|
BUT FIRST MUST COME THE ANTICHRIST!
Soloviev’s theocratic politics, like the ecumenical projects he
formed with Mgr Strossmayer and Canon Racki Zagreb, unfortunately
remained a dead letter. After having read The Russian Idea, Leo XIII
declared: «It is a beautiful idea, but in the absence of a miracle, the
thing is impossible.» All the more impossible in that this liberal Pope
was pursuing a quite different policy!
Misunderstood by Rome and by the Jesuits who were initially interested
in his writings, Soloviev was violently criticised by his co-religionists
on his return to Russia. His confessor even refused him sacramental
absolution in 1891, telling him: «Make your confession to your own
Catholic priests!» Soloviev suffered much from such contradictions and
narrow-mindedness, but he would not relinquish his views on the Church and
the Christendom of the future. «Soloviev was too great a mind to be
discouraged or to modify his ideas in accordance with the ups and downs
of worldly success. It remains true, however, that these bitter experiences gave
him a better understanding of how Evil was at work in the world,
throwing up formidable obstacles to Theocracy and even going so far as
to erect a kind of caricature theocracy wherein he saw and denounced the power
of the Antichrist, the Prince of this world foretold in the
Scriptures.» (English CRC no 115, October 1979, p. 15)
Throughout his life, he had never ceased thinking of these forces of Evil
ranged against those of the Good, against God and His Christ: «In my
childhood, at moments when feelings of religious elation made me desire to
become a monk, I started inflicting severe physical penances on myself, expecting
as I did the imminent advent of the Antichrist and desiring to die a
martyr for the Faith.» (quoted by his nephew in his Life of Soloviev, p.
48)
To believe Mgr Rupp, he also seems to have
personally
experienced the physical presence of the devil (cf. The Ecclesial
Message of Soloviev, p. 350). Soloviev knew that the divine Sophia and her implacable adversary, the accursed Serpent,
were engaged in a mighty
combat. He threw himself into this combat with all the
strength of his immense genius and, with eagle vision, was able to
detect the telltale signs of the coming of the Antichrist, in whom
the mystery of iniquity would be revealed.
«SOMEONE IS COMING…»
The famine of 1891 which claimed numerous
victims in several
Russian provinces, the growing threat of the yellow peril, Japan and
China merged together in a devastating Pan-Mongolism, and the increasing
mental disorder of Russian society at the end of the nineteenth century,
all appeared to Soloviev as ominous signs. Increasingly
anxious, he wrote to his friend Weliezko in 1897:
«Chaos reigns,
Sleep is no longer the same:
Something is happening,
Someone is coming...»
«You may guess that by this “Someone”, I mean
Antichrist himself.
The end of the world is coming and I feel it blowing in my face, clear
but elusive, just as the traveller, nearing the sea, senses the sea air
before he actually sees the surging waves.»
To the same friend, he would make the following confidence in 1900,
two months before his death: «The current state of the Church leads me
to expect a terrible disappointment. I would be surprised even to see
the liturgy remaining safe and triumphant. I sense the coming of a time when
Christians will have to meet for prayer in the catacombs [what a
prophecy, seventeen years before the Bolshevik Revolution!]. Everywhere
the faith will be persecuted, perhaps less brutally than in the days of
Nero, but more subtly and cruelly: through lies, deception and
misrepresentation. And that is hardly an overstatement.
Can you not
see what is afoot? I see it clearly and have done so for a long
while now!»
Under an amiable exterior and pleasant words Soloviev tried to hide
the deep suffering consuming him and the dread gripping his
heart like a vice. He wished to carry on fighting until the end.
HOW IS ONE TO RESIST THE ANTICHRIST?
In 1896, he wrote to his French friend Eugene Tavernier a letter
containing a programme which the Abbé de Nantes summarises in three
points:
1. To develop the perfect Christian doctrine so that,
in the times of
the Apocalypse, the Gospel might be preached with such luminous clarity that
each nation, each person, will be able to choose his camp in perfect
knowledge of the facts, and preferably the camp of Christ the
King! Soloviev would employ himself feverishly in this ultimate
elucidation of the divine Wisdom, and from this would result the wonderful
aesthetics and “Theurgy” found in The Justification of the Good
(1897). To justify the good, the true and the beautiful is to put to work the
divine energies of the Holy Spirit, who overcomes egoism and autolatry
through charity and the self-renunciation of the saints.
2. During the predicted persecutions and apostasy,
to cease «pursuing the power and grandeur of theocracy as the direct and immediate
end of Christian politics». However, «to consolidate the moral and religious unity of true believers, united
around Rome, the definitive criterion being an attachment to the truth»,
a truth that sets the elect apart from renegades and
excites in them a horror of the false union formed by the latter around the
Antichrist.
3. Lastly, to combat the Adversary with the arms of light, confident
of the final triumph of those Christians who remain faithful, after a short
but ferocious struggle which for a while will lead to an apparently universal
victory by Hell. In this apocalyptic combat, the real
victors will be the martyrs, and those who have «persevered until the
end».
THREE CONVERSATIONS
 In 1899 Soloviev
decided to describe the circumstances of this combat of
the end times in Three Conversations. For him these constitute a kind of philosophical and spiritual last testament, as well as a
retractatio where he wanted to return to the most cherished
themes of his teachings in order to restate them and, if need be, correct them. Because of its eschatological character, this text is
of capital importance. As our Father writes, «There is
absolutely no way one can support and believe
in Soloviev’s Theandry, work actively on behalf of his Theocracy and
share closely in his Theurgy, without clearly distinguishing these from what is
currently their most dangerous caricature: the Antichrist at war against
the Church.»
Perhaps even within her very bosom…
With the rigour and intellectual agility
so characteristic of him,
Soloviev broaches the most fundamental questions for faith and
morals: the end of history, the choice between Christ and Antichrist,
and the problem of Evil. The literary genre adopted – that of philosophical conversations modelled on Plato’s
Dialogues, of which the
philosopher had recently published a new translation – is more
accessible and attractive than the theoretical treaty. It allows the
author to be understood by a wider number of people.
He himself explains in his preface, dated «Easter Sunday 1900», the
aim of these conversations: «I wanted, in so far as I could, to
set out clearly how the problem of evil is addressed by vital aspects of Christian truth,
aspects on which a thick fog is descending from various sides,
especially in these latter times.» The parable accompanying his statement is quite delightful,
and its lesson unexpected to say the least. Judge for yourself:
«PREACHERS OF EMPTINESS»
«Many years ago, I happened to read about a new religion
that had arisen
somewhere in the eastern provinces. This religion, whose followers are
called “hole-drillers” or “hole-worshippers”, consisted in drilling a medium-sized hole in some
dark corner of their isba and then putting their mouths to it and repeating indefinitely: “My isba, my hole, save me!”
