THE CATHOLIC RENAISSANCE IN CANADA Number 61 – October 1998
OPPOSED TO ALL REBELLION, THE CRC
FINDS ITSELF SIDE BY SIDE WITH THE POPE
It was whilst he was staying with us that our Father began his analysis of
John-Paul II’s recent motu proprio, "Ad tuendam fidem",
which you can read in the CRC no 312 of the English edition for September. For the first
time since the Council the Holy Father has formulated a major act of authority to defend
the Catholic faith with accompanying canonical sanctions. After having recalled the
classical distinction between the different degrees of teaching fixed by the Church, the
Pope insists on the obligation of the faithful to hold as infallible truths those Catholic
truths definitively proposed by the Church’s Magisterium, «that is to say
those things that are required for the holy safe-keeping and faithful exposition of this
same deposit of the faith». The explanatory Doctrinal Note gives
precise examples of what is meant, including the doctrine of the exclusive reservation of
priestly ordination to men. Apparently, it was the repeated negation of this truth,
despite the call to order made by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in 1995,
that decided the Pope to resume the tradition of doctrinal firmness inherent in the Church
of Rome, Mother and Mistress of all the Churches.
This motu proprio has raised a general outcry in Europe: all
the interested theologians or ecclesiastics have risen up against this return to the times
of the Inquisition. Strangely enough the Church of Quebec has kept silent over this
subject. Perhaps it is keeping its comments for its ad limina visit to Rome
in April 1999, since the Bishops’ Assembly for Quebec has announced that, among other
things, it intends to «inform the Holy See of how its documents have been received
among us». In the past, Mgr Gaumond, like Cardinal Turcotte, had always publicly
watered down the significance of Rome’s declarations barring women access to the
priesthood. They remained convinced, so they said, that the day would come when what is
forbidden today would be allowed. Since the publication of the motu proprio,
such an attitude is liable to canonical sanctions.
Our Father has always said that as soon as the Pope wishes to defend the
truth, he will find the CRC at his side. For «it is not the CRC that will save
the Church, but the Church who will save herself and us with her». That is the
situation today. Not only is there not a line of our doctrine in contradiction with the motu
proprio, but a legal examination of this great text proves that the novelties
proclaimed by Vatican II, which our Father has fought against ever since, are necessarily
to be classified as non definitive acts of the authentic magisterium. On that score alone,
they are fallible, and therefore null and void if proved to be erroneous.
We must not, however, go too fast! Although the Sovereign Pontiff has
armed himself with the canonical means to put a stop to this destructive madness which has
taken hold of the Church from the time the Popes refused to obey the demands of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary, it is still necessary that he have the courage to go the whole
way. For the moment, John Paul II does not dream of questioning the gains of
Vatican II, even if the Church’s law rigorously prevents them from being
declared as definitive truths. To be convinced of this, one only has to read the
programme of festivities planned for the third millennium in Rome!
However, the rebellion of those now threatened with sanctions highlights
the logical connection between the errors with which the Pope reproaches them and the
constituent principles of his own philosophical and theological system – referred to
our Father as the Wojtylian gnosis – which he does not dream of reconsidering.
The condemnation of the former should logically entail that of the latter. Will John Paul
II have the courage to go all the way, ad tuendam fidem, in order to protect the
Faith? We must hope so. But this will not happen without a terrible interior struggle and
without unleashing, on the outside, powers hostile to the Church.
We stand, therefore, on the eve of tragic times. On the 13th
July 1917, at Fatima, Our Lady foretold: «The Holy Father will have much to suffer.»
And little Jacinta saw «the Holy Father in a very large house, kneeling before a
table, holding his head in his hands and weeping. Outside, there was a crowd of people and
some were throwing stones at him; others were cursing and swearing at him».
Let us also re-read Don Bosco’s dream of 1873: «It was during a
dark night: the people could no longer see which way to go in order to get home, when
there appeared a splendid light in the sky, lighting up the travellers’ path as
though it were midday.» Our Father explains that this represents the diabolical
disorientation and the false light of the supposed Pentecost announced at the
Council.
