LIBER ACCUSATIONIS SECUNDUS
2. You are destroying the Church
ORDER AND DISORDER
ST. John the Baptist and Jesus both preached conversion: “ Be converted, for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. ” Jesus also said, “ Seek first the Kingdom of Heaven and its righteousness (by which please understand its “ holiness ”), and all these other things shall be added unto you. ” Our divine Saviour, who tomorrow will be our Judge, sent out the apostles whom He had chosen for Himself with this ultimate command: “ Go into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptised will be saved; he who refuses to believe will be condemned. ” (Mt. 3.1; 4.17 – Mt.6.33 – Mk. 16.15) And the whole Bible could be added in support of these brief quotations, which are so contrary to Paul VI’s strange incantatory prayer made on May 13, 1967: “ Men, be men ! ” So foreign also to that hymn to the glory of man shortly after his walk on the moon – an extraordinary but derisory feat: “ Honour to Man ! Honour to his thought, etc. Honour to Man, King of the Earth, and today Prince of the Heavens ! Honour to our living being, in which is reflected the image of God and which, in its triumph over matter, obeys the biblical command, increase and rule. ” Or again, this other act of folly which I quoted in my first Book of Accusation: “ Man is both giant and divine, in his origin and in his destiny. Honour, therefore, to Man, honour to his dignity, to his spirit, to his life ! ” With less lyricism and more philosophy you say exactly the same: you exalt man, his native dignity, his kingship and his transcendence.
St. Leo’s unforgettable words to the people of Rome on Christmas night, “ Agnosce, O Christiane, dignitatem tuam ”, are completely contradicted by your humanist message; “ Know, O Man, your dignity, your grandeur and your deity ! ”
TWO OPPOSITE WAYS
This contradiction of theory takes concrete shape in the opposition between the new practice and the former age-old practice, leading to a rift among the faithful, that is among the practising, well-informed and active members of the Church.
The path of salvation for individuals and for whole peoples has, from the earliest times, been that of religion. From Abraham and Moses it was the path of Jewish law and worship. And now, for all time and for all peoples, the way is Jesus Christ Himself; it is the way of the Church to which all Christ’s faithful are led and outside which there is no salvation. Christ Himself told us that He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (Jn.14.6). He is the way to Heaven. “ I will show you the way to Heaven , ” said the Curé d’Ars to Antoine Givre, the little shepherd who showed him the way to Ars ! And that is just what he did, as you know. (Trochu, Vie du Curé d’Ars)
However, one fine day You announce categorically and magisterially, “ The Way of the Church is the way of Man. ” It was an impious thing to say, because in so saying you put man, concrete or philosophical, in place of the Son of God made man. It was also a foolish thing to say, because one can only wonder what sort of way can man possibly be: what are his dogmas, sacraments and commandments ? Or where can man lead us, except to the scuffles and lowest depths of this world, and thence to hell ? A revolution has been set up in the Church, and the only way you can lead it, is to set one party, the party of Man, against the other, the party of Jesus Christ !
Let us read a few phrases from those speeches where you proclaim this new way: “ Man in the full truth of his existence, of his personal being and also of his social and communitarian being... This man is the primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission. He is the primary and fundamental way for the Church, the way marked out by Christ Himself, the way that leads invariably through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption. ” – “ We must, therefore, constantly return to this route and follow it again in all its diverse aspects, for in it are revealed all the richness and, at the same time, all the difficulty of human existence on earth. ” (Redemptor hominis, no.14; Laborem exercens, no.1)
Hearing this, the good people piously imagine that you are simply talking for no especial reason. Or they think you are saying that before the Council the Church was too “ disincarnate ”, and that she needed to get her feet back on the ground a little… But to think that is to mistake you for a puppet master. Our knowledge of your “ secular anthropocentrism ” obliges us to interpret this new order as a command that the Church must make a volte-face. This Church must be converted to man and to this present world. Renouncing the primacy and priority of religious works and of worship, she must plunge into the life of this world and apply herself to the works of secular humanism, in other words to culture. And that is exactly what was wrought by that great charter for change, the Augsburg Confession of 1530, that formidable “ anti-Catholic utopia ”, as I called it, not without proving the point in June 1980, at a time when the Church herself was foolishly celebrating the 450th anniversary of this charter, and when you yourself dared to say that Someone in you “ was living this anniversary most intensely ”… That Someone, if someone there be, can only be, Most Holy Father, Satan or one of his minions (CRC Eng. Ed. No.134, The Confession of Augsburg).
Luther and Melancthon explained their “ Reform ” by saying that “ the just man lives by faith alone ” and not by works, by which they meant works of religion and devotion, thereafter described as abominable and impious. But the just man, according to Luther, proves his faith through temporal works, that is, through war, finance and commerce. And God manifests his blessing of the just man by making him victorious, rich and clever. Does this apply to you ? Is this the explanation of your super-reform, of your innovations, of your humanist Revolution ? Most certainly. According to your philosophy, it is through atheism – that is, through the “ annihilation ” of all positive religion, at least speculatively – that a pure immanent faith must be born, one that involves the acceptance of a Transcendence that is not disturbing; and this will prove itself through the incognito progress of Christians along the highway of humanity towards its temporal fulfilment. You would not dream of denying it, for that is exactly it ! Compared with you, Luther, the obscure monk from Wittenburg, was a mere child.
THE ARGUMENT OF AUTHORITY: OBEDIENCE TO THE COUNCIL
In order to effect this change of course, you ask for full powers, you establish a dictatorship. Out of the old Church, a new one has to be born. It is not possible to change a state, an administration or a people without first of all establishing a force for oneself, political power, an army and a police force; and, even more importantly, a parliamentary majority and domination of public opinion. These are the elements of every coup d’état: the establishment of a dictatorship which, when led by a dialectical theory, is called Stalinist. And when instituted in God’s name, providential.
Quite simply, it is SCHISM triumphant in the head and at the summit of the Church, rather than in some peripheral place such as Wittenburg, Geneva or London. The schism is in Rome, and it was effected through the work of John XXIII the Rash, Paul VI, and now you. It is the work of the Council and of the post Council, to which you appeal when seeking to justify your revolutionary autocratism, and your right over the life and death – spiritual of course – of every former Catholic.
When you claim that you are simply acting as the humble and obedient servant of the Council and as the faithful disciple of your predecessor and father, Pope Paul VI, in applying and continuing with all the new dogmas, you are disingenuous. You have every interest in proposing this fatal Council as though it were inspired by God in all its parts, for thus can your dictatorship be made to appear providential and your every word and decision be made to seem divine. A good Polish Jesuit, who has not understood this trick, says adoringly of you: “ He is a mystic of the Council ” !
Louis XIV never said, riding crop in hand, L’État, c’est moi. But on the day following your election, you quite clearly explained, The Council is the Holy Spirit, and I shall be the Council living amongst you !
“ Firstly, we wish to advise you of the permanent importance of the Ecumenical Council Vatican II, the meticulous implementation of which we have received as our unquestionable responsibility. This Universal Synod is surely the mile-stone, the weighty event at the heart of the Church’s two thousand year old history, and consequently of the world’s religious history and of all that concerns the cult of man... ”
Let me interrupt with a parenthesis here: the text indeed reads, “ atque ad cultum humanum ”, but the press, unaware of your deepest thought, has toned the wording down and translated it as “ concerning human civilisation ” !
“ We, therefore, consider it to be our primordial duty to promote, with the greatest possible care, the execution (ouch ! such a strong term !) the decrees and directive norms of this same Universal Synod ... Firstly, we wish to say that it is essential for minds to be in tune with this Council, so that what it outlines be actualised in life, and so that its contents or that which is usually described as implicit be made explicit, giving due consideration to the experiments made thereafter and the needs of the present circumstances. ” (Discourse to the cardinals, October 17, 1978)
It is Napoleon making himself emperor in order to consolidate the gains of the Revolution; it is Lenin sweeping away the soviets of the factory floor and establishing the Checka in the name of Communism. This is where the history of the Church, of human religion and of the world, is cut in two. Everything is either before or after the Council. Or rather, if we read you carefully – due to these implicit contents and these current experiments, which suggest a sort of vacation period before the much-heralded grand reform – there is a before-Me and an after-Me on a cosmic scale. But it is a schism ! It is a death sentence to be “ executed ” on the former Apostolic Church, to be followed by the creation of a new, conciliar, or more exactly, Wojtylian, Church.
AN INSPIRED COUNCIL ?
And you wish us to bow before this ? Yes, you invoke the Holy Spirit, who is wholly mobilised in the propaganda service of your dictatorship; but it is a service, which you yourself will supply.
“ What the Spirit said to the Church through the recent Council of our times, and what the Spirit says in this Church to all the Churches (local ? or more probably, schismatic) can lead to nothing other – despite momentary concerns – than a greater maturity of the whole People of God, aware of their salvific mission. ” (Redemptor hominis, no.3) This Spirit, whose name we are not told, is familiar with the masonic method: “ Solve et Coagula ”. Having divided, disorganised and dissolved the preconciliar Church, it is now urgent to coagulate God’s atomised and disintegrated people: the time has come for “ cohesion ” under the crook of yesterday’s dividers ! The time has come for concentration – a word with unfortunate associations, for it foretells the hounding out of the dissidents !
“ In the course of our reflections and discussions, ” you said to the Dutch bishops, who were divided, each one against the rest, over essentials, “ one thing has always been clear: we cannot but desire - and in reality we do desire it with all our heart – a Church in total conformity with Our Lord’s intentions, as expressed by the Council. In fact, we believe (by divine faith ? by personal inspiration ? or purely as a matter of opinion ?) that the Second Vatican Council has become for our time the theme and the privileged place thanks to which the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Jesus Christ, ‘ has spoken ’ to the whole Church and has guided her towards the entire truth, and therefore towards this truth of existence ‘ in the contemporary world ’, of existence as it appears through the ‘ signs of the times. ’ (At the Dutch synod, January 31, 1980) ”
It is clear. Today there must be a change of religion to correspond to a change of civilisation, culture and mentality. The Holy Spirit has spoken; who would dare to contradict this ? He who resists the Pope is resisting God. That is the “ Knowledge of Power ”, denounced not so long ago by Glucksmann (CRC. Eng. Ed. Nos. 100-101, The Master Thinkers; Gulag or Christendom, July-August 1978), which in turn breeds “ the Power of Knowledge ”, a truly monstrous programme. We are back to the baneful times of the “ Master Thinkers ”.
Addressing the French bishops on June 1, 1980, before seeking to redress the unequal score between “ integrism ” and “ progressivism ”, you again presented the Council as the pure work of the Holy Spirit.
