A Chink in the Armor: An Appendix to A Crisis of Meaning

As I noted in an earlier post, I cut a lot of material from my first draft of the article published yesterday at OnePeterFive on the role of Sacred Scripture in the rise of Modernism. In the list of papal actions provided in Part II, the last item mentioned was Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu. Here's the part that explains how this document represents a turning point in the battle of the Popes against Modernism:

A Chink in the Armor:

Biblical Inerrancy and Divino Afflante Spiritu

That all 73 books included in the canon of Sacred Scripture are entirely free from error is the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church, having been universally proclaimed since the Age of the Fathers.^[1] Pope Leo XIII restated this teaching, underscoring its infallibility as part of the Universal Magisterium, in his 1893 encyclical Providentissimus Deus as follows:

For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.^[2]

Commenting on this and related passages in Providentissimus Deus, Pope Benedict XV noted with grief in his encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus that, despite Leo XIII’s clear and emphatic instruction, attacks against the doctrine of biblical inerrancy were being launched from within the Church itself:

But although these words of Our predecessor leave no room for doubt or dispute, it grieves Us to find that not only men outside, but even children of the Catholic Church – nay, what is a peculiar sorrow to Us, even clerics and professors of sacred learning – who in their own conceit either openly repudiate or at least attack in secret the Church’s teaching on this point. We warmly commend, of course, those who, with the assistance of critical methods, seek to discover new ways of explaining the difficulties in Holy Scripture, whether for their own guidance or to help others. But We remind them that they will only come to miserable grief if they neglect Our predecessor’s injunctions and overstep the limits set by the Fathers. Yet no one can pretend that certain recent writers really adhere to these limitations. For while conceding that inspiration extends to every phrase – and, indeed, to every single word of Scripture – yet, by endeavoring to distinguish between what they style the primary or religious and the secondary or profane element in the Bible, they claim that the effect of inspiration – namely, absolute truth and immunity from error – are to be restricted to that primary or religious element. Their notion is that only what concerns religion is intended and taught by God in Scripture, and that all the rest – things concerning “profane knowledge,” the garments in which Divine truth is presented – God merely permits, and even leaves to the individual author’s greater or less knowledge. Small wonder, then, that in their view a considerable number of things occur in the Bible touching physical science, history and the like, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress in science!^[3]

As the above passage makes clear, Benedict XV was well acquainted with the Modernist plan to weaken the doctrine of biblical inerrancy by the introduction of a distinction between matter pertaining to faith and morals on the one hand and matter pertaining to the historical record and physical science on the other. It was a distinction called for by the Modernists of the late 19th century, such as Charles A. Briggs, A. Leslie Lilley and Alfred Loisy^[4]– the last of whom was excommunicated by Pope St. Pius X (†1914) in 1908. Despite Benedict XV’s explicit rejection of this plan – the point-by-point refutation extends over several lengthy paragraphs^[5] – the distinction upon which it turned nonetheless found explicit mention and, as the Modernists would later interpret it, implicit approval in Pius XII’s Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):

Hence this special authority – or, as they say, authenticity – of the Vulgate was not affirmed by the Council [of Trent] particularly for critical reasons, but rather because of its legitimate use in the Churches throughout so many centuries; by which use indeed the same is shown, in the sense in which the Church has understood and understands it, to be free from any error whatsoever in matters of faith and morals [emphasis added].^[6]

The limiting effect of the final clause – presumably appended by Augustin Cardinal Bea,^[7] who, together with Jacques-Marie Voste, O.P., was largely responsible for the drafting of the encyclical – is as obvious as it is potentially devastating: if the inerrancy of the Latin Vulgate – i.e., the canonically approved normative edition of Sacred Scripture – is to be described as obtaining “in matters of faith and morals,” the question naturally arises as to whether it is equally free from error in matters not pertaining to faith and morals, e.g. those pertaining to the historical record and the natural world – a notion the very suggestion of which could only represent a tremendous victory for the Modernists.