«And then was seen a host of men, women, children and old people,
monks, religious and priests, and at their head the Sovereign Pontiff, coming out of the
Vatican and lining up in processional order.» The whole Church, or very nearly all,
followed the Pope in the Conciliar Reform, as he distanced himself from the traditional
teaching of his predecessors.
«But now a violent storm arose, obscuring the light, and appearing to
give rise to a battle between the light and the darkness. However, they arrived at a place
strewn with the dead and the wounded; some of them were begging for help and all the while
the ranks in the procession were thinning out. After having walked a distance
corresponding to two hundred sunrises, they all became aware that they were no longer in
Rome. They were panic stricken and pressed round the Pope to safeguard his person and to
help him in his troubles.»
It is these feelings of panic which we observe in the multitude of the
faithful who have always desired to follow the Pope and who, faced with the present
disorders, still want to be ever more obedient to the Pope, refusing to utter the least
criticism against him. Our Father has always taught us to respect such an attitude, which
is pleasing to God.
«At that moment, two angels appeared presenting the Pope with a
standard and telling him: "Receive this banner from Him who is fighting and
scattering the world’s most powerful armies. Your enemies have disappeared and your
sons are begging you with tears and sighs to return!" On the standard was written: "Queen
conceived without sin" and on the other side: "Help of Christians".
The Pontiff took hold of the banner with joy, but on seeing the small number of those who
had stayed at his side, he became very sad. The two angels added: "Go quickly and
console your sons. Write to your brothers scattered throughout the world that a reform of
morals is necessary. That can only be obtained by distributing the bread of the divine
Word. Catechise the children; preach detachment from the things of this world!
(…)" Having heard this, the Pope set off and the ranks in the procession began
to swell.»
The end is quite wonderful and surpasses whatever we could imagine by way
of the Catholic Renaissance. You can read all this in the CRC for December 1993. Could it
be today that we have reached that point where everyone notices that he is no longer in
Rome? It is our joy to be of that small number to have remained faithful and to find
ourselves at the Pope’s side in this confrontation, which will liberate the Church.
And so, we fervently renew each day our act of consecration to the Immaculate
Conception, Our Lady Help of Christians, that this fidelity may withstand the
great confrontation which is coming. And let us pray with all our heart for the Holy
Father who is the butt of this rebellion.
Brother Pierre de la Transfiguration
The theological
door bolted at the Vatican
After a short decade of relative calm, the Catholic Church has renewed her trench
warfare with her theologians. With the publication of an apostolic letter entitled «To
protect the faith», the Vatican has closed the debate by demanding absolute submission to
the teachings of the Magisterium. The official doctrine on birth control, priestly
celibacy, the priestly ordination of women or of married men brooks no further discussion.
And recalcitrants will be punished.
Explanation of the text.
An analysis by Albert Longchamp |
The Roman machinery for shackling theological thought has just been augmented by a new
instrument. In the arsenal of sanctions provided for by the Code of Canon Law, the threat
of "just penalties" has been reinforced. In particular, it targets
anti-establishment or reckless theologians. The obsessive fear of modernism, with its
succession of denunciations and sanctions, a painful memory from the reigns of Pius X and
of Pius XII towards the end of his pontificate, has been brought back into service again.
The outbreak of fever at the end of the 1980s, saw both German theologians and Cardinal
Ratzinger mount the barricades: the former outraged by Roman supervision and the latter
determined to silence liberation theology. All of that seemed to have died down.
Now, the axe has just fallen in the form of an administrative act, which, at first
sight, looks painless. According to the motu proprio, signed by John Paul II
on the 18th May 1998 – Pentecost Day – and published on Tuesday the
30th June, a new paragraph has been added to article 750 of the Code of Canon
Law. Its terms are stated in two phrases: «Each and everything set forth definitively by
the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly
accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful
exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are
to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.»
«Definitive» truths: the word is out and it is laden with consequences. For good
measure, John Paul II’s text, entitled «Ad tuendam fidem»
(«To protect the faith»), now links article 1371 of the Code of Canon Law to article
750, completed by its new paragraph. One small useful detail; article 1371 provides for
punishing «with just penalties» any person teaching a doctrine condemned by the supreme
authority of the Roman Church, or persisting in disobedience.
