OCTOBER 1972

ÉDITION MENSUELLE EN LANGUE ANGLAISE DE LA CONTRE-RÉFORME CATHOLIQUE AU XX^e SIÈCLE
Editor : R. P. Georges de Nantes

VATICAN II - A REVOLUTION

On 11th October 1972 the CRC League will be holding a public meeting in the Great Hall of the Mutualité in Paris, to mark the tenth anniversary of the Opening of the Second Vatican Council: that Council which, after being welcomed with devout confidence and hope by the Catholic faithful, turned into an enormous disappointment.

The Council’s aim had been to "reform" everything in the Church, her entire Tradition and her form of Worship, in such a manner as to bring them closer to people outside the Church, and even to non-Christians. The ultimate aim was to create a world based on a purely man-centred fraternal love.

We should here recall the words of St Pius X about Modernism: "The ultimate goal of Modernism is the destruction of every form of religion. The first step towards this was taken by Protestantism, the second by Modernism itself, and the final remaining one will be a headlong rush into atheism." And also: "They are filled with frenzy to change everything. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, which they will not attack…"

Well, the Council did set about changing everything – philosophy and theology; seminaries, the Catechism itself, which would be freed of "dogmas, except where these had themselves undergone reformation, and been downgraded to a secular level." The reform of worship desired by the Modernists, accomplished by Vatican II would "entail a reduction in the outward signs of devotion…" The Church’s form of government would be brought into line with the democratic political forms, with a decentralisation of authority, which would be shared with clergy of lower rank and even laity. The Roman Congregations – the Holy Office in particular – and also the Index, fell victim to the Council’s "frenzy to change everything". As for the clergy themselves, they would be "called upon to return to a state of poverty and humility… and finally, in imitation of their Protestant masters, there would be a demand for the suppression of clerical celibacy."

Modernism, that "meeting-place of all heresies", had mapped out accurately the lines along which were to proceed the "reforms" of Vatican II!

Protestantism - Modernism - Atheism… the three steps in the destruction of religion that St Pius had spoken about. Vatican II made every effort to come to terms with these three enemies of Christ. It recognised Protestantism as a True Religion, with the consequence that today already we are witnessing "Eucharistic hospitality", while tomorrow there will follow the "mutual recognition of the ministries", with priests and Protestant pastors officiating together at their "eucharistic services in accordance with the rite expressly designed for such a purpose – the novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI. It will be but one stage from that when the Church finally requests to be admitted to the "World Council of Churches", as one sect among so many others.

Modernism itself has already been incorporated into post-Conciliar theological thinking – which is rejecting doctrines such as the Resurrection, the Virgin Birth, the Real Presence… That is the New Faith which is being taught to children today.

Atheism has penetrated even our very hierarchy, who are concerned more with (Marxist) politics than with a religion which for them consists of "myth and magic".

So much for the results of Vatican II, in a mere ten years. The CRC calls upon you to join in resisting that Council and its fruits, while we place our hope in a future Vatican III!

PREPARING FOR VATICAN III

"THE MOST PERFECT LOVE"
(Preliminary Schema)

The seed of holiness is planted in the soul with the Grace which it receives in Baptism, and develops in proportion as the individual gives himself to Christ.

Holiness consists essentially in a turning away from the things of this world and a turning towards God. Or, in the words of St Paul, in being buried with Christ in order to rise again with Him. The Christian who would play his part in the accomplishment of the work begun with the Sacrament of Baptism, must mortify his flesh and its concupiscences, and "renounce the world, and Satan, and all his pomps and all his works." Such asceticism is indispensable in order to overcome sin and worldly desires, and for the mystical union with God, in that Communion of the Saints in which the Church enables her children to share. The Christian who has set himself along the path to holiness is concerned only with loving God and his fellow men ever more and more intensely. For that, according to the Gospel, is the "one thing necessary" – Unum Necessarium.

Those who are travelling along this path do not all proceed at the same pace, some moving fast, others more slowly – each according to his own willingness but also according to the extent to which he has been endowed in God’s mysterious predestination. The essential first stage for all is that they should submit to the Divine Law, in obedience to the Commandments of God and of the Church, in the practice of liturgical prayer and the frequenting of the Sacraments, in the exercise of charity towards their fellow-men and the offering up to God of their daily burdens. Some proceed further, to a stage in which the soul has no other desire than to please God and, if they are free to do so, embrace the evangelical Counsels through the religious vows of Poverty, Chastity, Obedience. The soul that has thus freed itself from all earthly ties is enabled to move more directly and rapidly towards God.

Every individual can and should progress along the path of the love of God and his neighbour. Does this mean that all can attain sanctity? Views differ on this point. While it would be a mistake to maintain that lay people were unable to attain the highest degrees of charity, and restrict this entirely to religious – even automatically endowing all the latter indiscriminately with such merits – it would be equally rash to claim that all have the same opportunities of advancing to a state of perfection, regardless of their state in life and of the extent to which they practise their religion. That state of holiness which Our Lord has called upon all of us to aim at consists, certainly, in making the best of the state of life in which we find ourselves and in attaining, within it, to the greatest possible love of God and of our fellows. But it would nevertheless be a serious error to believe that those who are in a state of life that is itself far from perfect and whose religious practice is but indifferent, can hope to reach some high state of mystical perfection.