Never before, it seems, had the object of worship attained such a
degree of simplicity. But if the deification of a poor peasant isba and
of the
simple opening made by human hands in its wall was a manifest
aberration, it must however be said that it was an honest error: these
men may have been absolutely mad but they did not deceive anybody, for they called their isba an isba, and the place they had
drilled
in the wall they rightly called a hole.
«But the religion of the hole-worshippers
rapidly experienced an
“evolution” and underwent a “transformation”. Despite its new
look, this religion still retained its defective religious conceptions and
scant philosophical interests, it kept its crass realism, but it
had lost its previous honesty: their isba had now been given the title
of “Kingdom of God on earth”, and the hole had started to be called a
“new Gospel”, but the difference between this so-called gospel and the
true one was exactly the same as that between a hole drilled in a beam and
a complete living tree...
«Certain hole-worshippers – admittedly the “intelligent” ones – no longer
called themselves “hole-worshippers” but Christians, and they called their
preaching the Gospel, but in fact it was a Christianity without Christ,
and a Gospel, i.e. Good News, without the only good worth
proclaiming: without the real resurrection to the fullness of the blessed life.
In short, it was nothing but emptiness, just like the hole drilled in
the peasant isba.»
What made Soloviev especially indignant is that these so-called
apostles cover this emptiness, the “hole” of their notions, with a
«counterfeit Christian flag» which seduces and misleads the “little ones”,
the humble, who still have a simple belief in Christ’s Gospel:
«In an age when certain people think and say under their breath that
Christ is obsolete, that He is passé, or even that He
never existed at
all, that He is a myth imagined by the Apostle Paul, and when such
people obstinately continue to pass themselves off as genuine Christians
and cloak the preaching of their emptiness under words wrested from
their true meaning, then indifference and haughty disdain are no
longer an appropriate reaction. Now that the moral atmosphere has
been infected with a systematic lie, the public conscience cries out for such
evil deeds to be called by their true name. The true task of polemics
in this case is not to refute a pseudo-religion but to expose a
veritable deception.»
These “preachers of emptiness” claim Christ as their authority, but the
true Christ is entirely alien to them, He is of no use to them and even
constitutes an obstacle for them. Let them come clean and claim another
Master, Buddha for instance!
«If human weakness makes these people experience an irresistible need
to base their conviction not only on their own “reasoning” but also on
some historical authority, why, I ask, do they not look in history for someone
else who would be a more suitable representative? And in fact there is such a
person, ready made for them, the founder of that widely popular religion
which is Buddhism. Buddha really did preach what they
are looking for: non-resistance to evil, impassivity and
inactivity, sobriety, etc. And he succeeded, even without martyrdom, “in
opening up a brilliant career” for his religion. The sacred books of the
Buddhists
really do proclaim emptiness and, to make these books fully agree with
the new preaching on this matter, one would only need to simplify a few
details. On the other hand, the Holy Scriptures of the Jews and
the
Christians are filled, are indeed wholly permeated, by a positive
spiritual message that denies emptiness, both ancient and modern.
To
associate the preaching of emptiness with some statement found in the
Gospel or the Prophets, they use all kinds of tricks to try and divorce
this statement from its immediate context and indeed from the rest of
the book.»
Without actually naming his adversary, because of the censure that would have
prevented the latter from replying, Soloviev, with a very sure instinct,
crossed swords with Tolstoy, the prophet of non-violence and of
non-resistance to evil, a veritable «lie of Antichrist» and the
most powerful, perhaps, of his precursors.
TOLSTOY’S FALSE GOSPEL
THE RUSSIAN LUTHER
Who today remembers the author of War and Peace,
Anna Karenina and
Resurrection? For his contemporary Soloviev, Lev Nicolayevich
Tolstoy was a perverter of the Russian soul, more dangerous even than Marx
and Nietzsche, because he propagated «a Christianity without
dogma and a morality without strength, a morality that was purely sentimental,
ostensibly
virtuous but in reality quietist and, on that account, vicious» (English
CRC no 153, p. 37). He reduced everything to the single law of love, in
the name of which he indiscriminately condemned his country’s
institutions, war in all its forms, the sciences and the arts.
«Tolstoy is the Russian exemplar of the corruption of Christian
thought», writes Father Rouleau in the introduction to the Three
Conversations, «the falsifier of the whole Russian Orthodox tradition:
he
represents the typical Russian heretic, one who brings together every
facet of both national greatness and weakness with an incomparable
intensity and richness. In a way, Tolstoy is another Luther or a
Russian Calvin!»
Dostoevsky had already experienced a kind of revulsion for this “heretic”:
«Their ideas, their manner of seeing things were completely opposed»,
recounts the Russian novelist’s daughter... «A true patriot, a respectful
son of the Church, a Slav faithful to the cause of the people of his
race, Dostoevsky lived as a European, regarded Europe as his second home
and never ceased advising those who came to ask his opinion to study, to
read and to acquire that European culture which was so lacking among the majority of
my compatriots.
«Tolstoy’s outlook was totally different. He loved Russia as
sincerely as Dostoevsky did, but he would not judge her. On the
other hand, he scorned European culture and regarded the ignorance of the mujiks as the supreme wisdom. He admired their defects, shared
their childish nonsense, their ingenuous dream of a primitive communism. This apostle of defeatism advised his disciples to lay
their weapons down before the enemy, not to fight against evil, to
let it invade the world, and to leave the job of fighting this evil in
the hands of God. He worked for the triumph of the Bolsheviks and
naively claimed to be preaching Christian ideas.» (Life of
Dostoevsky by his daughter, Paris, 1926, p. 289)
Aimee Dostoevsky attributes this disparity to Count Tolstoy’s
Germanic origins: «Tolstoy’s German roots might explain the otherwise
inexplicable and bizarre aspects of his character, his Protestant
reflections on the Christ of Orthodoxy, his liking for a simple
life of labour, very rare for Russians of his class, his extraordinary
insensitivity to the sufferings of the Slavs tortured by the Turks,
something which absolutely astonished my father. “How can he not feel pity? It
is a mystery to me”, he wrote in his Diary of a Writer. Tolstoy
rejected science, culture and European literature in their entirety. “My faith”,
“my confession”, he wrote at the top of his religious ramblings, in his
evident desire to create a Kultur of Jasnaya Poliana.» (p. 299)
Soloviev went much further than his master Dostoevsky in denouncing
the prophet of non-violence as a precursor of the Antichrist. «With a
genius of which I know no equal», writes our Father, «he turns our
attention away from the noisy forerunners of the Bolsheviks, Marx and
Nietzsche, those inflammatory demons whom we know only too well, in order to
focus our attention on a much less noisy figure, one who inspires no
fear at all, on the contrary! but who is all the more dangerous
for the charm with which he seduces souls, using flattering illusions
that
resemble the most stirring truths of Christianity. It is like two angels
who resemble one another “to the point of deceiving, if that were
possible, the elect themselves”, an angel of darkness on one side
against an angel of light on the other: Leo Tolstoy in all his glory!
