgence in the Church of our own time. He expresses, moreover, his indignation that
the anathemas and sanctions directed against this the worst of all heresies should today
be regarded as a dead letter.
It is a new development that a Bishop should dare proclaim that the Enemy, already
hiding incognito within the Church had, following Vatican II, won the right of expression
and freedom of action to the point of being effectively in command and in the position to
persecute her truly Christian members in the name of the Christian Faith. He recalls the
time, from 357 to 360, when, thanks to Pope Liberius and the apostate bishops of East and
West gathered respectively at the Councils of Seleucia and Rimini, Arianism held sway
throughout the world, and Church and Empire combined together to excommunicate the one man
– Athanasius – whom we know today as The Great, because he alone continued to
uphold the Faith.
Admittedly, Dr Graber pays lip service to the Council, taking care to shelter it, and
especially Pope Paul himself, from his frontal attack and to avoid imputing guilt to them.
In denouncing the decomposition of the Church, he quotes the Pope’s own reference to
"auto-demolition". When attacking Modernism, he recalls another remark of Paul
VI, in which he refers to the "recrudescence" of this in our own time. When he
speaks of the intrusion of Satan, he takes care to add that the Holy Father had referred
to "Satan who forced his way into God’s temple through a crack." In
denouncing the "spirit" of Vatican II and pointing out its similarity to that
which inspired the French Revolution, he is prudent enough to add: "Certainly the
texts are formulated orthodoxly, in places nothing short of classically, and it will be
our task for a long time to come to arm ourselves with the words of the Council to fight
against its being undermined, above all to combat the famous ‘spirit’ of the
Council. But since the Council was aiming primarily at a pastoral orientation and hence
refrained from making dogmatically binding statements or dissociating itself, as previous
Church Assemblies had done, from errors and false doctrines by means of clear anathemas,
many questions took on an opalescent ambivalence which provided a certain amount of
justification for those who speak of the spirit of the Council. Furthermore…"
The true Athanasius of our time will not trouble himself about paying such lip
service – for in the present context, courtesy and prudence are but impediments to
justice and must be shown up as such one day. It will then be evident to all that the
victory of Satan in the Church, carefully prepared over so many years, has been achieved
only through the direct co-operation of Vatican II and Pope Paul VI!
In his efforts to spare them, Dr Graber is obliged to bring his own reasoning to a
premature halt whenever his investigation comes close to touching the tender spot. He
does, nevertheless, show us the general outline of Lucifer’s plan: how the Modernists
began by making preparations for a vast programme of "reform" in the Church,
claiming that it was necessary to adapt her to the World – i.e. the need for an Aggiornamento.
This was to be followed by an Ecumenical Council which would be in a position to impose
this "reform" authoritatively upon the entire Church. All would thus be set for the
election of a Pope of their own choice – of a man, that is, imbued with the new
ideas, enthusiastic for democracy, who would himself put an end to the concept of
infallibility – of the supreme authority of the Papacy. Dr Graber shows us the stages
of this subversive process up to 1962 and then its acceleration and triumph in the years
1965 - 68, and indeed until the present time. But of the intervening years he has little
to say. At least the reader is left free to draw his own conclusions.
We beseech him that, having been granted the gift of intelligence and understanding,
rather than wait for a new Athanasius, he should become one himself and carry his task
through to its conclusion. For there remain but a few words to add to what he has said
already – explaining the developments between 1960 and 1965, and the parts played by
John XXIII and Paul VI.
The true Athanasius of our time will not fear to assert that the triumph of
heresy, the victory of the anti-Church, the penetration of Satan unto the very summit of
the Church, which we have witnessed since the Council and during the reign of Paul VI, are
the doing of this same Pope and Council – just as the triumph of Arianism in 360,
which came about despite St Athanasius, Hilary and a few others, was the result of the
prevaricator Councils of Rimini and Seleucia, and the fault of Pope Liberius… Yet the
apostasy of the latter was but a passing weakness by comparison with the betrayal of their
charge by the Bishops of Vatican II, and Pope Paul VI himself.
If Dr Graber is prepared to say all this, he will be the first – for we, mere
priests and faithful, do not count in this regard – to raise the standard of the
Catholic Counter-Reformation in the 20th Century, and he will then indeed become the
Athanasius of our time. But if he remains silent on this matter on which the whole future
of the Church depends – if, having gone thus far, he yet refrains from going far
enough – he will be but one more to take his place among the army of cowards who,
having seen the evil, will do nothing against it, "that they might not be cast out of
the synagogue. For they loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." (Jn
12.42-43)
We are making haste to send a copy of our Liber Accusationis in Paulum VI to Dr
Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, and we are asking him what is the next step he is proposing
to take for the deliverance of the Church from the grip of Satan into which she has fallen
through the will of a prevaricator Pope and Council.