The principles we have briefly outlined above were taken for granted by all, until Vatican II wrought havoc among the priorities, as part of its fundamental new idea of "openness" towards the world. From now on Christians – and religious in particular – would be expected to chase two hares at the same time: to be equally concerned with pleasing God and with pleasing the World. They were to be faithful to the Gospel and to the spirit of their Founders – by all means – but the Council asked them also to be responsive to the demands of the world of today. They were to preserve the monastic Rule while at the same time adapting themselves to the modern mentality. If holiness, in the past, consisted in turning one’s back upon the World, then the Conciliar variety of the Perfect Life consists in facing two ways at the same time – towards God and towards the World. When previously he had been concerned to renounce his own self – so that God alone might reign within him – the post-Conciliar religious will be expected to develop his own personality and seek for fulfilment in the human sense. While his concern in the past had been to avoid Satan and his wiles, today he will have to watch, rather, that he does not lose touch with the rest of men – with the World. The result, inevitably, is that today’s religious are being torn in two opposing directions, like the human creature before its Baptism.

The criminal attack against human sanctity – and in particular against the religious state of perfection – committed by Vatican II, has reached its consummation today, when monasteries and convents are emptying fast, and no one is any longer interested in holiness. Lay people carrying out their ordinary worldly tasks are deemed to be better Christians and they have in any case been persuaded by the Council that life in the world can offer just as much perfection as a life dedicated to God. Holiness has been killed dead by the Council, and that is a mark of Satan.

In the Church today, the search for true holiness must therefore involve the rejection – not merely tacit but explicit – of the principles underlying the Conciliar Reformation: its "openness" to the World, its Cult of Man, and its concern generally with the building of an earthly paradise.

It will be for the future Council Vatican III to bring home to men once again that they were created in order to know, love and serve God.

Proposed Constitution of Vatican III
on
THE RELIGIOUS LIFE:
"THE MOST PERFECT LOVE"

All Holiness begins and ends in God

"For this is the will of God, your sanctification." (Th 4.5) When Jesus taught us how to pray, He told us first to ask Our Heavenly Father that His Name might be hallowed, that His Kingdom might come, and that His Will might be done on earth as it was in Heaven. After that, we were to ask also that God might give us our daily bread, that He might forgive our trespasses to the extent that we were willing to forgive those who had trespassed against us, that He might keep us from temptation and deliver us from everlasting Evil. And He called upon us to "be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

That sums up very simply what our religion is all about.

He who would attain perfection, must be entirely transformed, so that he comes indeed to resemble Christ, with the help of the Graces bestowed by the Holy Spirit through the Church, and as a result of the practice, to the highest possible degree, of the Moral and Theological Virtues – which all converge upon Charity, the Love of God and of our neighbour as of ourselves. In this sense, man, sanctified by divine Grace, can indeed become "like unto God".

Our individual destiny, and the course of creation itself, proceeds from God the Father, through the Trinity, in order to return again to God. That is what is meant by the "theocentricity" of our existence, which our neo-barbarians refer to as the "vertical" theology.

The New Theology is based on a different, "horizontal" system. If the "vertical" scheme is pictured as a string of pearls attached by its two ends to Heaven – proceeding from God and returning again to Him – while between these attachments it sweeps gracefully down over the earth, then the "horizontal" system can be represented by a similar chain which, while also proceeding from God, scatters its pearls, never to return to their origin. While in the New Thinking God is still the Origin – little though we may hear about this – He is no longer the End. Man has become God’s equal – and it is he who is now the end and aim of everything. God has to take second place: His function in this system is to aid Man in the furtherance of his own greater glory.

There is therefore little mention in present day teaching of doctrines which are bound up with the acknowledgement of God’s rightful place as the Origin and End – Exitus, Redditus. We do not hear about Divine Providence, Grace, Predestination, God’s Sovereignty, or eternal punishment. Human values are what matter, and the Church – though her Founder is still acknowledged to be Christ – exists rather to serve Man, and the World. The underlying philosophy is an anthropocentric instead of a theocentric one.

If this philosophy is carried to its logical conclusion, there can be no place for holiness, because the only "perfection" it recognises is the "fuller development" of the human personality – the achievement of the greatest possible capacity for happiness and the enjoyment of life.

In actual fact, the Church of Vatican II is still in a state of irresolution, of "double-think", hesitating between the worship of God and that of Man.

We shall here attempt to analyse the ambiguous thinking of Vatican II in order to point out its danger, and in an effort to restore a true understanding of Christian perfection, for this teaching is fundamental to our individual salvation and that of mankind as a whole.

The Perversion of the Concept of Holiness by Vatican II

The dual thinking on the subject is clearly apparent both in the Acts of Vatican II and in the accounts of the debates during the Council.

Lumen Gentium (LG) typifies the first phase in the thinking of the Council, when the main concern was the reform of the Church herself – ad intra. The second phase is typified by the document Gaudium et Spes, concerned with the reform ad extra – with the relations of the Church to the world outside, and with making her subservient to the latter.

This summing-up gives only one side of the picture – one which applies to most, but not all, of the Council. For instance, Chapter IV of LG, dealing with "The Laity", concludes with the words: "In a word, what the soul is to the body, let Christians be to the world." Their new concern with the "common priesthood" seems to look towards a "consecration of the world". The early chapters of this Constitution (LG) lay down, in the form of a general principle, the subservience of the Church to the world, which Gaudium et Spes then develops on a "pastoral" basis. Such a context leaves no room for holiness.

