THE VOICE now in 10th year
A Catholic Traditionalist journal dedicated to:
the Truth in Catholic Journalism; the complete annulment of
Vatican Council II and all its directives and subsequent
documents; the full restoration of the Roman Catholic Church to
the status-quo of pre-Vatican II.
NOTE (1998): The above information is obsolete. Mr. McGovern deceased in early 1978. The HTML conversion of this issue of Fortes in Fide is dedicated to his memory, as his publication, The Voice, was certainly among the most interesting and useful traditional Catholic newspapers of that time (the 1970s).
QUI ES TU?
QUI DICIS DE TEIPSUM?
On 25 October 1964, while the
Second Vatican Council was still in session, I wrote a personal
letter to Pope Paul VI. This letter had also been signed by
more than 430 French priests. Its intention was to expose
the doctrinal, liturgical and moral errors which were already
starting to emerge throughout the Catholic world, under the guise
of the Council's move towards "aggiornamento."
PRELIMINARY ESSENTIALS
What underlies this entire business (and a
very serious business it is for all of us) is that most precious
of all possessions: our eternal salvation. To gain this
supreme treasure, we ought to be willing, with the help of
God's grace, to sacrifice everything we hold most dear, including
our very own lives. Starting from such a premise, there can
naturally be no question of our being reproached with irreverence
and disrespect in our attempt to solve the riddle that Paul VI
represents.
This letter, signed - let me make it
absolutely clear - by over 430 priests of all ages, remained
unanswered in spite of my having taken it to Rome myself, so that
there could be no question of its not having been delivered to
the Pope. And what is more, I know for a fact that he did
receive it.
I wrote another letter on 10 November
1970. This time I took steps to make the authorities answer
me by making the letter public, although it had originally been
addressed to the Pope in person.
Yet again: total silence. The only
answer I received was a letter from Cardinal Duval, Archbishop of
Algiers and my former diocesan, begging me to put an end to what
he termed "my abuse of the Holy Father."(1)
To me, and to all my fellow Catholics who no
longer understood the changes which had been imposed upon us with
such callous brutality, and to which Paul VI seemed utterly
indifferent, his attitude was bewildering. This is why my
second letter ended with the twofold question, "Who are
you? How do you plead?"
Because I am still waiting for an answer from
the only person able to enlighten us, and whose duty it is to do
so, I propose to try to deduce what this answer might be from the
actions, words and the calculated silences of Pope Paul.
Let us never forget that one of the specific
responsibilities of the papacy is the confirming of our
faith. We should also bear in mind here that Paul VI has
never shown the slightest sign of responding to our distress,
when we have asked him specific questions about that very faith
he is supposed to strengthen.(2) Not only has he not replied, he has continued to
preside, not over the self-destruction of the Church, a
term that is unacceptable in that it would be utterly blasphemous
if taken literally(3),
but rather the destruction of the Church by those among its
members whom he has appointed to and maintains in positions of
authority.
"And that great dragon was cast out, that old
serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the
whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were
thrown down with him . . . Woe to the earth and to the sea,
because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath,
knowing that he hath but a short time."
"Be sober and watch: because your adversary the devil as a
roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour."
I. - THE NATURE OF THE CONSPIRACY.
If the extreme seriousness of the crisis in
which we are living is to be fully understood, it is essential
for us to bear in mind the many warnings various popes have not
ceased to give since the eighteenth century. Two hundred
years ago they were acutely aware of a conspiracy against the
Church by the Freemasons. And a very real plot it
was. Its sole aim was nothing less than the destruction of
the Church. But despite all the subtle connivings of
Freemasonry and its adherents, the plotters themselves, through
that divine Providence which constantly watches over the Church,
revealed their own plans.
The Methods to be used.
Let us now examine the evidence revealing the
methods devised by the plotters to achieve their aims.
Constant warnings by the Popes.
Precisely because they had acquired certain
knowledge of the conspiracy and the methods the enemies of Christ
intended to use, the popes have never ceased to put Christendom
on its guard. Take, for example, Pope Leo XIII's warning
against Freemasonry in his encyclical of 1884, Humanum
Genus: "In the present age, those who connive at the
dissemination of evil seem combined together in one tremendous
endeavour, inspired and abetted by a Society that is both
strongly organised and spread far and wide, the Society of
Freemasons. It is a fact that they no longer make any
attempt to conceal their intentions, and they vie with each other
in seeking to demonstrate their audacity in their attack upon the
august majesty of God . . .
Summary of the first part.
A plot was laid against the Church by her
enemies within the shadowy depths of the secret societies.
Its aim was to destroy her from within.
II. - SIXTY YEARS LATER: THE CLERGY CONTAMINATED.
A. - Fogazzaro's "Il Santo."
In 1905, sixty years after Nubius had written
giving Volpe his instructions, a novel entitled Il
Santo (The Saint) was published. Its author was an
Italian Modernist, Antonio Fogazzaro (1842-1911).
Subsequently placed on the Index, the novel reveals two very
important facts. They are:
B. - A Selection from other Modernist Writings.
Fogazzaro is not the only writer to have
provided information about the results obtained by the
dissemination of Masonic ideas. Statements made by others
show beyond any shadow of doubt that these ideas had made
considerable headway, and that there were a great many in the
ranks of their supporters who expected that, in a very short
time, there would be changes in Catholic doctrine and liturgy
which would not only reform the Church, but would prepare it for
absorption into a syncretist and universal Super-Church.
C. - Leo XIII's Encyclical on Freemasonry.
A re-reading of Leo XIII's encyclical,
Humanum Genus, shows how widespread were the
Masonic dreams that he condemned. Here is a selection.
III. - SIXTY YEARS FURTHER ON: THE CHURCH UNDER ENEMY
OCCUPATION.
It is enough to re-read the express aims of
the modernists to realise that they have now all been achieved,
and in precisely the way the movement wished.
Apocalypse 12, 9-12
1 Peter 5, 8
And yet it is he, the devil, Satan, the
serpent of old, who from the very beginning has tried to drown
the emergent Church in a torrent of blood. It is he who
throughout the ages has raised up heretics to destroy the Church
from within.
Happily, as we read in the book of Job, Satan
can pursue his aims only insofar as God permits. Unhappily,
we have at the same time been warned by the Fathers of the
Church, that whatever the magnitude of the persecutions permitted
when the Church was in its primitive stage, God has postponed
until the last days an even more insidious betrayal which uses
persuasion rather than violence.
St. Cyprian, writing in the third century,
warned that "there is an evil even worse and more deadly than
persecution: the insidious poisoning of men's minds." In
the seventeenth century, the French bishop and theologian,
Bossuet, wrote: "There are two sorts of persecution of the
Church: the first kind is the violence used against it during its
earliest beginnings under the Roman Empire; the second is a
subtle corruption which will occur during the last days."
Recalling Our Lord's words to Peter on the
eve of His Passion, "Behold Satan hath desired to have you, that
he may sift you as wheat" (Luke 22, 31), Pope Pius XII said, in
his address to the clergy and parish priests of the diocese of
Rome, delivered 23 March 1949, that these were "words of the
utmost significance for the times in which we are living.
They are applicable not only to the shepherds but also to their
flock in its entirety. Faced with the OVERWHELMING
RELIGIOUS DISPUTES WE ARE WITNESSING, we can rely only on those
of the faithful who pray and make every effort, even at the price
of the greatest sacrifices, to live in conformity with God's
law. All the others - on the supernatural plane and this is
the plane of which we speak - are vulnerable, open to every blow
struck by the enemy." Let such people not forget that they
will be swept away.
At the very heart of the Masonic movement lay
a faction, even more secret than the others, which rapidly gained
control. These were the Illuminati formed in 1778 by
Adam Weishaupt, Professor of Canon Law at the University of
Ingolstadt in Bavaria. They were known in France under the
name of Martinistes, and elsewhere as
Perfectabilists.
In 1785, one of Weishaupt's close associates,
an apostate priest called Lanz, was carrying important
instructions from his leader when he was struck dead by
lightening. The papers found on his body led to the
exposure and trial of the leading conspirators. Details
were made public by the Elector of Bavaria whose intention was to
warn other Christian powers of the plot against them, for the
Masonic sects planned, as a preliminary to their ultimate aim of
destroying the Church, the destruction of those states and
monarchs which protected her.
During the nineteenth century, the Alta
Vendità, the main branch of the Carbonari(4), the Italian nationalist
movement founded in Naples and which had strong links with
international Freemasonry, succeeded the Illuminati as overall
controllers of those secret societies conspiring against the
Church.
Carbonarist documents covering the period
1820-1846 came into the possession of Pope Leo XII. They
were published by a French writer, Jacques Cretineau-Joly, in his
book entitled L'Eglise Romaine en face de la
Révolution (The Catholic Church and the Revolution), at
the request of Gregory XVI and his successor, Pius IX. In a
brief of commendation addressed to the author, the latter (25
February 1861) gave as it were his blessing to the belief that
the documents were authentic, but at the same time withheld
permission to publish the real names of those involved in the
conspiracy. We know them only by their Masonic pseudonyms:
Nubius Volpe ("Fox"), Piccolo Tigre ("Tiger-cub"), etc.
Bear in mind that Pius IX's brief of
commendation established beyond any shadow of doubt that the
documents published by Cretineau-Joly were genuine. The
following quotations are taken from those documents.
"What we have to work for, seek, expect, in
the same way that the Jews expect the Messiah, is A POPE THAT
WILL FULFILL OUR PLANS."
Nubius, the leader of the Alta Vendità,
wrote to Volpe on 3 April 1844 as follows: "My dear Fox, there
has been a very heavy load given to us to bear. We can only
achieve our aim by slow and calculated advances, albeit scarcely
discernible as yet, towards the VICTORY OF REVOLUTION ACHIEVED BY
MEANS OF A POPE."
The secret orders continued: "This Pope,
whoever he may be, must never approach the secret
societies. On the contrary, it is they who must make the
initial approaches to the Church, in order to accomplish the
destruction of both Church and Pope. The task we are
embarking on will not be accomplished in a day, perhaps not even
in a hundred years, but while individual soldiers within our
ranks may fall the struggle goes on. We should not count on
converting popes to our cause, to make them share our beliefs and
disseminate our ideas. To think that we could is a
ludicrous fantasy. Moreover, whatever may happen in the
future, should, for instance, cardinals or prelates intentionally
or unintentionally learn any of our secrets it would be a grave
mistake to desire that one of their number should be made
Pope. It that were to happen, all would be lost. For
ambition alone would have led him to apostasy: his need to
consolidate his own power would compel him to eliminate us."
Let there be no misunderstanding here.
None of us should forget that these conspirators' plans for
destroying the Church were dependent upon "a pope that would
fulfill their plans. Not a pope giving cause for scandal,
like Alexander VI (Borgia), but a pope susceptible to outside
influence."
These instruments of Satan had no doubt about
their ultimate success, as witness the following: "We have no
doubts about our bringing this venture to a successful
conclusion. The question is when and how. The unknown
man has not yet been revealed. Nevertheless, nothing must
make us deviate from the plan we have contrived. On the
contrary, all must pursue this one sole end as if it were to be
crowned by success tomorrow, despite its being as yet hardly
drafted in outline."
"Thus we must, to make absolutely sure that
we have a pope with the requisite set of opinions, ensure first
and foremost that he is provided with a generation of subjects
worthy of the pontificate on which our hopes are fixed.
Abandon all attempts to recruit the old and the
middle-aged. Concentrate instead on the young, and
especially children wherever possible, for it is youth in the
broadest sense that we have to enrol in our ranks, without their
becoming aware of what is happening. This is a dangerous
course of action, but a sure one: it must be followed carefully,
step by step and for this two things are absolutely,
unquestionably necessary. You must seem as simple as doves,
but be as wise as serpents. Never utter one single word in
the presence of those you are seeking to influence that could be
taken as being irreligious or impure: maxima debentur puero
reverentia. Once you have established a reputation
in colleges, schools, universities, seminaries; once you have won
the trust of teachers and pupils, so contrive it that those who
are foremost in zeal among the clergy, come to you for advice . .
.
"A reputation of this kind will enable our
doctrines to sink deep into the hearts and minds of the young
priests, and to become rooted in religious houses
everywhere. Within a few years those same young priests
will, in the inevitable course of time, have taken over the
principal functions within the Church: they will be the
administrators, governors, judges, counsellors to those in the
highest authority, be called upon to elect the pope. And
this pope, like the majority of his peers, will of necessity be
imbued with the Italian and humanist principles we are about to
disseminate in the manner I have just described . . .
Let the clergy march forth beneath your banner, believing that it
is still emblazoned with the Keys of Peter. Cast your nets
like Simon Bar Jonah, cast them so that they trawl in the very
depths of every sacristy, every monastery - and if you are
circumspect, you will be guaranteed a catch more miraculous than
his . . . You will have preached revolution in cope and
tiara, marching with cross and banner, a revolution such as will
require only the slightest extra impetus to set the four corners
of the world on fire."
"Faced with such dire peril, confronted with
an attack of such cruelty and hostility to the Christian Faith,
it is our duty to give warning of this peril, to denounce our
foes and with every means at our disposal to resist their plans
and the energy they put into furthering them . . .
"This danger was denounced for the first time
by Clement XII in 1738 and the constitution promulgated by that
pope was renewed and confirmed by Benedict XIV. Pius VII
followed in their footsteps and Leo XII re-affirmed in his
apostolic constitution, Quo Graviora, all the acts
and decrees of his predecessors concerning this matter, ratifying
and confirming them in perpetuity. Pius VIII, Gregory XIV
and Pius IX have on many occasions delivered the same message."
God, ever mindful of the Bride of His Son,
has willed that the Supreme Heads of the Church should be made
aware of this satanic plot, and of the methods devised for it to
succeed.
To achieve the destruction of the Church from
within by means of "a Pope susceptible to outside influence" the
secret instructions proposed the dissemination of "Italian and
humanist principles" i.e. the tenets of Freemasonry.(5)
The evidence is known to us from a letter
written by the head of the main branch of the Carbonari, and
dated 3 April 1844.
1. The success that had been achieved by
the ideas put into circulation sixty years earlier by the secret
societies.
We learn from Fogazzaro that there had come
into existence within the Church what the characters in his novel
call "a Catholic Freemasonry." And in addition, that this
group felt sufficiently confident to bring out into the open
opinions and views previously restricted to a closed circle of
initiates. It was, as Leo XIII had made clear in 1884,
quite evident that "Freemasons no longer take the precaution of
concealing their intentions . . . They are engaged in their
efforts to ruin the Church publicly, out in the open . . ."