Aggravating circumstances
Roman texts always pose a problem of interpretation and of reception. Some can be
ignored without fear, others have to be given prudent consideration, and there are some
that deserve respect. In the case in point, it is fear that predominates, for all the
signals are flashing red. The motu proprio occupies the second rung on the scale of
importance of pontifical acts, coming just after apostolic constitutions and
before encyclicals. It can be a weapon to condemn schism or heresy. A weapon with
a wide calibre bore, therefore. The document of 30 June is, in the hands of the Roman
Pontiff, one that suffers no discussion or challenge. It is quite simply an act of the
sovereign.
John Paul II dryly considers that, in the circumstances, it seemed «absolutely
necessary» for him to add norms to the Code «to protect the law of the Catholic Church
against errors arising from certain members of the Christian faithful, especially from
among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology.» The new norms have
been introduced into Canon Law, John Paul II insists, so that there may be «expressly
imposed» on these theologians «the duty of observing the truth definitively proposed by
the Church’s Magisterium, mention also being made of canonical sanctions in this
area.» The nature of the sanctions is not specified, but one is left in no doubt.
Criminal acts will entail penalties ranging gradually from a ban on teaching to a ban on
celebrating the sacraments (if the guilty one is a priest). In case of stubborn
persistence in sin, the penalty will be excommunication.
«Ad tuendam fidem» is delivered with directions for use signed
by Joseph Ratzinger, Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, his secretary. This «application decree» yields
nothing over the severity of the base document. Under the falsely modest title of
«Explanatory Note», the guardians of dogma comment on the oath which has been demanded,
for about ten years, from all those, both men and women, who claim to exercise a teaching
or governing function in the Church. Bishops, priests, deacons, committed lay people, and,
of course, all teachers of theology, are supposed to pronounce in public this «Profession
of faith» which has taken over from the antimodernist oath demanded of all aspirants to
the priesthood since the crisis of 1907. The obligation to take that oath partially fell
into disuse after Vatican II.
The order of truths contained in the «Creed», to which all Christians must adhere, is
considered to be insufficient by Cardinal Ratzinger.
And so, a more complete formula is demanded of ecclesiastical personnel, at three
levels. The first level expounds «revealed truths», in other words dogmas that are
essential to Christianity (the Trinity, the Incarnation of Christ, the Resurrection, etc.)
as well as doctrines concerning original sin, the sacraments… or papal infallibility.
At the second level, the profession of faith requires the mention of truths «proposed
definitively by the Church concerning teaching on faith and morals», and this is the case
even if such truths are not presented «as formally revealed». It is at this level that
everything goes wrong. For it is here that we find a demand for absolute «assent» to
doctrines as disparate as the condemnation of prostitution, the forbidding of euthanasia
or the reservation of priestly ordination to men!
In fact, this motu proprio of 30 June 1998 reveals itself to be a
backhanded way of getting most of the teachings and prohibitions obstinately maintained by
John Paul II accepted as quasi infallible. Even at the third level, when Ratzinger deals
with truths that are «less certain», the Vatican claims to require from teachers a
«religious submission of will and intellect».
John Paul II, like Pius XII, is ending his reign in a dramatic hardening of his
thinking. Worse still, he is surrounded by a court determined to liquidate the principal
gains of Vatican II. The vindictive tone of his motu proprio «To protect
the faith», like that, dated the same day, of the long apostolic letter devoted to
keeping the Sunday holy, already ignored by everyone, shows that John Paul II has lost
touch with pastoral realities. More and more, we see the tragic misunderstanding of a
pontificate that wants to make Christianity enter into the third millennium and yet
refuses to enter into dialogue with modernity. n
| 
For the theologian Paul Tihon, the oath of fidelity is a real problem.
|
«TO PROTECT THE FAITH»
Rome: the screw tightens
Louis DUBOIS
In an apostolic declaration, the Pope has insisted on «holding
firmly, with an oath of fidelity, those truths proposed by Rome as definitive». The ban
on the ordination of women to the priesthood, for example. As though it were a matter of
closing the debate «definitively»
.
L’Appel 211 - October
1998 |
|
On the eve of the holidays, 30 June 1998, the Vatican
published a letter signed by the Pope. Its title is an entire programme: «To protect
the faith». And the text spells out that it is «against errors (…)
especially from among those dedicated to the various disciplines of sacred theology».