Nevertheless, elsewhere in its Acts, Vatican II does retain certain elements of the "vertical" thinking from the dim and distant past, stressing the supernatural end of man and of creation as a whole, and reminding him that his purpose is to know, serve and love God.

Thus, from Chapter V onwards, LG seems to be concerned exclusively with higher things, as the chapter headings would indicate: "The Call of the Whole Church to Holiness", the "Religious", "The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and her Union with the Heavenly Church" and "The Role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church". Here the Council does for once turn its eyes towards Heaven, showing itself as "theocentric". Nevertheless, even these, the doctrinally soundest parts of the Acts of Vatican II, are to some extent contaminated with the naturalism and reformist obsession of the new thinking that characterises the rest. Nowhere is the syrup free of that tiny trace of arsenic!

This is illustrated by the Decree Perfectae Caritatis, on the Religious Life, which corresponds to Chapter VI of LG, and goes more deeply into the subject. Instead of studying this at the same time as the Decrees on the Priesthood and on the Laity, we have left it till the end, because – when considered jointly with chapters V-VIII of LG – it illustrates better than anything else the dangerous double-thinking of Vatican II.

For, confronted with the question of what is the ultimate purpose of human life – according to the teaching of Christ – Vatican II is unable to give a straight answer. It must needs reply to the one question in two mutually contradictory ways: the purpose of our existence is the building of a Brave New World here below – AND also the attainment of Heaven. At other times, it will simply beg the question, and put in its place others relating to the immediate, terrestrial aims, which it then proceeds to answer with reference to man’s temporal tasks, while the ultimate things – holiness, the attainment of Heaven – remain mere tacit assumptions in the background. Faced with choosing which of the two Masters it wants to serve, Vatican II persists in refusing to make the choice. How can anyone be surprised, therefore, that the masses who have watched it dithering between these two – its lawful Lord and the other, who is Man himself – will choose the second.

We shall not find any of this stated explicitly in the texts we are about to study, as the authors went out of their way to pay as much attention as they could to things supernatural – precisely because elsewhere these were being betrayed altogether. It was perhaps an unconscious effort to maintain the balance, and it allowed them to claim that never before had any Council stressed so much the need for holiness, or expounded at such length the attractions of the religious life. Be that as it may, the fact remains that other parts of the text contradict these values: there is enough here to allow the traditionally minded commentators to give their approval, while the others can give it an interpretation in line with the rest of Vatican II.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating – and it is clear enough how the great majority of mortals have interpreted what the Council says on the subject of Religious, and what has been its influence on the life of the Church in the long run. That is more important than the actual words used. For most people are unable to think in equivocations: it is for them either all or nothing, and the influence of the "spirit" of the Council upon the Church has shown itself to be opposed to holiness, to the religious life, and therefore to God!

It will not be difficult to show, by reference to the texts of Lumen Gentium and Perfectae Caritatis, that Vatican II was eroding the very texture of sanctity even while extolling it in the most sublime terms, and changing it from perfection, turned Heavenward, into an earthbound, natural virtue within the reach of everybody. It is the meaning of holiness which is being changed by the Council even while the term itself is being exalted.

Let us ask some questions: When the Conciliar texts speak of sanctity, are they concerned with honouring the Saints, or merely men in general? As we shall see: firstly, they bestow haloes freely on all men, whereas the Saints are only a few. Secondly, their admiration is directed towards modern man, whereas the Saints belong to all time. Thirdly, their concern is with men here on earth, while the Saints are in Heaven. Lastly, when they treat of Mary, they see her as the "Woman", the "Mother of mankind" rather than as the "Blessed Virgin", or "the Mother of God", and "Mediatrix of Graces".

Chapter V of Lumen Gentium – "The Call of the Whole Church to Holiness" – must be considered in the context of the preceding passages, and you will recall that we have shown how The People of God take precedence over the Hierarchy, thus giving an inverted picture of the Church. Secular life has been upgraded into a "ministry" in its own right, with the laity assuming their new-found priesthood, while the "ministerial priesthood" is placed in the service of the former. The text therefore speaks of "believers" indiscriminately, and only secondarily distinguishes between "laity" and "religious".

Chapter IV had considered the laity as the priests of a new sacrifice, invested with this office by Christ Himself, who not only "unceasingly urges them on to every good and perfect work" – calls them to holiness, which is classical teaching – but automatically endows them with it. "For besides intimately associating them with His life and His mission, Christ also gives them a share in His priestly function of offering spiritual worship for the glory of God and the salvation of men. For this reason the laity, dedicated to Christ and anointed by the Holy Spirit, are marvellously called and equipped to produce in themselves ever more abundant fruits of the Spirit. For all their work, prayers, and apostolic endeavours, their ordinary married and family life, their daily labour, their mental and physical relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life, if patiently borne – all of these become spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (cf. 1 Pet 2.5). During the celebration of the Eucharist, these sacrifices are most lovingly offered to the Father along with the Lord’s body. Thus, as worshippers whose every deed is holy, the laity consecrate the world itself to God." (LG, 34)