against Soloviev the “strastoterpstsi”, the innocent persecuted for the
love of Christ.» (English CRC no 153, p. 37)
But let us take up the Three Conversations at
the point where
Soloviev has Tolstoy appear under the guise of an ostensibly evangelical
“Prince” who is successively confronted by three characters:
a general, a diplomat and a mysterious Mr Z, who is none other than
Soloviev himself. The conversation turns on the general theme: Should
one resist evil?
A “GLORIOUS AND CHRIST-LOVING ARMY”
In the first conversation, the general replies
yes to this question, in accordance
with the principle that civilised countries have always opposed evil
with armed force. This officer represents «the moral religious point of
view, which belongs to the past», Soloviev explains in his
preface. His nephew, Sergius Soloviev, recounts that, when his uncle
read his manuscript to his close friends and family for the first time, «the
general’s remarks were pronounced with an ardour that betrayed his love
for the old soldier. His own grandfather and godfather had been an
admiral, and he counted many friends in the army.» (p. 435)
Our general complains that the title “glorious and Christ-loving
Army” traditionally given to the Russian Army and the military
profession in general are presently disdained by politicians and
vilified by base pacifist campaigns. Confronting the Tolstoyan prince
who upholds the new Gospel that Evil must be vanquished by good, God is
not found in force but in justice, you shall not kill, etc., the general
protests that justice must be backed up by force if it is to be
exercised in an efficacious manner, be it only to defend innocent
victims!
In support of his claims, he recounts that one day he had
exterminated in an instant no less than a thousand bashibazouks (Turkish
mercenaries) who had been indulging in abominable cruelties against
the unhappy Armenians. Not only did he feel no remorse over this, but he
remembered it as «a luminous Easter of the soul», with the satisfaction
of a duty accomplished for «the faith, the tsar and the fatherland». The
Prince then reproaches him for not having conducted himself, in the
circumstances, in a rather more “evangelical” manner:
«THE PRINCE. –
He who is truly filled with an authentic evangelical
spirit will find within himself, when the need arises, the facility
of using
words, gestures and his aspect to influence his poor ignorant
brother who wishes to commit a crime or some other guilty act. He is
able
to create such a startling impression on him that he immediately
recognises his fault and forsakes the path of error.
THE GENERAL. – Saints in heaven!
Are you really advising me that before the
bashibazouks who were roasting little children, I should have made
some touching gestures and pronounced a few touching words?
MR Z. – Words,
perhaps, would not have been quite appropriate owing to the intervening
distance and the fact that neither of you understood the other’s
language. And as for
gestures calculated to make a startling impression, you may think what you
like, but nothing could have been more fitting in the precise
circumstances than rounds of shells fired.
LADY. – Really, what language and what instruments could the
general have used to make himself understood by the bashibazouks?
THE PRINCE. – I
never said that they could have
acted in an evangelical manner towards the bashibazouks. What I said was
that a person full of the authentic Gospel spirit would have found a
way, in this case as in any other, to awaken in these blind souls
the good which lies hidden in every human creature.
MR Z. – Do you really think so?
THE PRINCE. – I have not the slightest doubt about it.
MR Z. – Well, do you think then that Christ was sufficiently
imbued with
the authentic Gospel spirit?
THE PRINCE.
– What is the significance of this question?
MR Z. – It signifies that I wish to know why Christ did not use the
power of the Gospel spirit to awaken the good hidden in the souls of Judas, Herod, the Jewish high priests and
lastly of the
impenitent thief whom people completely forget when they
speak about his good comrade. For the positive Christian conception,
there is no insurmountable difficulty in this [...]. You may twist and
disfigure all you like the text of the Four Gospels, but the facts will
remain no less undeniable, and this is the very essence of our argument,
that Christ suffered cruel persecutions and was put to death precisely because His enemies hated Him. The
fact that He Himself
remained morally superior to all this, that He chose not to resist and
forgave His enemies, is easy to understand, both from both my point of view and
yours. But, why, in pardoning His enemies, did He not – to adopt your
language – free their souls from the appalling darkness in which they
were stagnating? Why did He not vanquish their wickedness with the power
of His gentleness? Why did He not awaken the good that lay dormant in
them, why did He not enlighten and regenerate their minds? In a word,
why did He not act on Judas, Herod and the Jewish high priests as He
acted on the good thief and on him alone? Once again: either He was
unable to do so or He did not wish to. In either case it is evident,
according to your argument, that He was insufficiently imbued with the true
Gospel spirit; and since we are talking, if I am not mistaken,
about the Gospel of Christ and of no one else, it would appear that for you
Christ was insufficiently imbued with the authentic spirit of Christ.
Congratulations!»
The prince is unable to reply; he is beaten on the
basis of his own
principles...
THE CULTURE OF PEACE AND PROGRESS
The second conversation calls on the politician, the professional
diplomat. His speeches were read by Soloviev, according to his nephew,
«in the artificial voice of an elderly smug bureaucrat, mimicking the
minister Goremkim» (p. 435). This representative «of the progress of the
dominant culture of the day» claims to overcome evil not by force as in
barbarian times, but by instruction, by the revelation to
backward peoples of ideology and modern techniques. He is persuaded
that material and cultural progress will dispel misery and ignorance,
the cause of all ills...