It is certainly possible to argue that, as the passage in question is dealing with the critical estimation of the Latin Vulgate as one among many editions of Sacred Scripture, the phrase “in matters of faith and morals” does not intend to limit in any way the inerrancy of Holy Writ as regards its substance; rather, it merely intends to acknowledge that the received edition of the Vulgate – like all texts which have been passed down through countless generations – can be improved in regards to its form by careful critical evaluation – for example, through comparison with older or newly discovered manuscripts. This is doubtless the manner in which Pius XII understood and promulgated it, for he goes on to say that the exegete must undertake his interpretation of God’s word “in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will, at the same time, satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.”^[8]

Nonetheless, the wording and placement of the phrase could not have been more opportune for the enemies of the traditional teaching on plenary inerrancy. It signaled a way around the dogma which did not require denying it outright. A chink in the armor which had been carefully crafted by every Pope since Gregory XVI to defend the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture had been found, and the Modernists knew exactly how to exploit it during the deliberations of the Second Vatican Council.

The original schema of the planned Dogmatic Constitution treating Divine Revelation, which was drawn up by the Preparatory Theological Commission in 1960 and presented to the Central Preparatory Commission for approval the following year, summarized the authentic magisterial teaching on biblical inerrancy as follows:

Because Divine Inspiration extends to everything, the absolute immunity of all Holy Scripture from error follows directly and necessarily. For we are taught by the ancient and constant faith of the Church that it is utterly forbidden to grant that the sacred author Himself has erred, since Divine Inspiration of itself necessarily excludes and repels any error in any matter, religious or profane, as it is necessary to say that God, the supreme Truth, is never the author of any error whatever.^[9]

Three things are noteworthy in regard to this passage: (1) the perennial doctrine of plenary inerrancy was clearly and emphatically presented as such; (2) the phrase “in any matter, religious or profane,” an allusion to and rejection of the distinction proposed by the Modernists, was included; (3) the last phrase, i.e. “of any error whatever,” is actually drawn from Divino Afflante Spiritu – as indicated in footnote 7 of chapter 2 – but without the caveat “in matters of faith and morals.” It would appear that the members of the Preparatory Theological Commission, headed by the notoriously conservative Alfredo Cardinal Ottaviani, preferred to treat the dubious phrase as charitably as possible – by ignoring it completely.

When the schema was presented for deliberation by the Council Fathers in 1962, a fierce conflict broke out. Spearheaded by Franz Cardinal König of Vienna, who spoke on behalf of the Germanic contingent, a number of progressive prelates came forward to express their reservations regarding the traditional teaching on biblical inerrancy. Cardinal König himself was so brazen as to flatly assert that Sacred Scripture contains numerous positive errors pertaining to history and natural science, and that the Constitution must, as a result, limit the application of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy to matters of faith and morals alone.^[10] More than 180 Council Fathers – a small but nonetheless significant minority – stood firmly against any caveat being added to the text which could be seen as limiting the scope of the teaching in the way proposed by Cardinal König. When the assembly eventually split into irreconcilable factions over this and similar matters, Pope John XXIII personally intervened by ordering a new schema be drafted under the joint supervision of Cardinal Ottoviani and Cardinal Bea. The document would go through a total of 5 major revisions – the third of which saw the participation of a young Fr. Joseph Ratzinger – before being passed in the Fourth Session by a vote of 2,344 to 6. The final version of the paragraph treating biblical inerrancy reads as follows:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation [emphasis added]. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind.”^[11]

As the final vote indicates, nearly all of those Council Fathers who initially objected to König’s proposal allowed themselves to be convinced that this phrasing was sufficiently amenable to an orthodox interpretation; the appending of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 to the paragraph apparently allayed all fears that “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of our salvation” was, in reality, nothing more than a different way of saying “in matters of faith and morals.” As for the more than 2,100 Council Fathers who didn’t object to Cardinal König’s proposal, it seems they were either unconcerned with or even approving of the possibility of the magisterial teaching on biblical inerrancy being effectively eviscerated in favor of a position previously condemned as heretical.^[12]

In any case, the fact that a high-ranking prelate could stand in assembly with his brother bishops and speak out against an infallible teaching of the Magisterium, and have the overwhelming majority either agree with him or, at least, do nothing to contradict him, is a sobering indication of the breadth of the apostasy in the 1960's, and it confirms the suspicion that the dubious phrase contained in Divino Afflante Spiritu – 20 years before the opening of Vatican II – was not simply an example of poor wording, but was rather placed there as a signal to all who held with Modernism that the tide was turning in their favor. The long wait which began with Gregory XVI and Pius IX was nearing its end; soon, they could let fall the masks of obedience and piety and work openly to realize that dream of the Enlighteners which, as Leo Cardinal Suenens would later observe, really amounted to “the French Revolution in the Church:” Vatican II.