The present chapter continues in this vein, though there is enough juggling with words for the commentators to choose their own interpretation. Thus, Fr Labourdette, apropos this passage: "You are all saints… therefore you must set about becoming holy." Nevertheless, the distinction between "called" and "chosen" is blurred, to say the least, and this constitutes an unforgivable falsification of the Faith. From the fact that "it is evident to everyone that all the faithful of Christ of whatever rank or status are called to the fullness of the Christian life and to the perfection of charity", it follows that "they can follow in His footsteps and mould themselves in His image… In this way too, the holiness of the People of God (transformed, in the space of one paragraph, from ideal into fact!) will grow into an abundant harvest of good…" (No 40) In so generously endowing all and sundry – "of whatever rank or status" – with the virtue of sanctity, they do not point out the difficulties – indeed the insurmountable obstacles –presented by certain modes of life and particular social climates… nor is there any reference to self-denial as an indispensable condition for the attainment of holiness. "All of Christ’s faithful, therefore, whatever be the conditions, duties, and circumstances of their lives, will grow in holiness day by day through these very situations, if they accept all of them with faith from the hand of their heavenly Father, and if they cooperate with the divine will by showing every man through their earthly activities the love with which God has loved the world." (No 41) It all sounds a little too easy, doesn’t it?

But we are never very far from the earthiness of Vatican II, which looks upon holiness as "active brotherly service". No 42, purporting to deal more specifically with the means available to the individual, is remarkable with regard both to priorities and to certain significant omissions. "Each one of the faithful must willingly hear the Word of God and with the help of His grace act to fulfil His will." This was welcomed as a "providential innovation" by one of the commentators, but can it not serve also as a justification for the private interpretation of Scripture, and the exaltation of the individual conscience? Especially when there is no mention of the observance of the Commandments of God and of the Church as being the indispensable minimum?

Martyrdom – "this supreme testimony of love to all men" – is shown as being within reach of everybody, merely through "confessing Christ before men… through the persecutions which the Church will never fail to suffer." The evangelical counsels also figure here, as forming part of "the manifold counsels proposed in the gospel by our Lord to His disciples". To pretend that even lay people will find them easy to follow, at least in part, without even reminding these of their first and foremost duty to practise the elementary virtues, and the minimum of self-denial, is surely to flatter human conceit in a manner unworthy of the Catholic Magisterium.

The pretext given is that it would be inappropriate to put "too monastic an ideal" before lay folk, with whom this section is primarily concerned – that, while the practice of the evangelical counsels is seen, in the case of Religious, as a form of renunciation, it should, in the case of lay people, be looked upon as a form of self-integration! The truth is that the Council was anxious to come to terms with those great obstacles to sanctity – the World, the Flesh, and the Devil!

The concluding paragraph of Chapter V illustrates the confusion which pervades the whole of the teaching given here: "All of Christ’s followers, therefore, are invited and bound to pursue holiness and the perfect fulfilment of their proper state. Hence, let them all see that they guide their affections rightly. Otherwise, they will be thwarted in the search for perfect charity by the way they use earthly possessions and by a fondness for riches which goes against the gospel spirit of poverty. The Apostle has sounded the warning: let those who make use of this world not get bogged down in it, for the structure of this world is passing away (cf. l Cor 7.31, Greek text)."

The phrase we have underlined in the above passage was inserted at the last minute, changing the meaning of the whole. In the earlier version – which does not contain this clause – you are encouraged to show affection for the things of this earth, provided that you take care to "guide it rightly" – not becoming excessively attached. The second version recognises that the fondness is itself an evil tendency which must be overcome by those who desire to seek perfection. The reference to St. Paul in this context takes on a shocking ambiguity. What the Council would not under any circumstances wish to admit is that, unless you do detach yourself from the things of this earth, you will not attain holiness, except by some miracle. The way of sanctity is to break with them completely, and that is the path of the Religious Life. But the Council does not wish to appear to be restricting holiness to Religious. So, if it had to pretend that everybody could have it for the asking, it must needs make out also that ordinary life was in itself sanctifying! Proof that such a view is false, is not far to seek.

Today, the path to holiness has been closed off for the Religious.

Both Chapter VI of Lumen Gentium and the Decree Perfectae Caritatis treat admirably of the theme of holiness in the Religious Life – and the traditionally minded commentators are satisfied that all in the garden is lovely, the future of the Orders assured and progress certain. Never before had any Council painted so splendid a picture of the Religious Life, or demonstrated more clearly the part it had to play in the Church as a whole, etc., etc.

The sad fact is, rather, that the course which had been followed over nineteen centuries has been reversed by the wonderful "reforms" wrought by the Council, and the result has been the decline or even the death of many of the Religious Institutes, while disorder, chaos and madness have supervened in the survivors. And why? Because, on the pretext of "dialogue" and compulsory "updating", our false prophets have banned the seeking for holiness from the Religious Orders of today.

In Chapter VI of Lumen Gentium the new spirit is betrayed only in a few details. Thus, we find that Religious are not placed chronologically between the Priesthood and the Laity, as we should expect, but that they are looked upon as lay people – or priests, as the case may be – who differ from others in having opted for the evangelical counsels. Also, the lack of any reference to the higher degree of perfection which pertains to this state is already a serious omission. Then we have a reference – albeit only in passing – to the authority which the Ordinary of the diocese can exercise over the Orders: a most dangerous innovation – the more particularly as it coincides with the advent of episcopal "collegiality".