The prince, who is present at this conversation, says not a word,
presumably finding some support for his own views in it. Our fine
speaker
then uses the example of the Germany of William II, who sought to shake Turkey out of its lethargy by eliminating illiteracy
and constructing the Berlin-Baghdad railway. All this was done without
anyone worrying about religion or having any misgivings that imperialism
might be the real underlying reason for such development aid. One might think
one was listening to one of our contemporary politicians:
«Authentic culture demands the complete disappearance of all conflict
between men and nations. The politics of peace is the criterion and
symptom of the progress of civilization, etc.» Mgr Rupp cannot restrain
his applause: «It is a kind of prelude to the great pontifical document
Populorum progressio.»
As for Soloviev, he seldom intervenes in this conversation, except at
the end where he reduces the beautiful construction of his interlocutor
to smoke:
«MR Z. – Regarding your remarks about the politics of peace being a
symptom of progress, I recall that in Turgenev’s “Smoke”, one of the
characters says with great justice: “Progress is a symptom!” Does it not
follow then that the politics of peace is a symptom of a symptom?
THE POLITICIAN. – Yes. But what does that prove? Clearly, everything
is relative. But what exactly is your point?
MR Z. – Well, if the politics of peace is only the shadow of a
shadow, is there any reason to talk about it so much? All this talk
about the progress of a shadow? Would it not be much better to
say openly to humanity what Father Barsanophius said to the pious lady:
“You are old, you are weak, and you will never get better.”»
In fact, the politician’s speech, replacing God and the Good with
culture and peace, is too secularist for Soloviev not to find it unbearable. Conclusion: armed force against evil is necessary, yes, in
the immediate term! Instruction and development are also highly
praiseworthy, in the medium term. But against moral evil, against
Tolstoy who disarms consciences, against the Antichrist «behind whom lurks
an abyss of evil», neither remedy is sufficient.
THE COMBAT OF THE END TIMES
A third and final talk is now provided in magisterial fashion by Mr
Z, Soloviev’s mouthpiece, «promoter of that absolute religion which is
to reveal its decisive importance in the future», as indicated in the
preface... For absolute religion we should read integral
religion, because it integrates every sphere of human activity, and
puts each thing, each event in its place, through the judgement that
will take place at the end of time. This positive supernatural vision of
universal history justifies and reconciles the occasionally
contradictory views of the politician and the general: «The warrior’s
sword and the diplomat’s pen should both be esteemed insofar as they
actually correspond to the objective in such or such a situation, and
the most fitting instrument on each occasion is the one whose use is
most appropriate, that is to say which serves the good with the greatest
success.»
Now, the true religion reveals that at the end of time the Antichrist will appear, the ultimate manifestation of evil in
history, and that after a brief triumph, he will experience his final
downfall. Soloviev now goes right to the heart of the matter:
«MR Z. – There can be no doubt that this reign of the Antichrist, which
according to the Bible – both Old and New Testaments – will mark the
final act of the historical tragedy, will not simply be one of unbelief
or materialism or the negation of Christianity, etc., but will be a
religious imposture, and that the name of Christ will then be
usurped by forces within humanity which, in reality and in their very
essence, are alien and positively inimical to Christ and His Spirit.»
Some of the Fathers of the Church had foreseen this before Soloviev:
«Saint John Damascene insists on the hypocrisy of the Antichrist: “As a
prelude to his reign, or rather to his tyranny, he will feign holiness...”
These are the characteristics one finds in the writings of Saint Hippolytus who calls
him “the deceiver”, and in Saint Cyril of Jerusalem for whom the
Antichrist “will feign prudence, pious clemency and philanthropy”.» (B
Marchadier, Ecumenism and Eschatology according to Soloviev, Paris,
1994, p. 158) Because the Antichrist will disguise himself under the very
features of Christ and caricature His universal work of reconciliation,
the whole power of the authentic Word of God, sharp as a sword, will be
needed to expose him:
«MR Z. – Of all the stars that rise on the mental horizon of one who
makes a close study of our Sacred Books, there is not, I
think, any more luminous or striking than that which shines out in these
words of the Gospel: “Do you think that I have come to bring peace to the
world? No, I tell you, but division.” He came to bring Truth on earth
and, like the good, it is before all else a force of division.
LADY. – That needs
explaining. For why in that case is Christ called the Prince
of peace, and why did He say that peacemakers would be called sons of
God?
MR Z. – Am I to understand that you
wish me to take on the supreme
dignity of reconciling these contradictory texts?
LADY. – Precisely so!
MR Z. – Observe then that
the only way they can be reconciled is by separating
good peace, or true peace, from bad peace, or false peace. And this
separation is directly pointed out to us by Him who brought us both true
peace and honest enmity: “I leave you peace. My own peace I give
you. I do not
give it as the world gives it.” There is therefore a good peace of
Christ, a peace founded on the division which Christ came to bring on
earth, namely the division between good and evil, lies and Truth; and
there is a bad peace, a peace of the world, founded on confusion or the
external union of what is, internally, at war.
LADY. – So how do you
propose to show us the difference
between the good and the bad peace?
MR Z. – A little like the general did the day before yesterday when
he jocularly remarked that there are good peaces, like that of Nystad or Kuchuk Kainarji [two peace treaties granting Russia extensive
access rights to the Baltic and the Black Sea in the eighteenth
century]. Behind the jocularity there lies a more general and important
meaning. In spiritual warfare, as in politics, a good peace is that
which is only concluded when the object of the war is accomplished.»
THE RESURRECTION, A STUMBLING BLOCK
What is the point in searching for “the pure moral good”, as the tolstoyan Prince
seeks to do, or working indefinitely for the progress of
humanity, as the politician demands, if the final result is the death of
every man, barbarian and civilised alike! And if, again, Christ and His
disciples, having fully accomplished “the demands of the
good”, suffered death and did not actually rise again, – as Tolstoy claimed in a book antiphrastically entitled “Resurrection”,
which was published in
the same year as Three Conversations! – then the Kingdom of God is
nothing but a kingdom of death.
Against this nonsense, inspired by an
all-pervasive modernism, Soloviev
opposes his luminous faith in the Resurrection of Christ, the sign and
promise of the final resurrection of the elect, and of their victory
over the Antichrist:
«MR Z. – We have but one defence against despair:
actual
resurrection. We know that the fight between good and evil not only
takes place in souls and society but even, at a deeper level, in the
physical world. And we already know that in the past the good principle
won a victory over life, in a personal resurrection. We await one thing
only: further victories involving the collective resurrection of all. And here
even evil finds its meaning, the final explanation of its being, in that
it serves to realise and enhance the ever greater triumph of good. If
death is more powerful than mortal life, resurrection to eternal life is
even more powerful than either of them. The Kingdom of God is the reign of life which has
triumphed through the resurrection, and it is in this life that there lies the
real, actual and final good. Here lies all the power, all the work of
Christ, here is manifest His true love for us, and our love for Him. All
the rest is but a condition, a means, a path. Without faith in the
resurrection accomplished by One alone and without hope in the future
resurrection of all, any talk of some unspecified Kingdom of God is
nothing but words and only leads to the kingdom of death.»