---

Footnotes:

[1] St. Gregory of Nazianz: “We who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to every letter and serif will never admit, for it would be impious to do so, that even the smallest matters were recorded in a careless and hasty manner by those who wrote them down.” Orations, 2:105. Cf. St. Clement of Rome, First Letter to the Corinthians, 45:1-3; St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 2:28:2.

[2] Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, §20. Cf. Council of Trent, Fourth Session (1546), Decree Concerning the Canonical Scriptures; First Vatican Council, Third Session (1870), Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith Dei Filius, §13.

[3] Benedict XV, Spiritus Paraclitus, §§18-19.

[4] Cf. Briggs, Charles A. (1909). “Modernism Mediating the Coming Catholicism,“ in The North American Review, Vol. 189, pp. 879-880; Lilley, A. Leslie (1908). The Programme of Modernism, pp. 15-87; Loisy, Alfred (1912). The Gospel and the Church, pp. 23-52.

[5] Cf. Spiritus Paraclitus. §§17-25.

[6] Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, §21.

[7] Augustin Bea (1881-1968) was a German Jesuit biblical scholar who served as the first president of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. He also served as personal confessor to Pope Pius XII. He was the grand architect of modern ecumenism, and the driving force behind Nostra Aetate.

[8] Divino Afflante Spiritu, §46.

[9] Schema Constitutionis Dogmaticae de Fontibus Revelationis (1961), §12. Joseph A. Komonchak (Trans.)

[10] Cf. Grillmeier, Alois Cardinal (1989). "The Divine Inspiration and the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture," in Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, Vol. 3, pp. 205-206. Also: Zia, Mark Joseph (2006). „The Inerrancy of Scripture and the Second Vatican Council,“ in Faith & Reason, pp. 175-192.

[11] Second Vatican Council, Fourth Session (1965), Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Dei Verbum, §11.

[12] The clear parallel to the 2014-2015 Synod on the Family should be obvious to all.

A Crisis of Meaning: Sacred Scripture and the Rise of Modernism

I was recently invited by the good folks over at OnePeterFive to write an article on the role of biblical studies in the Modernist crisis. I've written a few shorter pieces on it over the past year (for example, here and here) but never treated the matter in the depth it deserves. Excited by the idea of writing an article on a subject I'm greatly interested in for a publication I highly respect, I gladly accepted the kind and generous offer. Little did I realize, however, that the first draft of an already limited outline would grow to more than 50 pages, with no end in sight. After making some painful editorial decisions, I pruned everything down to 10 pages and submitted the article for review. The first half of the article was published yesterday, the second half today. I invite all my readers to go check it out:

A Crisis of Meaning:

Sacred Scripture and the Rise of Modernism

Part I

Part II

Also, I have a lot of material that ended up getting cut out, but which adds depth to some of the points skimmed over or hinted at in the article, due to concerns over length. Provided there is some interest, I will publish some of that material here on the blog over the new few days.

On Principles of Biblical Exegesis

As regular readers of this blog will have noticed, the subject of biblical exegesis is one close to the heart of your humble writer. Several fragmentary articles treating aspects of the matter have appeared on this blog, two of which I would like to highlight:

• On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or the Fissure of Pope Paul VI
• On the Raison d'Être of Modernism

Given my interest in biblical exegesis and its role in the Modernist crisis - as well as my propensity to speak about it whenever given the chance - I was invited by some of my fellow parishioners to organize a private Bible study of sorts. After an ample amount of thoughtful consideration, I decided that the best way to begin such a study is to return to the essentials as taught by the Magisterium and the Church Fathers.

The following brief document - which can be viewed and/or downloaded for private use - represents the fruit of my search for the principles of an authentically Catholic biblical exegesis:

Principles of Biblical Exegesis

In form, it vaguely resembles Fr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, from which I took much inspiration, insofar as it presents a series of theses and then lists passages from Magisterial documents and the writings of the Church Fathers which substantiate each. Though I do not venture to determine the degree of theological certainty of each thesis - I'm no certified theologian - I feel relatively confident that, in an age of ecclesial sanity, all of them would be considered either de fide or, at least, sententia proxima fidei.