The document takes care to assure the reader that "the profession of the evangelical counsels… does not detract from a genuine development of the human person. Rather by its very nature it is most beneficial to that development." Nor do the Religious "by their consecration become strangers to their fellow men or useless citizens of the earthly city. For even though in some instances religious do not directly mingle with their contemporaries, yet in a more profound sense these same religious are united with them in the heart of Christ and cooperate with them spiritually. In this way the work of building up the earthly city can always have its foundation in the Lord and can tend toward Him." (LG No 46) But to concentrate exclusively on the things of God is no longer permitted!

In the Decree Perfectae Caritatis, on the other hand, the dissociation between the things of God – surely the essence of the true religious life – and the enforced "adaptation" to the modern world is carried to a point at which compromise between them is no longer possible. As in the other Acts of Vatican II, we are offered two parallel, but mutually incompatible, aims. The avowed purpose of the Decree "is to deal with the life and discipline of those Religious Institutes whose members make profession of chastity, poverty, and obedience, and to provide for their present-day requirements." (l) Mgr de Bourgeois speaks of "a dual loyalty" of the Orders – "to the Church as well as to their own origins", and then goes on to explain what he means by "loyalty to the Church" – "to be sensitive to the needs of the world and to the response made to these by the Church". Loyalty to the Reformers, in other words! That is the central theme of this brief schema – "a return to the origins" – but always with the aim of finding there the wherewithal to respond better to modern needs. "The adaptation to modern conditions and the renewal of the religious life involves two things – on the one hand, the constant return both to the sources of all Christian life, and to the original inspiration of the various Religious Institutes, and, on the other hand, the adaptation of these to the changed conditions of our times. This renewal, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the guidance of the Church, must be brought about according to the following principles…" (2). There follow some mutually incompatible directives – some involving true religious fidelity, others directed towards adaptation to the World. This does not mean, in the present context, merely fitting into the "changed conditions of our own times", but becoming more acceptable to the mentality of modern man. To fit into an irreligious world, the Religious themselves must undergo secularisation.

No 3 summarises this vast programme of adaptation, revision, and – demolition: "The organisation of the members’ life, prayer and work… must be adapted… to the needs of the apostolate, cultural requirements, and social and economic circumstances. The Rule… constitutions, ‘directories’, custom-books, books of prayers and ceremonies… must be revised accordingly" with "the suppression of anything obsolete."

No 4 insists that "effective renewal or valid adaptation to modern times" will not "be possible without the co-operation of all members of Religious Institutes", and lays down that all should have a voice in the Chapter.

This foolhardy attempt at democratisation of the Orders is tempered with the warning that "everyone should remember that renewal is more likely to come from a more assiduous following of the Rule or Constitution, than from easing the number of laws."

Nos 5 - 15 seem, at first sight, unimpeachable – provided, of course, that they are purged of that minute trace of poison which seeps into the most inoffensive parts under a cloak of "if’s" and "but’s" and qualifying clauses. Thus in No 7, on the contemplative life: "Nevertheless, while preserving intact their withdrawal from the world and those practices proper to their life of contemplation, their way of life must be revised in accordance with the principles for the adaptation to modern conditions and renewal laid out above." The innovators had no difficulty in finding in such totally contradictory instructions the justification they needed for making a clean break with tradition on every count.

The tendency is to see secular values in everything. Chastity is "something contributing to the good of his whole personality". Poverty becomes a "collective witness", and the members of the Orders must remain "subject to the universal law of work. Obedience, far from lessening the dignity of the human person, brings it to maturity." The Superiors should "respect their subjects as men and women… see that the obedience with which their subjects fulfil their duties and perform the tasks allotted them is active and responsible." The way of life, and the habit, are all to be "adapted" in a spirit of egalitarianism and concern for the "formation" of the individual and for making fullest use of his "intellectual and personal gifts". The right to "formation", to "instruction" – which, incidentally, is to include instruction about "modern social conditions and ways of thought" – is to replace the spirit of humility. We have seen since how this has led to the rebellion of the younger generation of Religious against their elders.

Nos 19 - 23 provide the basis for the suppression, amalgamation, or new foundation of religious institutes in an entirely arbitrary manner. Indeed, this document contains the germ of what has since become a regular occurrence: any individual bishop – hiding, of course, under the mantle of episcopal collegiality – considers himself entitled to destroy a whole bastion of monastic tradition as part of the process of "co-ordination" and "co-operation" laid down by the Council. He can amalgamate the incompatible, he can introduce whatever innovations he pleases without anyone having the authority to check him. The most perversely secular, "ecumenical" ways have since been admitted as supposedly new forms of "religious" community life.

Two informative anecdotes show us how this "co-operation and co-ordination with the episcopal conferences" laid down in the Decree is understood by the progressives. The first one is concerned with an episode when two Central European bishops intervened in "too authoritarian a manner" in a discussion on the Schema for the Religious Life. "A Religious, one of the experts, commented: ‘God knows that I am all for openness between Religious Orders and Bishops. But, after what I heard this morning, I am inclined towards continuing the privilege of exemption after all.’" It goes without saying that the bishops referred to must have been "conservatives".

The second example concerns a "progressive" bishop, who was tired of seeing petitions, emanating from a group of traditionalist Religious Superiors, going the rounds of the Council. He wrote: "I have the impression that certain people are so concerned with maintaining their autonomy at all costs, that they are prepared to stay aloof from the rest of the Church even to the extent of falling into a de facto schism." In the second case then, the Religious must be forced at all costs to sink to the level ordered by the bishop – under pain of schism! Today, we have seen this actually come to pass.

The ending of the privilege of "exemption", brought about by the Council, represents a step backward of some thousand years in the process of restoring order in the Roman Church.