“ The mission of the Church is constantly being fulfilled in an eschatological perspective which, at the same time, is fully historical. It is linked to the duty of reading ‘ the signs of the times ’, which were so profoundly taken into consideration by Vatican II. With great perspicacity, the Council also defined the Church’s mission for this present stage of history. Our common task, therefore, remains the acceptance and realisation of Vatican II in its authentic content.
“ In this we are guided by faith, our principal and fundamental reason for action. We believe that Christ, through the Holy Spirit, was with the Council Fathers. We believe that the Council contains, in its magisterium, what the Spirit ‘ said to the Church ’, saying it in total harmony with Tradition and in accord with the demands posed by the ‘ signs of the times ’. This faith is based on Christ’s promise: ‘ I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world ’ (Mt. 28.20). On this faith is also based our conviction that we must ‘ realise the Council ’ as it is, and not as we would like to see or understand it ” (Centurion p.152-153).
That is what you say, and that is what I contest. You are deceiving yourself, or rather you are deceiving the Church. But you will find it impossible to justify your statements, on which rests your entire revolutionary dictatorship, by appealing to the Roman Catholic doctrine. Eighteen years ago, I denounced the deception of this conciliar illuminism, and fifteen years ago to this day, May 4, 1983, I defended my denunciation before the tribunal of the Holy Office. Nobody has succeeded in articulating a word in answer to this formidable accusation of betrayal and deception, unique in the annals of the Church (On the Authority of the Council, Lettres à mes amis 212, September 15, 1965. I am a son of the Church: The False Trial, CRC 24, French ed., September 1969. The True Trial, CRC 25, French ed., October 1969).
No, in none of its parts is the Council an object of faith. Nor can it be affirmed, without falling into illuminism, that the Spirit spoke through the Council. Nothing declared or decided by the Council is binding on the conscience of any Catholic bishop, priest or member of the faithful. Still less can it bind the Popes, who take sole responsibility for their teaching and their decisions. No one can hide behind the supposed authority of this “ pastoral ” Council, whose declarations and decisions remain uncertain and confused, and which has given nothing but trouble and division to the Church since it ended twenty years ago.
Besides this purely negative argument, to appeal to such a Council en bloc as though it were a charter for the “ reform of the Church ” – that is to say, a return to Jesus Christ, the Founder, and to the Gospel now more perfectly heard and put into effect, together with an “ aggiornamento ”, that is to say an adaptation of Catholic institutions and mentalities to the modern world, interpreted according to the “ signs of the times ” – is to share actively in the formal sin of schism, if not of apostasy, which was the sin of its promoters, its principal actors, and its supreme authority, Paul VI.
And by taking your stand on Vatican II, you are merely prolonging that sinister “ conciliar pact ”, which binds together the schismatic reformers, the survivors and the successors of this catastrophic Vatican II. In so doing, far from imposing your authority on us, you are declaring yourself to be the head of the modernist rebellion, before which you renew your commitments. You thereby declare yourself to be a sectarian and a schismatic.
THE POPE AND THE CHURCH “ TRANSFIGURED ” !
The high point of your deception, of your revolutionary autocratism, was reached when you celebrated the memory of Paul VI on August 1 and 8, 1979, the anniversary of his being summoned before God’s tribunal, as we all shall be, on August 6, 1978, the “ Feast of the Lord’s Transfiguration ”. From the fact of Paul VI’s having died on the Feast of the Transfiguration, you conclude that he experienced his own transfiguration on that day – the height of the most delirious illuminism ! And you went on to say that this was only right for one, who through the Council, had wrought the “ transformation of the Church ”, or in other words its transfiguration ! Teilhard de Chardin died on Easter Sunday; was that the sign of his resurrection ?
This occasion so well served your purpose of enslaving the Church to the modernist clan, secretly leading her to a mutation implicitly programmed by the Council, that you could not but make the most of it. You said:
“ Paul VI’s pontificate was surely a time of profound transformation, a transformation brought about by the Holy Spirit throughout the whole activity of the Council [...] We could say, developing this thought, that since the Lord called Paul VI to Himself on that day, the day of His own Transfiguration, He allowed both him and us to see that He is present in the entire work of the Church’s “ transformation ” and its renewal in the spirit of Vatican II, as He was present in the wonderful event on Mount Tabor... ” (Documentation Catholique, September 2-16, 1979).
“ He was the Pope of Vatican II ! He was the Pope of this profound transformation, which was none other than the revelation of the Church’s face awaited by the world of today. Here again, we have an analogy with the Mystery of the Lord’s Transfiguration. In effect, this same Christ whom the apostles saw on Mount Tabor was none other than Him whom they knew every day, whose words they had heard and whose deeds they had seen. On Mount Tabor, He revealed Himself to them as the same Lord, but ‘ transfigured ’. In this Transfiguration, there was shown and realised an image of their Master that had hitherto been unknown and hidden from their eyes. ”
So it is that Paul VI likewise received this “ charism of Transfiguration ”, whereby he was able to bring about a transfiguration of the Church, a radiant transformation, through a reading of the “ signs of the times made by the Second Vatican Council ”. At the same time, he was able to effect “ a transformation of man, of society and of systems ”, with a view to that “ civilisation of love ” which he announced !
The speech ended with the lyricism of an illumined or coldly deceitful triumphalism: “ On August 6, 1978, the last rays of the feast of the Transfiguration fell on the heart of the Pastor, who, throughout his life, had served the great cause of man’s transformation in our difficult times and that of the Church’s renewal in view of this transformation. – These rays seemed to say, ‘ Well done, thou good and faithful servant... enter thou into the joy of thy Lord ’ (Mt. 25.21). And Paul VI did not resume his daily tasks, but he followed the Lord who was calling him from the mountain of His Transfiguration. ”
Why all this extravagance and this deceit ? It is to make the Church accept the apostasy, foretold and condemned in advance by true and holy popes, who are your predecessors, but whom you disown and systematically ignore, because they rose up in advance, in God’s name and infallibly, against the wicked pride of the reformers of the Church – Paul VI yesterday, and you today.
THE ARGUMENT FROM REASON: THE EVOLUTION OF THE WORLD
After the argument from authority, we come to the argument from reason. The first argument conceals an obvious contradiction. The allegedly divine authority of Vatican II destroys the certain and infallible authority of the pre-Vatican II Church. That argument is both inept and stupid ! It is used to support the evolutionist argument with its “ signs of the times ”. The argument runs that change was necessary, and that through a profound fidelity to the ancients we end in contradicting them – an infidelity that is only apparent ! There is evolution even in the midst of contradiction. In order to justify such a volte-face, the entire Church and God Himself would need to be hegelian ! Another argument that is as stupid as it is inept !
On one occasion, you explained this evolution-transformation-mutation-contradiction argument, without hiding a thing. You must have been very confident. It was on November 19, 1980 before an audience of three thousand German artists, journalists and publicists. I shall simply quote what you said, for it is all so clear, contenting myself with marking the stages of this ecclesial volte-face by using sub-titles.
THE MEMORY OF THE DAYS OF CHRISTENDOM
“ The relationship between the Church and art or architecture, in figurative art, literature and theatre constitutes a stormy history. If it were not for the efforts of the monasteries, for example, it is doubtful whether the treasures of Greek and Latin literature would have come down to us. But in those times, the Church very courageously entered into dialogue (sic) with ancient literature and culture. For long, the Church was regarded as the mother of art. Her role in art was like that of Maecenas. The content of the Christian faith constituted the motives and the themes of art. It is very simple to test the truth of this fact: remove from the history of European, particularly German, art all that is of religious and Christian inspiration, and very little is left. ”
THE REGRETTABLE RECIPROCAL AGGRESSIVENESS OF TODAY’S WORLD AND YESTERDAY’S CHURCH
In the course of the last few centuries, and especially since 1800, the bond between the Church and culture, and finally between the Church and art, has been loosened. It was done in the name of autonomy and aggravated by a growing secularisation. Between the Church and art, a divide opened up, which widened with an ever increasing criticism of the Church, of Christianity, and principally of religion.
“ For her part, the Church – and in some way, it was understandable (she is here excused for a resolution that is suggested as being false, illegitimate, at least regrettable, and certainly unintelligent and uncharitable) – lacked confidence with regard to the modern mentality and its manifold expressions. This spirit was considered (sic) as hostile to the faith and to the Church, and critical of both religion and revelation. The Church countered with a defensive attitude, distanced herself and answered back in the name of the Christian faith. ”
Thus you relegate to the sphere of relative historical circumstances, human decisions, temperament, of tactics, prejudice and error, those definitions and decrees of your predecessors that were the inviolable and immutable expressions of divine faith and law. This authorises you to break with yesterday’s religion in the name of a Spirit that speaks to you directly through the signs of the times. Principally, through the Council...
THE OPENING TO THE WORLD OF Vatican II
“ The Second Vatican Council created and established the basis for a new relationship between the Church and the world, between the Church and art. This new relationship is characterised by an attitude of interest, openness and dialogue, linked to an attentiveness to the present day, the “ aggiornamento ”. In fact, the Council Fathers devoted a chapter of the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes (Nos. 53-63) with a view to the proper promotion of cultural progress, dealing with the question, as did the ancient Church (!), with frankness, and without narrowness or embarrassment.
“ The world is a reality in its own right; it has its own identity, whence also its autonomy of culture and of art. This autonomy, properly understood, is not a protest against God, nor is it a statement against the Christian faith. It is rather a demonstration of the fact that God’s world is a freely given creation, handed over and entrusted to man for the purpose of a responsible culture. ”
FINALLY, YOUR SECULAR AND POSTCHRISTIAN ANTHROPOCENTRISM
“ It thus becomes possible for the Church to establish a new relationship with culture and with art – a relationship of collaboration in freedom and dialogue. This is all the easier and perhaps all the more fruitful in that art in your country is free and can be developed and realised in freedom. If your vocation ( ?) follows the direction of a responsible freedom, the Church can and must always be your partner (sic) – a partner in the concern for human dignity in a world shaken to its foundations. ”
The whole text leads straight to the last line, where the new humanism, the new wojtylian church, is revealed. She is in partnership with the new world, working for human dignity, in all sincerity and disinterestedness for the humanisation of the planet.
Regrettably, Most Holy Father, this is precisely the pastoral teaching that was condemned in the Syllabus of the holy Pope Pius IX. It is that supposed “ reconciliation of the Church with the modern world ”, with a humanity said to be autonomous, free, but responsible ! But these words are simply euphemisms for apostate, anti-Christian and atheistic. If the Church is the partner of such a world, it can only be an act of prostitution.