2. Il Santo also reveals the
aims of this "Catholic Freemasonry", a genuine sectarian movement
that had, in St. Pius X's words, "pierced to the very bowels and
veins of the Church." The ultimate aim was explained as
follows by Fogazzaro, at the beginning of his novel: "Here we
are, a given number of Catholics in and outside Italy, clergy and
laity alike, who wish to see the Church reformed. We have
no desire to emerge as open rebels, our wish is to see such a
reformation effected by lawful authority within the Church.
We seek reforms in religious education, the liturgy, the
discipline of the clergy, and in the supreme government of the
Church. To achieve this aim we need to form a climate of
opinion which will lead to the lawful authorities' acting in
conformity with our views, even if this means waiting twenty,
thirty, even fifty years."
St Yves d'Alveydre (1849-1909), a
supporter of such a world-wide syncretist church, wrote that the
constituents of the Universal Synarchic Church are these: the
preaching Church with the Gospels which is ruled by bishops,
popes and councils; the Church of Moses with the Torah, which is
ruled by the Gaon in Jerusalem; the Church of the Vedas, ruled by
the Agartha Lodge under direct angelic inspiration; the
Protestant Church of Luther, Mohammed's Islam, and the Church of
Shakia Muni (Buddha)."
Abbé Jeannin: "The Catholic
Church possesses the truth . . . but she imprisons it within an
inextricable maze of dogmas . . . she clothes it in such a way as
to conceal its true forms . . . [the Church] is truth draped in
veils of many different shades. The one and only universal
religion for all time and all places, Catholicism has become
confined in forms that suit certain peoples and periods, but not
the present age in which men live." Jeannin goes on to
propose that "the Church, unassailable in its teaching which is
the truth, must adapt it to meet the requirements of the
liberated human spirit. She can and must cast aside the
threadbare veil that conceals the soul of her theology, she must
repudiate the outworn formulas of the mediaeval Scholastics."
Ex-Canon Rocca (1830-1884), an
apostate priest, also aspired to "a new Christianity, sublime,
all-embracing, deep, truly universal in its aims, containing
within itself all knowledge. Such a Church will, as Victor
Hugo predicted, be capable in the end of creating a heaven wholly
on earth, of putting an end to frontiers, to sectarian divisions,
to racial, localised, and jealous churches, those prisoners of
Caesar, the diseased cells within the mighty social body of
Christ. Christianity is not concerned with the building of
some heathen temple: it is a universal religion into which all
the others will be absorbed." So sure was this apostate
priest of the forthcoming evolution, that be went so far as to
prophesy: "It is my belief that divine worship, as evidenced in
the liturgy, ceremonies, rituals and doctrines of the Roman
Church, will shortly undergo a radical transformation as the
result of an Ecumenical Council. This will simultaneously
bring about the restoration of the venerable simplicity of the
apostolic golden age, and provide the means for an adjustment
that will harmonise with the new developments in modern
civilisation and human awareness."
Ecumenism: "The major error of
the present age consists in the reducing of religion to a level
where no distinctions are made, and where all religions are seen
as being equal. This principle alone is sufficient to cause
the ruination of all religions, and of the Catholic religion, in
particular, inasmuch as it is the sole true religion and cannot,
therefore, without submitting to ultimate injury, tolerate that
other religions should be placed on an equal footing with
it."
Naturalism: "The objective of
the Freemasons, towards which all their efforts are directed, is
nothing less than the total destruction of that religious and
social order born of Christian institutions, and its replacement
by a new order moulded to their ideology, whose fundamental
principles and laws are taken from naturalist philosophy.
The naturalists and the Freemasons give no credence to the
Revelation we have been vouchsafed by God; they deny that our
first parents sinned, and that consequently the movements of
man's free will are, in some degree, weakened or disposed towards
evil."
Separation of Church and State:
"And thus, even were it to involve them in a protracted and
laborious struggle, the Freemasons intend to reduce, within the
innermost structures of secular society, that authority and
magisterium of the Church; whence the consequence that they apply
themselves to disseminate their ideas, and to fight for them
without respite, namely the absolute necessity of separating
Church and State."
Education: "In the education of
children there should be no methodical system of instruction, nor
should anything in the way of religious teaching be
imposed. It must be left to the child to choose the
religion towards which it is most attracted, on reaching an age
when it is capable of such a choice. In preparing for
participation in secular society a race of citizens of the kind
they dream of, they will in no way tolerate, in the education and
instruction of children, any intervention by ministers of the
Church, whether as teachers or as supervisors."
The Source of Power: [For them]
"all power resides in the people liberated from former
constraints; those who exercise the powers of government do so
only by the mandate or the consent of the people, in such manner
that when the will of the people changes, the rulers of the state
must be deprived of their power to govern, even though they may
be opposed to such deprivation."
Leo XIII's encyclical, and all the other
works so far quoted, date from the end of the last century.
Fogazzaro's novel of 1905 came a little later and expressed
modern (i.e. Masonic) ideas, in a more concise form.
He concentrated on the changes desired by Catholic
Freemasonry and how that group hoped to see them realised.
What was it the movement wanted?
A reform of the Church of Rome. Now accomplished: only the
wilfully blind can fail to realise the truth of this.
How did it hope the reform would be put
into effect? Without overt rebellion on their part; put
into effect by lawful authority. This is exactly what
characterises the "Paulist" reforms. They have been carried
out "without overt rebellion", by the Second Vatican Council,
i.e. "lawful authority."
What were the changes the movement
wanted? They were:
- "Reforms in religious education" We have the new
catechetics and the new theology;
- "Reforms in the liturgy" We have the new Mass and
the new Sacraments;
- "Reforms in the discipline of the clergy" Local
authorities flout all the laws of the Church, and the central
authorities in Rome have a new code of Canon Law in
preparation;
- "And reforms in the supreme government of the
Church." These have also been realised in the emphasis
on collegiality, the standing bishops' synod, national episcopal
conferences, priests' associations and the innumerable
secretariats for this and that.
Faced with these facts which no honest person
can deny, we are forced to draw the only conclusion possible:
the Roman Catholic Church is under enemy occupation.
WHAT EXACTLY DO WE MEAN WHEN WE SAY THE CHURCH IS UNDER ENEMY OCCUPATION? Simply that the Church has been infiltrated by her enemies, who have appropriated most of the key positions in her government. And it is a fact that it is only because the most important positions have been seized by the recourse to "overt rebellion, by means of lawful authority."
TWO UNAVOIDABLE QUESTIONS
1. Could it possibly be that the Holy See
itself is occupied by a member of the Masonic Sect?
2. Have not those members of the Church's
governing hierarchy, who put into effect all these reforms
desired by the secret societies thereby lost their lawful
authority?
Before an attempt is made to answer these
questions let it be remembered by readers:
- that there is a binding obligation upon every loyal member of
the faithful to organise a resistance movement against the
occupying enemy, and also;
- some tenets of traditional theology concerning the Church and
the papacy.
When a state or an institution is overrun by an
invader, it becomes the first duty of each citizen or member to
organise a resistance movement.
God's holy Church is at present occupied by
rulers who play the game of the enemy sects. It is the
duty, therefore, of each and every one of the faithful to play
his or her part in organising resistance to these enemies.
Moreover, before we go on to consider the responsibility of Pope
Paul VI in the situation, it is clear from the words of St.
Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, that by the fact
alone that his orders impose so many innovations which trouble
the Church today, every Christian has the right to resist such
orders, which are an abuse of power: "Just as it is licit to
resist a Pontiff who makes an assault upon his subjects' persons,
so is it equally licit to resist one who assaults their souls, or
attacks the civil order, but especially is it lawful to resist
one who attempts to destroy the Church. I say that it is
lawful to resist him, either by not carrying out his orders, or
by preventing their being carried out.(6)
Readers will find on the following pages a
selection of classic texts which pronounce authoritatively on
this question of resistance to ecclesiastical authorities.
THE DUTY OF ORGANISING RESISTANCE
It is, thus, clearly our duty to organise a movement of resistance.
But how? "Whom resist ye, strong in
faith" - "resistite fortes in fide," as we are exhorted to
do by St. Peter, the first Pope. First and foremost, this
means keeping intact our own inner faith and, next in priority,
that of all those we are in a position to help.
Keeping our faith means not allowing
our minds to lose their firm grasp of the deposit of Truth which
has come down to us from the Apostles, in an uninterrupted
transmission.
Keeping our faith means nourishing it,
strengthening it with the food of the Sacraments instituted by
Our Lord, administered under the proper forms and with the
correct intentions, in accordance with the unbroken practice of
His holy and infallible Church.
Keeping our faith means obeying the
commandments in the way that has always been understood by the
Catholic Church.
In this respect, we should not allow
ourselves to be confused by those misguided enough to try to make
us believe that by resisting our vacillating superiors, we cut
ourselves off from the Church and provoke a schism.
Schism is cutting oneself off from the
Church. But how can we cut ourselves off from the Church by
acting in the very way that ensures that we stay true to her
teaching, her worship and her moral truths? By acting in a
way that indicates our desire to obey God rather than men?
Once again, I have to stress that only a misguided or dishonest
mentality could pretend that we become schismatic by refusing to
change our religion.
FIRST EXAMPLE
Some people will say, "That's all very well,
but we have been taught that the Church is where Peter is:
"ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia." If you disobey the Pope
you cut yourself off from him. And that implies that you
also cut yourself off from the Church. And cutting yourself
off from the Church can't be anything other than schism, can
it?"
SECOND EXAMPLE
We are also likely to be asked: "At least
acknowledge that by your opposition you are setting yourselves up
as a state within a state, a church within the Church.
Aren't you therefore separating yourselves from the Church of
Jesus Christ, whose visible head on earth is the Pope?"
As we wrote above: THE FIRST DUTY OF EVERY
MEMBER OF THE BODY OF THE FAITHFUL IS TO OPPOSE THE OCCUPYING
POWER.
How much more is this the bounden duty of all
those who hold posts of responsibility within the Church:
priests, bishops, the Pope. When he placed his hands upon
those of us who have been ordained to the priesthood, the bishop
exhorted us "sacerdotem oportet praeesse." And where should
we be foremost if not in the defence of the faith?
According to Our Lord's own words every shepherd of his flock, be
he priest or bishop, must, under pain of being dismissed as a
hireling, be foremost in the ranks of the protectors of his sheep
against wolves in sheep's clothing,(8) even if it means losing
his life and - it hardly needs saying - his home, his daily
bread, his settled way of life and thought.
"Those who cut themselves off from the
Church retain no vestige of spiritual authority over those who
remain within the Church."
Our answer is that "of course cutting
yourself off from the Church means schism. But you do not
necessarily cut yourself off from the Church when you oppose the
Pope. St. Robert Bellarmine, who is, after all, a Doctor of
the Church, has reassured us on this point in the words quoted
above. And what is more, the Church's tradition has always
taught - and the Church enshrining this tradition is the one
Church of Christ - that the axiom, WHERE THE POPE IS,
THERE THE CHURCH IS is valid, only inasmuch as the Pope
behaves like a pope and head of the Church. Otherwise,
THE CHURCH IS NOT HIM AND HE IS NOT IN THE CHURCH."(7)
Clearly, he who creates confusion as a result
of the orders he himself has given, cannot be said to be behaving
as a Pope, or as head of the Church. Such orders
automatically constitute an abuse of authority, and it is
precisely for this reason that the traditional Church, Christ's
one and only Church, teaches us through St. Robert Bellarmine,
that "it is lawful to resist him either by not carrying out
his orders or by preventing their being carried out."
Our answer to this is: No.
Resistance movements opposing an invader during an occupation
have never set up a state within a state. Like them, and
for the same reasons, we are not setting ourselves up as a church
within the Church.
The reason for our resisting the occupying
powers is our desire to remain what we have always been: we go on
being what we were. We were of the Church, we shall
therefore stay in the Church.
It is, on the contrary, those who accept the
enemy occupation as part of the inevitable course of events, who
grant recognition to traitors to a sacred mission, who obey the
latter's orders and collaborate with them in the Church's
destruction - it is these who have set up a new church or, more
correctly, since there can no more be a new Church than there can
be a new Jesus Christ, are setting up a counter-church within the
Church: the abomination of desolation in the holy place.
Anybody in his right mind will not have the
slightest difficulty in understanding that the isolated
resistance cells, which are beginning to emerge and to be
organised throughout the Catholic world, whose members continue
to believe and to practise what the Church has always taught,
making no attempts to innovate, and preserving the true Faith
intact - these cannot be a new church. They constitute
Christ's Church, they keep her intact, longing for God's hour,
for which they are praying with such fervour, when they will be
permitted to fling out the enemies that occupy her today.
As for those who collaborate with that enemy
which has infiltrated the Church, or who argue in favour of
submission to treachery, they constitute, as we said above, not a
new Church, but a caricature of the Church, that is a
neo-Protestant or neo-Modernist aping of the truth. It is
they, in fact, who represent a counter-church, a synagogue of
Satan with all its apparatus of new priests, new rites, new Mass,
new sacraments, new catechisms and - to crown all - a new
ecumenical Bible.
Johannes Driedo, as
quoted by Vidigal
The texts which follow have been selected
from Catholic writers approved and, even more, commended by the
Church. They unequivocally justify the lawfulness, and
indeed the necessity of overt resistance to decisions made by
ecclesiastical authority, which disturb the Church's peace or
jeopardise the tenets of faith. They have been taken from
the book by Arnaldo Vidigal Xavier da Silveira,
Implicaciones teologicas y morales del nuevo Ordo
Missæ (The New Ordo Missæ: Moral
and Theological Implications) published in 1971.
THE RIGHT OF OPEN RESISTANCE TO PRELATES' ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
STEMS ALSO FROM NATURAL LAW
According to natural law, violence may
lawfully be opposed by violence. Now, through the acts
permitted and the orders of the kind under discussion, the Pope
does commit violence, because he is acting contrary to what is
lawful. It therefore follows that it is lawful to oppose
him publicly. Cajetan draws attention to the fact that
this should not be interpreted as meaning that anybody whosoever
can judge the Pope, or assume authority over him, but rather that
it is lawful to defend oneself even against him. Every
person, in fact, has the right to oppose an unjust action in
order to prevent, if he is able, its being carried out, and thus
he defends himself.(13)
The Church, Christ's Mystical
Body, is a living organism which participates directly in the
mystery of the Incarnation. As a living organism it is
composed, not of the stones of our cathedrals, nor the fabric of
our chapels, but of all baptised believers who put into practice
the teaching of Our Lord Jesus Christ.(17)
THE POPE
The Pope is the Bishop of
Rome, successor of Peter, Christ's Vicar on earth, the visible
head of the entire Church, i.e. of all the faithful and the
clergy.