For the faithful Catholic, there is absolutely nothing controversial about any of these theses. In fact, they seem so obvious that one might wonder why it is necessary to even mention them. For one, I was somewhat disappointed that Fr. Ott did not include any dogmas on biblical exegesis in his otherwise excellent Fundamentals - despite the fact that the Magisterium has made numerous pronouncements on the subject. For another, it is important to note that, since the publication of Divino afflante Spiritu by Pius XII in 1943, nearly all of these theses have been either thrown into doubt or rejected outright by numerous exegetes. To name but one example: In the most recent edition of the massive Stuttgarter Commentary on the Old Testament - published with the approval of the German Bishops Conference and produced by a small battalion of German theologians - the rejection of the subject-matter of these theses is absolutely prerequisite. And for any who might happen upon the Commentary without having already jettisoned their faith in Revelation, there are numerous instances where they are actively encouraged to do so. Thus, though they may seem obvious, it appeared nonetheless important to restate such essential principles in clear language and with ample references before engaging in any kind of Bible study - just to make sure everyone is on the same page, so to speak.

I hereby offer them to you, gentle reader, in the hope that you may draw some use from them. They are, however, by no means exhaustive; if you notice any considerable deficiency - or if you know of patristic sources which substantiate those theses already included - please feel free to let me know in the comments section.

How To Subvert A Nation: An Insider Explains

Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov
1939-1993

Below, I present a transcript of the first 10 minutes of a lecture delivered by one Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov, also known as Tomas D. Schuman, a KGB-trained informant who defected to the West in 1970 and brought with him his detailed understanding of the system of socio-political manipulation employed by the U.S.S.R. known as subversion. The lecture was given sometime in the early 1980's in Los Angeles, but it has lost nothing of its actuality. In fact, many of the statements made by Mr. Bezmenov border on the prophetic in light of the sweeping changes currently taking place in western nations - especially in the United States.

I strongly recommend to all my readers that they watch the complete presentation. Twice, in fact, though perhaps not in one sitting. The first time you watch it, ask yourself how the tactics of subversion are being employed to shape politics and culture in both the secular and the religious sphere today. Useful reflections are to be had on, for example, the revelations of Bella Dodd, the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath, the 2015 Synod, and the recent Supreme Court ruling on sodomite "marriage", just to name a few issues of great interest to Catholics. The second time you watch it, ask yourself how we can effectively counteract these measures without breaking the law and without resorting to violence. The social conservatives of the world have been one step behind the ultra-progressives for the last 50 years because they have failed to understand the tactics of subversion, let alone to formulate effective responses. To react with hatred and/or violence, beyond being contrary to the Gospel, actually helps the opposition, as it enables them present themselves as the oppressed victims of unfair discrimination.

If you're feeling particularly plucky, share this information with your homosexual associates, should you have any. As Mr. Bezmenov explains, homosexuals, after being openly promoted during the subversion process, are often among the first victims once the new regime takes power. These are what subverters refer to as "useful idiots". To take a page from Soviet history: While homosexuality was legalized at the start of the Soviet Revolution under Lenin, it was re-criminalized under Stalin with severe penalties, which not infrequently ended in a Siberian gulag.

I don't normally ask my readers to share content, but I'm making an exception here. Please share this video with everyone you know. Start discussions on how to counteract the tactics of subversion peacefully and legally. Call out subverters by name. Do not allow yourself to be distracted by what are strategically superficial issues. Regardless of what you think the 'Errors of Russia' are in detail - Communism, Socialism, Materialism, Evolutionism, Atheism - the method of subversion discussed below is most certainly the delivery system.

***

Subversion is a term - if you look in a dictionary or the criminal code, for that matter - usually explained as a part of an activity to destroy things like religion, a government system, the political or economical system of a country, and usually it's linked to espionage and such romantic things as blowing up bridges, derailing trains, cloak-and-dagger activity in Hollywood style. What I'm going to talk about now has absolutely nothing to do with the cliché of espionage, i.e. the KGB activity of collecting information.

Not subversion. Or is it? Discuss.

The greatest mistake, or misconception, I think, is that, whenever we are talking about the KGB, for some strange reason, starting from Hollywood movie makers to professors of political science and "experts" on Soviet Affairs - Kremlinologists, as they call themselves - they think that the most desirable thing for [Yuri] Andropov and the whole KGB is to steal the blueprint of some supersonic jet, bring it back to the Soviet Union and sell it to the Soviet Military Industrial Complex. This is only partly true.