YOU OPT FOR THE CHURCH’S DISAPPEARANCE
You are content with the Church’s disappearance. It took me a long time to understand and to admit that such a mentality could exist in a pope. And yet the fact stares one in the face. For example, when you visited the University of Kinshasa in Zaire on May 4, 1980, you referred at the end of your speech to the not so distant past when the university was officially Catholic. You said: “ Dear friends, professors and students, at the beginning of your university’s existence, its motto was ‘ LUMEN REQUIRUNT LUMINE ’, by His light they seek light. ” Shedding no tears, however, you return to the present: “ I hope that your studies, your research and your wisdom will be for you a pathway to the supreme Light, the God of Truth, whose blessing on you I pray for. ”
Not all that long ago, the light of Christ, grace and the Church’s supernatural life were at the beginning of all their studies. God was the foundation of the building, as the psalmist says: “ Nisi Dominus aedificaverit domum... ”, and as Our Lord says: “ Sine me nihil potestis facere ” (Ps. 126.1; Jn. 15.5). But that was during the colonial era. Times have changed now: we are in the days of decolonisation, declergification, and dechristianisation. Ours is the era of liberty without alienation. Never mind ! The Pope is not going to sulk ! He hopes that God will still be found at the end of their studies, even though He is no longer at the beginning ! That is what he prays for and so has no grounds for regretting the past. Should we not rather rejoice in the present and in the future ? Yes. This is your thinking, and this is what you said.
“ Historically ”, you explained to these evolved, emancipated Blacks – whom you see in your dream as good, generous and sincere, every last man of them – “ the Church was at the origin of the universities. Over the centuries, the Church developed a concept whereby the learning of the period was placed in the wider context of a vision of the world created and redeemed by God, by Our Lord Jesus Christ. ” And that indeed is what was expressed by the supremely religious, Christian and Catholic motto of the former University of… Leopoldville, inspired moreover by Psalm 35 (Ps. 35.10).
Today, the motto has been changed. Who changed it ? When ? And by what right ? What was the intention behind the change, and what ideology was it meant to serve ? You appear not to mind, still less to be alarmed. It is the evolution of the world ! It is a “ sign of the times ” ! You appear not to be surprised or disquieted by the fact that all these signs are anticlerical and masonic, like so many flashing lights warning us of the approaching apostasy. No. You are pleased with the new motto, proclaiming its conquering, courageous and optimistic humanism : “ SCIENTIA SPLENDET ET CONSCIENTIA ”, The Splendour of Science and Conscience !
You note the Copernican, or rather Kantian, revolution whereby a Christendom wholly founded and established on Christ alone has been ousted in favour of a Humanity with no other foundation than Science, and Conscience ! Into this human dough you wish to insert the Christian message like some sort of leaven, hidden and incognito. Having disappeared, the Church takes her leave together with the last of the colonisers and missionaries, to be replaced by anonymous Christians who will enter into the great work and so testify to your God, the God of Onwards and Upwards.
Has nobody ever told you, has no-one ever stood up to remind you that between the two mottoes, between the two societies, the one Christian and the other humanist, there is the gulf of apostasy ? It is a denial of the faith, without which none – people, person, prince, pope, black or white – can be pleasing to God. And do you not know that it is idle to expect the least wisdom or the least virtue from a society or a world that has disowned its Creator, Saviour, Lord and Sovereign Judge ?
YOU WANT SOCIAL ATHEISM AS A STARTING POINT FOR A NEW CHRISTIANITY
No, your deepest concept is of a world that always has been – well before its encounter with the Church – “ inwardly allied to eternal wisdom ”, and which will continue to be so allied long after the Church’s disappearance. This is the theme running through the famous homily you preached to the French people at the Mass at le Bourget on June 1, 1980 (Centurion, p.135-142).
“ I would like to pay homage ”, you said, “ to the God who is living and acting in and through peoples, who writes the history of salvation in men’s hearts. This history is as old as man himself. It goes back to his ‘ pre-history ’. It goes back to the beginning. ” Christian history comes later and thus subsists at the centre of the earlier history, but “ hidden in the depths of man, mysterious but nonetheless very real... ”
What is true of humanity as a whole is also true of each individual man. “ Salvation history is full of new beginnings: it begins again with every man that is born into the world. ” Begins how ? Through baptism ? No, through an “ alliance with eternal wisdom ”, the original, universal alliance. It is “ fidelity to the alliance with eternal wisdom that lies at the source of all true culture, that is to say, of man’s growth. ” Over and over again you repeat: “ For us, the interior alliance with wisdom is to be found at the basis of all culture and of all true human progress. ” Such is “ the eulogy of man…, the affirmation of man ”. You do not scruple to posit straightaway this concept of a prior humanism, which is also the Weltanschauung of Rudolf Steiner’s anthroposophy. And you give glory to freemasonry and to the 1789 Revolution for having rebuilt this original world, governed by a nameless and faceless Wisdom in eternal alliance with man:
“ What have the sons and daughters of your nation not done to further the knowledge of man and to express man by formulating his inalienable rights ! The place held by the ideas of liberty, equality and fraternity in your culture and history is well known. Fundamentally, they are Christian ideas. I say this fully aware that those who first formulated these ideals did so without reference to man’s alliance with the eternal wisdom. Nevertheless, they wanted to act on behalf of man. ”
So, having imagined a Humanity deeply united to the Eternal Wisdom and led by the same wisdom along the path of her historical development, you turn to the second part of your speech where you cross your Christianity with this humanism and weave the two together, as though the New Testament embellished an ancient and eternal alliance, more profound than itself.
“ Christ came into the world in the name of man’s alliance with the Eternal Wisdom. ” In the name of… ? Yes: “ In Him, the alliance with Eternal Wisdom is continued. ” The original, natural, unbreakable alliance continues via Christ and today via “ the Church, that is to say, the Body of Christ, the People of God. ”
This substance – call it man or society – is therefore lay or secular from the beginning and has always been inhabited by the Eternal Wisdom. And religion is nothing other than its epiphenomenon, and the Church simply its superstructure:
“ In this alliance, man must grow and develop as man. He must grow and develop starting from the divine foundation of his humanity, that is to say, from his image and likeness to God Himself. Man must grow and develop as a son of divine adoption.
“ As a son of divine adoption, man must grow and develop through all that is conducive to the development and progress of the world where he lives ”... But, in so doing, he must not “ neglect the alliance with the Eternal Wisdom ” !
To read you at length is to enter into the Weltanschauung of your Steinerian anthroposophy (but I nevertheless hope that it is not “ Luciferian ” as are all the other Steinerians). Christ and the Church are merely supernatural, superfluous realities in a world that is already saved through Eternal Wisdom. All the strength of the theological virtues, infused in my soul on the day of my baptism, rises up within me as I copy these words, and inspires me with a hatred for them, a divine hatred...
Indifferent to such a negligible reaction, and inhabited by a superhuman force, you continue serenely:
“ ‘ The power over heaven and earth ’ is not a power that is against man. Nor again is it a power to be exercised by man over man. It is a power that allows man to be revealed in his royalty and in the full plenitude of his dignity. It is a power whose specific force is to be discovered in man’s heart. It is a power whereby man should reveal himself to himself in the dimension of his conscience and the perspective of eternal life (I have emphasised those parts where the blasphemy shows through with the greatest insolence).
“ Then will be revealed in man the full force of his baptism; he will know that he is (sic) ‘ immersed ’ in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; he will discover himself fully in the Eternal Word, in infinite Love. ”
Thus, at the end of your speech there appear two intermixed fidelities. One of them will be understood, retained and applauded by the Catholics: “ France, eldest daughter of the Church, are you faithful to the promises of your baptism ? ” The other will not be understood or retained by the Catholics, but it will be noted by the brothers of the masonic lodges all the world over: “ France, eldest daughter of the Church and educator of the peoples (that is to say, mother of every modern revolution), are you faithful, for the good of man, to the alliance with the Eternal Wisdom ? ”
For you, the two fidelities are one and the same, but it is the anthroposophic that comes first ! What you hope for, and what you are pleased to see coming about in the world, is an atheist society, that is to say, an humanity with its old and eternal alliance with Wisdom reforged, a “ probing ” society that will “ recover the newness of the Gospel ” after two thousand years of religious alienation. This is what appears in the grandiose speech you gave to the members of a congress gathered for the theme, “ Evangelisation and Atheism ”, held in Rome from October 6 to 10, 1980. Atheism is the glory of man, and the soil most favourable to the Church’s work of re-evangelisation.
BEYOND OUR PALTRY DIVISIONS
André Frossard tells us – indeed he gives us an image of you that you want us to have – that “ The Holy Father detests polemics and all its summary classifications. It is true that he holds from Heaven two charisms, which dispense him from entering into our wretched quarrels... ” So he says ! “ The first charism is the gift of being able to act by his presence alone... Whenever any discussion arises in the Church, he calls the two sides together, sits down with them, says nothing, and in the end the matter is settled. ” (N’ayez pas peur, p.113) That is the legend of your supposed “ miracle ” in the Dutch crisis. In fact, however, you allowed the majority to crush the mini-minority (Cf. The Holy Manoeuvres of the Liberals and A Renaissance aborted in CRC February-March 1980). “ The other gift is his ability to go back to the causes, very far back in history and very high up the scale in theology ”, and your friend correctly remarks that at every turn you go back to the first chapters of the Bible. “ He never hesitates to refer back to the Book of Genesis ”, says Frossard admiringly. Little does he know that, in so doing, you are going back beyond original sin and taking refuge in the utopia of an earthly paradise, which is: (1) without Church and (2) optimistic, purely humanist according to you, and naturalistic Following your meeting with the French bishops at Issy-les-Moulineaux, I accused you of being “ stratospheric ”. And so were the Bishops on that day, in their attempt to avoid having to give an account of their deplorable stewardship. But for you, it was a matter of not having to intervene authoritatively, with the risk of incurring displeasure. Now I understand it even better: it was to avoid spoiling your image as a secular humanist amid the paltry controversies of the ecclesiastical world !
“ The Holy Father, as is known ”, repeats Frossard, “ rejects divisions between Right and Left, between Traditionalism and Progressivism, which he thinks should be avoided at all costs. For him, the faith has to be lived in simplicity, and ‘ following the Gospel does not consist in choosing between what advances and what retards, but in serving the Truth ’. ” (N’ayez pas peur, p.321) And, in imitation of you, Frossard puts all our excesses of Right and Left into the same basket, that of people led by fear, fear of what is new or unknown, or else the fear of not appearing to be sufficiently advanced, emancipated and bold. It is a miserable explanation, contemptuous and horribly defamatory. But once deciphered and analysed, your thinking about our divisions in the Church is striking.
Faith, for you, is to be lived out with simplicity. Faith, this pure experience of the divine in man and of the Unknowable in its transcendence, passes beyond all our dogmatic debates, liturgical disputes, and our conflict on morality, politics, and tradition. All these things have no interest or meaning for you. What counts is the Gospel. Admirable ! And the Gospel consists in serving the truth. Yes, but.. ! The truth for you is the dignity, kingship and transcendence of Man ! Therefore, your service of the Gospel is the same as your struggle on behalf of Human Rights, far removed from the ecclesiastical quarrels, which you want to get shot of altogether.