PAPAL HERESY AND SCHISM
These topics have already been
discussed in various issues of the French review Forts dans la
Foi, but they are not readily available in England. In
the present article, therefore, it is intended to examine the
whole question in considerable detail and depth. Much of
the material taken from Vidigal's Implicaciones teologicas y
morales del nuevo Ordo Missæ referred to earlier.
A French version announced by the author some years ago is still
eagerly awaited. We cannot understand the reason for its
not having appeared, especially as it has been printed and bound,
and would be of the utmost usefulness in the situation in which
traditionalist Catholics are placed today. Let us hope and
pray that it will soon be released. If we may adapt the
maxim quoted by Our Blessed Lord, a book of this kind is not
written to be left slumbering in some publisher's warehouse, but
is printed in order to be spread as far and as wide as possible,
to give light to those who lie groaning in the darkness of our
unhappy times.
First Opinion: GOD WILL NEVER ALLOW A POPE TO FALL INTO
HERESY.
Defenders of this opinion, basing it on
reason as well as on scripture and tradition, assert that Our
Blessed Lord will never allow a successor of St. Peter to sin
against faith. Cardinal Billot, who defended this
viewpoint, makes out the following case:
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE FIRST OPINION
The first opinion, given above, may be
countered first by noting that the passage quoted from St. Luke
is generally accepted as applying only to those papal teachings
which involve infallibility, and secondly by the evidence of
tradition, which provides abundant support for the possibility of
a Pope's falling into heresy.
1. Scripture
As far as the exact meaning of the text from
St. Luke is concerned, Vidigal emphasises that "many theologians
are of the opinion that the absence of error in teachings
promulgated ex cathedra is sufficient to ensure the
fulfillment of Our Lord's promise. They therefore conclude
that there are not sufficient grounds for asserting that the
confirming of his brethren postulates the Pope's indefectibility
in the faith, as far as his own individual person is
concerned. Palmieri, for instance, sets out the argument as
follows: 'It is not necessary to establish a real distinction
between indefectibility and the confirming of the brethren; it is
sufficient for the distinction between the two to be established
by reason. In fact, if the Pope is infallible in preaching
the true faith, when it is solemnly proclaimed by him'(21), he is able thereby to
confirm his brethren. This is why the faith that teaches
infallibly, and the faith which confirms, are one and the same
for, being infallible, it possesses also the power to
confirm. Now the Pope's indefectibility in the faith is
requisite precisely so that he can confirm his brethren.
Consequently, Christ's words can lead us to deduce only such
necessity and sufficiency of this indefectibility as is required
to attain this goal. This is what is understood by the
infallibility of authentic preaching."
2. Tradition
Tradition provides an array of documentary
evidence showing that a Pope can become a heretic. The
following are a selection only.
a) The Case of Pope Honorius I.
Was this Pope really a heretic? It
would seem that he tended to favour heresy without himself being
genuinely heretical. Nevertheless, what needs to be
stressed in his case is that it provided an occasion for popes,
councils, saints, bishops and theologians to make it quite clear
that the hypothesis of a heretical Pope could not,
theologically speaking, be dismissed.
b) The Pontificate of Paschal II (1099-1118).
Once again the whole of Christendom was
shaken, this time by the investiture controversy. The
Emperor Henry V, after having imprisoned the Pope, forced him to
make promises and concessions that were impossible to reconcile
with Catholic doctrine. After his release from captivity,
Paschal II hesitated for a long time before he annulled the acts
to which he had consented while under duress. Despite a
considerable number of warnings from saints, cardinals and
bishops, he continued to postpone both his own retraction, and
the excommunication of Henry V, despite the fact that it was
universally desired. A movement thereupon began that swept
through the entire Church, which was directed against the Pope
and which declared him to be suspect of heresy, and at the same
time entreated him to turn back under pain of losing his
pontificate.
c) From Gratian to the Present
Gratian's Decretum contains the
following canon attributed to St. Boniface:
"When the shepherd changes into a wolf it is
natural for the flock first and foremost to take steps to defend
itself. Under normal conditions there is no question but
that doctrine is handed down from the bishops to the faithful
and, insofar as matters of faith are concerned, it is not for
those who lead to be judged by the led. But within the
precious inheritance of revelation there exist essentials, that
every Christian knows of necessity through his or her baptism,
and is obliged to defend."(9)
"Under the direction of the Holy Spirit, the
faithful may be brought to a better understanding of and belief
in everything concerning faith and works, thus facilitating the
development of dogma. And so it was in the case when the
faithful protested against Nestorius, which was of the greatest
assistance in the furtherance of the definition of the divine
motherhood of the Blessed Virgin."(10)
The example of St. Paul's public
opposition to St. Peter must be borne in mind in this
connection, and St. Thomas Aquinas's opinion of the "Antioch
confrontation" is worth quoting here: "If a proximate danger
to the faith exists, prelates are answerable - and publicly - to
those subject to them. Thus St. Paul required St. Peter to
give an answer publicly, because there was an imminent danger of
scandal in a question of faith. And, as St. Augustine
writes in his Commentary: "An example to those who govern was
set by St. Peter himself that they might not reject as
inadmissable, when they deviated from the straight and narrow
path, any correction administered by their
subordinates."(11)
In his commentary on the Epistle to the
Galatians, St. Thomas had this to say: "The rebuke was
justified and significant, its motive being of the utmost
gravity, in that it was a question involving A THREAT TO THE
VERY TRUTH OF THE GOSPELS . . ."
St. Paul delivered his rebuke IN THE CORRECT
MANNER, viz. publicly and openly. This is why St.
Paul writes: "But when Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I
withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed", and
this was because the evasions of St. Peter were an occasion of
danger to all the faithful.
In 2 Timothy 5, 20, St. Paul writes again,
"Them that sin reprove before all." This is to be
understood as referring to public sins, and not to those
committed in private, because where the latter are concerned
fraternal correction is the proper form to adopt.
St. Thomas adds that this passage of
scripture holds a lesson as much for prelates, as for those they
govern: "It provides prelates with an exemplar of humility, lest
they refuse to accept a rebuke from their inferiors and
subordinates: to these latter it provides an example of zeal
exercised in freedom, lest they should fear to REBUKE
THEIR PRELATES, PARTICULARLY WHERE THE CRIME COMMITTED IS A
MATTER OF NOTORIETY AND COULD ENDANGER THE FAITH OF MANY."(12)
Victoria, a distinguished sixteenth-century
theologian, wrote: "In a work in which he defines papal authority
as being superior to that of councils, Cajetan has this to say in
his Chapter 27, 'IF A POPE IS DESTROYING THE CHURCH, THE DUTY OF
OPPOSITION IS INESCAPABLE'."
Sylvester Prieras, O. P. [1456-1523] under
the heading "Pope", paragraph 4 [in his Dialogus de
Potestate Papae, 1517] asks, "What should be done in
cases where the pope destroys the Church by his evil
actions?" And in paragraph 5, "What should be done
if the pope wishes unreasonably to abolish the laws of church or
state?" His answer is, "He would certainly be in
sin, and it would be unlawful to allow him to act in such a
fashion, AND LIKEWISE TO OBEY HIM IN MATTERS WHICH ARE EVIL;
on the contrary, there is a duty to OPPOSE HIM while
administering a courteous rebuke.
"Thus, were he to wish to distribute the
Church's wealth, or Peter's Patrimony among his own
relatives; WERE HE TO WISH TO DESTROY THE CHURCH or to
commit an act of similar magnitude, there would be a duty to
prevent him, and likewise an obligation to oppose him and resist
him. THE REASON BEING THAT HE DOES NOT POSSESS POWER IN
ORDER TO DESTROY, AND THUS IT FOLLOWS THAT IF HE IS SO DOING IT
IS LAWFUL TO OPPOSE HIM."
It is clear from the preceding that,
IF THE POPE BY HIS COMMANDS, ORDERS OR BY HIS ACTIONS IS
DESTROYING THE CHURCH, HE MAY BE RESISTED AND THE FULFILLMENT OF
HIS COMMANDS PREVENTED.
Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637), the great
Jesuit biblical scholar, demonstrates that according to St.
Augustine, St. Ambrose, St. Bede, St. Anselm and many other
Fathers of the Church, St. Paul remonstrated with St. Peter
openly and in public, "so that the scandal given by St. Peter
might in this fashion be rectified by an admonition that was
equally open."
He writes about this event at Antioch:
"Superiors may be admonished by their subordinates in all
humility and charity so that truth may be defended: this is the
basis (Galatians 2, 11) on which St. Augustine, St. Cyprian, St.
Gregory, St. Thomas and many others quoted support this
opinion. They teach quite unequivocally that St. Peter,
although superior in authority to St. Paul, was admonished by
him. St. Gregory rightly states that, "Peter remained
silent so that, being first in the hierarchy of the Apostles, he
might equally be first in humility." St. Augustine writes,
"By showing that superiors admit that they may be rebuked by
their subordinates, St. Peter gave posterity an example of
saintliness more noteworthy than that given by St. Paul, although
the latter showed, nonetheless, that it is possible for
subordinates to have the boldness to resist their superiors
without fear, when in all charity they speak out in the defence
of truth."(14)
This doctrine of the right to oppose bad
pastors, including corrupt popes, is an unchanging teaching of
the Catholic Church. In his study of Canon Law,
Wernz-Vidal, quoting Suarez as an authority, concedes that in
extreme instances it is lawful to resist a bad Pope:
"According to Suarez, the just means that may
be used in opposing a bad pope are these: the greatest possible
recourse to divine grace, the special protection of the Guardian
Angels, the prayers of the universal Church, cautioning or
fraternal correction given secretly, or even publicly, as well as
lawful defence against physical or moral aggression."(15)
Modern authorities support their
predecessors. For instance, Pleinador in his Short
Course of Moral Theology, quotes St. Thomas Aquinas at
length on this question: "The subordinate may also be held to
have the duty of offering fraternal correction to his
superior. In fact, the superior also may be in a state of
spiritual impoverishment, and there is nothing to prevent his
subordinate from succouring him. However, this 'correction'
administered by the subordinate to his superior must be applied
in a fitting manner, i.e. without insolence or harshness, gently
and respectfully." Generally speaking, the superior should
be given warning in private: "Nevertheless, it should be clearly
understood, that if there exists a proximate danger to faith,
prelates must be admonished by their subordinates even in
public."(16)
Those who believe and practise, i.e. the
faithful (from fides, "faith") who have the faith
and who live the faith, are united with Christ, are incorporated
with Him by baptism, live by His life, and make up His Mystical
Body, which is the Church.
This Church, Christ's Mystical Body, is both
holy and infallible.
These two characteristics of holiness and
infallibility are, as far as the Church is concerned, the
properties which of necessity derive from her very
nature. That is to say that God, having thought the Church
to be what He wished it to be - the Mystical Body of His Son -
could not bring it into being without its being both holy and
infallible.
That is easy to understand. In effect,
this Church, Christ's Mystical Body - "Mystici Corporis
Christi quod est Ecclesia" - which has as its head the Son of
God, Second Person of the Blessed Trinity made Man, which is
animated by the Holy Ghost, third Person of the Blessed Trinity,
thus lives by the very life itself of God - "divinæ
consortes naturæ" - and cannot be other than holy and
infallible by its very nature.
Let us always bear in mind the fact that
these two characteristics, holiness and infallibility, are not
privileges God has granted to the Church, but are inherent
properties of her being. Thus the Church of Christ is in
herself eternally, and quite regardless of changing
circumstances, holy, immaculate and infallible. She can be
blemished only by her own members who are unfaithful to her.
Entrusted with the task of teaching the
Church and confirming the faith of his brethren, the Pope is
infallible. But the personal infallibility of the Pope is
not a right conferred on him by his office, it is a privilege
granted by God at the request of His Son ("But I have prayed
for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once
converted, confirm thy brethren", Luke 22, 32). As soon
as this is recognised for the privilege it is, limits are
imposed. Thus, the First Vatican Council, when
defining the dogma of the Pope's personal infallibility, laid
down in precise terms the conditions guaranteeing it:
"Therefore, faithfully uniting ourselves
with Tradition handed down from the very beginnings of the
Christian faith . . . we teach and define as dogma revealed by
God the following: that the Roman Pontiff, when he pronounces
ex cathedra, that is, when fulfilling the task
entrusted to him as chief shepherd and teacher of all
Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme
apostolic authority, that a doctrine of faith or morals
must be believed by the whole Church, exercises, with the
help of the divine aid promised to him in the person of St.
Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed to His
Church, when she defined any doctrine concerning faith and
morals. In consequence, such definitions made by the Roman
Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not by virtue of a
consensus within the Church. If anyone, which may God
forbid, should presume to contradict this our definition, let him
be anathema."(18)
We have printed in bold type the four
conditions which such Papal teaching is required to meet:
1. The Pope must pronounce in his capacity of Teacher and Chief
Shepherd; 2. He must define, i.e., make a judgement;
3. On a doctrine concerning faith or morals; 4. It is for
the whole Church.
Every time these four conditions are met, the
Pope acts infallibly: he is saved from error and cannot teach
erroneously. But if all four conditions are not met and the
Papal magisterium is not exercised ex cathedra, then he
does not enjoy the privilege of personal infallibility.
At times when he is not so privileged, he is not preserved
from error and can fall into it. This has happened many
times during the course of the Church's history.
Bear in mind that for the Pope to be
infallible, he is not obliged to make a formal pronouncement
that he intends to speak ex cathedra. By the very
fact that he fulfills the four conditions laid down by the First
Vatican Council, he is preserved from error, and his decisions
are therefore infallible and irreformable. Thus, to take
only one example, all authorities agree that Pope Pius XI's
pronouncement on conjugal onanism in his encyclical Casti
Conubii, is infallible and irreformable.
Some others (he was referring in fact to the
Anglicans) having decided to promulgate "another doctrine"
concerning conjugal morality, the Pope took the initiative, and
pronounced solemnly and definitively against this practice.
The key text is as follows:
"The Catholic Church, to whom God has
committed the task of teaching and preserving morals and right
conduct in their integrity, standing erect amidst this moral
devastation, raises her voice in sign of her divine mission to
keep the chastity of the marriage contract unsullied by this ugly
stain, and through Our mouth proclaims anew: that any use of
matrimony whatsoever in the exercise of which the act is
deprived, by human interference, of its natural power to
procreate life, is an offence against the law of God and of
nature, and that those who commit it are guilty of a grave
sin." The Pope was here making a definitive judgement on
this moral question.