Around this fundamental truth of our faith, our Father magisterially
contrasts the two protagonists of the drama: «One [Soloviev] believed that
Jesus Christ, the true Son of God made man, risen from the dead, had
had a substantial effect on the world and divinised it through the Church, the
Roman Church! He exhorted the Russian people to entrust
themselves unreservedly to the grace of Jesus, to accept the self-renunciation,
sacrifice and humility demanded by the Gospel, and to return to visible Catholic
Unity! He encouraged them to struggle with all their might against Evil, particularly against
any kind of schism or revolution... The other [Tolstoy] denied the resurrection
of Jesus and His divinity; he made man responsible for perfecting and
divinising himself by following the impulses of his heart, by not
resisting evil, on the contrary by yielding to it. In this way he
aspired to lead mankind without encumbrance to happiness, peace,
fraternity and the equal wellbeing of all...» (English CRC no 153, p.
37)
THE SACRED IMAGE OF CHRIST
Soloviev wrote in his Foundations of the Spiritual Life (1884):
«I would advise everyone to undertake this type of examination of
conscience which does not deceive: to take the image of Christ as the
measure of our conscience. In moments of doubt, when there at least
remains the possibility of reasoning with oneself and of meditating, remember Christ, place Him before you as though He were
truly Alive, as indeed He is, and lay on Him the whole weight of your
doubt. He is already predisposed to take on Himself the burdens of
others, not of course to free your hands so that you may commit some
iniquitous act, but in order that, by turning to Him and relying on Him,
you may abstain from evil and that, in this difficult case, you may
become the instrument of His indubitable Justice.» (quoted by Mgr Rupp,
p. 179)
It was armed with the labarum of the Holy Face of Jesus that our
prophet drew the portrait of the Antichrist in the concluding part of
his Three Conversations: «To reveal in advance the face of deception
behind which hides an abyss of evil, such was my overriding intention in
writing this little book.» We must now meditate on this “Short Story of
the Antichrist”, the account of the Russian monk Pansophius, whose Greek
name means all wisdom, and who undoubtedly represents Soloviev himself.
|
THE CONDEMNATIONS OF SAINT PIUS X
We
wish to draw your attention, Venerable Brethren, to this distortion
of the Gospel and of the sacred character of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
God and Man, which is practised within the “Sillon” and elsewhere. As
soon as the social question is raised, it is the fashion in certain
quarters first to put aside the divinity of Jesus Christ and then only
to talk of His infinite mercy, His compassion for all human misery,
and His pressing exhortations to love of neighbour and fraternity. True,
Jesus loved us with an immense, infinite love, and He came on earth
to suffer and die so that, gathered around Him in justice and love, and
motivated by the same sentiments of mutual charity, all men might live
in peace and felicity.
But for the realization of this temporal and eternal happiness, He
has laid down with supreme authority the condition that we must belong
to His flock, that we must accept His doctrine, that we must practice
virtue, and that we must accept the teaching and guidance of Peter and
his successors. Further, whilst Jesus was kind to sinners and to those
who went astray, He did not respect their false ideas, however sincere
they might have appeared. He loved them all, but He instructed them in
order to convert them and save them. If He called to Himself, that He
might comfort them, those who toiled and suffered, it was not to
preach to them the jealousy of a chimerical equality. If He lifted
up the lowly, it was not to instil in them the sentiment of a dignity
independent from and rebellious to the duty of obedience. If
His heart overflowed with gentleness for souls of good will, He could
also arm Himself with holy indignation against those who profaned the
House of God, against the wretched men who scandalise the little ones,
against the authorities who crush the people with the weight of heavy
burdens without ever lifting a finger to ease them. He was as strong as He
was gentle. He reproved, threatened and chastised, knowing and teaching us
that fear is the beginning of wisdom, and that it is sometimes fitting
for a man to cut off an offending limb to save his body. Finally, He did
not announce for future society the reign of an ideal happiness from
which suffering would be banished; but, through His teachings and through His
example, He traced the path of the happiness that is possible on earth
and of the perfect happiness in Heaven: the royal way of the Cross.
These are teachings that one would be wrong to apply solely to one’s
personal life in order to merit eternal salvation; these are eminently
social teachings, and they show in Our Lord Jesus Christ something quite
different from a humanitarianism that lacks both substance and authority.
SAINT PIUS X, Letter on the Sillon, 25 August 1910, no 42.
|
THE RISE AND FALL OF THE ANTICHRIST
 IN THOSE TIMES…
The account starts by recalling the events that are to precede the
coming of the Antichrist: «The 20th century after the birth of Christ
will be a time of the greatest wars, of civil strife and revolutions.»
For something written in 1900, it is not a bad prognosis! The first
part of the century will see the West invaded by the yellow peoples
under the banner of Pan-Mongolism, then their retreat and the creation of
the United States of Europe (!) instigated by freemasonry. The
Jews will return to Palestine and repopulate it... Material prosperity will
then spread throughout all civilised countries. «The final decline of
theoretical materialism» will free minds from this mental straitjacket but,
in its place, the majority will be satisfied with a confused
system of beliefs, lacking any clearly defined dogma or practice.
«At that time [we are now at the beginning of the 21st century],
there was among the few believing spiritualists a remarkable man – many
called him a superman – who was as far removed from the childhood of
understanding as he was from that of the heart. He was still a young man, but
his superior genius had earned him at the age of thirty a widespread
reputation as a great thinker, writer and public figure. Conscious of
possessing within himself a powerful spiritual force, he had shown himself
to be a convinced spiritualist, and his
keen intellect had always shown
him the truth of those things that should be believed in: the Good, God and
the Messiah. In these he believed, but he loved only himself. He believed in God but
in the depths of his heart he could not
prevent himself from preferring himself. He believed in the Good, but the omniscient eye of the Eternal knew that this man would
bow down before the power of Evil as soon as he felt its allure...»