To put it plainly: against the theologians.
Immediately, there is an almost universal outcry. There is talk of a
contraction, of the end of a reign, of a bolting of doors, of getting in step, of the end
of a holiday. «In order to understand, we need to recall the antecedents», says
the Father Paul Tihon. A Jesuit and a theologian, professor at the international Lumen
Vitae Institute, Paul Tihon is also president of the Belgian French-speaking section of
the European Association of Catholic Theology.
Where is the urgency?
«It is simply a matter of integrating into Canon law – the Law of the Church
– the consequences of a document which appeared eight or nine years ago, imposing an
oath of fidelity. But this is the first time since 1917, since Canon law has existed, that
a pope has thought it useful to take it upon himself to integrate a modification. It is
natural, therefore, that canonists should express surprise and ask themselves where is the
urgency.» If it is only a matter of legal texts, there is nothing there to worry the
ordinary Christian… «But the problem arises from something much more important,
continues Father Tihon. It is this aim to impose on the teacher, backed by an oath,
more than a simple fidelity to revelation, something which goes without saying for one who
claims to be Catholic. It also demands fidelity to all that is proposed as definitive by
the Magisterium of the Church. All the same, notice that for revealed truths it says that
they must be believed, whereas for what I would call Vatican doctrine, it says that we
should welcome it and hold it firmly. A slight difference!
An exclusively male priesthood
In fact, the difficulty has mostly come from the commentary issued by Cardinal
Ratzinger on the same day. This is because he has given examples of positions that must be
held as definitive, among which are the invalidity of Anglican ordinations – and, as
we know, this question is a subject of much debate among theologians – and also
priestly ordination to be reserved exclusively to men. This is said to be the sensitive
point that has prompted the decision to turn the screw a little tighter.
However, it needs to be known that the argument over the ordination of women has not
convinced all that many people. And just because the Pope has declared it to be definitive
clearly does not mean that things are not going to be changed one day or other. At the
theology congress held at Nimègue at the end of August, I found myself next to a
professor from northern Italy, with whom Cardinal Ratzinger had just spent his holidays.
Quite recently, he asked him at table what is to be understood by
"definitively". The Cardinal replied that it does not mean that one day another
pope will not decide otherwise… And for Cardinal Danneels "definitive" is
what has always been said up to the present…»
Clearly, two different languages are being used… Moreover, one may ask whether
this declaration will not immediately fall into oblivion.
«In fact, adds Paul Tihon, the real problem is the oath of fidelity, imposed
especially on teachers, even though it seems that in many places it will not be imposed.
But in a university milieu, for a professor of Catholic theology to be regarded by his
colleagues as someone who has had to take an oath saying that he holds a certain number of
official statements, is as intolerable as for a Marxist scientist to have to maintain
Marxist orthodoxy at the time when the official position on science had to be upheld. That
is to disqualify Christian thought in the pluralist world in which we live.
Self-disqualification
«In fact, adds Paul Tihon, the real problem is the oath of fidelity, imposed
especially on teachers, even though it seems that in many places it will not be imposed.
But in a university milieu, for a professor of Catholic theology to be regarded by his
colleagues as someone who has had to take an oath saying that he holds a certain number of
official statements, is as intolerable as for a Marxist scientist to have to maintain
Marxist orthodoxy at the time when the official position on science had to be upheld. That
is to disqualify Christian thought in the pluralist world in which we live.
At the Nimègue congress, there was a proposition to make a declaration on the
subject. Then it was decided that the presidency of the Association – which numbers a
thousand theologians – should meet Cardinal Ratzinger for a thorough discussion.
Better dialogue than confrontation.» n
The above article sent to us by our friends from the Belgian circle
needs no comment. Added to the preceding article from "Témoignage chrétien",
it is sufficient indication of the extent of the revolt against all that closely or
remotely resembles the Catholic religion of all time. The fact that an association,
composed of roughly a thousand theologians, should rebel in this way against Catholic
truths and dogmas is in itself quite alarming. But there is worse. The article shows quite
clearly that Cardinal Ratzinger, the German theologian promoted prefect of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is regarded as an objective ally of these
groups of theologians.