THE USUAL FALSE SYMMETRY
There has been a vacation of authority in the Church since the Council, justified by the pretext of collegiality, freedom and creativity. But I am rather inclined to think that if Authority ceased to be exerted, it was to allow the revolutionaries and modernists to speed ahead, so that Authority would simply to be yielding to the movement, albeit with moderation, holding the balance and keeping a just mean ! The result is every kind of disorder and conflict. Thus it was that your predecessor, Paul VI, used to relativise the phenomenon by making the modernist comparison – you will find this already explained by St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi – of a movement, more or less rapid, towards Progress and the Future, and its two automobile functions, the accelerator and the brake. You adopt this dishonest, unworthy and heretical comparison, which in essence glorifies the men of progress, in even their greatest audacities, which are described as apostolic ! It is this attitude that justifies the hierarchy’s indecisiveness, its refusal to take sides or to issue condemnations. And it is precisely this attitude that is betraying and slowly strangling the Creed, which the hierarchy is bound to defend ! Finally, this attitude allows the hierarchy to commiserate with the “ little flock ” of those, who for reasons of fear, bitterness or nostalgic attachment to the past, as it explains, have refused to join the movement, which is nevertheless the will of the Council and… of the Holy Spirit.
“ It is a question ”, as you said to our bishops (Discourse at Issy-les-Moulineaux, Centurion, p.153-155), “ of two very well known tendencies: ‘ progressivism ’ and ‘ integrism ’.
“ The former are impatient to adapt the very content of the faith, Christian ethics, the liturgy and the ecclesial organisation to the changed mentality and needs of the ‘ world ’, without sufficiently heeding not only the common feeling of the faithful, who are thereby disorientated, but also the essence of the faith already defined, the Church’s roots, her age-old experience and the norms necessary for her fidelity, unity and universality. They are obsessed with ‘ advancing ’, but towards what eventual ‘ progress ’ ?
“ The latter draw attention to abuses, which we are obviously the first to disapprove of and correct ourselves, but they harden their position and confine themselves to a given period of the Church’s life, to a particular stage of the Church’s theological formation or liturgical expression, which they elevate into an absolute, without sufficiently penetrating its deep meaning or considering its total history and legitimate development. They fear new questions and refuse to admit that in the end the Spirit of God is at work in the Church, with her Pastors united to the Successor of Peter.
“ These facts are not surprising to anyone familiar with similar phenomena in the Church’s history. But it is all the more necessary that we concentrate our forces on the correct, that is to say, authentic interpretation of the conciliar magisterium as the indispensable foundation of the subsequent self-realisation of the Church, the source of whose true inspiration and orientation is the same magisterium.
“ These two extreme tendencies, progressivism and integrism, not only foster opposition but also a regrettable and detrimental division. They provoke one another to the point of creating a general malaise, nay a scandal. And in this mutual criticism and mistrust they spend so much energy that would be truly useful to a genuine renewal.
“ It is to be hoped that both sides, neither of which is lacking in generosity or faith, will humbly learn, in union with their Pastors, how to surmount this opposition between brothers, so that they may accept the authentic interpretation of the Council – for this is the heart of the matter – and together face the Church’s mission with their diverse pastoral approaches. ”
And from there you quickly return to your real love, to your idolatry, which is so much more interesting than quarrels over bells and chants. “ I come now to another fundamental question: why is a particular concentration on man so necessary in the present stage of the Church’s mission ? [...] The Church must confront the common questions of man... – It is a great messianic message about man; it is the revelation to man of the total truth about himself and his vocation in Christ. In announcing this message, we are at the heart of realising Vatican II. ” And there follows an exposition of your secular anthropocentrism, which we have already sufficiently talked about: your MODERNISM, compared with which the controversies between progressivists and integrists in the Church appear as childish whims (Cf. your Discourse to the Consistory, November 5, 1979, commented on in the CRC for November 1979).
THE ELIMINATION OF THE DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH
For you to be correct in thus presenting the religious war raging within the Church, it would be necessary: (1) for the Council to have made infallible definitions, or at least to have given clear, precise, authoritative and unquestionably supernatural pastoral directives, which is not the case; (2) that the world apostasy of these last hundred years be a God-given sign of a like evolution to be wrought in the Church by Him, which is clearly not credible, the contrary having been taught infallibly by the Popes prior to the Conciliar Revolution; (3) that the Church be in a state of constant and always unforeseeable evolution, dictated prophetically at any moment by an indefectible magisterium, plugged into the future and into the Holy Spirit, with a view to “ the ultimate self-realisation of the Church ”, which is an absurd and aberrant illuminism.
Having said this, you have every chance of being believed by the faithful, who will be opportunely deceived on all three points. Besides, despite the indignation of their faith, they are bound to flinch before the enormity of any kind of opposition to the Pope, the Council, the totality of the bishops, the clergy and the massive public opinion of believers and unbelievers alike. This panic-stricken terror which holds the people of God in subjection to you also manifests your totalitarianism, your persuasive force and the victory of your party, but not the legitimacy or the truth of what you have to say.
In the year 360 of the Christian era, Pope Liberius had yielded to “ pravitas haeretica ”, heretical perversity. It is St. Jerome, Doctor of the Church, who tells us of this (The great crises of the Church. Arianism, CRC 89, French ed.). The Councils of Rimini and of Seleucia, which between them had brought together all the bishops in the world, had denied the faith of Nicaea in order to achieve union with the modernists of their day using vague and ambiguous formulas. Against all odds, Athanasius, Hilary, Hosius of Cordova, Eusebius of Vercelli and the ambitious Lucifer of Cagliari – who was the only one to fall into schism – held firmly to the Catholic faith, although disavowed by the Pope and excommunicated by practically all the world’s bishops.
What we are seeing now is a hundred times worse than what was to be seen then. For Pope Liberius faltered momentarily out of fear and for the peace of the Church. The two councils united around specious and accommodating formulas that could be interpreted as a bare though inadequate defence against heresy. At that time, the Church held the unchangeable Catholic faith to be paramount, not individual illuminism, evolutionism, still less humanist apostasy. Our situation is a hundred times worse. So, your false symmetry between integrism on the one side and progressivism on the other is a lie, and the solution you advocate, that of an authoritative rallying of the whole Christian people on the hierarchy’s orders for the fulfilment of the Council, is an odious and insidious proposition aimed at eliminating the last defenders of the faith, not with the sword, but with contempt and hatred. It is an act that will not be forgiven either in this world or in the next, unless you make public reparation, for it is a death-dealing blow against the Church herself.
INTEGRISM ? THE LAST DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH !
It seems that you do not detest the integrists. But the only man who made you “ weary ”, according to Malinski’s truthful biography of you, was Msgr. Lefebvre. “ – ‘ The Pope wishes to see you. But don’t speak with him for too long because he is very weary. He received Msgr. Lefebvre today. Just greet him and come back. ’ – I entered the chapel, which I already knew. The Pope, who was kneeling, raised his head. His face looked very weary. ‘ How are things going in Poland ? ’ he murmured. ” (Op. cit. p.209) We had already been cast as Paul VI’s torturers. These poor popes who have to endure the attacks of those accursed integrists ! And what great charity on their part not to answer them, but to forgive and say nothing ! Precisely, to say nothing... The legend will arrange things in your favour.
But a few pages further on, there you are full of health and optimism again, in the company of your dear Maliniski, who is deploring the misunderstanding that had deprived you of an interesting and pleasant meeting with the Communist guerrilla poet-priest, Ernesto Cardenal. “ A wave of anger rises up within me, and I am very upset: – ‘ It is a monstrous misunderstanding that must be cleared up. ’ – I am furious, because I realise the prejudice shown against this poet (sic) and against the Holy Father. I do not know who is to blame. Is it bad will, or is it plain stupidity ? ” (Ibid. p.212-213)
The gaffe committed by your staff will soon be repaired. A few days later you will receive with great manifestations of sympathy, gifts, and encouragement the terrorist leaders of South Africa, taking a keen interest in their Marxist guerrilla warfare (Il Messagero, 1st Dec 1978). A fine impartiality, that ! Such people never “ weary ” you, nor do they “ persecute ” you !
It is we who are your assassins. Yes ! We are Ali Agca. You went over what Frossard had written, and you charitably allowed him to write: “ A right-wing extremist… one of those terrorists who form into small groups that are intoxicated on a macabre dialectic, ” etc. (N’ayez pas peur, p.332-333) We are the sons of Cain; you are Abel the just. “ The good attracts the evil, and when Abel’s fidelity reaches a certain degree of splendour, his brother will furtively arm himself. ” And if he fails, he will start again. The following year. At Fatima ! “ A priest from the group of monks who form a secret league attempted to kill him with cold steel, and only just missed. The state of mind of an integrist who feels it to be his duty to kill a pope – that is, to loosen the stone on which his whole edifice stands – is truly indecipherable. ” They are monsters, all of them, these integrists, these fascists, these nazis...
Thus, while you were calling the Muslim assassin your “ brother ” – following the orders of the KGB, evidence of which I immediately set out for very clear reasons (CRC, May 1981) – you allowed the world’s mass media to stone with homicidal accusations those of your “ sons on the Right ”. Alas, it is only on the Right that such wretches are to be found. The following year, the fury was orchestrated again, but not a single gesture or a single expression was given by you to squash the lie conveyed by this bogus assassination attempt. It was all staged in order to stoke up hatred against us – hatred from our brothers, and from you too no doubt. At the time – and I was the only one to say so (CRC, June 1982, The Supreme Deception) – I proved the bogus character of the Fatima assassination attempt, which has since been confirmed by the tribunal of Vila Nova de Ourem held on April 21 with judgement passed on May 2. All this can be learned in France through reading Présent of April 23 and May 4, but this information was smothered by the world press and deliberately concealed by La Croix, the KGB journal for the French language, on April 23.
This integrist priest brandishing a bayonet against the Pope, what a find ! Is fecit cui prodest.
Let us turn again to dear Frossard, who, as everyone knows, is charity itself. This time, we find his confidences in the pages of Paris Match: “ The Pope told me ”. “ As he seemed curious to know what I meant by the term ‘ integrist ’, I answered him in these words, ‘ Holy Father, an integrist is one who always does the will of God, whether God wants it or not. ’ ” And you laughed with him at this homicidal accusation, which the millions who read this vile magazine will take as their religion.
Ah, what a fine show of impartiality from this conciliar and postconciliar papacy ! But God will judge you, Most Holy Father – you and your Frossard ! As the Magnificat puts it so well: God will show the strength of his arm to put down the mighty from their thrones, even from their holy sees. He will scatter the proud of heart and exalt the humble ! Tremble, you judges, who fail to give judgement and who crush the weak !