Downgrading the Things of Heaven

Chapter VII of Lumen Gentium, "The Eschatological Nature of the Pilgrim Church and her Union with the Heavenly Church", should provide all the proof we need that Vatican II has little interest in the question of our eternal salvation. Oh yes, it says nice things about the restoration of all things, and of mankind, in Christ, in the Parousia, and about the Communion of Saints. All this sounds so Catholic that you may not even notice the things that are omitted, and which by their absence complete the change from half-truth into error.

We note especially the deliberate confusion between "Salvation", in the sense in which this was purchased by Christ on the Cross, but still remains to be fought for by every one of us if we would attain it in fact, and "Salvation" in the sense of being assured to us individually. "The Church, to which we are all called in Christ Jesus, and in which we (all?) acquire sanctity through the grace of God, will attain her full perfection…" And again: "We strive, therefore, to please the Lord in all things." So we do, do we?

Barely is there an occasional reference to the fact that they are speaking about those "who belong to Christ, having His Spirit, form one Church and cleave together in Him." Similarly, the passing mention of Purgatory and Hell, and of the things that lead us there – to the shadows without which we cannot understand the meaning of Heaven nor appreciate its cost – is only allowed to slip in as inconspicuously as possible. All "for the sake of brevity"! But what is there so special about Heaven, if everybody goes there anyway? We are left with the impression that it is something quite ordinary, and to be taken for granted, and in that case we are not likely to be bothered to make much effort to reach it.

Then there is the transposition – so typical of Conciliar writings – of the supernatural into the earthly: we are left with the impression that "the promised restoration which we are awaiting" is taking place here, on this earth. As for the Saints, they are quite "closely joined with us in Christ". They "are also our brothers". And the council is careful to warn against their excessive veneration: "At the same time, as part of its pastoral solicitude, this Synod urges all concerned to work hard to prevent or correct any abuses, excesses, or defects…" (51)

There is not a word about death and the resurrection of the body, nor about the painful discontinuity between this life and the next, between temporal values and eternal. Heaven is made to seem like the continuation of the life and activities of this earth. In any case, if we are all going to get there anyway, what is the point of being too preoccupied with one’s own salvation, or with seeking God and perfection in this world? Let us rather concentrate on building a Brave New World here below, and the rest can wait till after death!

Our Lady is made the Handmaid of Mankind

Chapter VIII, the last of Lumen Gentium, is entitled: "The Role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, in the Mystery of Christ and the Church." The title sounds hopeful and, like my readers no doubt, I found this chapter quite harmless, and even beautiful, until I saw the commentary by the Franciscan, Barauna. It represents the result of a memorable exchange, on 29th October 1963, between Cardinals Santos and Koenig, which culminated in the vote, by 1114 votes against 1074, to include the schema de Beata as part of the one de Ecclesia. This was a victory for the "minimalists", whose aim was to integrate the Blessed Virgin into the perspective of our own salvation rather than to treat her as part of God’s design in her own right. They wished to see Mary in the context of the rest of mankind rather than, as the entire Catholic Tradition, borne out by the devotional practices of many centuries, had always done, as standing by the side of Christ, sharing in His work of Redemption, as Co-Redemptrix, and Mediatrix. They did not want to hear about her glory, her grace and beauty – only of her "service". In this context too, we can see the anthropocentric philosophy underlying the wording which the Council found acceptable. Mary is still acknowledged here as "ever Virgin" – but then, that was ten years ago, and things have moved fast since then!

The title of Mediatrix of Graces was, however, not granted her officially. The Council did not wish to go along with "those artificial embellishments of the figure of Mary" – even though these form part of the teaching of the modern Popes. No, the "minimalists" wanted to humiliate her, and when we study the preliminaries to the text which was finally promulgated, we realise that they had their own way. Significant too is the fact that her presence at the Foot of the Cross – her active participation in the work of our Redemption – is passed over quickly, with the emphasis solely on her role as "the Mother of Jesus".

The concluding words of the chapter – and of the Constitution itself – give the show away: "Let the entire body of the faithful pour forth persevering prayer to the Mother of God and Mother of men. Let them implore that she who aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers may now, exalted as she is in heaven above all the saints and angels, intercede with her Son in the fellowship of all the saints. May she do so until all the peoples of the human family, whether they are honoured with the name of Christian or whether they still do not know their Saviour, are happily gathered together in peace and harmony into the one People of God for the glory of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity." (69)

Their interest is centred on the earth, rather than on Heaven, and their prayer is that Mary, the Mother of the Church and of all men, might aid them in the construction of a world of peace and justice that shall unite all the peoples. It is this earthly Utopia which has, in their eyes, become the ultimate aim and object of Christianity.

If you need further proof that there is here a real change in the Faith, then read the conclusion of Barauna’s study, where he explains that certain changes had to be made in the schema, in order to render this finally acceptable to Protestants who had initially rejected it as "disastrous".