The CRC collection would not fail to enlighten us on this point.
Whereupon we received a letter from a Canadian theologian, a regular correspondent of ours
for some years. With his permission, we publish significant extracts from his letter,
whilst preserving his anonymity, to which he is probably bound by his Superiors.
RATZINGER AGAINST RATZINGER
The apostolic letter "Ad tuendam fidem"
and Cardinal Ratzinger
by a theologian
Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter intended to "defend the
faith", was accompanied by a "Doctrinal Note illustrating the conclusive formula
of the Professio fidei", signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and by Mgr
Bertone, Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
respectively.
With regard to Cardinal Ratzinger, this "Doctrinal Note" raises a certain
problem. It is difficult to reconcile the moral and legal demands of the Apostolic Letter
with certain of Cardinal Ratzinger’s teachings, which are highly questionable and
beyond the pale of the Church’s authentic doctrine!…
These teachings of the Cardinal are expounded in two volumes, each containing numerous
errors as well as several heresies. They are the following volumes, published in 1985: The
Christian Faith yesterday and today (CFYT) and The Principles of Catholic Theology
(PCT). Since these two works have been made public and are accessible throughout the whole
Catholic Church, any member of the faithful can read them and has the right, if not the
duty, to declare them outside the bounds of the Church’s doctrinal orthodoxy!…
It is absolutely impossible to reconcile several of the teachings contained in these
two volumes with the solemn commitment entailed by the Profession of faith, which has to
be pronounced before assuming any clerical office, according to the provisions established
by canon 833 for the different situations that can arise.
CARDINAL RATZINGER AND THE PROBLEM OF THE FAITH
The Profession of faith makes the person taking office say: «With a firm faith, I
believe and profess each and every one of the truths contained in the Symbol of the
Faith.» Further on, the Profession of faith adds: «With a firm faith, I also believe all
the truths […] which the Church sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed
[…] I also firmly accept and hold each and every one of the truths definitively
proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals […] Furthermore, I
adhere, with a religious submission of will and intellect, to the doctrines that are
expressed, either by the Roman Pontiff or by the College of bishops, in the exercise of
their authentic Magisterium, even though they have no intention of proclaiming them by
means of a definitive act.»
And the Oath of fidelity enjoins the following to be said: «In the fulfilment of the
office entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall conserve the deposit of faith in
its integrity. I shall transmit and explain it faithfully. I shall guard against all
doctrines to the contrary.»
Furthermore, the doctrine of the Church states that the immediate object of the
supernatural virtue of faith is the Word of God and that it is grounded on the authority
of God. This virtue unites us personally to God, the Supreme Truth , and helps us to
appreciate everything according to the divine light. Nevertheless, what Cardinal Ratzinger
teaches on the faith is far from being in conformity with the authentic doctrine of the
Church!…
In fact, on the subject of the faith, the Cardinal has written things that are
"strange", to say the least!… Notably, he claims that «the faith, by its
nature, is the institution of a communication with all the brothers of Jesus in the holy
Church, where alone it can be received». He adds that it is impossible to «possess the
faith independently of others» (PCT, p. 35). He goes even further in saying that «a
faith that is not ecclesial does not exist» (PCT, p. 42). With ideas like that, how could
Cardinal Ratzinger renew his Profession of faith and his Oath of fidelity?…
PONTIFICAL PRIMACY AND INFALLIBILITY
In his "Doctrinal Note" on the Apostolic Letter "Ad tuendam fidem",
Cardinal Ratzinger draws attention, amongst the other articles of the Creed , to «the
doctrine on the primacy and on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff» (n. 11). Now, in
his work entitled The Principles of Catholic Theology, the Cardinal maintains that
the Church’s Magisterium receives no special assistance from the Holy Spirit, because
the Holy Spirit acts through the community (p. 50). And he claims that the dogma of papal
infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council will have to be revised. In fact, he
states that «it is now much more correctly said that the work of the Magisterium is
accomplished against the backdrop of the faith and through the prayer of the Church!»