I know all these “ integrists ” whom you are talking about. They are not very numerous, but these are the people you calumniate. Their first concern is to profess the Catholic faith and to remain attached to the Church. They are devoted to the three things, which for them summarise, guarantee and provide all truth, all strength and all happiness: the Holy Eucharist, the Blessed Virgin and the Holy Father. Yes, the Pope ! They have not started anything, nor mounted any attack, but they themselves have been constantly criticised, harassed and vilified. They have not defended themselves against attack, they have not made any ambitious claims, nor have they been won over to deceit or violence. They have only defended the Creed, which others were attacking and destroying. They have stood up for the sacred character of the sacraments – in particular, the truth and validity of the Holy sacrifice of the Mass – and for the respect and maintenance of the true Catholic religion. Finally, and in so far as they could, they have defended unity centred on the Pope, and general respect and veneration for the papacy.
You will only find weakness there, Most Holy Father; so weak that we can be squashed like flies. We shall never leave the Church, nor shall we resort to any kind of violence against her. Besides, we are without power, we have no control over public opinion and have no money, other than for subsistence. This party is nothing, can do nothing and has nothing. Yet it is here, and only here, that you will find today’s confessors of the faith.
PROGRESSIVISM ? THE CORRUPTERS OF THE FAITH !
You place side by side these who defend the faith and those others who criticise, weaken, attack and destroy the faith. Some symmetry, that ! The latter you represent as intelligent, generous-minded, and apostolic. To them you show great benevolence. Never any contempt, hatred or distrust ! Their only fault is wanting to go too fast, whereas the others, you say, want to go too slowly. And these tendencies, you say, “ stimulate each other ”. Whose fault is that ? The fault of the backward looking, of course, who are selfishly ensconced in their “ Catholic City ”, whilst the others are running ahead to evangelise the modern world ! These latter only incur minor reproaches. They scandalise the weak, they are disorderly, they undermine the unity and cohesion of the flock; and do they know exactly where they are going ? “ Towards what progress ? ”
To call them “ progressivists ” is to pay them false honour. They are first and foremost “ modernists ”, that is to say, the most dangerous heretics of all time. They are people who ruin religion in its essence, who undermine the foundations of the Church and who destroy all human order with their criminal adoption of the principles of modern society: subjectivism, immanentism, liberalism, and that incoherent blend of rationalism and fideism, which allows them to live outwardly as Catholics whilst being inwardly apostates. That is something you know about....
When they are weak, they are the clandestine enemies of the faith, but they will insolently devastate the flock when Roman authority itself shows the least sign of weakening. And they will not stop until they have perverted, scattered and ruined everything: monasteries, convents, seminaries, parishes, youth movements... St. Pius X made it a duty for all pastors of the flock to unmask them, to pursue them, and to have them handed over to the tribunal of the Holy Office to be deprived of all authority or teaching office, and, if they stubbornly resisted, to be hounded out of the Church… that, through such a terrible and salutary lesson, they might amend their ways and come to eternal salvation. But all these canons of the Church against heretics you have had turned against us !
The Council has rehabilitated all those heretics and heaped them with honours. They now occupy all the top posts in the teaching and administration of the Church, and have filled all the episcopal sees. They have become the masters. They support one another and are unconditionally aided and protected by those two satanic powers, which are reconciled for the sake of directing an apostate world: judaeo-masonry and world communism.
There was a time, in the autumn of 1979, when the Pope entered the lists in defence of the faith, for the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith would not have acted without your consent. But whilst you talked endlessly of the necessary, certain, assured, yet very free (!) agreement of theologians with the hierarchy – just as scientific research must accord with the dogmas of an assured faith – those accursed theologians answered Rome’s summons and her humble requests for explanation with insolence. In this despised work of defending the faith, we hoped in you and were united to you, Most Holy Father. We trusted in your firmness, we were over-trustful perhaps; but can one ever be too trusting, as I was the day before yesterday, yesterday, and shall be again tomorrow, at the least sign from you. I assured our friends that John Paul II would not hesitate to fight and to die for the faith (CRC, Eng. Ed., November 1979 and Feb 1980).
Alas ! You let everything drop, quite shamefully. This, I think, was the hour of your betrayal after the enthusiastic commitments which so visibly followed your election to the papacy and its influx of graces, when you enjoyed the Holy Spirit’s intimate exhortations and His ordinary assistance. But you capitulated before even joining the battle.
On March 16, 1980, I wrote disconsolately to our friends the confidential Letter, No.33, from which I now quote the essential section:
“ The world is more divided than ever into two mortally hostile camps – two Cities and “ two standards ”. In our camp, we are beset by treachery, where all is talk of opening and of final surrender to the enemy. After Paul VI and his wretched Council, we had hoped in John Paul I, but God took him from us. Immediately we transferred our trust to John Paul II, with no regrets at having shown our allegiance, respect and filial affection. But I have to tell you now that our affection was certainly misplaced. I say ‘ certainly ’ with the calmness of mind that comes from proof that has been demonstrated, re-demonstrated and verified, and with the serenity of a faith enlightened and strengthened by the Holy Spirit.
“ I am fully conscious of the tragic nature of what I am saying to you, similar to when I first declared my opposition to this ‘ fatal council ’ in 1962, or when I wrote the Letter to my friends which denounced the perverse character of Paul VI’s first encyclical in 1964. Alas, I was not mistaken then ! Nor am I mistaken now when I tell you that a similar drama awaits us in the near future. Under these present conditions and given his forms of thought and declared intentions, Pope John Paul II is bound to disappoint, even betray, all those in our camp who lean on him.
“ I know that appearances give a quite different impression, and that what I am saying goes against the general opinion. But as events unfold, my warnings will become clearer, and I shall explain them to you. It was necessary that I forewarn you now of the most tragic reality. We shall have to relive, or rather suffer all over again for the length of this new pontificate, the same trial that we endured for fifteen years during Paul VI’s pontificate, without ever questioning the legitimacy of the Pope of our disappointment, John Paul II. On the contrary, we must pray for his soul and hope against hope that this already compromised pontificate will be put right. ”
You will see from my conclusion that our feelings were neither embittered nor rebellious: “ Let us keep together ”, I ended, “ in our long CRC friendship. Let us do our duty, keep our faith and our trust in God, our Heavenly Father. Let us keep our hope in Jesus Christ, the Supreme Pontiff of the world to come and King of kings. Let us maintain our mutual affection and charity in the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete and friend of our souls, so that we may live in holy joy and in peace with all, come what may. ” (CRC January-December 1980)
For ourselves, we can survive another ten pontificates like yours, with God’s grace, which is not lacking. But the unfortunate faithful and their clergy, the congregations of humble religious, all of whom are trusting and submissive, in the hands of a hierarchy and parallel organisations all sold out to the modernists, they cannot hold out. Amid such ecclesiastical pestilence, they cannot keep the faith. And for that, you are the one principally responsible before God. As for those clergy or faithful, whose firmness in the faith has marked them down for punishment by your bishops, theologians and religious superiors – who expel them from the monasteries, seminaries and parishes, and deprive them of their powers of jurisdiction in the face of all divine justice and social right (may God overthrow these corrupt and unjust clergy who thus despoil their brethren !) – if ever these persecuted clergy or faithful come to form a sect, to feel disgust for the Church and to contest your authority and legitimacy, to the point where they see themselves excommunicated by you, Karol Wojtyla, – which would be the limit ! – they will most certainly have done wrong, but you will be the one principally to blame for their action, having provoked them to indignation and despair !
Am I inventing dramas out of nothing ? I shall quote you one example, one name. A certain Jesuit, by name of Xavier Léon-Dufour, has produced three enormous scholarly books over the last three years. These books are wholly modernist. The first of the three is entitled Jesus and Paul, faced with death (Parole de Dieu series, published by le Seuil, 1979). It is a modernist negation of the Mystery of Redemption. The second, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ and the Paschal Message (same series, 1981) is a negation of the physical, objective, historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. The third is called The Sharing of the Eucharistic Bread in the New Testament (1982). Its title says it all. It is a total negation of the mystery of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, of the Real Presence and of the mystical union with God wrought by Christ’s Body and Blood.
This is a modernist who certainly does not fit in with your description of a “ progressivism, “ which ” advances too quickly ”. This Jesuit is completely heretical and perfectly obstinate, refusing – and oh ! how meekly – to yield to the least suggestion that he should rectify his works, as prompted by his learned confreres whom he intentionally consults. He is thus destroying the Catholic faith with impunity. I denounce him to you. If you do not order an enquiry, followed by a condemnation and public prohibition of his works, we shall know that you are “ Satan’s eldest son ” treacherously mounted on Christ’s very throne.
BEYOND THE CHURCH’S DIFFICULTIES
You have great plans for humanising the planet. But your plans demand the Church’s material and cultural well-being: buildings, money, recruitment and general administration. Not that you desire this for the Church herself, which means nothing to you, but simply as a means of serving Yourself, Man, and the World. Nor do you desire the Church’s well-being for the salvation of souls and the conquest of infidels, in which you have no interest. Nor is it for the honour of God, which you place elsewhere, in the “ life of man ”, in his earthly happiness and in the construction of a prosperous and cultural future city.
You need the Church, but you imagine, like our French bishops forty years ago – as I well remember – that the institution is self-regulating. You seem to think there is an automatic self-perpetuating cycle of births, baptisms, catechism classes, vocations, conversions, closed retreats, pilgrimages, alms and donations, with the support of the civil power, through fear or calculation. You thought there would always be Catholic material to serve your Grandeur and your designs. But now we are touching rock bottom. Children are not being born, baptisms are down, marriage is out, divorce is in, and abortion is rampant… There are no more conversions, and the catechism is no longer taught. People have ceased to practise their religion, they no longer go to Mass, and there is no more money in the plate. No one is entering the seminaries and convents. Everywhere people are abandoning and losing the faith. Evangelisation has come to an end. It is a catastrophe.
What are you doing about it ? You refuse to worry yourself over these tedious problems, and you betake yourself to where there will be local Church or States to pay for your journeys, and where there are crowds to listen to your speeches and to applaud. When difficulties are raised, you avoid them with this well-turned phrase which comes so readily to your lips: “ This is neither the time nor the place to deal with such a question ”. But it never will be the time or the place.
“ I realise that the Church of France, French Catholicism, has, in these years since the Council (ah ! what an admission !) found itself in a special situation (and what a euphemism !). I do not wish to decry it or pass judgement on it here. As is generally known (but the formula is false in this precise place), this may be a question of what is called a ‘ crisis of growth ’. I hope that this is the key to interpreting the particular situation experienced in France since the Council. ” (Message to the French, on the eve of the Pope’s visit to France, May 27, 1980, Centurion p.28-29)
I commented: “ The Pope has referred to a ‘ crisis of growth ’. Some will retain the word ‘ growth ’, others the word ‘ crisis ’. ” (CRC, July 1980) And everybody thought you were tremendous. But the crisis is certain; degeneration continues, provoked by the bloody revolution of 1944, accelerated by the Council, and precipitated since then by the twofold disappointment of your predecessor’s singular demise and the frivolity of your pontificate.