The history of the Council itself shows how devotion to Our Lady and to the Saints was allowed to slide into the background in order – supposedly – to turn our attention wholly towards Christ Himself. The "rightful place of God" was to be emphasised in the new liturgical forms (i.e. those discussed in the Vatican II Constitution on The Sacred Liturgy. Tr.) At a later date, exemplified by the discourses of the Third Session, the emphasis shifted to Man himself – the Love of Man culminating in the Cult of Man. Let us read again what Pope Paul said, on 7th December 1965:

"The Conciliar Church has also, it is true, been much concerned with man, with man as he really is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the end and aim of all existence… with man, sacred through the innocence of his childhood, through the mystery of his poverty, through his pitiful suffering… with man who is both sinner and saint. Humanism, secular and profane, has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against the religion (for there is such a one) of man who makes himself God. And what happened? An impact, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth (sic) makes himself greater… Do you at least recognise this its merit – you modern humanists who have no place for transcendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man."

Vatican III shall restore the Paths that lead to Holiness

Vatican III will make a clean break with a mentality which has culminated in the erection of Man into an Idol in place of God. The only being able to profit from such a cult is Satan. The Church is today living through the third of the temptations which Satan prepared for Our Lord in the desert: "And he said to him: to thee will I give all this power and the glory of them. If thou therefore wilt adore before me, all shall be thine." (Luke 4) So the Church, coming to her senses after ten years in the wilderness, must learn to reply to Man, to the World, and to the Demon, with the words used by her only true Master: "Begone, Satan! For it is written: The Lord thy God shalt thou adore, and Him only shalt thou serve." (Mt 4) At the Council Vatican III, the Church will remember once again that "no man can serve two masters" and that God alone is the End as well as the Origin of every human creature; also that everyone has the obligation – availing himself of the help of the Holy Spirit and the Church – to turn away from all sin and evil-doing, and seek instead the values of Heaven, prepared to leave behind all in order to attain the treasure of life everlasting. The sanctifying grace at work in us, does not come from Man, nor flow out into the World, but, originating in Christ, leads the Christian into a New Existence in which God is all in all.

The string of pearls broken by Vatican II has scattered its treasures into the mire of the World. The result can be counted by those many thousands who have apostatised, by those who have left the priesthood… by the untold number of souls who must have gone to their ruin in recent years.

The World – and the human family as a whole – has rebelled against God, Who is its Origin, and has become "a slave to vanity". The World is heading towards damnation. There can be no question of the Church – the new creation of Divine Grace – coming to terms with sinful man or of engaging herself in the service of this corrupt world. No, her task must be, rather, to rescue these human Souls, individually, from the World and, drawing them into her bosom, consecrate them to God so that they may form part of His everlasting Kingdom. And because "two kinds of love have built two cities – the love of God which despises self, and the love of self which despises God", there must needs be a continuing conflict – a mutual crucifixion – of Christ by the World and of the World by Christ, of the flesh by the spirit and of the Spirit by the flesh in rebellion against the latter’s domination. Holiness requires that crucifixion of which St Paul says: "… by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world." (Gal 6.14) He who would gain life, must first lose it. Instead of seeking joy and hope – Gaudium et Spes – in this world, with no heed for the "weeping and gnashing of teeth", which are the price to pay in the next, we must accept sorrow and suffering here, for the sake of the only joy and peace that are everlasting. He who gives up all for Christ will receive a hundredfold – even in this world – and life everlasting in the next. The new Counter-Reformation must reverse the shift from God to Man, and make mankind, and the Church, turn towards God once more.

The Way of Perfection

The order of sanctity, as this will be recognised once again, has a visible and an invisible aspect. The visible order of sanctity is the hierarchical one, with the Pope heading the scale, followed by the Bishops, who are by their office bound to live a life of holiness, the priests, and lastly the faithful. The Religious State rates higher than the secular, and within the latter there is an infinite variation in the opportunities offered for progress in charity.

The invisible order, on the other hand, depends on the extent of the love of God which the individual has reached, and this will only be revealed at the Last Judgement. The Saints themselves differ in the degree of perfection they attained.

All are bound to strive for Salvation

Vatican III must proclaim that all are called to sanctity, but it must be prudent enough to add that – as we know from Christ Himself – only few are chosen. It must avoid the facile assumption that holiness is easy for everyone, regardless of one’s state in life, for this is a betrayal of the Gospel and implies a denial of the dangers of life in the World and of man’s evil tendencies. It must rather insist on the threat of eternal damnation which hangs over all members of the Church, from the highest in rank even to the lowest, if he fails to renounce the tyranny of the World, of the Flesh, and of the Devil. It must stress the absolute duty of all to follow God’s Commandments in accordance with the way shown by the Church.

At this point the new Council must, in consonance with the tradition of its predecessors, pronounce a specific condemnation of the various forms of evil and depravity which are rampant today, and lay down the necessary measures for restoring the health of society, with the aim of saving souls that would be lost otherwise. To "reform the Church", in its true and traditional meaning, implies the reform of its members. The long-established phrase "in capite et in membris" shows that this must include the Pope and the Curia, as well as the priests and faithful.

The Most Courageous are invited to seek Perfection

The Law of Salvation having first been defined, the Law of Perfection will follow. For the aim set by Christ and the Church is not the minimum necessary to escape hell. Without seeking to flatter human imperfection or decrying human weakness, they have nevertheless shown a way which can the most surely and easily bring men to a state of holiness – the "Evangelical Counsels", as these are practised by the Religious Orders. It will be the Council’s task to restore the latter to their rightful place.

This way of perfection cannot be justly defined except in its perspective of self-renunciation and despisal of the world. Unlike Vatican II, the new Council must not be afraid of stressing the vanity of ordinary human desires and of the ideals of the modern world. It will invite both priests and faithful who are at liberty to do so, to renounce life in the world in order to devote themselves wholly to God.