This “son of God”, on whom so many gifts had been lavished,
will
however lack those of humility and gratitude. Nor will wisdom be his, since he will not even practise its beginning, which is the fear
of God (Prov 1.7). The psychological portrait that Soloviev draws here
is gripping, particularly as it conforms so closely to what Scripture
and the most ancient Tradition say on the matter. Note that this
extraordinary man will not have a proper name or a country: he will be
a
disincarnate being, the opposite of Christ who Himself became incarnate. His
pride will lead him to view himself as the equal of Christ, «His
forerunner», and then to place himself above Him and finally supplant
Him, as a new Mohammed – the comparison is Soloviev’s:
«This man will place himself above Christ, justifying this by the following chain of reasoning: “Christ, by preaching and accomplishing
in his life the moral good, was the reformer of humanity, but my role is
to be the benefactor of this same humanity, partly reformed and partly
incapable of being reformed. I will give men everything they need. Christ, as a moralist,
divided men in terms of good and evil, whereas I will unite them with
benefits which are necessary to good and evil alike. I will be the true
representative of this God who makes his sun to rise on both the righteous
and the sinner. Christ brought the sword, I will bring peace. He
threatened earth with the last judgement, but I will be the last
judge, and my judgement will not only be one of justice but also of
charity. There will also be justice in my judgement, but it will not be
a retributive justice but a distributive one. I will make a
distinction between each man and I will give each what is appropriate to
him.”»
THE HOUR OF
SATAN
Privately persuaded that the hour of God is
about to sound for him, –
he is the same age as Christ –, «this just man full of pride awaits the
sanction from the Most High before undertaking the salvation of humanity... but he
can see no sign of it. He is already thirty, and a further three years pass
by.
And then a thought crosses his mind, penetrating him like a shiver to the marrow of his bones: “And what if...? What if it
were not me, but the other... the Galilean? What if He were not my
forerunner, but the true one, the first and the last? In that case He must
still be alive... But where is He then? And what if He were to come to me... here,
at this very moment... What would I say to him? would I have to bow
before Him like the least Christian imbecile and mumble stupidly like a
Russian peasant: Lord Jesus Christ, have pity on me a sinner, or
to stretch out
my arms in the form of a cross like some Polish woman? No, I am a
luminous genius, a superman,
never!”
«Then, instead of the cold reasoned respect he formerly had for
God and Christ, there arose and grew in his heart at first a kind of terror,
and then a burning envy which compressed and contracted his whole
being, and finally a deadly hatred which made him quite breathless: “it
is me, ME,
ME, not him! He does not count among the living, and will never
count among them. He is not risen, no, no, no! He rotted, He rotted in
the grave, He rotted like the least...” And frothing at the mouth, he
rushed convulsively out of his home, jumped over the garden wall and
fled, along a rocky path, into the black night...
«His fury abated and gave way to despair
that was as cold and heavy as
those rocks and as sombre as that night. He stopped at the edge of a
precipitous
ravine, from the bottom of which he could hear the muffled sound of a torrent
running over the stones. An overpowering anguish pressed upon his heart.
Suddenly, something stirred within him. “Should I call him and ask him what
I must do?” And in the darkness an image, gentle and sad, appeared to
him. “He has pity on me... Oh, no, never! He did not rise, no, no!” And he
hurled himself into the ravine. But something supple, like a column of
water, held him up in the air. He felt a sort of electrical discharge, and
a force threw him backwards. He lost consciousness for a moment and then
found himself kneeling a few paces away from the ravine. Before him
could be made out a silhouette which gave off a murky phosphorescent light. Two
eyes could be made out, and their unbearable glare pierced his heart...» Satan,
for it was him, then comes up to the one he calls his “only son” and, having
adorned him with beauty, fills him with his power.
THE CONQUEST OF THE WORLD
From that day, he will go on to conquer the world at a rapid
rate.
Nothing will stand in the way of this easy-going, happy, smiling man. He
will write a book entitled “The Open Path to Universal Peace and
Prosperity”, which will earn him the approval of all.
«This path had a universal character and
abolished all
contradictions. It united a noble respect for ancient traditions and
symbols with a broad and daring radicalism in socio-political questions.
Its boundless freedom of thought was allied with the most
profound appreciation for everything mystical; its unmistakable
individualism was united with an ardent zeal for the common good; and
the guiding principles of the most sublime idealism went hand in hand
with extremely precise, practical solutions for daily life. And all this
was blended and cemented with such artistic genius that every
thinker and every man of action, no matter how narrow-minded he might
have been, had no difficulty in viewing and accepting the whole from his own
personal standpoint, for there was no requirement for him
to make any sacrifice to truth itself, to actually rise above his own
ego,
to renounce in any way his narrow-mindedness, to
correct anything false in his views and aspirations or to supplement
their deficiencies.»
Herein lies the mark of the Antichrist denounced by Soloviev. This Man
will claim to reconcile opposites and to satisfy the desires of each and
every person without anyone having to agree to the least sacrifice. No
need for “conversion”, self-renunciation or the “narrow
road”, as the road will lay wide “open”! «Not only does this inspired
author proclaim a universal “I understand you”, but he surpasses
everyone in his attachment to the values he defends. Polymorphic and
omni-comprehensive, he is a traditionalist to traditionalists, a
modernist to modernists, and a rationalist to rationalists.» (Bernard Marchadier,
Soloviev’s Ecumenism and Eschatology, p. 162)
He will thus be celebrated as “the Great”, “the Incomparable”, “the
Unique”, because he will appear to succeed where all his predecessors
had failed. All? Yes, even Christ... Moreover, the name of Jesus Christ
does not even appear in this work, nor does that of the Virgin Mary, a
distinctive sign of the Antichrist, but Soloviev foresees, alas! that
very few Christians will take offence at this:
«No doubt certain pious people, although heaping praise on the book,
will nevertheless end up asking why Christ is not mentioned even
once in it. But other Christians will retort: “Thank God! In past centuries,
sacred things have already been sufficiently debased by every type
of inopportune zealot, and nowadays a deeply religious writer must
be extremely guarded in these matters. Given that the substance of the book is
imbued with a
true Christian spirit of active love and universal goodwill,
what more could you want?” On this point everyone will agree.»
A FALLACIOUS HARMONY
The brotherhood of the freemasons will recognise this
astounding
writer as one of their own and will elect him President for life of the
United States of Europe, and then of the “World Standing Committee”.
Having become Lord of the world, another distinctive sign of the
Antichrist! in the space of three years, he is now ready to put his new
Gospel into practice.