(PCT, p. 263). And so, the Magisterium becomes no more than the spokesman for the
Church’s collective conscience!… (PCT, p. 109)
On the subject of pontifical primacy, the Cardinal again makes statements that are
daring to say the least: «Rome should not demand of the East, on the subject of papal
primacy, he writes, more than what was formulated and lived during the first millennium».
And he indicates the concessions which he thinks both East and West should mutually
concede, to conclude as follows: «Of course, such a mutual acceptance and recognition of
a common catholicity that was never lost, is no easy affair. It is act of surpassing
oneself, of self-renunciation, but precisely because of that, it is also an act of
self-discovery»! (PCT, p. 221-222)
It would amount, therefore, to the Catholic Church "surpassing herself",
"renouncing herself" in order to "rediscover herself"! But through
surpassing and renouncing herself perhaps the Catholic Church will rediscover unity
"in a catholicity that was never lost" !… With such ideas on the
infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff, one again wonders how the Cardinal can
renew his Profession of faith and his Oath of fidelity…
ORIGINAL SIN
Dealing with the articles of faith in the Creed, Cardinal Ratzinger also picks out
«the doctrine on the existence of original sin» (Doctrinal Note, n. 11). But, for him
«the doctrine of original sin says nothing other than this: the history of man is the
history of his alienation» (PCT, p. 177). But on this subject, he ventures into formal
heresy: «Original sin, he writes, cannot be conceived as the product of generation»
(PCT, p. 96). He makes a further absurd statement: «The essence (!…) of original sin
consists in being divided up into individualities» (PCT, p. 51).
The dogmatic definitions of the Councils concerning original sin can be summed up as
follows: through this sin, Adam lost both supernatural and preternatural gifts. This sin
is transmitted to all his descendants and, contrary to what Cardinal Ratzinger says, it is
transmitted to Adam’s descendants through generation, as defined by the Council of
Trent: «If anyone states that Adam’s sin, which is unique in its origin and which,
transmitted to all through hereditary propagation and not through imitation, is proper to
each person, […] let him be anathema.» (canons on original sin, n. 3)
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM
Among the articles of the Creed, the Cardinal also mentions «the doctrine of
Christ’s institution of the sacraments and their efficacy in conferring grace»
(Doctrinal Note, n. 11). And the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol, inserted at the beginning
of the Profession of faith, acknowledges «one single baptism for the forgiveness of
sins».
Now, on the subject of baptism, Cardinal Ratzinger has written a long chapter in his
volume The Principles of Catholic Theology (p. 27-43). He explains that baptism is
"the welcome by the community", which is purchased by "renunciation of the
self" and of the "powers of egoism". And for him, the water is purely
symbolic, whereas, according to Catholic doctrine, the water is the matter of the
sacrament. As for the profession of faith, «it is indeed, says he, by its very nature,
the institution of a communication with all the brothers of Jesus in the Holy Church» (p.
35). The profession of faith is therefore a symbolic communication aid and not an act of
cognition. It is hard to believe, when reading such nonsense, that their author is charged
with watching over doctrinal orthodoxy throughout the whole Church!…
According to the conciliar definitions, baptism is a true sacrament, administered by an
ablution in natural water, whilst invoking the Most Holy Trinity. Its effect is the
remission of original sin, of all personal sins and of all their penalties. It produces
sanctifying grace in the soul; it incorporates the one baptised into the Mystical Body of
Christ, the Church, and it imprints an indelible character on him.
THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS
The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol states that Christ «rose again on the third day
according to the Scriptures». The explanation provided by Cardinal Ratzinger on the
"resurrection" of Jesus is surprising, to say the least!…
In fact, according to him, Eros is supposedly stronger than death. «The confession of
faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, he writes, is for Christians an expression of
their certitude that this phrase is true, even though it might seem to be no more than a
beautiful dream: "Love is stronger than death" (Sg 8.6). In the Old Testament,
this affirmation figures in a hymn to the power of Eros.» (CFYT, p. 213) It would be more
truthful to maintain that the Song of Songs, to which he alludes, presents us with a
symbol of God’s sublime love for redeemed man and for the Church, spouse of His
divine Son!….