The more clear-sighted can see very well that there is nothing to be expected from you, and they wrongly conclude that there is nothing more to be expected from the Church. Too many times they have been promised a New Pentecost and a marvellous increase, first by the Council and then by you, but the collapse continues unabated. You have ordered the most spectacular corrections: the wearing of the cassock, or at least of a distinctively religious or ecclesiastical dress, dignity in the liturgy, and a return to frequent confession. But nothing has changed, and this failure and insolent contempt for your authority seems to leave you unmoved. We have seen bishops, priests and seminarians visit you in Rome wearing every kind of garb, apparently without giving the least offence. Your liturgical regulations have not even been published by the Documentations Catholiques, officially or unofficially. They have been totally ignored, and so it is with all the rest...
Let us continue with our just grievances and reproaches, for the salvation of countless souls is at stake, and they are all matters directly related to your bounden duty. Tentative calls to order emanate from Rome with all the usual signals denoting the pontifical will, which all are bound to obey, but all we see is a general and open violation of Rome’s every decree and exhortation. And after that, we see Rome herself constantly rallying to the disorder itself, showering compliments, praise and esteem on those rebels who thus find themselves rewarded for their disobedience !
YOUR ABANDONMENT OF THE CATECHISM
I have followed – with quite some application ! – the whole affair of the catechism, which, together with that of the liturgy of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, is the ground most disputed between Catholics and modernists. At every stage, the modernists, who are now our masters, have triumphed all the way and have succeeded in imposing their instruments for the brainwashing and dechristianisation of our youth, down to and including this latest, shameless, false catechism calling itself Pierres vivantes.
Rome has constantly betrayed the trust placed in her by the faithful. Over this question of Pierres vivantes, it was generally thought, even so, that the Pope would be bound to make a stand. Many were sure that their beloved Pope, John Paul II, would only have to see such a horror in order to intervene… But when at last you did speak, it was simply to read what had been dictated to you by our bishops. The speech you gave was worse than anything one might have imagined:
“ I know, ” you said, “ that certain catechetical productions, or certain new conditions of catechesis, have here and there given rise to disquiet and criticism on the part of some Christians. This is not the place to judge of the correctness of such reactions in themselves or of the incorrectness of certain criticisms that have sometimes turned into public opinion campaigns. ”
Nearly every single phrase here needs pointing with an exclamation mark...
“ I understand that these criticisms have caused you suffering (it was our prevaricating bishops you were addressing; poor men ! to have to suffer such persecution !), for they affect your consciences as responsible bishops (and prevaricating ones to boot !). Even so, you should not nurture any bitterness. Welcome these criticisms with serenity (what an inverted situation ! Quite the opposite of that announced in the Magnificat !), and it will contribute to an increased vigilance on your part with regard to the quality of catechesis; it will contribute to a strengthening of your pastoral zeal and to a renewal of your communion with the Apostolic See. ”
The great mass of the faithful and priests who heard this exhortation thought they had heard in your words a severe reprimand and an announcement that Pierres vivantes had been banned by Rome. Alas, they preferred not to read the rest of your speech. Had they done so, they would have heard you driving the French cattle to the episcopal slaughter-house.
“ Concerning this last point, I know of your work in co-operation with the Congregation for the Clergy, and I encourage you on this path (when one knows what I know about what you know, your phrase ‘ I know ’ is truly humorous !). BUT in the dioceses for which you are responsible, no person or private group could suspect or question your overriding responsibility in this domain or the authority inherent in it.
“ I therefore exhort all the sons of France to react (to react against the criticisms, evidently !) with serenity, having confidence in their bishops and being united around them. ” (cf. La Croix, October 3 and 4, “ News in brief: Catechesis: the Pope supports the French Bishops ”. It is indeed true.)
With his gaullist eloquence, it is in this same manner that our new socialist President of the Republic congratulates the socialist ministry with which we are afflicted, calling on the socialist party in particular and all Frenchmen in general to unite around the socialist power. And for two very clear reasons: firstly, he is that power, and secondly, that power is socialist. After hearing a speech like that, people feel like hanging themselves.
It is a temptation. The French must remain French in France, and Catholics must stay in the Church whilst waiting for God to unseat the mighty from their thrones and to scatter the proud. May He raise up the humble and feed their children, hungry for the truth and thirsting for the Christian life. “ Deposuit potentes de sede. Dispersit superbos... ” I find nothing revolutionary in that canticle. It is a Catholic Counter-Reformation canticle, as well as a French or Polish Counter-Revolutionary one.
FINALLY, THE ABANDONMENT OF THE MASS
On February 24, 1980, you published your Letter Dominicae Coenae, a statement on the Holy Eucharist addressed to the world’s bishops. (Documentations Catholiques, No. 1783, April 6, 1980). I commented at some length on this letter under these two aspects: “ For a return to order ? ” – “ But, what if the disorder continues ? ” (CRC, April-May 1980). I have nothing to retract from or to add to what I said then. You recalled the sound doctrine for the benefit of your readers; you singled out the many abuses prevalent; you expressed the hope that all would be restored to order, and that somehow the divisions concerning this sacrament, the sacrament of unity, would cease forthwith. Yes, above all, the dispute must stop ! And for that to happen, everyone should follow the Council and its “ authentic ” interpretation as given by the Pope and the bishops...
And so this long-awaited Letter for the restoration of Eucharistic worship was no more than a re-iteration of the conciliar and montinian theses on the liturgical “ renewal ”, the centre-piece and efficient cause of the Church’s renewal in accordance with Vatican II. The letter sings the praises of the Council, which spoke to the Church and gave her valuable directives both for the present and for the future, in the (twofold) light of the signs of the times (!) and of the Gospel. But when the time came to examine the complaints, the doubts and the criticisms that had been expressed and to make a judgement to settle the debate, you evaded the duty of your apostolic responsibility and skirted around the issue !
“ Again, the Second Vatican Council changed some points, so that the present liturgy of the Mass differs somewhat (sic) from the form of Mass in force before the Council. But at present, we do not wish to speak of these differences; we are content to establish that which is unchangeable and touches the essence of the Eucharist. ” (No.8)
And, in that way, the gravest postconciliar attacks on the Church’s body and Soul are offhandedly alluded to and then evaded. As for the examination of the issues and their solution – postponed indefinitely ! Regarding the “ slight difference ” between the Catholic Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and the reformed, postconciliar Communion Service, the festive mass-meal, it is a question that has remained suspended since the April 3, 1969. But no, everything is going very well ! Here and there one still meets with a few bitter complaints about certain disorders, “ abuses which we are obviously the first to reprobate and to correct (!!!) ”. (At Issy-les-Moulineaux, quoted above, Centurion p.153). But as for the essential, the liturgical reform is the Council’s great success.
Well, it is not so ! I have under my eyes a “ Circular Letter dealing with some of the more urgent aspects of spiritual formation in the seminaries ”, produced by the Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, still presided over by the ruinous Cardinal Garrone. I say ruinous, because everything entrusted to him has been immediately and totally ruined by him.
The analysis of the ravages caused by “ the postconciliar storms ” is impressive, although very far short of the whole truth. Who cannot fail to see in this saddening summary the direct effect of the loss of Eucharistic devotion among the clergy and the future members of the clergy ? The following is a brief list of what the Cardinal warns against:
– The dangers of grave confusion among those seek to find in Asiatic mysticism “ short cuts ” that promise too much too soon, but which deviate from the goal (which is union with God ?), creating false needs and giving the illusion of automatic but deceptive results. The danger of mistaking a certain human warmth for spiritual well being. The danger of violence to the body in order to cleanse the soul. The dangers inherent in certain haunting music.
– Erroneous beliefs on the reality of the Sacrifice, on the Real Presence, and on the fundamental aspect which is that of Christ’s sacrifice, outside which the eucharistic meal (sic) loses its meaning.
– The disequilibrium (sic) of the faith in and through “ creative ” liturgy.
– The clear evidence of the following scandal. In the eyes of the faithful and indeed in the perception of the priest himself, the meaning of the “ sacraments of the faith ” is increasingly degraded when the priest who administers them – Confession, the anointing of the Sick, and above all the Eucharist – is habitually careless if not wholly secular in his dress.
– The abuse of “ collective absolutions ” and of “ penitential celebrations ”, which, through a corresponding decline in private penance, is responsible, at least in part, for a spectacular decline in religious vocations.
– The fact that “ obedience ” is now often regarded as a forbidden word. This something that will have to cease (ah !).
– The obliteration of devotion to the Blessed Virgin, which very often obscures a frank affirmation of the mystery of Christ and of the Incarnation itself.
Such is the generous and apostolic “ progressivism ” for which you reserve all your acts of kindness, favours, prebends, and honours, whilst you persecute “ integrism ”, which – out of bad spirit, of course ! – cultivates every devotion and virtue contrary to these vices and disorders.
After observations such as those made by the Cardinal Prefect, any right-minded, normal Pope would feel himself obliged and impelled by the urgency of the task – caritas urget nos ! (2 Cor. 5.14) – to combat these appalling disorders, to remedy them and to sanction their instigators with the full weight of his authority. But not you ! You do nothing about it, and now we understand why. You are somewhere else: on the side of the new humanism, which tomorrow will be the new religion of a new and much vaster church. And all these disorders ultimately lead in that direction ! Their paths may be a little hair-brained and erratic, but they lead away from yesterday’s theocentrism to tomorrow’s secular anthropocentrism. So, you are not at all anxious to intervene.
And what does this worm of a Cardinal Prefect do ? In order to clean out the Wojtylian-Augean stables, he makes “ a suggestion ”, or rather the expression of the wish of a suggestion:
“ In truth ”, he states in sending this circular letter to all those responsible for this state of affairs, “ we hope that this suggestion will be made welcome and will gradually be inscribed in all institutions in a solid and lasting manner. ”
What is this suggestion ? It is as hollow as an empty nutshell: “ A period of preparation for the seminary, devoted exclusively to spiritual formation. ” But who is to be responsible for this spiritual formation ? And what sort of spirituality will be fostered ? The Cardinal is not going to think about the question; indeed he dares not think about it ! And what if they spend this extra year of spiritual formation doing Yoga and Zen ?