Whereas Vatican II had made certain incompatible additions – emanating from pride – to the one commandment of Love, Vatican III must insist that the love of God is undivided, and discard those subsidiary aims which had soon come to take pride of place – the cult of Man and his Rights, the development of his personality, and the building of a new earthly City of Peace, Justice, and Happiness.

The regular observance of Religious Vows will again become the rule. While a good deal of what we want to hear is to be found in the Acts of Vatican II, the Council would admit the Religious State, and its essential differentness from the secular state, only as an "eschatological sign" – as a foretaste of the life that is to come. In other words, it can justify the existence of the Orders only through making apologies for an otherworldliness which would, in the ethical system of the New Church, be regarded as sinful in other mortals.

Vatican III, by contrast, will present the members of Religious Orders as the true heroes of this life, as guides and models for the rest of mankind. It will insist that in the consecrated life is to be found the best remedy for the spiritual ills of our time. For the sovereign rule of perfection is to put the service of God before everything else, and to rely on Him for all one’s needs. This teaching will form the starting point for the practical restoration of the Religious Institutes. There must needs be a return to that order and those ideals which were all taken for granted before the so-called "reform" – actually a corruption – effected by Vatican II. By this we need not understand a rigid return to all the customs and externals of the past. There should indeed be a "renewal" of the Institutes, as envisaged by Vatican II, but only in the sense of a genuine adaptation to "the changed conditions of our times" (Perf. Car., 2) Adaptation on a practical level, with reference to matters of secondary importance, is necessary and indeed this comes naturally. It is a very different thing from an "adaptation" to the changed values of the modern world. What does matter is to remain spiritually aloof.

As Our Lord taught us, long ago, it is not what a man eats that soils him, but what cones out of his mouth – not the world of created things which he touches, but his sinful touch – the form which he has himself imposed upon the world to accommodate it to his passions.

Vatican II sought to accommodate the Church to the World, and force her to adopt its spirit as well as its technical achievements, to be filled with admiration, not merely for its material progress, but for its ambitions, and to make her share all its evil passions. Changing the religious habit may not in itself be wrong. What is wrong, is to desire change for the sake of change, and to want to replace the old with a worldly habit.

Vatican III will also concern itself with the world of today, but in the intention of judging it in accordance with the teaching of Our Lord and in His Name. It will not be afraid of displeasing it. The Religious Orders will be invited and helped to weigh and consider the requirements and customs of the modern world in the light of the spirit of their Founders and of their Rule. Instead of encouraging the infatuation which they are showing today, both for the gimmicks and slogans of the consumer society of the West and for the false spirituality of the religions of the East, Vatican III must instil into them a love for their own traditions in matters great or small, because respect for these is the visible sign of loyalty to their Founders. The hypocritical talk about "returning to the origins" which we hear today is but an excuse for liberalising the existing Rules, on the pretence that the ancient laws had been betrayed by the Elders.

Only the Elders will be entitled to advise the Superiors. The young members will not have a voice in the Chapter, and neither will laity be entitled to interfere in clerical affairs, nor secular clergy in the life of the Regular Orders. The long-established benefit consequent upon the system of "exemption" must be recognised. In maintaining the distinction between the different kinds of clergy – the one subject to episcopal, and the other only to Pontifical authority – the Church has always had a built-in safeguard whose advantage has manifested itself over the past thousand years. It is clearer today than perhaps at any time in the past that such a system is able to protect one or the other side against tyrannical abuse of power – which, as we see only too well, is a danger far from hypothetical.

Finally, the Council will work towards the re-establishment of the various Congregations and Third Orders which are intended to enable the faithful to seek perfection within their own state. These institutions were thrown overboard as part of the foolish exaltation of the lay estate as such, which culminated in ascribing to the purely temporal tasks of ordinary people the status of a new priesthood.

Heaven is close at hand!

You may feel that Vatican II cannot be accused of having neglected Heaven, or the Blessed Virgin Mary and the Saints. Chapters VII and VIII of Lumen Gentium are devoted to these, after all! Perhaps you think my criticism has been too harsh. But can you then explain why, from that day to this, all the nice things it said about supernatural matters have remained a dead letter, and why there has been a steady decline in the taste for the things of Heaven and in devotion to Our Lady and the Saints – more particularly among those who claim to be the most ardent adherents of Conciliar teaching?

The reason is that the Apostles of the New Church have interposed a new and very readily accessible deity between the ordinary Catholic faithful, and Heaven, in the shape of Man – or the human, earthly Paradise. These are the idols proposed for our veneration by Vatican II and Paul VI himself. Yes we know, the love of man was meant to lead us on to higher things and the earthly Utopia was supposed to be for us a foretaste of eternity. But the contradiction between these two worlds remains irreconcilable. For the artificial paradise proposed by the Council cannot but turn men from God and from a concern with the things of Heaven, however much the texts may include the praises of these among their exaltation of man’s own efforts.

Vatican III will keep itself unsullied from any cult of Man, and be thus able to raise its sights to Heaven without any obstacle. Christians will experience again what they have felt since the first Easter morning, even to the great days of Lourdes and Fatima: that Heaven is not far away, but close and accessible, provided we allow the Church to take us by the hand and guide us there. All that we are required to do is to put on the "wedding garment" of Charity – and Behold, we shall find that life everlasting has already begun! Amen. Alleluia.