If we take the whole time, money and manpower that the Soviet Union, and the KGB in particular, spends outside of the borders of the U.S.S.R., we will discover - of course, there are no official statistics, unlike with the CIA or FBI - that espionage as such occupies only 10-15% of the time, money and manpower. 15% of the activity of the KGB. The remaining 85% is always subversion. And unlike in dictionary - Oxford dictionary - English, subversion in Soviet terminology always means a destructive, aggressive activity aimed at destroying the nation, country or geographical area of your enemy. So, there's no romantics in there. Absolutely no blowing up bridges, no microfilm in Coca-Cola cans - nothing of that sort. No James Bond nonsense. Most of this activity is overt, legitimate and easily observable if you take the time and trouble to observe it. But, according to the law and law enforcement systems of the western civilizations, it's not a crime! Exactly because of misconceptions and the manipulation of terms. We think that a subverter is a person who is going to blow up our beautiful bridges. No! A subverter is an exchange student, a diplomat, an actor, an artist, a journalist like myself - as I was 10 years ago.

Now, subversion is an activity which requires two-way traffic. You cannot subvert an enemy which does not want to be subverted. If you know the history of Japan, for example, before the 20th century, Japan was a closed society. The moment a foreign boat came to the shores of Japan, the Imperial Japanese Army came to politely tell them to get lost. And if an American salesman came to the shores of Japan - say, 60 or 70 years ago - and said, "Oh, I have a very beautiful vacuum cleaner for you! And with good financing!" he was told, "Please leave, as we do not need your vacuum cleaner." If he didn't leave, they shot him, to preserve their culture, ideology, traditions and values intact. You were not able to subvert Japan.

You cannot subvert the Soviet Union, because the borders are closed, the media is censored by the government, the population is controlled by the KGB and internal police. With all the beautiful glossy pictures in Time magazine and the magazine America, which is published by the American Embassy in Moscow, you cannot subvert Soviet citizens because the magazine never reaches Soviet citizens; it's collected from the newsstands and thrown into the garbage can.

Subversion can only be successful when the initiator, the actor, the agent of subversion has a responsive target. It's two-way traffic. The United States is a receptive target of subversion. But there is no response similar to that one from the United States to the Soviet Union. It stops halfway somewhere; it never reaches its target.

Sun-Tzu
ca. 534-453 B.C.

The theory of subversion goes all the way back to 2,500 years ago. The first human being who formulated the tactics of subversion was a Chinese philosopher by the name of Sun-Tzu, ca. 500 B.C. He was an adviser to several imperial courts in ancient China. And he said, after long meditation, that, to implement state policy in a war-like manner, it's the most counterproductive, barbaric and inefficient to fight on a battlefield. You know that war is a continuation of state policy, right? So if you want to successfully implement your state policy, and you start fighting, this is the most idiotic way to do it. The highest art of warfare is not to fight at all, but to subvert anything of value in the country of your enemy, until such time that the perception of reality by your enemy is screwed up to such an extent that he does not perceive you as an enemy, and that your system, your civilization and your ambitions look, to your enemy, as an alternative - if not desirable, then, at least, feasible. "Better red than dead." That is the ultimate purpose, the final stage of subversion, after which you can simply take your enemy without a single shot being fired, if the subversion is successful. This is, basically, what subversion is. As you can see, not a single mention of blowing up bridges. Of course, Sun-Tzu didn't know about blowing up bridges; maybe there were not that many bridges at that time.

The basics of subversion are being taught to every student in KGB schools in the U.S.S.R. and to the officers of military academies. I'm not sure if the same author is included in the list of reading for American officers, to say nothing about ordinary students of political science. I had difficulty to find a translation of Sun-Tzu in the library of the University of Toronto and later on here, in Los Angeles. It's a book which is not available to, but rather forced on every student in the U.S.S.R. - every student who is taught to be looking further in his future career with foreigners. [...]

***

For the entire presentation, which includes an incredible amount of useful information, such as a detailed explanation of the four classic stages of subversion, please watch the video below:

BONUS

After watching this video, you will never look at an image such as the following, which shows Russian President and former KGB officer Vladimir Putin engaged in a Judo throw, in the same way. Why are these events always so heavily publicized? Why Judo? Mr. Bezmenov explains it all, without even having lived long enough to see it himself, as he was killed in a mysterious car crash in 1993.

A clear signal to everyone who knows what it means.