THE BODILY ASCENSION OF JESUS
The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol states that Christ «ascended into Heaven, [that] He
is seated at the right hand of the Father». Faith in the bodily Ascension of the risen
Jesus in the presence of His disciples is a fundamental element of the Catholic faith.
Now, this is how Cardinal Ratzinger explains it: «To speak of an Ascension into heaven
or of a descent into hell is a reflection, in the eyes of our generation awakened by
Bultmann’s criticism, of this three tiered image which we call mythical and consider
to be definitely outdated. […] It has certainly provided the images which the faith
has used to present these mysteries.» (CFYT, p. 221) So, the Ascension is reduced to an
"image", with no meaning for our times; it would best be forgotten by the
faithful and suppressed from the Church’s liturgy. Thus the event of the Ascension
supposedly has no physical, objective, historical reality!…
THE DESCENT INTO HELL
The Apostles’ Symbol states that, after His death, Christ «descended into hell».
The "descent of Jesus into hell" after His death is explained by Cardinal
Ratzinger thus: «This article of the faith of the descent into hell states that Christ
has crossed the threshold of our ultimate solitude, that he has entered, through his
Passion, into the abyss of our dereliction. There where no word could ever more reach us,
he is to be found. And so hell is overcome, or more exactly death, which was hell before,
no longer is. The two are no longer identical, because in the midst of death there is
life, because love dwells in the midst of death. Henceforth hell is simply the act of
withdrawing into oneself.» (CFYT, p. 213) How can one recognise the authentic doctrine of
the Church in these hazy words?…
THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH
The Nicene Constantinople Symbol states that the Church is «one, holy,
catholic and apostolic». On the subject of the Church’s holiness, Cardinal Ratzinger
has some quite peculiar insights. «The centuries of the Church’s history, he writes,
are so full of human failings […] that we can well conceive William of Auvergne,
Bishop of Paris (13th century), having spoken these terrible words: "at
the sight of the Church’s depravity, every man should freeze with horror. It is no
longer a spouse, but a frightening monster, deformed and savage." » (CFYT, p. 244)
In a footnote at the bottom of the page, the Cardinal refers to an article by H. Urs von
Balthasar, entitled Casta meretrix, in English: "Chaste
whore"!… Is not that to disparage the Church in a way that is wholly
disrespectful?…
No doubt, the Church comprises many sinners and, even among the just, there are shady
corners to be found, at different degrees, which have to be dispelled by the light of
Christ. And so, the just and the sinners are in the Church only through what is holy in
them, in their being, in their heart, in their behaviour. Nevertheless, the Church remains
holy, for the principle of her holiness is the Most Holy Trinity, Christ and the Holy
Spirit working within her. The Church is holy in her doctrine, in her faith, her
sacraments, in the graces and charisms of the Holy Spirit, in her saints, martyrs,
confessors and virgins, which she proposes to the faithful as models. The divine Founder
of the Church willed to make holiness a distinctive note of the legitimate Church. And
these are the words contained in the Apostles’ Creed on this subject: «I believe in
the holy Catholic Church».
THE REVISION OF DOGMAS
The Profession of faith begins with the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol, followed by three
paragraphs «intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith» (Apostolic Letter, n.
2). In the first paragraph, as the "Doctrinal Note" indicates, «the intention
is to affirm all the doctrines of the divine and Catholic faith proposed by the Church as
divinely and formally revealed and, as such, irreformable.» (n. 5)
Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger quite simply denies the infallible character of dogmas
defined by the Councils that have followed the Eastern Schism!… In fact, he maintains
that «a purely Western Council could never formulate a text […] having a Catholic
ecclesial character since the Eastern Schism» (PCT, p. 137). The Council of Trent is very
much devalued, because it has a "regional" character (p. 138) and is
"polemical" into the bargain (p. 278). According to him, the effects of this
Council are apparently so negative that «the revision of such texts is indispensable»
(p. 138).
Now, it is absolutely false and heretical to maintain that dogmas defined by the
Councils can be modified. In fact, in its canons on the Catholic faith, the First Vatican
Council makes the following definition: «If anyone says that dogmas proposed by the
Catholic Church may, depending on scientific progress, sometimes be seen to have a
different meaning from that always understood by the Church, let him be anathema.»