CONGAR IN DIALOGUE
The purpose of this controversy is to establish which among the three of us – Hans
Kung, Yves Congar, and myself – can be considered to belong to the Catholic Church.
That we do not share the same faith is self-evident; hence we can equally well describe
our aim as the definition of the precise boundary between Faith and heresy.
During my recent visit to Rome I was assured that neither Mgr Schroeffer, nor Cardinal
Seper, nor any of the Consultors had intended to include me among those to whom reference
was made in the document Mysterium Fidei1. The anonymous writer in Le
Monde of 8th July and Fr Congar on the 13th1 had slandered me and, with me,
all "integrist theologians" – traditionalist Catholics of our way of
thinking.
As a theologian who reads the CRC, Fr Congar ought to have known better than to take
the word of a columnist that the document – a true doctrinal Act of the Holy See
– was directed against us, when we have in fact been diligently upholding precisely
those truths which are reaffirmed in it. For Fr Congar himself is among those who have
denied these. We have every right therefore to demand that he correct his slander in the
pages of the same paper which had originally published it.
In this matter we are on the same side as Rome, and the document – in so far as it
bears on any one individual – is directed against Hans Kung. The criticism which it
attracted from so many quarters bears out this fact abundantly, for the document reaffirms
the Catholic teaching on the Oneness and Infallibility of the Church. And so I wrote to Fr
Congar and told him that he himself is under attack in this document, for his
"ecumenism" is in formal contradiction with the profession of the Catholic Faith
– Credo Unam, Sanctam, Catholicam et Apostolicam Ecclesiam. Because, when
asked to reply to the question whether the member "churches" of the WCC are, or
are not, communities of salvation, Fr Congar replies in the affirmative – and this
contradicts the Catholic Credo which teaches that there is no salvation outside the
Church. For some 36 years he has been leading his readers astray in his theological maze
where we are now determined to track him down.
Let us sum up the essence of our criticism of him thus far2:-
(1) We all agree that there are "remnants of the Church", or "elements
of the Church" – which constitute instruments of salvation – in all the
dissident sects. I would go farther, and maintain that vestiges of the Christian,
Catholic, heritage can be found even in the ideologies and Utopias of our own day and age.
But these are part of the Church’s own wealth which have been detached from
their natural setting, snatched from their legal owner, and do not thereby make of those
ideologies which have thus borrowed them, a Gospel of Salvation – nor of the
dissident sects which retain such remnants, a section of the One True Church. The fact
that we acknowledge the Baptism of Protestants as valid does not lessen our rejection of
Protestantism itself as schism and heresy, and a cause of damnation of souls. At this
point, already, Fr Congar is cunning enough to twist the truth to fit his own views. He
goes on to say:-
(2) "Looking at the matter from the point of view of the faithful of these
communions : such of their members as belong to them in good faith are united to God and
can effect their salvation, not merely within these communions, but in making use of the
means of grace which are found in them. In this sense, one could say that they are
communities of salvation."
Classical Catholic theology – scholasticism – is a wonderful thing, for it
enables us to see at once when Fr Congar makes the leap from truth into falsehood.
People of good will – Christians in schism or heresy, as well as the many millions
of men who are born Buddhists, Moslems, pagans of every sort – have the possibility
of responding through faith to the grace which God holds out to them, and this is the case
even while they remain within their socio-religious groups. God, "who will have all
men to be saved" (1 Tim 2.4), does not expect the impossible. That is why the
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before certain
theologians, cardinals, even Popes! (Mt l0.15)
But let us follow Fr Congar in his next step. By what means are these unfortunates,
born into error and dissidence, "united to God" through supernatural faith and
good works? Through inward grace, certainly, but also, mercifully, through whatever God
reveals to them indirectly about Himself within and through their own sphere of existence.
Pagans do not come by their (imperfect) knowledge of God through their horrible idols
which are foreign to Him, and under whose shapes hide demons – for these are
obstacles to salvation – but through the beauty of earth and heaven, through the
natural law and such rites and traditions as had originated with God before being passed
on to these peoples. Christians in dissidence do not arrive at truth and grace through
Luther and Calvin, nor through the heresies they are taught and the parodies of the
Saraments in which they participate, but through the Gospel which continues to be
preached to them, through their Baptism which is still validly administered – through
that which is retained from the Catholic Church. Congar speaks the truth when he says:
"… in making use of the means of grace which are found in them."