Cardinal Garrone is beaten before he starts: “ Clearly, this will not always be possible, but many possibilities are open to the generous imagination of those who are willing to understand and to put into operation the above suggestion, and to those who trust in Christ’s grace to help them. ”
“ If such a suggestion were to be accepted, the indications and recommendations made in the Circular Letter would have every chance, we hope, of yielding fruit. ” The conclusion with its unrealistic conditional clause, as unlikely as it is problematic, allows us to see the extent of the collapse of Roman authority. And no one else is responsible but You personally, for you and you alone are the Pope, the Supreme Authority. How is it that you no longer exist ?
Incredible though it may seem, the Church has become the Republic according to Marcel Sembat, “ the headless Woman ”. If this pontifical non-existence is due to your other functions, such as that of international expert in secular humanism, then go ! Leave for Manhattan or Moscow, but let another take your place to rule as the Good Shepherd over the flock entrusted by Christ to St. Peter. Let another lead, teach and sanctify this flock with no other concern than that of doing the Will of his Lord and Master.
THE SELF-DEPOSITION OF A DISTORTED CHURCH
We have now arrived at the final and most striking act of your combat against the Church. It is the distortion, self-deposition and depersonalisation of the Church, so that she become a thing of no name or identity, of no form or proper finality, manipulated by the power of Man (you know him well) in the service of Humanity.
The annihilation of religion is already well advanced; the realities of worship have been reduced to make way for myths, symbolism and play. This transformation of religion has been effected by the mutation of the Church in the wake of the Council and promoted in the name of the Holy Spirit. This makes such an evolution look like it is the will of Christ, carried out and controlled by the hierarchy. The forces of religious cohesion, labelled “ integrism ”, have been crushed and driven out. The disintegrating forces of modernism, relabelled “ progressivism ”, have been supported. Your lack of interest for ecclesiastical and liturgical quarrels has hastened the Church’s degeneration as a religion and as a visible, organic, hierarchical, Christian community established for our supernatural salvation. Under your pontificate, the Church has become a mere storeroom or reservoir from whence militants can be drawn for mass demonstrations. Alas, the only worry is that, having lost its religion and the memory of its identity, the tired old horse may collapse under its rider. The branch on which the woodcutter is sitting, the better to saw it off, will crash down with him on it.
But for the moment, you can still show the Church to the World, to UNO, to the Trilateral, and declare that she no longer is what she until quite recently was. You can demonstrate to the world that she no longer ranks the salvation of her members as the number one priority, but as number fifty-six. You can present the Church as no longer claiming to be the sole, exclusive means of well-being for all humanity and for each individual person, but as one among many means, not necessarily the first. Some future international jury adjudicating on a world competition of major religions in the service of mankind can decide the order of priority.
The Church is the friend and the servant of every man, whoever he may be. The Church is the friend of man’s dignity and freedom… and “ she has now broken with the celebrated formula ‘ Outside the Church there is no salvation ’, which was not so terrible after all, since no-one knew the exact limits of the Church. ” (N’ayez pas peur p.111) Eventually there was only a residue of fanaticism, but all this is forgotten now. Under your guidance, the Church has become fully human, in both her ends and her means, and she makes sure that this is understood by the world and all its platforms and great organisations.
The Church of today is concerned to show herself characterised by a more perfect and even religious liberalism, and by an ecumenism that is open to all Christians, to all monotheist and polytheist believers, and to atheists, whose unbelief is only an inverted form of belief. Finally, the Church is the servant of a one-worldism, ready for any sacrifice in the interests of a truly human civilisation. The Council had laid the foundations for this threefold enterprise; Paul VI had created the commissions for the necessary dialogue and co-operation; and you have followed all this and consolidated it with your speeches and bold initiatives.
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, HUMAN LIBERTY
Taking my stand on a strictly Catholic position and refusing to switch to another track, I have always maintained that this social liberty in matters of religion – which was the object of a vague conciliar “ Declaration ” and was obtained through some quite shameful manoeuvring ! (CRC, Preparing Vatican III: Christian Liberty, Eng. Ed., June 1972) – is heretical. I maintain and persist in declaring that you yourself are heretical if only for this one reason, which I regard as capital and decisive. In effect:
“ If anyone says that liberty and religious liberty in the first place, which consists in the social right to practise, proclaim, and spread one’s convictions in matters of religion or in related moral, political and social matters, is a natural, fundamental right of man living in society, let him be anathema. ” (CRC Eng. Ed., August 1981)
I do not claim of myself the right to cast an anathema on Vatican II, on Paul VI, or on You ! I am simply repeating, like a magnetic tape, the lesson I have learned from Apostolic Tradition, in particular from Holy Scripture, and from the constant and formal teaching of the Church’s magisterium. As for instance this quotation from Pius XII, whom I mischievously cited one day without naming him, as though he were still the reigning Pope (“ An admirable speech by the Pope ”, CRC, French Ed., June 1979. Integral text of the Discourse to the union of Catholic jurists, December 6, 1953):
“ This is religious and moral tolerance in its true perspective: firstly, anything that fails to correspond objectively to the truth and to the moral law has no right to existence, to propagation, or to action. Secondly, the fact of not repressing error using the laws of the State or coercive measures can be justified if it is intended in the interests of a higher and more general good. ”
Such is the Catholic “ point of view ”, which I call the truth, because it is the truth of the Revealed Truth, the supreme measure of all human truth and the rule of our conduct. And when Pius XII, with the entire Tradition, refers to “ a higher and more general good ” to justify non-intervention by the State, what he had in mind was certainly not some purely political, worldly or temporal interest, nor the cultural advantage of some secular humanism, but the good of our souls in view of their eternal salvation, which coincides with the supreme good of God’s Glory.
But states which exercise this tolerance too widely are failing in their duty to evangelise and civilise peoples – re-read Charles de Foucauld’s letters on French colonisation in North Africa – and they sin through their immoralism.
But for you, this tolerance is still too Christian, too marked with theocentrism for your humanist designs. You want the Church to change on essentials, on the definition of the common good, from which all reference to God must be excluded, and on the definition of the Truth, which must no longer be the Reality and the Law of God, but rather the liberty of man. Clearer than in a hundred other texts, this mad apostasy of the Pope appears in the message addressed to the Madrid Conference of the signatories to the Helsinki Agreement. The address was yours, and it was read by your representative on November 11, 1980 in the name of the Church ! Here is your profession of atheist humanism.
“ The Catholic Church, by virtue of her universal religious mission (we shall soon see that apart from its being the religion of man, this mission has nothing religious about it at all), the Church feels a deep obligation to help the men and the women (!) of our times to advance the great causes of peace and social justice in order to make the world a more welcoming and more human place.
“ These are noble ideals to which the peoples of the world so ardently aspire and which, in a particular way, are the responsibility of the world’s various governments. And because of the changing social and historical situation, the realisation and adaptation of these ideals will need the continuous support of new reflections and new initiatives, which will be all the more valid for proceeding from a dialogue that is multilateral and constructive. ”
That then is the arena, swept clean of the supernatural, in which you intend the Church to move. Such, for you, is the real world, the true human world, rigorously emptied of all supernatural concerns. You draw your secular deductions:
“ If one reflects on the many factors making for peace and justice in the world, one is struck by the ever growing importance assumed under this aspect by... (Here, I interrupt. Is the papal speech, supported by its immense prestige, the white soutane, and the fine red mantle, going to re-introduce, into this closed world, the matter of religion ? – the ever growing importance assumed by the need for God, the quest for the truth, and the anxious, fascinating thought of the beyond ? Definitely not ! You are an atheist, and you will continue as such to the very end)… by the ever growing importance assumed under this aspect (of justice and peace) by the widespread aspiration to see equal dignity guaranteed for every man and every woman, so that all may share in material goods and have effective enjoyment of spiritual goods, and thence of their corresponding inalienable rights. ”
The good life on this earth is peace and social justice. Full stop; that is all. In our century, this is intensely and generally felt as a demand for the equal enjoyment of having and of being, and even of more-than-being, brought about by free participation in the nourishment of body and mind, nourishment that is earthly or heavenly, possibly infernal, not that it matters. It is definitely infernal. Is it this that Church will aid and serve ? Yes:
“ In the last few decades, the Catholic Church has reflected more deeply on the theme of human rights, and in particular on the liberty of conscience and of religion. These reflections have been stimulated by the daily experience of the Church herself and of believers from every region and from every social background. ” And so she desires to “ present some particular considerations to help facilitate a serious examination of the current situation of this liberty, so that liberty may everywhere be effectively guaranteed. ”
“ She does so from a consciousness of thus responding to the common commitment, contained in the Helsinki Agreement, ‘ to encourage and promote the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights proceeding from the dignity inherent in the human person and essential to his full and free development. ’ She thus intends to take her inspiration from that criterion which recognises ‘ the universal importance of human rights and of fundamental liberties, respect for which is an essential factor in the peace, justice and social well-being necessary to ensure the development of cordial relations and co-operation between men and between states ’. ”
There we have the whole truth about man, where you are going to accommodate the various religions, reconciling “ the religious conception of the world with the agnostic or even atheistic conception, in a confrontation which should be able to preserve honest and respectful human dimensions while not interfering with the essential rights of the conscience of every man and woman living on this earth. ”
Dignus est intrare ! Digna est intrare ! “ The Church believes that she can make a broad contribution to humanising still more the family of man and its history ”, you said to the Justice and Peace commission a few days later (Documentation Catholique, December 21, p.1175). Yes, you are worthy to enter into that society of luciferian humanists who have emptied and totally expurgated God from the world ! The Church is worthy to be accepted as a member of the great Harlot of the Apocalypse, that community of religions henceforth working for the adoration of Man, to the contempt of God !
Most of those who follow you imagine that your many speeches, meetings and journeys are aimed at securing for the Church a greater freedom for her TRUTH from oppressive human powers. Not at all ! It is the other way round. It is the Church that must have no other truth than that of Man’s LIBERTY, if she is to gain the satisfaction of lying down with this world.
“ Here ”, I said of your Redemptor hominis, “ all is reconciled. The truth that is entitled to freedom of expression and action is that which persuades man of his dignity as a fully aware and responsive being – free, therefore, to think, speak and act as he likes. The freedom of truth consists in proclaiming the truth of freedom ! This verbal sleight of hand, if one thinks about it, restricts all truth to the closed sphere of the human ego’s freedom, and there we have the cult of God subjected to the cult that man offers to himself. ” (CRC, April 1979, p.6; referring to Redemptor hominis, no.12).