There are two reasons why the need to study
the possibility of a heretical, schismatic or scandalous Pope is
urgent. First, because all the major problems
troubling the conscience of Catholics nowadays lead to the same
conclusion, viz. that the responsibility for the creation of
these problems rests firmly with the present Pope, leading on
inevitably to the question of whether he is still truly
Pope.
Second, because probably at no other
period in the long history of the Church have the faithful been
so woefully ignorant about the Pope and papal prerogatives.
To illustrate the nature of this ignorance I should like, if I
may, to describe an incident in my own life.
In my early teens I was a Catholic
scout. One day I went to ask the troop chaplain about
something, and my ring on the presbytery doorbell was answered by
another curate. The following conversation ensued.
"Yes, what do you want?" "I've come to see the scout
chaplain." "He's not here. He's gone to confession at
St. Anne's." Total shock on my part. I was literally
scandalised by the priest's answer. To my young mind there
could only be one answer: if the chaplain had to go to
confession, he must have committed a sin, and if he could sin,
why should I get so upset when I committed a sin? This was
scandal in the theological sense of the word, and mine derived
from my ignorance, at that time, of what it really meant to be a
priest. Our teachers, wanting to give us the highest notion
of the priesthood they could, had set priests on such a high
pedestal that we had almost ceased to see them as human at
all. As a result, when I came abruptly up against the facts
of real life, and found out that my chaplain was a sinful man in
need of God's forgiveness like the rest of us, I was genuinely
scandalised.
My reason for telling this personal anecdote
stems from my conviction that many of my grown-up contemporaries
are just as ignorant about the Pope as I was about my scout
chaplain.
Most Catholics think that the Pope is
necessarily a saint (he is, after all, called THE HOLY FATHER),
and holy to the point where he can do no wrong when he speaks of
religion, because he is INFALLIBLE.
And they are utterly wrong!
It is true enough that the Pope's task is a
holy one, but its holiness does not make the Pope carrying it
out impeccable. The history of the Church is enough to
show us that, although the number of Popes who have been
canonised is considerable, there are many more who have not been
raised to the honours of the altar, and more than just a few who
have given open scandal in their time - Alexander VI, Francesco
Borgia, is only one example, although perhaps the most widely
known.
In the same manner, their personal
infallibility does not always necessarily preserve them from
error. When they speak ex cathedra, confirming
their brethren in the faith, making an exceptional pronouncement
in their capacity of Chief Shepherd, then they are indeed
infallible and preserved from error. But Popes can be
mistaken in their ordinary pronouncements, even when these are on
religious matters. This misfortune has occurred several
times in the past, and one Pope was so deeply in error that he
was condemned as heretical by an ecumenical council, presided
over by a later Pope who was subsequently canonised, St. Leo
II.
Papal heresy is a question therefore which
may profitably be studied, and in a deeply troubled period such
as ours it becomes an urgent necessity.
In the second part of his book, A. Vidigal
makes an observation well worth quoting here. He writes:
"Several times in the troubled periods of the Church's
history(19), the
theological problem of the possibility of a Pope's falling into
heresy has been discussed in practical terms. Dogmatic and
moral theologians and canon lawyers did their utmost to find a
solution to this exceedingly delicate problem, but without
reaching a unanimous and definitive conclusion. Once these
disturbed periods had passed, however, they tended to pay the
problem very little attention. Generally speaking, most
authorities devote little more than a few lines to the subject,
and treat it as if it were a curious speculation, a hypothesis
that was scarcely likely to be tested in reality. In recent
centuries, the fact that the Holy See has been governed by a
succession of Pontiffs whose authority was uncontested, led to
the question's being virtually forgotten. Very few
theologians have made an attempt to explore it with any
thoroughness since the seventeenth century.
What were the positions adopted in the
past by theologians who did discuss this grave problem?
According to Vidigal, St. Robert Bellarmine
lists five questions that have to be taken into account:(20)
1. A Pope cannot be a heretic.
2. When a Pope does fall into heresy, even if
only in foro interno (i.e., in his own innermost mind) he
loses the office of pontiff ipso facto.
3. Although a Pope may fall into heresy
openly (externally), he does not surrender his office.
4. A heretical Pope is not ipso facto
deposed; he must be deposed by a formal declaration made by the
Church.
5. A Pope is ipso facto deposed the
moment his heresy becomes apparent.
We shall now make a rapid examination of each
of these opinions.
"Once the hypothesis that a Pope can become a
known and public heretic is conceded as a possibility, it would
follow that it must be admitted without hesitation that such a
Pope would ipso facto lose his papal authority since, in
betraying the faith, he would by his own will, have separated
himself from the body of the Church . . . I say 'once the
hypothesis is admitted as possible' . . . but it seems much more
likely that this hypothesis will remain a hypothesis only, and
never become an actuality, by virtue of the words in Luke 23, 32,
'But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and thou
being once converted confirm thy brethren'. . ."
According to Vidigal this first solution has
been upheld with considerable variations in emphasis. Some
authorities, the Franciscan theologian Matteucci (d. 1722) among
them, held it to be one of the truths of faith, others, like
Cardinal Billot himself, accepted it as being only the most
probable opinion, while others, such as Suarez and Bellarmine,
gave it less firm support because of the strength of the
arguments for the contrary opinion.
Among the evidence quoted by Vidigal is the
following. "The third Council of Constantinople, the sixth
ecumenical council, announced that it had thoroughly examined the
dogmatic epistles of Patriarch Sergius, as well as a letter
written to him by Honorius I. The Council went on to
declare: 'after having taken account of the fact that they are
not in conformity with apostolic dogma, and the definitions of
the holy Councils and all the Fathers worthy of approbation and
that, on the contrary, they uphold false and heretical doctrines,
we reject them absolutely and denounce them as a grave threat to
the salvation of souls'.
After anathematising the leading proponents
of the Monothelite heresy, the Council condemned Honorius: 'It is
our judgment that Honorius, formerly Pope of Rome, has been cast
out by God's Holy Catholic Church and made anathema, for we have
been able to prove from his letters to Sergius, that he has
followed the beliefs of the latter in all things and thus made
plain his impious principles'.
Pope St. Leo II (d. 683) writes, condemning
Honorius for having favoured heresy: 'We declare anathema equally
those who instigated these new errors: Theodore, Bishop of
Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius (of Constantinople), Pyrrhus
. . . and also Honorius, who was shown to be incapable of
enlightening this apostolic Church by the doctrine of Apostolic
Tradition, in that he allowed its immaculate faith to be
blemished by a sacrilegious betrayal'.
In a letter to the Spanish bishops, St. Leo
again declares that Honorius had been condemned because, 'he
failed to put out the smouldering fires of heresy, in accordance
with the duty incumbent upon him as a result of his apostolic
authority: nay, rather, did he fan them into flame by his
negligence'.
In a letter to the Visigothic King of Spain,
Ervigius, St. Leo II repeats that, with the heresiarchs had been
condemned 'Honorius of Rome, who permitted the unblemished faith
of the apostolic tradition, handed down by his predecessors, to
be besmirched'.
R. Bäumer writes of the sixth ecumenical
council and the case of Honorius: 'This condemnation was
subsequently repeated by the Synod "in Trullo" of 692, and by the
seventh and eighth general councils. Leo II, who had
accepted the decision of the sixth general council, extenuated
the guilt of Honorius . . . (but) the record of Honorius's
condemnation was even inserted in the Liber Diurnus
and each Pope was obliged, on his election, to condemn the
authors of the new heresy, and at the same "Honorius, who had
been sympathetic to their errors." The Liber
Pontificalis itself and the Roman Breviary
mentioned Honorius's condemnation in the second nocturn for the
feast of Pope St. Leo II'.
Finally, it is relevant to quote what Hadrian
II said in the second half of the ninth century, i.e., more than
two centuries after the death of Honorius: 'We read that the
Roman Pontiff has always possessed authority to pass judgment on
the heads of all the Churches (i.e., the patriarchs and bishops),
but nowhere do we read that he has been the subject of judgment
by others. It is true that Honorius was posthumously
anathematised by the Eastern churches, but it must be borne in
mind that he had been accused of heresy, THE ONLY OFFENCE WHICH
RENDERS LAWFUL THE RESISTANCE OF SUBORDINATES TO THEIR SUPERIORS,
AND THEIR REJECTION OF THE LATTER'S PERNICIOUS TEACHINGS'.
And Vidigal concludes: There is, quite
obviously, a solid historical basis for Monello's assertion that,
by the eighth century, the tradition that A HERETICAL POPE MAY BE
JUDGED BY A COUNCIL was already established."
Vidigal then proceeds to quote the evidence
and the historical facts relating to the struggle by saints,
cardinals and bishops against Paschal II, thus demonstrating that
the theology of this period of the Middle Ages admitted the
hypothesis of a heretical pope and that such a pontiff could, in
consequence, lose his pontificate.
St. Bruno, Bishop of Segni and Abbot of Monte
Cassino, was the leader of the opposition to Paschal II in
Italy.
Paschal was very well aware that St. Bruno
did not deny the hypothesis that a Pope could be deposed.
He tried to pre-empt the issue by dispossessing the saint of his
abbacy on the pretext that: "If we do not remove him from
his office he will, by the force of his arguments, relieve us of
the government of the Church."
And when Pope Paschal at last retracted, at a
synod convened at Rome specifically to examine the question, St.
Bruno declared: "Praise be to God, for behold the very Pope
himself condemns this alleged privilege (that of investiture by
temporal rulers) which is a heresy." St. Bruno, in speaking
out in this way, for the first time gave public expression to the
extent of his mistrust of the Pope's orthodoxy.
St. Bruno was not the only saint of the
period to admit that Paschal could have fallen into heresy.
In 1112, Guido of Burgundy, Archbishop of Vienne and the future
Pope Callistus II, called a provincial synod which was attended,
amongst others, by St. Hugh of Grenoble and St. Godfrey of
Amiens. With the approval of these two saints the synod
revoked the decrees the Emperor had forced on the Pope, and sent
a letter to Paschal II telling him, "should you, in spite of our
absolutely refusing to believe it possible, choose an alternative
path and refuse ratification of our decision, may God protect
you, for were this to be the case we should be obliged to
withdraw our allegiance from you."
These words are a threat to break with
Paschal II, and are to be explained only by the fact that the
bishops meeting at Vienne had in mind three main ideas:
1. That to deny the Church's teaching about
investitures was heretical.
2. That the Pope had acceded to this
heresy.
3. That a Pope who was eventually proved
heretical lost his office and, consequently, should not be
obeyed.
This interpretation is borne out beyond a
shadow of doubt by the contemporary letters of St. Ivo of
Chartres.
"No mortal man dare presume to attribute
guilt to the Pope, for if it be part of the papal office to judge
all others, he cannot be judged by anyone unless he stray from
the faith."
In his article in the Dictionnaire de
Théologie Catholique, Dublanchy provides some
significant information about the influence exerted by this
particular canon during the Middle Ages, and what was believed
during that period about the question of a heretical Pope:
"In Gratian's Decretum this assertion
is attributed to St. Boniface, Archbishop of Mainz, and already
cited as such by Cardinal Deusdedit (d. 1087) and St. Ivo of
Chartres. After Gratian, the same doctrine is found even
among the most convinced advocates of the Papal privileges.
Innocent III refers to it in one of his sermons. Generally
speaking, the great theologians pay little or no attention to
this hypothesis, but the canonists of the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries knew Gratian's text and commented on it. None
found any great difficulty in conceding that a Pope could be
guilty of heresy and indeed of any other grave failing.
Their main concern was to establish why, and under what
conditions, such a Pope could be judged by the Church."
The following is taken from Innocent III's
sermon mentioned above:
"The faith is so vital to me that while I
regard God as sole judge of my failings, in general, I could,
nonetheless, for sins committed in matters of faith, be liable
for judgment by the Church."
And to provide even more complete refutation
of the first opinion on the possibility of a Pope's heresy, here
is another quotation from Bellarmine: "On this question, it must
be observed that, although it is probable that Honorius was not a
heretic, and that Pope Hadrian II, misled by falsified documents
purporting to stem from the sixth ecumenical council, erred in
judging Honorius to have been heretical, we cannot deny,
nevertheless, that Hadrian, together with the Synod of Rome, and
even the eighth general council, considered that IN THE EVENT OF
HIS BEING FOUND HERETICAL THE ROMAN PONTIFF COULD BE SUBJECT TO
JUDGMENT."
Second Opinion. - BY FALLING INTO HERESY, EVEN IF THIS IS PURELY IN HIS OWN MIND AND NOT EXPRESSED, THE POPE IPSO FACTO LOSES HIS OFFICE.
The advocates of this second opinion firmly believe that there is an absolute incompatibility between heresy and ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and they therefore maintain that a heretical Pope would ipso facto lose his office the moment he fell into heresy, even though this preceded his giving any outward expression to that heresy.
a) Suarez's exposition of the main reason favouring this opinion.
The Church is founded on faith. It is,
therefore, also the basis of the Sovereign Pontificate, and of
the entire hierarchy of the Church. In the works of Fathers
such as St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, Popes Gelasius
and Alexander II, and St. Thomas Aquinas, it is frequently
asserted that he who lacks faith cannot have jurisdiction
within the Church.
There is, Moreover, a simple and
straightforward argument: a heretic is not a member of the
Church, whence it follows that he cannot be head of the
Church. Going even further, if we consult the Apostles,
Paul (Titus 3, 10) and John (II John 10, 11), the faithful should
not even greet a heretic, still less obey him.
Finally, a heretical Pope is one who
simultaneously denies both Christ and the true Church, thus
denying also his own office: as a result he deprives himself of
that office.
b) Objections to the second opinion.
The main reason for rejecting this opinion is derived from the visible nature of the Church. It seems impossible that loss of jurisdiction can be admitted because of a reason unknown to and beyond the control of the faithful, i.e., a heresy that is purely personal and internal.
c) This opinion entirely abandoned nowadays.
Concluding his examination of this opinion,
Vidigal observes that while there exists a very close link
between exclusion from the Church, and the loss of the office of
Supreme Pontiff, a considerable number of theologians
nevertheless are not of opinion that exclusion from the Church
would ipso facto result in the loss of the Papal
office.
It must not be forgotten that this second
opinion concerns a Pope fallen into heresy, but wholly
internally.
Third Opinion. - EVEN AFTER HAVING REVEALED HIMSELF TO BE OPENLY HERETICAL, A POPE NEVER LOSES HIS OFFICE.
This opinion has been maintained by one
theologian only, a Frenchman called Bouix (d. 1870). He
held that faith was not essential to the exercising of
jurisdiction within the Church. Consequently, heresy is not
a sufficient cause for even an openly heretical Pope to lose his
pontificate.