A Heretical Pope?

 by
 Michael Davies

[Note: There has been some discussion lately regarding the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine on the possibility of a manifestly heretical pope. Some involved in the discussion are apparently operating under the assumption that St. Robert's views are just now coming to light, and represent something of a 'silver bullet' to end all refutations of the sedevacantist position. The following article by the late Michael Davies, reproduced here without comment, should help to clear up any confusion on the matter. - RC]

***

Michael Davies
(1936-2004)

Claims have been made that one or more of the "conciliar popes", that is to say Pope John XXIII and his successors, were heretics and therefore forfeited the papacy. Those who include Pope John Paul II in this category claim that we have no pope and that therefore the Holy See is vacant, sedes vacante, which is why such people are referred to as "sedevacantists". They claim that this poses no theological problem as the Holy See is vacant during the interregnum between pontificates. Some of these interregna have been very long, the longest being a vacancy of two years nine months between the death of Clement IV in 1268 and the election of Gregory X in 1271. In such cases, the visibility of the Church is not impaired in any way as the Holy See is administered by the Cardinal Camerlengo until a new pope is elected. The Camerlengo, or Chamberlain of the papal court, administers the properties and revenues of the Holy See, and during a vacancy those of the entire Church. Among his responsibilities during a vacancy are those of verifying the death of the Pope and organizing and directing the conclave.

Thus, even when the Chair of Peter is not occupied, the visible, hierarchical nature of the Church is maintained.^[1] Thus the situation during such an interregnum cannot be compared to the situation that the Church would be in if Pope John Paul II is not the legitimately reigning pontiff as there would be no visible source of authority capable of convoking a conclave to elect a new pope.

The theological weakness of sedevacantism is an inadequate concept of the nature of the Church. Without realizing it, they believe in a Church which can fail - and such a Church is not the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ. The Church that He founded cannot fail, for it is indefectible (i.e. it cannot fail). It will continue to exist until the Second Coming as a visible, hierarchically governed body, teaching the truth and sanctifying its members with indubitably valid sacraments. To state that we have no pope is to claim that the Church is no longer visible and hierarchically governed, which, in effect, means that it has ceased to exist. Catholic theologians accept that a pope could lose his office through heresy, but it would have to be such notorious heresy that no doubt concerning the matter could exist in the minds of the faithful, and a statement that the Pope had deposed himself would need to come from a high level in the Church, most probably a general Council. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre warned in 1979.

The visibility of the Church is too necessary to its existence for it to be possible that God would allow that visibility to disappear for decades. The reasoning of those who deny that we have a pope puts the Church into an inextricable situation. Who will tell us who the future pope is to be? How, as there are no cardinals, is he to be chosen? The spirit is a schismatical one. [...] And so, far from refusing to pray for the Pope, we redouble our prayers and supplications that the Holy Ghost will grant him the light and strength in his affirmations and defense of the Faith.

The question of whether the Holy See is vacant must be considered from three aspects, that is: whether a pope could become an heretic and forfeit his office; what constitutes heresy; and whether any of the conciliar popes can be considered to be heretics within the context of this definition.

1. Can a pope forfeit his office through heresy?

The problem which would face the Church if a legitimately reigning pope became an heretic has been discussed in numerous standard works of reference. The solution is provided in the 1913 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Pope himself, if notoriously guilty of heresy, would cease to be pope because he would cease to be a member of the Church.^[2]

Many theologians have discussed the possibility of a pope falling into heresy, and the consensus of their opinion concurs with that of The Catholic Encyclopedia. The Pope must evidently be a Catholic, and if he ceased to be a Catholic he could hardly remain the Vicar of Christ, the head of the Mystical Body. St. Robert Bellarmine taught:

The manifestly heretical pope ceases per se to be pope and head as he ceases per se to be a Christian and member of the Church, and therefore he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the early Fathers.^[3]

Saint Robert was, of course, discussing a theoretical possibility, and believed that a pope could not become an heretic and thus could not be deposed, but he also acknowledged that the more common opinion was that the pope could become an heretic, and he was thus willing to discuss what would need to be done if, per impossible, this should happen:

This opinion (that the Pope could not become an heretic) is probable and easily defended. [...] Nonetheless, in view of the fact that this is not certain, and that the common opinion is the opposite one, it is useful to examine the solution to this question, within the hypothesis that the Pope can be an heretic.^[4]