(chapter 4, n. 3)
Neither the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor the Pope, nor even another
Council can contradict an already defined dogma of the faith, because it is marked as irreformable.
According to Canon Law, which applies to all members of the Church, whoever they may be,
to contradict a dogma of the faith is a heresy entailing an excommunication latæ
sententiæ (can. 1364, § 1)
CONCLUSION
Ought we not to conclude, therefore, that according to the writings of Cardinal
Ratzinger, he should be classed among the heretics, who are, according to Canon Law,
excommunicated latæ sententiæ?… Furthermore, as theology teaches us,
a heretic has lost the virtue of faith. An heretical theologian, therefore, can no longer
be, nor call himself, a "Catholic" theologian!…
The crime of heretics is to corrupt the faith of the faithful, to poison minds. This
crime is far more grave than that of poisoning bodies!… In his Summa Theologica,
Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote an article entitled: Should heretics be tolerated? In
answer to this question, he wrote, quoting Saint Jerome in particular, «Rotten flesh must
be cut away and the scabby sheep hounded out of the sheepfold, for fear that the whole
household, the whole mass, the whole body and the whole flock suffer, become corrupt, rot
and perish. Arius of Alexandria was a spark, but because he was not immediately snuffed
out, his flame devastated the whole globe.» (2-2, q.11, a.3)
Cardinal Ratzinger, therefore, does not merit the confidence placed in him!… On
the contrary, should he not be classed among those who are «disguised as sheep, but are
ravenous wolves within»? (Mt 7.15) The members of the Roman Curia should insist that the
Pope "liberate" the Church as soon as possible from this heretical functionary
who, despite appearances to the contrary, is incompetent for the function he
exercises!… The plainest proof of this incompetence is the letter he addressed to all
the bishops of the entire world, dated 29 September 1985, almost totally forbidding the
practice of exorcism within the Church!… No directive of the Church has ever
guaranteed the demons a greater protection and a greater freedom of action!…
|
2 August 1998 |
|
A theologian |
ADHUC SUB JUDICE LIS EST
RECAPITULATION OF OUR ROMAN PROCESS
The preceding pages underline the importance of the "Roman
process" engaged in by our Father from the end of the Second Vatican Council and
still not concluded. But today the case is before the highest tribunal of the Holy See,
that of the Apostolic Signatura.
So it would be useful to recall in a few paragraphs the principal stages
of this process and to consider the different possible outcomes. To do this, it will be
necessary to go back a little while in time, albeit briefly, so that we may have a clearer
view of the present situation.
The excellent video kindly produced by our Canadian phalangists with great
alacrity – published along with the monthly conferences this November – will
make this task all the easier, because it clearly demonstrates, with pictures as evidence,
the implacable opposition between the true Catholic faith and the conciliar revolution.
None of the sanctions, the protests and the current proceedings make any sense unless they
are referred to the chasm opened up at the Second Vatican Council. It was from that moment
that the immense authority of this Ecumenical Council – supported by two thousand
four hundred bishops almost unanimously approving all its acts and declarations –
stamped out with its enormous weight every form of resistance, no matter how wise or
competent or holy such resistance might be, sweeping all objections before it and
dismissing as "retrogrades" those who would dare to question the conciliar
"gains".
The refusal of our Father to accept the conciliar novelties en masse and
without examination resulted at that time in a canonical process, one which is almost
identical to that which we are living through today, thirty years later, for the same
reasons.
The first stage of this process was in 1966-1969. These first proceedings ended
not in a sentence of acquittal or condemnation, but in a Notification. The
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith merely noted that such a «revolt against the
magisterium and the hierarchy of the Church disqualified all the writings
and actions of M. l’abbé de Nantes». In this context the word
"disqualified" has no meaning; so it is logical to hold that no sanctions were
taken by Rome.
The second stage of this Roman process (1996-1999?) is still in course.
According to canon law, it should end in the Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura
pronouncing a sentence. So, up to now what have been the principal stages of the current
process?
It is useful to recall them. There are three main parts: 1° a canonical precept from
the Bishop of Troyes; 2° the sanction of interdict inflicted by the same; and 3° the
confirmation of this sanction by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, or at
least part of this sanction (see the table below).
|