This opinion, previously described by
Bellarmine as "most improbable", has ranged against it almost the
whole of the Church's unanimous tradition. Vidigal points
out that of thirty-six authorities consulted on this question,
Bouix alone supports this viewpoint. And what is more, it
is contradicted by several scriptural texts.
The Jesuit Cardinal Mazella was able to
assert that none of the authors who admits the possibility of a
Pope's being heretical, doubts or denies that such a Pope ipso
facto loses his office, or at least that he should be
deprived of it.
Cardinal Billot writes in a similar vein:
"Once a Pope's heresy is admitted to exist, all authorities
concede that the link between communion with and subservience to
that Pope is destroyed, because of the provisions in the divine
economy which expressly enjoin the avoiding of heretics."
In conclusion, it must be stressed that
the only supporter of this third opinion, Bouix, did nevertheless
state very clearly and firmly, that if ever it should happen that
the faithful were confronted with a heretical Pope, they should
not remain passive but should offer resistance to his iniquitous
decisions.
Fourth Opinion: A HERETICAL POPE DOES NOT EFFECTIVELY LOSE HIS PONTIFICATE UNTIL HIS HERESY IS OPENLY DECLARED.
Such a declaration cannot be a sentence, in the strictly juridical meaning of the word, because the Pope has no earthly superior with power to pass judgment on him. It must, therefore, be a simple declaration of the fact that Jesus Christ has deprived the Pope of office. The principal supporters of this view are Cajetan and Suarez. The latter, despite his support for the first opinion we examined above, defends the fourth opinion in cases where a Pope did fall into heresy.
Arguments supporting this opinion.
In no case, heresy included, is the Supreme
Pontiff deprived of office by God immediately, before men have
had an opportunity to pass judgment. This is Suarez's
interpretation of the views of Cajetan, Soto, Cano and
Corduba. In the first place, he declares, there is no
divine law which says that a heretical Pope loses his office
instantly. There is not even an implicit law covering this
eventuality, because such a law would lack any basis.
Moreover, neither popes nor councils have ever interpreted a
divine law in this fashion.
In the second place, a law of this kind, even
if it existed, would be harmful to the Church. In fact,
were a Pope to be heretical in secret, so to speak, and were he
thereby deprived of office, all his acts would be invalid.
It may be objected that this reason is
valueless in the case of a Pope openly and publicly
heretical. This is not the case, however, because if the
Pope remains Pope while supporting an external heresy, albeit in
secret, he can continue to be Pope in cases of long-standing
heresy, as long as he has not been tried and sentenced.
Another reason is that faith is not
absolutely necessary for the exercise of jurisdiction.
Moreover, though a heretic cannot be formally
and substantially a member of the Church, the Pope is only the
head of the Church in a vicarious sense, and, insofar as his
duties are concerned, instrumentally. Just as Christ can
impart His grace through heretical ministers, He can, in similar
fashion, act spiritually on the members of His Body, even though
the head of the Church on earth is false to his charge.
On the other hand, if the Pope is heretical
and incorrigible, he ceases to be Pope the moment the Church
pronounces sentence on him. This is the consensus of
opinion among Doctors of the Church, deduced from St. Clement I's
first letter, in which he writes that St. Peter taught that a
heretical Pope must be deposed. The reason is that it would
do the Church the utmost harm to be led by such a pastor, and to
be powerless to defend herself against him in a situation of such
extreme gravity. And it would, besides, be utterly contrary
to the dignity of the Church, if she were obliged to remain
subject to a heretical Pontiff, without the power to rid herself
of him: ita populus, sicut sacerdos or qualis
rex, talis grex - as the priest or prince is, so will
their people become.
This conclusion raises several
questions. Suarez answers them as follows:
Some believe this should be the responsibility of the College of Cardinals, and there is no question but that the Church could delegate this power to them, just as she does in Papal elections, especially if the power had been ratified by the Popes themselves. Unfortunately, we can find no evidence that they ever were granted such a prerogative. Consequently, it must be asserted that this right belongs, of itself, to all the bishops in the Church, because they are the ordinary Pastors and the Pillars of the Church, and so this duty would devolve upon them. But, because by divine law this duty is not incumbent upon one bishop more than another, it must be acknowledged that all bear an equal responsibility, i.e., in Council.
There are several answers to this
question. First, it is not essential for the bishops to be
brought together in a general council. Meetings of
provincial and national councils, convened by primates or
archbishops are sufficient. The essential is that they
should all reach the same conclusion.
Second, if the Pope alone is able to convene
a general council to define matters of faith or to promulgate
ecclesiastical laws, a council could, in this case (of Papal
heresy), be convened by the sacred College. And what is
more, were the Pope to forbid the convening of such a council, he
would not have to be obeyed, because he would be acting contrary
to justice and the common good, and thus be abusing his power.
Cajetan, faced with this problem, makes an
extraordinary effort to avoid being obliged to admit that the
Church, or the council, have an authority higher than the pope's,
when it is a question of the latter being heretical. He
finally concludes that they do possess a higher authority, but
only inasmuch as the Pope is considered as a private individual,
rather than as Pope.
This distinction is unfortunately not at all
satisfactory, because it could be said that the Church can judge
and punish a Pope only as a private person and not as Pope.
To sum up, were the Church to depose a
heretical Pope, the Church would do so not by virtue of any
powers that exceed the Pope's, but juridically, and with the
consent of Christ, she would declare him to be heretical and as a
result totally unworthy of honours due to the supreme
Pontiff. He would be deprived ipso facto and
immediately of his office by Christ. Once he had been
deprived in this way he would become subordinate to the Church
and subject to punishment.
St. Robert Bellarmine's refutation of this opinion.
"The fourth opinion is Cajetan's.
According to him a manifestly heretical Pope is not ipso
facto deposed(22),
but can and should be deposed by the Church.
In my view, this opinion cannot be
upheld. First and foremost, it has been established by
arguments from both authority and reason, that a manifest
heretic is deprived ipso facto of office. The
argument from authority rests on St. Paul's injunction to Titus
(3, 10) to avoid further contact with a heretic after making two
attempts at remonstrating with him, i.e., after the latter has
made his obstinacy perfectly clear, but before any
excommunication or judicial sentence has been passed on
him. St. Jerome wrote in a similar sense and added the
warning, that while other kinds of sinners are excluded from the
Church by sentence of excommunication, heretics cut
themselves off from the Body of Christ. Now, on the
supposition that a heretical Pope remains Pope, how could he be
avoided? How could we separate ourselves from a member who
is united to us?
Cajetan admits one principle as certain,
namely that anyone who is not a Christian cannot be
Pope. The reason is simple: what does not belong
to the body cannot be considered its head. Now anybody who
is a heretic cannot be a Christian. This is the unequivocal
teaching of Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome and numerous
other Fathers of the Church. It follows that a palpable
heretic cannot be pope.
Finally, the Fathers are unanimous in
teaching not only that heretics are outside the Church, but also
that they are ipso facto deprived of all jurisdiction
and ecclesiastical rank. Witness St. Cyprian: 'We
assert without any qualification that no heretic or schismatic
can possess any power or any rights'. He also teaches that
heretics returning to the Church must be received as
laymen, even if they had formerly been priests or
bishops.
St. Optatus, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St.
Jerome, all teach that heretics and schismatics cannot possess
the power of the Keys, nor that of binding and loosing.
Pope Celestine I wrote: "It is obvious that
anybody, be he bishop or cleric, who has been excommunicated or
removed from office by Bishop Nestorius, or by his adherents
since they began to preach heresy, has remained and remains still
in communion with us, and that we in no way consider such a one
to have been deprived of his office. In fact the sentence
passed by anyone who has himself been shown to have been deposed
has no power whatsoever to depose another."
The same Pope wrote in his letter to the
clergy of Constantinople as follows: "The authority of our
Apostolic See ordains that no one, be he bishop or cleric or
simple Christian, can be considered as having been removed from
office, or excommunicated, by Nestorius and his followers since
they first set out to preach heresy. Nobody who has flouted
the faith by such preaching has power to depose or remove from
office anyone at all."
The same teaching was repeated and confirmed
by St. Nicolas I. Finally, St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that
schismatics lose all jurisdiction immediately, and that as a
result anything they attempted, which required such powers, would
be null and void.(23)
Some theologians have raised
objections to this ruling, arguing that the Fathers based it
on old laws while in fact, since the Council of Constance
(1414-1418), only those excommunicated by name, or those who make
an assault upon the clergy, lose their power of
jurisdiction. This objection is without substance. In
fact, the Fathers cited are not invoking any human law, when they
assert that heretics lose all power of jurisdiction: their
argument was based on the essential nature of heresy.
The Council of Constance was principally
concerned with those who had been excommunicated, i.e., those
whose power of jurisdiction had been removed by a judgement
passed on them by the Church. Heretics do not fall into
this category because, before there is any question of their
being formally excommunicated, they are outside the Church and
thus deprived of all jurisdiction; and this is so because as St.
Paul teaches (Titus 3, 10), they have condemned themselves, i.e.,
separated themselves from the body of the Church without being
excommunicated, as was explained by St. Jerome.
In addition to all these considerations,
Cajetan's second assertion, which teaches that a heretical Pope
can, in fact, be deposed by the authority of the Church, is as
ill-founded as his first. In fact, if the Church deposes a
Pope against his will, it is precisely because her authority is
greater than that of the Pope. Cajetan denies this, for he
maintains that the Church, when she deposes a Pope, has no
authority over him as Pope, but solely over the bond uniting the
individual to the office of Supreme Pontiff.
Nevertheless, it remains true that to remove
a Pope from office against his will is undoubtedly to punish him,
and the power to inflict punishment belongs to a superior or
judge.
This second assertion cannot, therefore, be
maintained.
Fifth Opinion. - WHEN A POPE IS A MANIFEST HERETIC HE IPSO FACTO LOSES HIS OFFICE OF SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.
This opinion is supported by many theologians of great authority, e.g., Bellarmine, Sylvius, Pietro Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal and Cardinal Billot.
a) Examination of this opinion by St. Robert Bellarmine.
After refuting other opinions, Bellarmine
expounds his position as follows:
"The fifth opinion is correct because it is
in accordance with that which teaches that a Pope who is a
manifest heretic ceases, in consequence of his own actions,
to be Pope and Head of the Church, in the same way as he ceases
to be a Christian and a member of the Body of Christ. This
being the case, he can be tried and punished by the Church.
All the early Fathers are unanimous in teaching that all
manifest heretics immediately lose all power of
jurisdiction. St. Cyprian, in particular, laid great
stress on this point.
It is likewise the conclusion of more recent
Doctors, such as Juan Driedo, whose teaching is that there are
only two categories who cut themselves off from the Church, viz.,
those who have been expelled as the result of a formal sentence
of excommunication, and those who have grown away from the
Church, and come to be in opposition to her, i.e., heretics and
schismatics. Driedo's seventh proposition maintains that
those separated from the Church retain not one single vestige
of spiritual power over those who remain in the Church.
The same view is held by Melchior Cano.
He teaches that heretics are not members of nor part of the
Church, and that it is not even thinkable that anyone could be
head (of the Church) and Pope without being either a part or
member of the Church. But in the same passage he teaches
clearly that secret heretics are still of the Church, for they
are still outwardly members and part of it: consequently, a
secretly heretical Pope is still Pope.
This is also the view of all the other
authorities we have quoted in De Ecclesia, Book I.
This conclusion is based on the fact that
a manifest heretic is not a member of the Church in any way,
physically or spiritually, or, to put it another way, he is
united to the Church by neither an interior nor by an exterior
union. Thus it is that even bad Catholics are still united
to the Church, and are members spiritually by faith, and
physically by their profession of faith and reception of outward
and visible sacraments. Secret heretics are also united
with the Church, and remain members at least by exterior
union. On the other hand, good catechumens are united to
the Church by an interior union only, but not by an external
union. But manifest heretics do not belong to the Church
in any way whatsoever, as we have already proved."
b) Defence of this opinion by Father Pietro Ballerini.
This eminent eighteenth century theologian,
after having observed that a council of the Church could pass
sentence on a heretical Pope only if he had already been deposed
(i.e., if he had lost his office of Pontiff), continues:
"No temporisation can be tolerated where
there is a danger to the faith, especially when it is as
proximate and grave as that presented by a Pontiff who supports
heresy, even only in private. In such a case, why wait
until redress comes from a general council, the calling of which
is not easy? Is it not, fortunately, true to say that
faced with such a danger to the faith, any subordinate at all
may, by virtue of the principle of fraternal correction, warn his
superior, oppose him openly, refute him and if necessary,
challenge him and put pressure on him to repent?
Who would be empowered to act in such a
fashion toward a Pope? The Cardinals, because they are his
counsellors; the clergy of Rome or the Roman Synod if, while in
session, either judge such a course of action opportune.
St. Paul's words to Titus (3, 10-11) are valid for every
individual, even private persons: "A man that is a heretic, after
the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he that is
such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own
judgement." Therefore, any person who, after one or two
warnings, does not mend his ways, but remains stubbornly attached
to his private judgement contrary to certain or defined doctrines
- and because of his obstinacy, such an individual cannot avoid
the accusation of some definite heresy, which his pertinacity
reveals - then he has declared himself to be a manifest
heretic. He has shown that he has withdrawn from the
Catholic faith and from the Church, in such a way that there is
no need for any further declaration or sentence by any authority
whatever to cut him off from the body of the Church.
St. Jerome's argument, based on St. Paul's
words to Titus, is absolutely clear: "This is why it is said that
the heretic is responsible for his own condemnation, for
fornicators, adulterers, murderers and other kinds of sinners are
excluded from the Church by the priests, but heretics pronounce
sentence upon themselves, and exclude themselves from the Church
of their own volition: this exclusion is by the condemnation of
their own conscience." Consequently, the Pontiff who, after
many public and solemn warnings from Cardinals, clergy or the
Roman Synod, were stubbornly to persist in heresy, would separate
himself openly from the Church, and he should be avoided in
conformity with St. Paul's injunction.
To avoid his causing harm to others, his
heresy and his obstinacy should be denounced publicly, so that
all may have an equal opportunity of being on their guard.
Thus, the judgement which he has made against himself will be
apparent to the whole Church, demonstrating clearly that by
his own free will he has withdrawn and separated himself from the
body of the Church, and that he has in a manner himself abdicated
from his Pontificate, an office which no man holds nor can hold
who does not belong to the Church.
It can thus be seen that in the case of even
private heresy in a Pope an immediate and efficacious remedy
exists, which does not require the summoning of a general
council. On this hypothesis, everything done to oppose him
before his pertinacity and his heresy became manifest, would be
done with the object of bringing him back to reason, and
would constitute a duty of charity, and not an act of
jurisdiction. If, after his withdrawal from the Church has become
manifest, a council were to pass sentence against him, such a
sentence would be passed against a person who was no longer Pope,
nor superior to the council."