In the course of a world Congress, he will begin by granting all peoples the peace to which they aspire: «International law at last has a
sanction which it has hitherto lacked. From now on, no power will dare to
say “war” when I say “peace”. Peoples of the earth, peace be with you!»
The following year, having concentrated in his hands the entire system
of world finances, he will offer them prosperity as well. Hence this new blasphemy: «Come to me
now, all you who are hungry and cold, that I may feed and warm you.»
Finally, when the crowd start to demand magic tricks, he has a Magician come
from the Far East and multiply miracles and wonders. «And the whole
earth marvelled and followed the Beast.» (Ap 13.3)
When the peace and freedom of all has been
guaranteed, and respect
shown to all cultures and religions, the superman will appear as
the
benefactor of humanity, the incomparable “defender of human rights”
(Marchadier, p. 163). Yet he still does not accept Christ, He who said,
«Without me, you can do nothing.» This antinomy permits Soloviev to
speak about a “bogus good”. And one does not have to wait
long to see its fruits:
«Under his reign, men will learn to love themselves, to admire and
idolize themselves, not as the servants and living icons of Christ, but
by usurping the place of God and forgetting the Lord.» (English CRC no
153, p. 39)
ECUMENICAL IMPOSTURE
The question of religion will still remain to be settled. The number
of true believers will have diminished considerably, but their faith,
strengthened by their struggles against an all-pervasive paganism, will
be perceived by the Antichrist as an obstacle to his universal
domination. He will then decide to convene an ecumenical council... in
Jerusalem! The opening, fixed for 14 September, feast of the exaltation
of the Holy Cross! will be very grand. One would think one was
present at an assembly of the United Nations, or the World Council of
Churches, or the meeting at... Assisi:
«Two thirds of the immense temple devoted to
the “unification of all cults” were laid out with benches and other seating arrangements for
members of the congress. The remaining third was taken up by a high
platform on which were placed the Emperor’s throne and another throne a
little lower down for the great magician […]. The members of the
congress had already celebrated their services in different churches,
and the opening of the congress was to have a character that was
entirely secular. When the Emperor, accompanied by the great magician
and his suite, made his entrance, the orchestra began to play “the March
of United Humanity”, which was the international hymn of the Empire, and
all the members rose to their feet, and, waving their hats, gave three
enthusiastic cheers: “Vivat! Hurrah! Hoch!” The Emperor, standing by the
throne and stretching out his hands with an air of majestic benevolence,
proclaimed in a sonorous and pleasing voice:
«Christians of all denominations! Brothers and beloved subjects! From
the beginning of my reign, which the Most High has blessed with such
wonderful and glorious deeds, I have had no cause to be dissatisfied
with you; you have always fulfilled your duties true to your faith and
your conscience. But this is still too little for me. My sincere love
for you, beloved brothers, thirsts to be reciprocated. I want you to
recognise in me your true leader in every enterprise undertaken for the
good of humanity, and that not merely out of a sense of duty, but
also out of a feeling of love that springs from the heart… Christians! Tell
me what is the most precious thing for you in Christianity, so that I
may direct my efforts to that end.»
In pursuit of his design of universal
reconciliation and peaceful coexistence “under his leadership”, he proposes to Catholics to
restore their
leader to his see in Rome with all his ancient prerogatives, to the
Orthodox attached to the symbols of their sacred tradition to create at
Constantinople a world museum of Christian archaeology, and to
Protestants to found a world Institute for the free study of the
Scriptures. The immense majority of Christians from the three
denominations rally enthusiastically to the Emperor’s proposals and go
up to sit on the platform at his side. «Below there remain only three
groups of members, who now move more closely together and
press around Starets John, Pope Peter and Professor Pauli.»
THE DEATH OF THE TWO WITNESSES
«The Emperor then addressed them in a saddened tone: “What else
can I do for you, you strange people? What do you expect from me? Tell
me, then, you Christians deserted by the majority of your brothers and
your leaders, you who stand condemned by popular feeling: what is it
that you value most in Christianity?”
«At this Starets John
rose up like a white candle and quietly
answered: “Sire! What we value most in Christianity is Christ Himself,
from whom everything proceeds, for we know that in Him the whole
plenitude of the Godhead has its bodily dwelling. From yourself, Sire,
we are also ready to accept any gift, provided only that we can
recognise the sacred hand of Christ in your generosity. Our candid
answer to your question, what can you do for us, is this: Confess here
and now before us that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who came in the
flesh, who rose and who will come again. Confess His name, and we will
lovingly receive you as the true precursor of His second glorious
coming.”
«He finished his speech and fixed his eyes on the face of the
Emperor. The latter was experiencing a deep feeling of unease. A hellish
storm was raging within him, like the one he had experienced on that fateful
night […]. Suddenly, he heard the unearthly voice he had heard before:
“Keep silent and fear nothing.” He remained silent. But his whole face,
dark and icy, contracted and his eyes flashed. Meanwhile, as Starets John was still making his speech, the great magician, wrapped in
the ample tricoloured mantle which covered his cardinal’s purple, could
be seen performing all kinds of manipulations beneath it. His eyes were
fixed and flashing, and his lips moved slightly. Through the open
windows of the temple one could see an immense black cloud approaching.
Very soon, complete darkness had set in. Starets John had not taken his
frightened eyes off the silent face of the Emperor. Suddenly, in horror,
he sprang back and, turning round, cried out in a choked voice: “My
little children, behold the Antichrist!” At that moment, a
deafening thunderclap exploded, a great ball of fire burst into the
temple and enveloped the Starets. For a moment everyone was
completely stunned, and when the
deafened Christians came to their senses, Starets John was lying dead on
the ground.»
The Emperor boasted before the Assembly that his father in heaven had
avenged him by making «fire from heaven» fall on his foolish opponent.
«Suddenly a word, clear and distinct, rang out in the temple:
“Contradicitur”. Pope Peter rose, trembling with anger, and brandished
his crosier in the direction of the Emperor: “We have no Lord but Jesus
Christ, the Son of the living God! As for you, you have just
heard who you are… By the authority of Christ, I, the servant of the
servants of God, cast you out forever, foul dog, from the city of God,
and I deliver you up to your father Satan! Anathema! Anathema!
Anathema!” The roar of thunder covered the last anathema and the last
Pope collapsed lifeless on the ground. “So die all my enemies by the arm
of my Father!” cried the Emperor. “Pereant, pereant”, exclaimed the
trembling princes of the Church.» And they all left the Temple.