“ And so ”, as I said following your visit to France, “ each one must remain faithful to his own culture, the faith and religion of which are its most remarkable element. No doubt, our Christianity is the best of them all. For us it is even the only true one. For us ? Not for the others ? Not for all ? Without settling the question in the abstract (!), John Paul II recognises the fact that others have other beliefs. So, for him, charity rhymes with liberty rather than with verity. It is a copernican revolution effected by our Pope, spiritual son of Paul VI and of the Council. ” (CRC, September 1980, p.12)
ECUMENISM HAS NO FURTHER FRONTIERS
In this atheistic humanism of religious folklore, all religions are henceforth related, all Churches and Counter-Churches have a real, human, essential bond, compared with which their ideologies and so-called dogmatic constructions are clearly secondary. All must belong to this UN or spiritual UNESCO, which will soon manage the religious and sentimental phantasms of mankind for the greater good of men, for their harmony and common spiritual development. Philosophically, this is what you have accepted by wanting no more than a “ noumenal ” God, and by impressing all religion with a subjective relativism, so that religions are no more than “ phenomenal ” representations. If there is no historical revelation and no objective religion, then they are all called upon to coalesce. Your ecumenism is based on this level of fundamental principles and is regarded by you as a necessity for modern times. Your secular humanism determines your every move and will allow you no deviation. Every man is my brother...
“ I cannot forget my meeting with the Chief Rabbi and his collaborators in Istanbul, with the Jewish community of New York in Battery Park, with the chief Muslims in Nairobi, in Accra and in Uganda, with the Hindu leaders in Nairobi, and again with the Muslim and Jewish communities in Paris [...] I remember audiences given to several groups of Buddhists and Shintoists at the Vatican.
“ Everywhere, the Pope bears within him a profound awareness that God ‘ wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth ’ (1 Tim. 2.4), regardless of religious tradition or adherence. It is an awareness of Christ’s redemptive work wrought by His blood, shed for all men irrespective of their belief or unbelief.
“ Everywhere, the Pope also brings an awareness of the universal brotherhood of all men, in the name of which all men should feel themselves to be united concerning the great and difficult problems of the whole human family: peace, freedom, justice, hunger, culture and other problems which, with God’s help, I dealt with at length when I addressed the General Assembly of the United Nations at the UN Headquarters in New York on October 20 last year [...]. The Gospel is the great fundamental charter of this awareness. ”
That is an example of your ecumenical encounters, taken from one of your speeches to the Sacred College, June 28, 1980. (Documentation Catholique, July 1980, p.667)
“ Everywhere ”, you say, “ the Pope bears within him a profound awareness that... ” And one wonders how the cardinals in the Curia can listen to such speeches of relentless and insolent modernism. Thus, your “ awareness ” makes you regard as certain the common union and harmony – a shared finality that is real, natural, and earthly – of the whole human family. Such is your basic anthroposophy, determining your truly boundless ecumenical attitude. Whence – yes, truly whence – your restructuring of theology, come what may, for your “ conscience ” inspires you with this strange doctrine that all men are already saved, not just in title but in deed, through the redeeming Incarnation of Jesus the Son of God. All are saved, you say, believers and unbelievers alike.
And so, you turn around the ecumenical question, which is otherwise insoluble. All people will therefore be saved, or are on the way to salvation, in and through their motley religions... Each individual, therefore, is saved by his religion. Your awareness also tells you that, does it not ? This is a matter on which Fr. Congar, a professional theologian, would only advance with the utmost hesitation and guile, in the correspondence I had with him on the question... (Congar in discussion, CRC, November-December 1973) “ If one looks at it from the side of men, of the faithful belonging to these Communions, it can be said that those who belong to them in good faith are united to God and can work out their salvation not only in these communions, but by using the means of grace to be found therein. In this sense, it can be said that these communions are salvation communities. ” (Ibid) You see how prudent he is ! Journet, on the other hand, formally contradicts him (in times past !): “ Alongside the bad materials there are also some good materials... But even these good materials are put into operation in a spiritual form that is to be wholly rejected. ” (L’union des Églises, Grasset 1927)
If Journet is right, there is still only one Church, “ outside which there is no salvation ”, that is to say, there is no other community, church, sect or religion by which one can be saved. Which condemns all top level ecumenism between “ Churches ” and between religions... although there are certainly multitudes of human beings, born into those sects or religions, who are touched by Christ’s grace and the Church’s influence, and who are saved by ways other than those of their false religions or dissident communities. ” (On Ecumenism, CRC, July 1972)
But you have no such hesitations. For you, everyone finds in his own sect, church or religion – even his atheism – the necessary and sufficient “ means of salvation ” ! And so, you greet the Lutherans as brothers on the occasion of the 450th anniversary of the Confession of Augsburg, and you go to Canterbury to celebrate your common baptism with “ Archbishop ” Runcie – but is he an archbishop or not ? That is a question you would not answer for all the gold in the world, preferring to deceive both the Anglicans and the Catholics for as long as possible. Your participation in the Canterbury service was an act of “ communicatio in sacris ”, for which I vehemently reproached you, calling you “ a Public Sinner ”, Most Holy Father, with no regrets. (John Paul II, public sinner, CRC, July 1982)
And now you claim that our children should not only be taught the one true faith and our holy Catholic religion in the catechism, but other religions as well ! You must surely be inhabited by the perverse Spirit to write as you did in section 32 of your Apostolic Exhortation, Catechesi tradendae: “ In this (ecumenical) context ”, you say, “ it is extremely important to give a correct and honest presentation of other churches and ecclesial communities, which the Spirit of Christ does not refuse to use as means of salvation. ” That is a great lie and a perfidious heresy, doubtless revealed to you by your “ awareness ” ! You try to evade the difficulty, unsuccessfully, by hoping that in return the heretics and schismatics “ will have a better appreciation of the Catholic Church and of her conviction (sic) of being “ the general means of salvation. ”
Nothing like this will ever happen ! Having taken advantage of this self-deposition of the Church and of her disfigurement brought about by her supreme head – and what revenge for the humiliated pride of the dissenters, who were formerly struck by the Church and left chafing at the bit in the face of her indefectibility ! – these dissidents will end by refusing to see themselves debased by you and your own Church to that level of prostitution where you wish to confound each and everyone of them. This outcome is so certain and the shame brought on the Church will be so great in this grotesque levelling of all the sects – it is laughable when the sects come together in their ecumenical gatherings, each with its own religious frippery, reduced to the rank of bric-a-brac… or when you and the Dalai Lama mutually address yourselves as “ Your Holiness ” ! – that you have to refer to an express command of the Holy Spirit authorising you to persevere in this path:
“ Can we – despite all the difficulties accumulated over the past centuries (by Our predecessors, who did not have the great lights and the great virtues that we have !) – can we not have confidence in the grace of Our Lord, such as it has been revealed (sic) by the word of the Holy Spirit, which we heard (sic) during the Council ? ” I commented, “ An amazing statement to shut the mouths of opponents. May I be anathema if a divine word was heard at the Council… and especially one recommending ecumenism ! I say emphatically: may I be damned, if that happened ! ” (CRC, April 1979) But since my damnation would not be public knowledge, I prefer to write, perfectly calmly: May I be run over by a car and may ecumenism thus be rid of an adversary as fierce as he is sincere !
A ONE-WORLDISM OF ANTHROPOSOPHIC LOVE
OR A RETURN TO THE WORLD JEWISH ALLIANCE ?
By pushing just a little more, your ecumenism will truly gather in all men – an extension pushed to the limits of the universe – and will show them feelings of esteem, love and support, but also, alas, feelings of superficiality bordering on absolute meaninglessness. You know that the “ comprehension ” of a term is in inverse proportion to its “ extension ”, or as the popular wisdom puts it, Excessive kissing, bad embracing.
“ On all sides – Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish – America opens its heart to me ”, you said, as you descended from the aeroplane at Boston. ” For my part, I come to you, America, with feelings of friendship, respect and esteem. ” Then in the course of the Mass celebrated on Boston Common: “ I greet all Americans without distinction; I desire to meet you and to say to you all – men and women – of whatever religious faith or ethnic origin, children and young people, fathers, mothers, the sick and the aged – that God loves you and that He has conferred on you, as human beings, an incomparable dignity. I wish to say to each one of you that the Pope is your friend and the servant of your humanity. ” (Documentation Catholique, October 21, 1979, p.870)
Those “ anti-ecumenists ”, as La Croix calls them, were certainly right when they noted, after your words in Redemptor hominis (no.6), that ecumenism “ harms the cause of the Gospel, leads to a new rupture within the Church, provokes confusion of ideas in matters of faith and morals, and ends in a characteristic indifferentism ” ! What can be the meaning of an “ incomparable ” dignity bestowed on each and every one of those two hundred million American citizens ? Their demagogues tell them the same… and even more ! Outside the Catholic faith, they are just empty words. And what are this “ friendship ” and this “ service ” which are directed to the “ humanity ” within men, rather than to their hearts and souls ?
Every demagogic speech conceals a hidden intention. Whoever declares that he loves, admires and serves all men has a certain category of men in mind, who are most distant from him, most hostile and contrary to him, and with whom he wishes to be reconciled. What in all the world is most powerful, most contrary and most hostile to the Catholic Church of Christ, the Son of God made man ? To ask the question is to answer it. The Church, in your one-worldism, is seeking out the Synagogue. In so doing, the Church lowers herself, she grovels and denies herself before the other, who will never renounce its pride and ambition for world domination, and who will only respond to the Church’s advances the better to prostitute her, before putting her to death a second time.
As for your preferential seeking after the Jewish Alliance, I have only to quote your own words taken from a hundred speeches. At Mainz, you said, “ Christians should feel themselves to be the brothers of all men and behave as such. But this sacred obligation is all the greater when Christians find themselves faced with those who are of the Jewish people ! In their ‘ Declaration on the relationship between the Church and Judaism ’ of April of this year 1980, the bishops of the German Federal Republic began with this statement: ‘ Whoever encounters Jesus Christ encounters Judaism. ’ I would also like to make these words my own [...] The depth and richness of our common inheritance are particularly revealed in friendly dialogue and trusting collaboration [...] It is not simply a question of rectifying the false religious vision we have of the Jewish people, which has partly been the cause of so much misunderstanding and persecution in the course of history. Above all, it is a question of dialogue between two religions, which – together with Islam – have given the world faith in the one ineffable God, who speaks to us and whom we wish to serve in the name of the whole world. ” (Meeting with the Jewish Community at Mainz, November 17, 1980; DC December 21, p.1148-1149. I remind you also of your strange speech to the leaders of the world Jewish organisations of March 12, 1979 in Rome ! - DC, April 1, p.333)
There we have a one-worldism which sees in Judaism and Christianity “ the privileged religious whole ”, on which has devolved from Above the priestly role of praising the one God (together with Islam). The truth is quite different. Islam apart, since it rides alone, only two powerful religions deserve consideration and two alone: the one has conquered Heaven and the other intends to dominate the Earth. The former wants the conversion of the other, and the latter wants the annihilation of the former. You, Most Holy Father, are the supreme head of the One Holy Church, which you propose to deliver into the hands of the other, the Synagogue, to share out world domination between them (cf. Mt. 4.9)... Everything else is pure literature.