The great Jesuit theologian, Francisco de Suarez (1548-1617) was also sure that God’s "sweet providence" would never allow the one who could not teach error to fall into error, and that this was guaranteed by the promise Ego autem rogavi pro te ... (Luke 22: 32). But, like Bellarmine, Suarez was willing to consider the possibility of an heretical pope as an hypothesis, particularly in view of the fact, he claimed, that several "general councils had admitted the hypothesis in question."^[5] Saint Alphonsus Liguori (1696-1787) did not believe that God would ever permit a Roman Pontiff to become a public or an occult heretic, even as a private person:

We ought rightly to presume as Cardinal Bellarmine declares, that God will never let it happen that a Roman Pontiff, even as a private person, becomes a public heretic or an occult heretic.^[6]

If, per impossible, a pope became a formal heretic through pertinaciously denying a de fide doctrine, how would the faithful know that he had forfeited his office as he had ceased to be a Catholic? It must be remembered that no one in the Church, including a General Council, has the authority to judge the Popes. Reputable authorities teach that if a pope did pertinaciously deny a truth which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith, after this had been brought to his attention by responsible members of the hierarchy (just as St. Paul reproved St. Peter to his face), a General Council could announce to the Church that the Pope, as a notorious heretic, had ceased to be a Catholic and hence had ceased to be Pope. It is important to note that the Council would neither be judging nor deposing the Pope, since it would not possess the authority for such an act. It would simply be making a declaratory sentence, i.e. declaring to the Church what had already become manifest from the Pope’s own actions. This is the view taken in the classic manual on Canon Law by Father F.X. Wernz, Rector of the Gregorian University and Jesuit General from 1906 to 1914. This work was revised by Father P. Vidal and was last republished in 1952. It states clearly that an heretical Pope is not deposed in virtue of the sentence of the Council, but "the General Council declares the fact of the crime by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived himself of his dignity."^[7] Other authorities believe that such a declaration could come from the College of Cardinals or from a representative group of bishop, while others maintain that such a declaration would not be necessary. What all those who accept the hypothesis of an heretical pope are agreed upon is that for such a pope to forfeit the papacy his heresy would have to be "manifest", as Saint Robert Bellarmine expressed it, that is notorious and public (notorium et palam divulgata).^[8] A notorious offence can be defined as one for which the evidence is so certain that it can in no way be either hidden or excused.^[9] A pope who, while not being guilty of formal heresy in the strict sense, has allowed heresy to undermine the Church through compromise, weakness, ambiguous or even gravely imprudent teaching remains Pope, but can be judged by his successors, and condemned as was the case with Honorius I.

2. What is heresy?

There has never been a case of a pope who was undoubtedly a formal heretic, and it is unlikely in the extreme that there ever will be one. This will become evident if some consideration is given to examining precisely what constitutes formal heresy. The Code of Canon Law defines an heretic as one who after baptism, while remaining nominally a Catholic, pertinaciously doubts or denies one of the truths which must be believed by divine and Catholic faith.^[10] It teaches us that by divine and Catholic faith must be believed all that is contained in the written word of God or in tradition, that is, the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church and proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church or by its Ordinary Universal Magisterium.^[11] No teaching is to be considered as dogmatically defined unless this is evidently proved.^[12]

A doctrine is de fide divina et catholica only when it has been infallibly declared by the Church to be revealed by God. Hence this term does not apply to doctrines which one knows to have been revealed by God, but which have not been declared by the Church to have been so revealed (de fide divina); nor to those which the Church has infallibly declared, but which she does not present formally as having been revealed (de fide ecclesiastica); nor to those which the Church teaches without exercising her infallible authority upon them. If a doctrine is not de fide divina et catholica, a person is not an heretic for denying or doubting it, though such a denial or doubt may be grave sin.^[13]

3. The conciliar Popes

It should now be apparent that there is no case whatsoever for claiming that any of the conciliar popes have lost their office as a result of heresy. Anyone wishing to dispute this assertion would need to state the doctrines de fide divina et catholica which any of these popes are alleged to have rejected pertinaciously. There is not one instance which comes remotely within this category. The nearest one can come to a formal contradiction between preconciliar and post-conciliar teaching is the subject of religious liberty. It has yet to be shown how they can be reconciled.^[14] It is possible that the Magisterium will eventually have to present either a correction or at least a clarification of the teaching of Vatican II on this subject. Neither the pre-conciliar teaching nor that of the Council on religious liberty comes within the category of de fide divina et catholica, and so the question of formal heresy does not arise.

Footnotes

[1] Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1917), vol. III, p. 217. 

[2] CE, vol. VII, p. 261. 

[3] Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice (Milan, 1857), vol. II, chap. 30, p. 420.