ON A DARK NIGHT…
Professor Pauli, along with the last of the remaining Protestant faithful, join
the Catholics and the Orthodox who have rebelled against the Antichrist.
They carry off the bodies of the two Witnesses, the «ark of the last
covenant», to the deserted heights of Jericho, while in Jerusalem the
Emperor and his supporters noisily celebrate their victory by signing an
“Act of Union of the Churches”, cleverly seeking to abolish all the old
quarrels of the past and to open up a great new epoch of Christian history,
under the aegis of the Antichrist! It is the supreme deception.
But the two Witnesses rise from the dead, and there then takes place
a touching scene of true ecumenism, of the kind that Soloviev had always longed
for. Here he gives us the key to his own failure: the
Antichrist had to come first, the one who would have the audacity to caricature the sacred
Union of the Churches. This union will be realised as Christ promised,
but only after each had chosen between the true faith and the
falsification of the faith.
«Having come back to life, Starets John said: “You see, my little
children, that we have not parted after all! This then is what I have to
tell you: the time has come to realise the last prayer of Christ who prayed
that His disciples should all be one, even as He Himself is one with the
Father. To achieve this unity in Christ, my little children, let us honour our
beloved brother Peter. From now on let him pasture Christ’s flocks.
Yes, brothers!” And he embraced Peter. Then Professor Pauli came up in
his turn: “Tu est Petrus”, he declared to the Pope. “This has now been
thoroughly proved and placed beyond a shadow of a doubt.” And he clasped
Peter’s hand firmly, while he held out his left hand to Starets John
saying: “Now then, dear Father, we are one in Christ.”
«In this manner, the unification of Churches took place on a dark
night in a high and deserted spot. But the nocturnal darkness was
suddenly illuminated by a brilliant light, and a great sign appeared
in the heavens: a Woman, clothed in the sun with the moon beneath Her
feet and a crown of twelve stars on Her head. The apparition remained
motionless for some time, and then began to move slowly towards the
south. Pope Peter raised his crosier and exclaimed: “Behold our standard! Let us follow it!” And he departed in the direction of the
apparition, accompanied by the two old men and the whole crowd of
Christians, all making their way towards God’s mountain, Sinai...»
Thus ends the manuscript of Fr Pansophius, but Soloviev
goes on. According to his holy friend,
he says, although the Jews will have strongly contributed to the Antichrist’s success,
it will be they who give the
final signal for an uprising against the false Messiah. It will then be
seen «that Israel’s soul, in its inmost depths, does not live by calculations and
the avarice of Mammon, but by the power of a profound
sentiment, that of its hope and vehement undying faith in the Messiah»,
and Soloviev prayed ardently for this until his dying
day! The Antichrist will want to crush these last surviving opponents,
but will be engulfed along with his whole army in an ocean of fire, and
then Christ will be seen descending on His elect «in His royal vestments, with
the wounds of the nails in His outstretched hands».
UNDER THE STANDARD OF THE IMMACULATE
Saint Paul had warned his Christians: «Before the Coming of Our Lord
Jesus Christ and our gathering around Him… there must come the apostasy and be
revealed the man of lawlessness, the son of perdition, who opposes and
sets himself above everything that bears the name of God or sacred
object, even going so far as to take his seat in the sanctuary of God,
proclaiming himself to be God... And you also know what is presently
holding him back, preventing him from appearing before his appointed
time.» (2 Th 2.1-7) Certain Fathers of the Church have seen in the mysterious
obstacle holding the Antichrist back the infallible power of the Roman
papacy. And the Orthodox Soloviev wrote: «As there is in this world but
one legitimate and traditional centre of unity, namely Rome, it follows
that in order to fight with Jesus Christ against the Antichrist, genuine
believers must rally round this centre...» But he added, «... to the
degree indicated by their consciences. I know that there are priests and monks who think otherwise and who demand that we should unreservedly
abandon ourselves to ecclesiastical authority, as though to God. This is an
error which will have to be termed a heresy when it is clearly formulated.
One must expect that 99% of all priests and monks will declare
themselves for the Antichrist. That is their own affair... » (English
CRC no 115, p. 19)
For his part Mgr Rupp writes: «There are, within Christendom, certain
viewpoints which are the hallmark of the Antichrist or antichrists. They
are characterised by their lack of honesty and the cloak they cast over
their true nature. They need to be exposed, under the sign of the
gigantic battle raging between Christ and the preternatural Enemy.»
(The Ecclesial Message of Soloviev, p. 368) Now, Mgr Rupp’s whole
aim throughout the 600 pages of this book is to show that the new religion
resulting from Vatican II has a strange resemblance to Soloviev’s
marvellous theosophy, and that the United Nations is an
outline of its sacred Theocracy!
Our Father asked in 1978: «Given this strange resemblance as well as
the new religion’s perfect identity with Soloviev’s Antichrist,
whose resemblance to Christ lends him all his charm and prestige, the
question arises: Are we living through the dream of the saintly Soloviev
or that of the demoniacal Tolstoy? Are we in the times of Christ’s
victory or in the times of the Antichrist?» (English CRC no 132, p. 14)
And today, does the “dream” of unity cherished by John Paul II come from Christ or
from His Adversary?
The Secret of Fatima must decide between us. The Virgin Mary did not
come to reveal to us some wondrous plan of Peace, Justice and universal Progress
for all peoples of the world. Instead She showed three little children
hell «where the souls of poor sinners go»; She requested that Russia be
consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart in order that it might be
«converted»; and finally She announced that there would be a return to the
time of the martyrs, put to death in the wake of a mysterious «bishop
dressed in white».
In Soloviev’s account, the two Witnesses of the Apocalypse who died
and rose again are the representatives of the Churches of the East and West.
How can we not think of Pope John Paul I and the Patriarch Nikodim who
both died in September 1978. Likewise, Soloviev remarks that the
appearance of the «Woman clothed in the sun» took place three day after
the Antichrist’s disastrous council, that is to say on 17 September, the
day when the Russian Church celebrates the holy martyr Sophia, the
figure of the Immaculate! Let us conclude with our Father: «It is You O
Queen who turn our eyes away from the seductions of the Serpent. Your
secret, at last revealed, is that of a Creature forgetful of Herself and
preserved for God Alone, a Creature whom God has magnificently exalted.
Your lesson saves us from the mirages of the Antichrist who is
Your total antithesis.» (Letter to my Friends no 179, 15 August 1964)
Brother Thomas of Our Lady of
Perpetual Succour
|
REASONS FOR ENTHUSIASM