Forgive the illustration, but it is a true story. There was a US soldier who first
became acquainted with the practice of devotion to Our Lady when visiting a prostitute in
Naples, in whose room there was a picture of her, lit by a little lamp. When Fr Congar
says, referring to the non-Catholic sects, that "in that sense, one could say that
they are communities of salvation", it is as if we gave to prostitution the credit
for introducing that soldier to Catholic devotion. Quite apart from the fact that Our Lady
saw to it that he left that place of ill fame.
Yes, we all know that non-Catholic sects do contain various fragments of the
Church’s own treasures, which form means of salvation. But they contain also heresy
and schism, which are opposed to God and therefore constitute obstacles to salvation.
Those of their members who do attain it do so despite and not on account of these
obstacles. The same, incidentally, is true of the reforms of Vatican II. As we have said
many a time, these reforms – even though containing much that is good – are
contaminated with the poison that kills souls and is destroying the Church. Catholics
today, therefore, can attain salvation through the Church but only despite the reforms of
the Council.
Members of heretical or schismatic sects who do "unite themselves to God" in
using whatever means of grace they can find within their own communion are thereby
rejecting – or bypassing – the error, and approaching closer to the true Church.
Once they arrive at a knowledge of the Church in her true form and no longer as the
caricature painted of her by their own sect, they will be converted.
So much for ordinary, simple, souls. But what about the more learned? Those who have
the necessary knowledge, and still are not converted? I am speaking of those "eminent
theologians", those wonderful pastors whose company you have, by virtue of your
"ecumenical calling", been frequenting for the past 36 years, who have had every
chance of learning from you about the true nature of the Church and who are less and less
inclined to be converted. And you, who know that the Church has consistently condemned
their heretical sects as evil, go on encouraging them to remain where they are, telling
them that they can find their salvation just as easily within their own communions. As a
Master of Theology, you ought to know better.
What can we, ordinary Catholics, conclude from this, except that these your friends are
attached to precisely those – the heretical – aspects of their religion which
are obstacles to salvation and which you never even mention, and that therefore they are
not in a state to respond to whatever means of grace are available for them? Even though
they may profess submission to Christ, they remain intent on that rebellion against the
Church which is at the root of all schism.
In making yourself the mouthpiece of these folk through your ecumania, in casting all
the blame for the divisions between Christians upon Holy Mother Church and her abhorred
"Counter-Reformation", you help to confirm these Protestants in their error and
stand in the way of the conversion of their flock. You agree with them that division
itself is the evil that must be overcome, rather than the breaking away from God and His
truth which was its cause. You blame the separation as such and not those who through
their own fault became and remain separated, for these men are your friends, and receive
your every encouragement to continue in their dissidence. Together with them, you conspire
to destroy Catholic Unity for the sake of seeking a new union through the federation of
the various "churches" to form the global super-church of the future!
(1) See CCR No 41 (July 1973) – (2) The first part of
this discussion appeared in CRC (French text only) No 74 (November 73) and followed a
parallel discussion in Le Courrier de Rome No 122 (20th September).
OUR APPEAL TO THE CLERGY OF ROME
Because the Pope had refused to see us on the 10th April, and the Vatican had declined
to accept our Liber Accusationis, we proceeded to our next step in that process
which we are seeking, along entirely canonical lines, to bring against the reigning
Pontiff. That was the distribution of the book to the Clergy of Rome – to all
Cardinals and all priests of the Diocese of Rome, as well as – for their information
– to all members of the Curia. The printing of the necessary 1500 copies of the
Italian translation had been taken care of by a good friend. When these were ready, on the
12th November, Brother Gerard and I, accompanied by two excellent and indefatigable
interpreters, set out on our mission.
Our feelings on approaching Rome must have been something like those of the Apostles
entering Nero’s Rome in the knowledge that they would face suffering and martyrdom.
Only, they had at least the consolation that they were going to preach Jesus Christ to a
pagan City: we on the other hand were merely seeking to recall Christian Rome to the
fidelity of her original vocation. And the placid indifference of Rome to the seriousness
of the situation was a source of discouragement to us.
We set to work immediately, our group split into two pairs, and were soon assisted by a
further party come from France for the purpose. I went with my interpreter to the Curia,
and the others set about distributing the book in churches, seminaries, and religious
houses. At first, the doors of the papal Dicasteries were open to us and to my surprise we
obtained access to the Cardinals or their secretaries. We had some encouraging interviews,
which showed that some at least in Rome were concerned about the perils which occupied us.
We did not wait long to pass the Bronze Gate at which we had previously been turned
back by the Italian police. But our triumph was short-lived, for the Swiss Guards were not
slow to bar our entry. My photograph had preceded me, and my request for audiences with
Cardinal Villot, Mgr Martin, and others at the Secretariat of State, was not even noted
down. The orders were to show us out promptly. We were however able to enter the
Chancellery by surprise and to carry out our work there. At the Lateran we were recognised
before we could enter, but were allowed to leave our copies of the Liber. What
happened to these, I wonder? Perhaps we can hope that, like certain other copies that we
know about, they ended up by being sold in the black market!