ENDNOTES:
(1) Provided
infra is a translation of this second letter to the Pope,
Cardinal Duval's letter to me and my reply.
"A sentence passed by anyone who has revealed himself as
someone who should be deposed, cannot depose
another."
Dr. F. ANTICO
(2) The following
is a chronological list of the most important letters of which we
are aware: 25 Nov. 1964, from Fr. Noël Barbara and 431
French priests; 15 Aug. 1967, from Fr. Gommar A. de Pauw,
Director of the Catholic Traditionalist Movement, Westbury, New
York; Corpus Christi 1969, from Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci; 10
Nov. 1970, from Fr Noël Barbara; 11 June 1970, from Monsieur
Jean Madiran; 27 Oct. 1972, from Jean Madiran; 10 Apr. 1973, from
Abbé Georges de Nantes. All these letters reached the
Pope.
(3)
Self-destruction. It is not difficult to understand
how and why the expression is blasphemous, given that a Church
directly guided by the Son of God made man and inspired by the
Holy Spirit cannot, by definition, contain anything which would
contribute to its own destruction.
(4) The name of
the society means "charcoal burners." It was a code name of
the kind common at the time. Alta Vendità
refers to the principle branch of the Carbonari whose
meetings were, again, designated by the code-word "sale"
(vendità).
(5) Barbier, op.
cit. p. 7, writes: "It may be said without any exaggeration that
the principles of democracy and those of Freemasonry are
identical, and that the former re-affirms and develops,
frequently without the supporters of the former being aware of
what is happening, all the aims of the latter. Those aims
may be summarised as the demolition of the supernatural, and its
replacement by total naturalism."
(6) Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, cap. 29.
(7) Cardinal
Cajetan, quoted in Journet's L'Eglise du Verbe
lncarné (The Church of the Word Incarnate), Vol. 2,
p. 840.
(8) The sheep in
the Gospel text represent the bishops. The sheep's clothing
symbolises the externals of episcopal authority.
(9) Dom Prosper
Guéranger, Année Liturgique (The
Liturgical Year), Feast of St Cyril.
(10) Herve,
Manuel de Théologie Dogmatique, III, p.
305.
(11) Summa
Theologica, IIa, IIae, XXXIII, a.4, ad2.
(12) Ad Gal. 11,
11-14, lect. III.
(13) F. Victoria,
Obras, p. 486-7.
(14) Cornelius a
Lapide, Ad Gal., II, 11.
(15) Wernz-Vidal,
Jus Canon., Vol. II, p. 436.
(16) Peinador,
Cursus brevior theol. moral., Tom. II, Vol. 1, p.
287.
(17) Certain
believers, of course, belong to the Church only "in
voto."
(18) Constitution
Pastor Aeternus, Denzinger 1839, 1840.
(19) Examples are
during the eighth century (Honorius), the twelfth (Paschal II),
and during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries (Alexander
VI).
(20) Bellarmine,
De Romano Pontifice, Lib. II, cap. XXX. All
quotations are from Vidigal (cf. supra) p. 144-176 and have been
translated by the writer.
(21) This
preaching of authentic faith solemnly proclaimed is what
is termed "extraordinary teaching" by the Pope, i.e., his
teaching ex cathedra.
(22) It is
incorrect in this context to understand "deposed" in the sense of
being stripped of rank by some superior authority or
jurisdiction. Bellarmine is using it here to mean loss of
office in a general sense.
(23) Ila. IIae,
XXXIX. 3.
Pope Celestine I
has brought out in the open the serious crisis
within the Church.
Doctor Franco Antico, Director of
Civiltà Cristiana is also Secretary general of
the World Alliance, P.E.R.C. The letter of which we here
publish the translation appeared on page 4 of the November 13,
1976 issue of Realtà Politica (21 Corso
Vittorio Emmanuele, Rome), No. 43. The article is of utmost
interest and we feel it deserves to be widely diffused.
This letter was translated into English by a
friend of ours to whom we wish to express our gratitude, as well
as to Dr. Antico.
FORTES IN FIDE
Dear Editor,
For some time I have followed with particular
interest all that has been published in Realtà
Politica concerning Archbishop Lefebvre. In the
numerous articles which have appeared in your meritorious weekly
magazine I have found much profound and often fresh food for
thought, and always uppermost is your concern for the well-being
of the Church: Holy Mother Church which, within the reality
of history, incarnates Christ's Redemption and proclaims God's
rights to all the world.
At a time when the heat of the controversy
seems to permit pause for reflection, allow me to express my
opinion, which, in fact, reflects that of Civiltà
Cristiana, the Italian organization which was the first
to take a definite and courageous stand on a matter which has for
the most part, been so badly handled.
The essential lines of the judicial aspect of
the question are certainly confused: nevertheless, for me the
situation is sufficiently clear: On November 1, 1970, His
Excellency Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre founds the St. Pius X
Sacerdotal Fraternity, canonically established in the diocese of
Lausanne, Geneva and Fribourg. The Seminary of Econe, a
legitimate issue of the Fraternity and thus entirely legal,
prepares its seminarists for the priesthood by educating them in
an atmosphere where Tradition is respected, a strict discipline
is maintained, and theological study is both methodical and
thorough. The Seminary of Econe is decidedly embarrassing
to the innovators. Why? Simply because its role is to
produce serious priests who, entirely orthodox, are fully aware
of all that the Ministry entails, and who are absolutely firm and
intransigent in the True Faith. To be frank, what this
amounts to in no uncertain terms is that these non-progressive
priests, as opposed to those now being educated in French
Seminaries and unfortunately in some Italian Seminaries (suffice
here to evoke what took place in the Almo Capranica College in
Rome), have become a most unpleasant "stumbling block" to all
those who are dedicated to the concept of a new and different
church which by its very nature would be in opposition to the
True Church. In fact, a glimpse of what such a church might
be like was afforded us recently by a group of exegetes meeting
in Rome. During their discussion, the theme of which was
"Evangelization and Human Promotion", the following assertion was
made: "The Church should be broadminded enough to admit the
positive elements of Marxism in view of establishing a new
cultural synthesis compatible with Christianity."
The French bishops who hoped to doom
Archbishop Lefebvre's work to failure by de facto
compelling him to leave France and exiling him to a tiny out of
the way village in Switzerland where, until recently, he was
virtually unknown and unheard of, are now completely
dumbfounded. Whereas the seminaries of many large French
cities are for the most part deserted, and some of them closed
and sold, young aspirants to the priesthood flock to Econe,
overflowing the already spacious living accommodations. For
this reason many young men seeking to become priests in the true
sense of the word, have had to be turned away. Thus it is
that Econe stands as a clear and unequivocal symbol of a denial;
indeed, a veritable thorn in the side of the Hierarchy who, for
the past twenty years have been favourable to "prudent, didactic
pedagogical experiments": experiments which by their very nature
have been leading us down the path towards anarchy, and far from
having encouraged or increased vocations, have been the cause of
drying them up at their source. On the other hand and at
the opposite end of the spectrum, there is Econe: a seminary open
to a few reasonable and sensible changes, but primarily dedicated
to the principles of a strict spiritual formation, overflowing
with students despite or perhaps because of the fact that it
honours the values inherent to mankind, such as a spirit of
sacrifice, devotion to duty, Faith, an orderly discipline,
charity, and acceptance of a Hierarchy. Econe seems to be
as fertile in vocations as it is embarrassing to the
innovators. In fact, such a seminary is an unbearable
affront to French Bishops as well as to all those who support the
"post-conciliar new wave." For these people, it is
therefore essential that Econe disappear. To this end,
various endeavours will surely follow in rapid succession.
At the present time, official visits give way
to meetings, committees are established to study the question,
Bishops and Cardinals come and go, and yet none has yet been able
to find a valid pretext for censure. On the contrary, even
the seminary's most opinionated adversaries are forced to bow to
the evidence and admit that Econe is a veritable seedbed of holy
priests. In one of Aesop's fables, we meet a wolf who,
wanting to kill and devour a lamb, resorts to all sorts of
specious arguments to justify his actions. In like fashion,
Bishop Mamie of Lausanne-Geneva-Fribourg urged on by certain
Roman Prelates, notably Cardinal Tabera, now deceased, takes upon
himself the initiative of suppressing by a letter dated the sixth
of May 1975, the St. Pius X Sacerdotal Fraternity, and
consequently the Seminary of Econe. This most foolhardy
Bishop does not seem to realize that in so doing he committed a
colossal blunder. Indeed, his decision is in opposition to
the precise provisions of Canon 493 of the Code of Canon
Law. Bishop Mamie mistook the St. Pius X Fraternity for one
of the "confraternitates" or "Sodalitia Fidelium"
which Canon Law deals with in Canons 707-719 of "De
Laicis." Through this mistake, Bishop Mamie has
committed an arbitrary act, as well as an unwarranted exercising
of his Episcopal function. It is a very serious
error. As a matter of fact, the Fraternity as all
"Societas Clericalis virorum in communi viventium sine
votis" (canons 673-674 and 488, 3-4), can only be suppressed
by the Holy See which alone has the power to suppress that which
has been legitimately established by diocesan law Canon 493).
Bishop Mamie's decree is therefore null and
void and of no judicial value. Hence if the decree is
invalid, which it certainly is, the Fraternity has not been
dissolved and Archbishop Lefebvre, as Superior General, maintains
all the privileges which derive from his position, including the
legitimate right exercised in the territory of his Episcopate, to
ordain the seminarists of Econe. Since no legitimate
suppression has in fact occurred, there can be no question of
rebellion on the part of someone who believes null and void an
act which in fact is null and void. Thus Archbishop
Lefebvre has chosen to abide by a sure legal standard and he is
acting as if no such decree existed, simply because in fact it
does not legally exist. Consequently, on June 29th
1976, Archbishop Lefebvre legitimately ordained his
priests. He could have equally well ordained them before
Bishop Mamie's letter as after or for that matter for as long as
the legal procedure against him is not legitimized by an eventual
decree emanating from a competent authority and conforming to the
usual forms of Canonical procedure required in such cases.
Hence, it is proof of bad faith to accuse
Archbishop Lefebvre of having violated a code of Canon Law and of
having scorned Pope Paul's desires which requested him to abstain
from "improper conferment of sacred orders" (L'Osservatore
Romano, August 30-31, 1976). It is clear that in this case
there is no question of improperly conferred ordinations. On the
contrary, Archbishop Lefebvre's ordinations have been validly
conferred and above all, they are legitimate because they are in
conformity with Canon Law.
It follows that if such a violation has not
occurred either with regard to a code of Canon Law or with regard
to an alleged Papal invitation (in any case, devoid of any legal
obligation), Archbishop Lefebvre's "suspense a divinis" is
also null and void because it is founded on a false motivation
based on a non-existent rebellion.
Concerning certain subjects such as Liturgy,
Catechism, and interpretation of Holy Scripture, which may seem
irrelevant, but which in reality are the fundamental causes of
the hostility against Archbishop Lefebvre, an executive of
"Civilta Cristiana" in a press release dated August 29, 1976,
already clearly expressed his opinion which is in every way
identical to that of Archbishop Lefebvre. For the very real
and permanent value that such an opinion brings to all Catholics
wishing to remain faithful to the twice millenary teaching of the
Church, it is well worthwhile that I quote it here:
1. - The very ancient Roman Liturgy of the
Holy Mass, codified by St. Pius V which is a perfect expression
of our Eucharistic Faith (the True Presence, the renewal of the
Sacrifice of the Cross, the priestly ministry) has never been
abolished; even less has it been forbidden by any
Authority. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to both
celebrate and attend this Mass. Within the Catholic Church
there are certain co-existing rites (i.e., Ambrosian, Mozarabic,
Artiochian, Alexandrine, Chaldean, etc.) and one does not easily
understand how it could be possible that the Roman Rite which has
nourished and fortified Occidental Faith since the early
centuries of Christianity, could be forbidden or abolished, and
if so by whom and for what motives? Moreover, the Second
Vatican Council itself, so often evoked by the innovators, in the
Constitution De Sacra Liturgia (No. 4) declares
textually that the sacred Council in faithful homage to Tradition
avows that the Church honours and gives equal rights to all
recognized rites. Furthermore, it desires that in the
future they be preserved and promoted by every available means .
. . "Traditioni denique fideliter obsequens,
Sacrosanctum Concilium declarat Sanctam Matrem Ecclesiam omnes
Ritus legitime agnitos aequo jure atque honore habere, eosque in
posterum servari et omnimodo foveri velle . . ."
2. - The Catechism of Christian Doctrine
drafted by St. Pius X in accordance with the decrees of the
dogmatic Council of Trent (Session XXIV, de Reform., Ch. 7
and Session XXV) sums up the immutable and unalterable truths of
the Church. Hence, no Authority can forbid or limit its
use, either now or in the future.
3. - The authentic translation and
interpretation of Holy Scriptures consecrated by the century-old
Tradition of the True Church are beyond tampering with and any
attempted manipulation of them is an outrage of an extremely
serious nature against the Catholic Faith, the more serious in
this case because it is perpetrated by priests and above all, by
Bishops and certain Ecclesiastic Institutions.
In addition to this, it seems to me important
to bring out in the open the critical stand adopted by
Civiltà Cristiana, with regard to certain
tendencies which have appeared in the post Vatican II
Church. Concerning this subject, an executive of
Civiltà Cristiana, assisted by priests and
theologians, jurists, moralists and canonists affirms in the
already cited press release: "The Second Vatican Council gave
birth to a so-called post-conciliar spirit which has progressed
and caused a frightful crisis within the Church; a crisis which
is easily recognizable by the reapparition of Neo-Modernism,
which has already repeatedly been condemned by the Supreme
Magisterium of the Church. (Decree of the Supreme
Congregation of the Holy Office, Lamentabili July
3rd, 1907; St. Pius X Encyclical Pascendi Dominici
Gregis, Sept. 8, 1907; St. Pius X Motu Proprio
Sacrorum Antistitum Sept. 1, 1910; etc.).
There are those who today would, if they had their way, sweep
aside twenty ecumenical councils. What absurd
conceit! Those who wish to transform everything are waging
a particularly relentless battle against the Council of Chalcedon
451 and the Council of Trent 1545-1563, and the first Vatican
Council which started in 1869. For these people, the
Catholic Church was born today; issue of the "post conciliar
spirit." They seem to feel that from this spirit, and only
this spirit, the Church should receive the advice and inspiration
which in fact are the prerogatives of the Holy Ghost, Third
Person of the Holy Trinity. It is not difficult to perceive
the truly enormous damage that this so-called post conciliar
spirit has given rise to in the Church, "Christ's Mystical Body"
(Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943). This
hapless "post conciliar spirit" has spawned a multitude of
doctrinal and moral aberrations, as well as liturgical and
juridical manipulation, at a time when the very structure of the
Church is menaced and shaken. The truth of the matter is
that this "post conciliar spirit" has laid the foundations for a
new anthropocentric religion, which in fact has little or nothing
in common with the True Catholic Faith; that is to say the Faith
confirmed by past councils and supreme Magisterium, the Faith
handed to us from apostolic times, and upheld by Apostolic
Primates during the course of twenty centuries.
It suffices here to add that Pope Paul
himself, on a number of occasions, deplored and still deplores
the crisis which has arisen in the Church today: that is, in the
Church which may be rightfully called the "post-Conciliar
Church." Such oft-repeated expressions as "a process of
autodemolition has been set in motion", "Satan's smoke has
already filtered in through many fissures", "Tradition is being
ignored or cast aside" are from Pope Paul's lips.
What does all this signify if not that there
is widespread recognition of the fact that there exists a serious
crisis within the Church today, and that the Post Conciliar
Church, contaminated as it is by the so-called "Post Vatican II
Spirit", is no longer acceptable to those who wish to hold fast
to the True Faith.
The Second Vatican Council wanted to clearly
specify its eminently pastoral nature and for this very reason,
it sought to address itself to "contemporary man, taking into
account the exigencies, opportunities, and various deviations
peculiar to the modern world." (The Second Vatican
Council's 28th Inaugural address, Session No. 1, October 11,
1962.)
Franco ANTICO
ENDNOTE:
(1) Note added by
Professor G. Chabot, Lausanne:
The fundamental concept, expressed at the
beginning of the council by Pope John XXIII, was very frequently
repeated, either during the council itself or during its
epilogue: Vatican II has spoken to contemporary man, therefore
the council must concern itself with present day times, and new
conditions and procedures which have become an accepted part of
the world today . . . (Ibid No. 49.) The principal goal of
this council is not to discuss such and such a point of doctrine,
nor to diffuse or repeat the teachings of the church's doctors
and ancient theologians . . ." (Ibid No. 54) "To do this,
there is no need of a council." (Ibid 55) "What is
necessary is that the Church's teaching be presented in such a
way as to fulfil the requirements and the needs of modern day
life . . ." (Ibid 55) Furthermore: "The Church has spoken
to contemporary man such as he is." (Pope Paul's homily, No.
459), Session 9, Dec. 7, 1965.) Pope Paul both frequently
and clearly underlines what may be called the "human principle"
in modern times. He refers to these two things again and
again in clear, certain terms: "Acknowledge our humanism: We,
perhaps more than anyone else believe in the cult of man" (Ibid
456). By its decrees as well as by its constitutions
Vatican II unequivocally restates its official nature, and
addresses itself not only to believers but to "all men without
distinction" to explain how it envisages the presence of the
Church and its action in the context of today's world."
(Gaudium and Spes No. 1320) Further, "The
uneasiness assailing mankind today." (Ibid 1329) "In truth,
the maladjustment from which the contemporary world suffers . .
." (Ibid 1350) "Our era is marked by man's many
achievements and successes . . ." (Ibid 1365) "The ever
widening scope of human relations constitutes one of the most
important aspects of the modern world . . ." (Ibid 1391)
From these quotations, it is easy to see that the frequently
repeated terms "our times", "contemporary man", "modern world"
are determinant and important to the ultimate goals of the
council. In fact, these terms express the council's major
preoccupation.
Vatican II is, beyond any shadow of a doubt,
addressing itself to contemporary man, but contemporary man with
the passing years will fast become the "man of times gone
by." Indeed, the years pass rapidly; here we are already
fifteen years after Vatican II was first announced by Pope John
XXIII in an Apostolic Constitution (December 25, 1961). It
is undeniable that present day man no longer exactly resembles
the man of fifteen years ago, and there is every chance that he
will bear even less resemblance to the man of the future.
One can say as much for the world that rushes from one life style
to another. Today's problems are very different from those
of fifteen years ago. The purpose of previous ecumenical
councils, which were both dogmatic and irrevocable, was "to erect
an insurmountable barrier against all possible heresy that might
attack or undermine the integrity of the Sacred Mystery . . ."
(Cardinals Ottaviani's and Bacci's letter, Corpus
Domini 1969). By their very nature, these
ecumenical councils placed themselves beyond the limits of
time. Unlike past councils, Vatican II, geared for men of a
particular point in time, is already outdated and will become
more so with the passing of each day. Ultimately, it will
have neither kept pace with the march of time, nor with men of
the past, inexorably dogged by the frenetic passage of the
years.
If certain experiments now acknowledged as
being inept should be discarded, let them be discarded, or at
least, their essential points corrected. We should set to
the task fearlessly and courageously, casting aside false pride;
all the more so because of the temporary nature inherent to this
council; indeed, it is the council itself which "set its own
bonds", thus presenting to the world the strange physiognomy of a
council tied to a point in time and as subject as time itself to
the caprices and fashions of an ever-changing humanity which
seems increasingly unable to submit to any eternal law.
My dear Cotturone, I could now close this
letter which I am taking the liberty of sending you, but I feel
that there are two more points worthy of consideration:
The first is that it must be pointed out that
things are going badly - extremely badly. We are going
downhill fast and I even wonder if we are not perhaps in the
process of living through the agony of our country - our Catholic
Italy - our freedom, and our very civilization. Whose fault
is it? Certainly (and we say this with deep pain), and
perhaps most of all, it is the fault of the Hierarchy. It
did not evaluate the danger and it failed to give God's people
the full understanding of its dignity. Alas, it failed too
often to take a stand and pronounce itself on subjects which were
serious and important, even vital to Christianity.
Unhappily, the Hierarchy is guilty of having forgotten or shirked
the duty inherent to the state of the Shepherd: that of guiding
and leading the flock - not running behind and following
it! First, our "shepherds" tolerated a state of doctrinal
confusion, then the weakening and finally the tearing down of all
the dikes which were erected as veritable bulwarks against the
City of God being encroached upon, and finally, the Hierarchy's
permissiveness facilitated the unchecked expansion of that which
is not and can never be compatible with God's kingdom. We
are left in a spiritual wilderness where countless souls are lost
and where men are stripped of their honor and their dignity as
God's children.
Our frightful civil crisis is nothing else
but a logical and necessary consequence of the spiritual crisis:
We will pay for both by torrents of tears and unless God spares
us, by torrents of blood as well. After which, perhaps,
spring will flourish again: a spring that new martyrs will have
obtained for us.
The second matter which I submit to your
consideration has to do specifically with Archbishop
Lefebvre:
It must be said, resaid, and understood that
Archbishop Lefebvre has engendered no crisis at all. The
present crisis is old and goes well back in history, to the
French Revolution, and nearer our time, to the end of the last
century and the beginning of this one . . . (St. Pius X,
Pascendi, 1907).(1) If we jump ahead a bit to the last twenty years,
we clearly see that the deficiency of authority in the Church
ushered in a period during which all the putrid waters, which for
centuries had been held at bay by the enlightened wisdom of many
Popes, began to overflow and contaminate our civilization.
Thus, many are the Catholics who have now
lost confidence in the safe shores of our Lord's doctrine.
They have plunged headlong into a frantic pursuit of new ports
and from time to time, carried away by the storm, they believed
they had discovered them in psychology, positivism, or sociology
either Freudian or Marxist. In all of these or in one of
them, they saw the mirage of a new redemption and they forgot or
cast aside the Kingdom of God, proclaimed by His Son, which in
fact is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and the Omega.
Dazzled by false diamonds of error, they were no longer able to
distinguish the Way, the Truth, and everlasting Life.
Before Almighty God and before history,
Archbishop Lefebvre, from the height of his episcopal authority,
has the merit of having sent out a signal of alarm to the
Church. It is of the utmost urgency to hasten to the
ramparts. The hour is grave and there is no time for either
weakness or hesitation. Archbishop Lefebvre is, in a sense,
the "notary" of the crisis within the Church: He has taken note
of it and denounced it. In the beginning, backed by only a
few followers, and later by distinguished collaborators who have
become more and more numerous, he has now placed the Christian
world face to face with the reality of the crisis. I am a
witness of this work which dates from the days of the
council. It is then that I first saw Archbishop Lefebvre
and a handful of others like him who were devoting themselves to
the task of salvaging that which could still be salvaged.
It is an established fact that if Archbishop
Lefebvre's work were to stop here and now, his mission has
already rendered three services precious to God's cause: First of
all, his courageous action has strengthened the faith of
countless Catholics; secondly, he has slowed down the reckless
adventurous spirit of certain people in quest of promotion;
thirdly, he has pointed out to the Cardinals who will meet in the
next Conclave, the absolute necessity of choosing a Pope who is
convinced of the extreme gravity of the present state of the
Church and who is determined to remedy the evil not by looking
either to the right or to the left, but simply upwards.
I close this letter by a wish, which at the
same time is a prayer: may Almighty God find pleasing the perfume
of heroic virtue practised by the martyrs of our modern day
persecution. May their sacrifices serve to bring back to
the right road the blinded stupid lackeys of this
persecution. Finally, may it be given to us whom the new
lapsi have baptised "termites of Holy Scripture", the strength to
evangelize the real termites who are corroding Holy Mother Church
from inside.
Franco Antico has omitted to call to our
attention one of the most important landmarks along the way which
led to the crisis within the Church: the censuring of "Action
Française" by Pope Pius XI in 1926. The
catastrophic consequences of that "affair" for the Church of
France and for the Church as a whole, have since been recognized,
analyzed, and denounced by many lucid, impartial writers.
Suffice here to cite two:
1. - Marcel de Corte's pamphlet "Rome's
blindness" published by Les Cahiers Charles Maurras in
which we find this conclusion. "In September, 1927 the
French newspaper, La Croix published a letter by Parisian
worker priests congratulating Pope Pius XI for his liberating
action." We now know that this "liberating action", the
prototype of many others, in fact liberated within the Church and
in the world a host of sinister forces bent upon achieving the
Church's autodestruction."
2. - Jean Madiran, "Complaint to the Holy
Father", Chapter III: "The Fundamental Option." The entire
chapter is well worth reading and meditating. Space only
allows me to cite here a few lines:
"The Cardinal Archbishop of Paris - "Father
Marty", as he likes to be called, has given away the secret of
what he calls the "post conciliar evolution." This secret
is a fundamental option . . . in the sense that it is the option
of the Church in France since the censure of L'Action
Française. The ecclesiastical party which today
holds the militant Church under the boot of an alien occupation,
is the same party which was allowed to flourish after the
censuring of L'Action Française. It is a party
of persecutors . . . It should be remembered that the
Catholics of L'Action Française were the very same
Catholics of the Syllabus . . . [Their
censure] was the second rallying to the Republic and a successful
one it was: a cultural revolution within the very heart of French
Catholicism . . . therein lay the fundamental option with which
the French Church was faced . . ."
Most Holy Father,
ENDNOTE:
(1) The Dutch
Catechism has since been translated into Italian and distributed
even in the diocese of Rome.
This letter is addressed to you by those
among your subjects who venerate in you the successor of
Peter. It is a letter written in utter humility and sorrow
by those who wish to go on obeying you, but whose faith and
common sense have been through such an ordeal and suffered such a
series of attacks that they can no longer endure in silence.
These are the reasons for their having asked
me to write to you, asking on their behalf those questions to
which answers are urgently needed if their faith, their
intelligence and their ability to continue to obey you with an
untroubled conscience, are not to be destroyed. Without
such answers they can only drift further into
incomprehension.
Holy Father, do there still exist today
within the Church truth, dogma, untouchable faith?
Your admirable statement of faith, your
Credo, reassured us, but we cannot help wondering
how it can be reconciled with all the new catechisms that omit
all its basic statements, and call in doubt a great number of
other dogmas it contains. You are guardian and protector of
our faith: how then can you allow the publication and
distribution of these catechisms(1) which falsify the true
concept of salvation as taught by the Gospels and
Tradition? How can contradictory dogmas be allowed to
co-exist?
Holy Father, explain to us how we can accept
your Credo while in the liturgy, the Mass and the
administration of the Sacraments, all the ascetical side of
Christian life derived from the reality of original sin, is
deliberately left out? Again, this omission goes against
what we are taught by the Gospels and Tradition. What is
the reason behind the contradiction between what you declare to
be true in public, and what you put your signature to in the
Vatican? Have not such contradictions been singled out for
condemnation by Our Lord Himself?
Holy Father, can your creed be a true one if
what your legate, Cardinal Willebrand, said at the Lutheran
assemblies, particularly the one held at Evian, was approved by
you?
Could there really be a close link between
the aims of Luther and those of the Second Vatican Council, as
your legate declared, presumably with your consent since he was
appointed by you?
We beg you to enlighten us because we
genuinely do not know what to think about all these events.
Holy Father, must your creed always be
believed by the Catholic faithful, upheld and defended to the
death:
- while you greet and receive in audience
Communist executioners, whose hands are stained with the blood of
thousands if not millions of martyred Catholics, faithful to your
Credo and the Church of Rome whose Chief Shepherd
you are?
- while you deny anybody who dares raise his
voice in the Church to ask that these slaughterers of our
brethren should be condemned - as witness the 540 bishops
attending the Council who asked for just such a condemnation?
Please be good enough to explain these
contradictions.
Holy Father, we acclaimed your defence of
conjugal morality in Humanae Vitae. But
entire hierarchies have acted clean counter to the teaching of
this encyclical without your speaking a word in its
defence. What is more, some hierarchies have actively
persecuted the clergy and faithful under their jurisdiction who
attempted to put its teaching into practice and, you have allowed
this, even encouraged such persecution, while at Rome such
priests are treated as troublemakers. What explanation can
you offer for facts like these which are utterly beyond our
understanding?
Holy Father, all your priests who have
remained faithful to the vows they took on receiving the
sub-diaconate, welcomed with joy your encyclical,
Sacerdotalis coelibatus, which re-affirmed that
"the Church in the West cannot weaken its faithful adherence to
the ancient tradition she upholds." Many Christian
households felt that they were once again receiving powerful aid
and support in coping with the problems of conjugal fidelity,
from priests who were themselves faithful to their own vow of
celibacy.
How can it be explained to such as these that
you yourself, in a letter to your own Secretary of State, once
again called in question the principle of priestly celibacy by
envisaging the possible ordination of married men?