We had gone to the Holy Office on the first day, and had some promising interviews. I
even visited the chapel where I had been allowed to pray at length in July 1968, when I
had to make up my mind whether to accept or refuse the formula of recantation and total
submission which had been presented to me (CCR No 25, March 1972). But by the following
day the word had been passed round that we were not to be allowed even to place our copies
in the letter boxes of those prelates whom we had been unable to see in person. The reason
given was that a bomb could be placed in the letter boxes! We had no choice but to give
the books, and the list of the intended recipients, to the porters.
The distribution of the Liber in the city of Rome was wrought with surprises.
One Franciscan actually threw the book back in our faces, but some accepted it with words
of encouragement or even warm approval. Others took it, but with a look of sad reproach.
Those who refused it did so, mostly, not because they were "progressives" filled
with rage towards us, but rather out of indignation that some fanatical French priest
should dare to hurl insults at the Pope. Before leaving Rome, we heard that at an
important meeting it had been said that, though "the tone was extreme and
unacceptable", yet "the questions raised in it were of great gravity";
while "all priests should be warned", they should not be prevented from reading
it. Could we have hoped for anything better?
Once again the Italian police busied themselves with us, the inspector explaining that
as a VIP I had to be protected!! At the public Papal Audience on 21st November I found
myself encircled by guards taller and stronger than myself, while others stood firmly
between the Pope’s sedia and our group, the only ones thus forced to keep their
distance. Paul VI remained with his back turned.
What we found particularly painful was to have to approach the dignitaries like beggars
begging them for the favour of accepting our gift. And like beggars, we were often
received with a gesture of ambiguity that gave no clue to the would-be recipient’s
real feelings. Oh how wise is the Word of Our Lord when He tells us not to pass judgement
on the conscience of others!
Some would have us believe that the reluctance of the greater part of the dignitaries
to take us seriously was due to fear of compromising themselves. But I cannot believe that
men who are evidently worthy of admiration and sympathy are motivated to such an extent by
mere worldly ambition. We must seek elsewhere for the reasons for this paralysis of the
Church’s nerve centre – for the acquiescence of Rome in all the desires and
inclinations of Paul VI. We have found, particularly within the Curia, an exaggerated
conception of religious obedience. So many prelates feel that their duty is to avert any
questioning or criticism concerning the Pope, and to work always along the lines which
they believe to correspond to his intentions. We must add that they do not seem to have
any close knowledge of him and of his inmost wishes and thoughts, but merely to venerate
him from afar. The Secretariat of State, with its Villot, Benelli, etc. seems to provide
an effective barrier between them and the Pontiff. They are thus free to cling to their
own touching image of the Holy Father. While the progressives from all over the world are
pushing their own projects for changes unlimited and thus gradually tearing the fabric of
the Church to shreds, the loyal Roman dignitaries are content to put a restraining touch
on this and that in their attempt to contain the worst forms of extremism.
In their discreet efforts at patching up, they seem to be blind to the nature of the
forces of destruction. Whether through cowardice or blind obedience, they will not resist
a "new style" government, with its new ideas of freedom for all views, Rights of
Man, dialogue with the World, and so on, when this is imposed by Authority itself. And
this, precisely, is what we are aiming to hit with our Liber Accusationis.
Rome is marked with the sign of the reigning Pontiff. While she retains the appearances
of what she was in the past, of what she may again be in the future, today the majesty of
St Peter’s Basilica has lost its inward certainty, and indeed, its sanctity. I am
reminded of a lifeless temple, like Westminster Abbey… There remains the merits of
many individuals, and these form our hope for the future. Beneath the altars are the
relics of the Martyrs, of Virgins and Confessors – the pledge of immortality. But the
Faith suffers an eclipse when the power of the Sovereign is no longer exercised to uphold
it.
On asking these loyal servants of the Papacy why, if I was in the wrong, I was not
excommunicated, they merely laughed. And when I went on to ask why they were still waiting
to bring sanctions against the heresies of Hans Kung, they replied that that would come in
due course. But I had heard the same in 1963, and in 1968… A Rome which is no longer
prepared to condemn anyone, thereby condemns itself!
So, my task remains to awaken Rome through my Book and recall it to its divine mission,
which is to bring about the reign of the Christian Faith, supported by the Law of the
Roman Church. Then, once again the words inscribed around the dome will come to life: HINC
UNITAS SACERDOTII EXORITUR, HINC UNA FIDES MUNDO REFULGET. (Hence springs the unity of the
Priesthood. Hence shines the One Faith upon the world.) |