How can husbands and wives who have been
betrayed in their marriages have explained to them that the
marriage bond cannot be dissolved, when you are so lenient in
dispensing unfaithful priests from their sacred obligations?
Holy Father, you speak out very strongly in
praise of the Mass of St. Pius V, acknowledging that it
incorporates elements dating back to apostolic times, while you
order it to be replaced and, in addition, allow the replacement
to be imposed improperly on the faithful by some local
hierarchies, or impose it yourself on others?
This new Mass which has replaced the old is,
even if only because of its construction, innumerable different
schemas, countless prefaces, at the mercy of each individual
celebrant's fancy, and very soon provokes indifference or
complete lapsing on the part of the faithful.
And what regard can we have for a reformed
rite which is, in part, the work of six Protestant ministers whom
you received when that work was done, allowing yourself to be
photographed with them as a token of your gratitude for their
labours? Was it to make it apparent that heretics were now
allowed to lay hands on the most precious treasure bequeathed the
Church by Jesus Christ, nothing less than the perpetual renewal
of His Sacred Passion on the altars of His Church?
How can these things be explained to those
who possess the true faith? We implore you to provide such
an explanation.
Holy Father, you speak in praise of Latin and
Gregorian Chant. You entrusted the Benedictines
specifically with the task of preserving these treasures for the
Church. And yet, just one month after saying this, you
authorised the suppression of Latin and plainchant in the
monasteries.
Holy Father, you make a special point of
requesting the bishops to retain the custom of giving Holy
Communion on the tongue, spending considerable time explaining
and defining your reasons and yet, in the very same instruction,
you contradict yourself and authorise communion in the
hand. Tell us what it means.
Holy Father, you lament the fact that your
own authority is respected less and less in the Church, but tell
us, for pity's sake, who took off the tiara that symbolises papal
authority so that - to the stupefaction of the bishops who
witnessed your uncrowning yourself - it could be put up for
auction?
Holy Father, you have deplored the
intercommunion that has taken place in Holland, at Medellin and
in Paris in the Rue de Vaugirard. But who was it that
allowed Barbara Olson, a convinced Presbyterian, and three
heretical ministers attending the Bogota Eucharistic congress, to
receive Holy Communion?
How are we to explain your recognising, in
practice, the episcopal status of Michael Ramsay, then leader of
the Church of England, to whom you personally gave your own ring
and whom you requested to give his blessing to the crowd, when
according to Leo XIII's Bull, Apostolicae
Curæ, a bull he confirmed as being irrevocable
("perpetuo ratam, firmam, irrevocabilem"), "ordinations
conferred under the Anglican rite are totally null and
invalid"?
We truly no longer understand, and we beg you
to give us an explanation of what appears to be outright
scandal.
Holy Father, you deplore the growth of
atheism and irreligion generally, but who gave orders to take
down all the crucifixes from the walls of the Vatican Secretariat
of State, thus effectively laicising your own territory?
Who went to make his obeisance in the Masonic
cult room in New York, at the Assembly of the United Nations?
Who places innumerable difficulties in the
way of the few remaining Catholic governments, either by
appointing bishops sympathetic to Marxism, or by showing public
sympathy for and lending aid to revolutionaries, both lay and
clerical? And who at the same time is all cordiality
towards Communist regimes and those sympathetic to them?
Could all this be the result of the
declaration on religious freedom made at the Second Vatican
Council? But if so, was that Council worth a great
deal?
Holy Father, you never cease telling us that
the Church is going through a painful period of crisis, but who
is it that numbers among his closest associates the principal
begetters of this crisis?
Who nominated Cardinal Lercaro and Cardinal
Suenens as moderators at the Council?
Who appointed those now surrounding you, who
are busy playing the same game as the Church's enemies?
Who sacked the real supporters of the Church
from key posts in the Curia?
Who requested the president of the most
important among the episcopal assemblies to resign?
Who has done all he can to prevent the only
secretary at the Council who has not been made a cardinal, from
being elected president of his national episcopal assembly, and
failed in the attempt?
Why is it that you complain endlessly about
this crisis, and yet refuse to apply the remedy that lies in your
own hands?
There is a multitude of such mysteries for
which we can find no solution. We beg you to help us to
find one.
Holy Father, you declare your attachment to
tradition and to the faith of the Church, but you destroy both
when you embrace all these who have fought against the Church in
the past, and who are still fighting her today: heretics,
Communists, Freemasons. And together with them, those
within the Church who link themselves adulterously with these
ideologies. Yet the same embrace is steadfastly refused to
the Church's faithful servants.
Holy Father, it must be said, although saying
it greatly distresses us: your behaviour reminds us of nothing so
much as Solomon living off his inheritance from David, and using
it to embroil himself with foreign women and with their alien
gods and alien beliefs. Like him, we cannot avoid seeing
it: you are ruining the Kingdom of Israel, the Holy, Roman,
Catholic, Church.
We are disciples of Jesus. Like Our
Lord we prefer the truth of actions to that of words, and so we
make bold to ask you: "Quid dicis de teipso? Quis est
tu?" What say you of yourself? How do you
plead?
Father Noël BARBARA
Archbishopric of Algiers 30 November 1970
My dear Father,
It is not because I have forgotten you that I
avoided burdening you with too many letters. I cherish the
warmest memories of you and I remember your family with great
affection in my prayers.
The reason for my writing to you now is your
open letter to His Holiness Pope Paul VI, which reached me only
yesterday. It caused me the utmost distress. This
abuse of the Pope, who defends the faith of holy mother Church
with such courage, seems to be totally alien to you as I remember
you.
Precisely because I do feel a genuine regard
and fondness for you I am writing to ask you to write an apology
to Cardinal Villot, and to stop attacking the hierarchy: priests
should be a help to their bishops not seek bring them into
disrepute by unwarranted attacks of this kind.
I send you my very best wishes for Christmas,
your birthday's falling on Christmas Day makes it a very special
feast for you, and a happy new year.
With warmest regards and a special
blessing,
+ Leo Etienne Duval
Cardinal Archbishop of Algiers
Your Eminence,
It was a great pleasure to receive your
letter of November 30 this morning. I was particularly
touched by your assuring me your prayers for me and my
family. Please accept my sincere thanks, and the assurance
in return of my own prayers for your Eminence.
Nevertheless, I must say (since your letter
gives me leave to speak completely frankly) that its purpose
amazed me.
I am sure you will understand when I say that
I scarcely need to stress, that publication of my letter to the
Holy Father was not undertaken lightly.
God has given me the grace of faith and the
fear of Him, and it was in the awareness that all our actions are
known to Him and that He will one day be my judge, that I made
the decision to write to the Pope and to make my letter
public. I can assure you that I thought about it and prayed
about it for a whole year, besides taking pains to seek the
advice of theologians and bishops whose orthodoxy seemed beyond
question.
I agree wholeheartedly with your Eminence
that "priests should be a help to their bishops", but you will, I
am sure, agree that such cannot be the case when those selfsame
bishops seem bent on destroying the Church and changing our very
faith.
And isn't this what we see going on all
around us? Your Eminence can hardly fail to be aware that
there is not a dogma of the Church which has not been called in
doubt, not a moral tenet that has not been challenged. And
by whom? By those very bishops.
Your Eminence, because you have had the
charity to write to me I shall make no attempt to disguise my
innermost feelings. You are a bishop: I a priest. On
Christmas Day, later this month, I shall be sixty. For
thirty-two years of my life I have offered the Holy Sacrifice at
the altar.
As God is my witness, I have never once
regretted having dedicated my life to God and to serving His
Church. In spite of many trials and setbacks, I would, were
I to have to begin my life over again knowing what I know today,
not hesitate for a second in following Christ. Without the
slightest conceit I can say with the Apostle: "Scio qui
credidi, et certus sum . . ."
With the help of God's grace I try, despite
considerable hardship, to live my faith, and my love for the
Church is inseparable from my love of God. I am Catholic
and Roman to the very core of my being.
But ever since the promulgation of the new
Ordo Missæ I have lost all confidence in Paul VI, and
I cannot pretend that I hold anybody but him primarily
responsible for the self-destruction of the Church.
I am fully aware of the gravity of admitting
to a thought of this kind, and of the even greater gravity of
making it known to others. But I thank God for having
enabled me to emerge from an ordeal which has purified my faith,
and I firmly believe that I should be aiding and abetting the
furtherance of evil if I persisted in denying the evidence.
Until the new mass appeared I had tried to
convince myself that the Church's self-destruction was the
consequence of disobedience on the part of theologians, bishops
and even various hierarchies (do not forget the way some of them
reacted to Humanae Vitae when it was published),
and that the Pope was in no way responsible.
But since the appearance of the new Ordo
Missæ this position is no longer tenable.
It is Pope Paul VI who has played a leading,
and from certain points of view, an exclusive role in the
self-destruction of the Church.
The Missa Normativa was
rejected by a large majority of your fellow bishops when it was
submitted to the first Synod. Who then did advocate the new
mass? Nobody. It is entirely the work of Pope Paul
VI.
The new mass is in itself ambiguous; it
favours heresy and abounds in sacrileges - anybody would have to
be totally blind not to see this clearly. And, if you will
forgive my bluntness, what scandalises and astonishes me most of
all, is that you bishops failed to give any sign of acknowledging
these facts.
Our forefathers in the faith died rather than
give up their statues and holy pictures, and yet we today accept
that the Mass should be changed, and that we should be forced to
accept a new rite which increases the number of occasions of
sacrilege and invalid celebrations under the pretext of greater
pastoral efficacy.
Your Eminence will almost certainly have seen
a copy of the Christmas number of Paris-Match which
appeared a few years ago. It carried an illustrated report
by Robert Serrou on the eucharistic experiments that were being
tried out in Holland: masses celebrated in the vernacular with no
vestments, no altar stone, in private houses on dining tables
covered with the same cloth that was used every day, with
ordinary household loaves and bottles of rough red wine, with
household glasses instead of chalices, baskets instead of
ciboria, and communion given in the hand to everybody present,
whether Catholic or not, sometimes even handed out by girls in
mini-skirts, etc. I am sure that you, like every other
genuine Christian, must have been outraged by these irreverent,
exaggerated and sacrilegious performances. And, your
Eminence, please do not forget that the indignation of the
faithful was reported by the world press, before the
L'Osservatore Romano got round to publishing an official
protest against the Dutch innovations.
I must admit that I was naive enough to
believe that this protest from Rome was genuine. It was not
until the new Ordo Missæ was promulgated that I
really accepted that we had been systematically deceived from the
very start.
Your Eminence, let me put it to you in the
form of a straight question: why didn't the Vatican intervene
sooner to put a stop to the sacrilegious experiments in
Holland? Is anybody going to believe that Rome knew nothing
about them until the article appeared in
Paris-Match? Hardly!
And was Paul VI aware of what was going
on? Obviously he was, and if he allowed these experiments
to develop and spread throughout the Church it was because he
wanted them to. And like it or not, we cannot ignore the
fact that the same practices which scandalised us then have now
been forced on all Catholics by Paul VI himself.
So it was that I was led inescapably -
bearing in mind all the innovations that were destroying the
Church from within - to the conclusion that they would never have
been possible without, at the very least, the consent of the
Pope.
A Pope who is openly a heretic cannot do the
Church a great deal of damage. There would be an outcry
from the faithful which would lead to his being deposed.
But Paul VI, a Pope who proclaims the faith while always taking
care to leave a tiny area of uncertainty even when he is
pronouncing the truth, is in practical terms destroying the
Church, or allowing what he teaches to be destroyed - a pope of
this kind can only be a master of double-dealing.
What can be the explanation behind such an
abomination?
I cannot answer for sure, but perhaps it is
not too far-fetched to see in the blindness of the Church's
supreme authority a divine response to the blasphemous address to
the United Nations Assembly on 4 October 1965: "It is as an
expert on humanity that we bring to this Assembly the support of
our immediate predecessors, of the entire episcopate of the
Catholic Church and our own, convinced as we are that THIS
ORGANISATION (UNO) EMBODIES THE INEVITABLE PATH OF MODERN
CIVILISATION AND WORLD PEACE . . . We make our voice the
voice of the poor, the deprived, the unfortunate, those who yearn
for justice, for human dignity, for freedom, for a better life,
for progress. The peoples of the world turn to the United
Nations as THE LAST HOPE for peace and harmony: WE MAKE BOLD to
bring here their and our own tribute of honour and of HOPE."
Your Eminence, the hypothesis of a heretical
or schismatic pope is discussed in every manual of Catholic
theology, even in the most recent one by Cardinal Journet.
Because the possibility is admitted to exist,
there can be nothing damaging to the papacy in seeing if there is
not amongst the present confusion some evidence that it has in
fact occurred, in conjunction with the particular characteristic
of the modernist heresy which is never to show its hand
openly.
My letter had no aim other than that of
forcing Paul VI to rise to the responsibilities of his office by
confirming our faith and condemning the heresy-mongers.
What harm can there be in that?
Moreover, publication of my letter has
brought me daily letters of support from many priests and
theologians.
If the facts as indicated by me are a
misrepesentation, why is there such a delay in pointing out how
wrong I am? If the facts are true, is it not a Christian
duty to place the blame for them where it is due?
After all, it is not Paul VI's personal
honour that is at stake, but the honour of God and Holy Mother
Church.
Your Eminence, your rank allows you direct
access to the Pope. May I in my turn plead with you and beg
you to make the Holy Father aware of the way I feel, and to
assure him that these feelings are shared by an immense number of
priests and faithful.
If Cardinal Villot has kept my letter from
him, please could you hand it to him yourself.
Tell him that we pray for him constantly and
that we beg him to return to the true faith. He should not
see anything offensive in this express wish of his children, but
rather an overwhelming charity which urges them to recall to him
the words of Our Lord (Luke 22, 32), charging Simon with his task
as Peter, the rock. Show him that in actual fact it is
Montini, and the outlook of Montini, which leads him to
contradict his predecessors and prevent him from confirming his
brethren.
Your Eminence, the special intention of my
prayers at present is that God may grant you his help in taking
the steps I have begged of you.
May I also take this opportunity of wishing
you a Holy and a Happy Christmas.
Asking a blessing, I am Your Eminence's most
humble and obedient child.
Fr. Noël BARBARA
37150 Bléré - France
signed 11 November 1970
Feast of St. Martin of Tours
Fr. Noël Barbara
Crisis in the Church:
The role of Paul VI
There is a plot against
the Church
Resisting the occupying
power
Opposition: its
justification in traditional theology
Dr. Franco Antico
The "Lefebvre Affair"
Fr. Noël Barbara's
Letter to Pope Paul VI
Cardinal Duval's letter to me and my reply