[4] Ibid., p. 418. 

[5] F. Suarez, De legibus (Paris, 1856), vol. IV, chap. 7, no. 10, p. 361.

[6] Dogmatic Works of St. Alphonsus Maria de Ligouri (Turin, 1848), vol. VIII, p. 720. 

[7] Wernz-Vidal, Jus Canonicum (Rome, 1942), vol II, p. 518. 

[8] Ibid., p. 433. 

[9] Op. cit., note 92, Wernz-Vidal, (Rome, 1937), vol VII, pp. 46-47. 

[10] Code of Canon Law: Old Code, Canon 1325; New Code, Canon 751. 

[11] Denzinger, 1792; CCL: Old Code, Canon 1323; New Code, Canon 750. 

[12] CCL, Old Code, 1323, §3; New Code, 749, §3. 

[13] T. Bouscaren & A. Ellis, Canon Law, A Text & Commentary (Milwaukee, 1958), p. 724. 

[14] M. Davies, The Second Vatican Council and Religious Liberty (The Neumann Press, Minnesota, 1992).

Noli me tangere!

While in the process of writing an article on the practice of receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in the hand, I was simply overwhelmed by the beauty and abundance of images inspired by Our Lord's short, simple instruction. Therefore, I'll let Him explain my opinion on the matter (be sure to click on the images to view them in a larger format):

Noli me tangere
Antonio da Correggio (1489-1535)

Noli me tangere
Tatian (1490-1576)

Noli me tangere
Ciro Ferri (1634-1689)

Noli me tangere
Anton Raphael Mengs (1728-1779)

Noli me tangere
Anton Raphael Mengs (1728-1779)

Appearance of Jesus to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection
Alexander Ivanov (1806-1858)

Sarahque adversus Haereticos

His Eminence Robert Cardinal Sarah
(Photo: CNS/Paul Haring)

Readers may recall an article published here on December 4, 2014 entitled Müller adversus Haereticos in which it was reported that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, stated the following:

Any separation of the theory and the practice of the faith would, in its formulation, represent a subtle christological heresy.

It was the strongest, most unambiguous statement made to date by any high-ranking prelate on the matter.

The Radical Catholic is pleased to report that Cardinal Robert Sarah, Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, has come forward in defense of the integral relationship of doctrine to practice using exactly the same terms. As reported by Rorate Caeli, the good Cardinal's new book, Either God or Nothing (Original: Dieu ou rien), contains the following equally unambiguous statement:

The idea that would consist in placing the Magisterium in a nice box by detaching it from pastoral practice - which could evolve according to the circumstances, fads, and passions - is a form of heresy, a dangerous schizophrenic pathology. I affirm solemnly that the Church of Africa will firmly oppose every rebellion against the teaching of Christ and the Magisterium.

Some in the Catholic blogging community had wondered aloud as to whether Cardinal Sarah's appointment to the position of Prefect was made in an attempt to bind him more closely to the Curia and, thus, make him more reluctant to openly criticize members of the same. Regardless as to the motives behind the appointment, it seems that Cardinal Sarah is not about to bow down to those who are suggesting to divorce doctrine from praxis. On the contrary, he's coming out with the some of the strongest language in the Church's vocabulary: it's heresy.

On the Pastoral Nature of Vatican II: An Evaluation

by

Msgr. Brunero Gherardini

[Note: While this presentation was originally delivered in December 2010, it seems that it has received relatively little attention outside the italophone world in the four-year interim: at the time of writing, the Italian-language video of the presentation has ca. 4,300 views, and the version with English subtitles has a mere 375. This is a pity, given that Msgr. Gherardini provides us with a truly masterful dissection of the notion of a "pastoral" council as well as a useful framework for understanding the varying degrees of assent to which the documents of Vatican II can be seen as binding the Catholic faithful. For those who appreciate the fine art of Italian gesticulation - and Msgr. Gherardini is an old master - I've included a link to the subtitled video below. - RC]

***

Once upon a time, there was the Arabian Phoenix. Everyone talked about her - but no one had ever seen her. And today there is an updated version, also much talked about, but nobody can tell what it may be. Its name is Pastoral.

The Word

Msgr. Brunero Gherardini

One thing should be crystal clear: the word itself is no problem, for its derivation from the Latin pascere (to feed, graze) is obvious. The Latin verb was born from pabulum (pasture, feed) that gives life to a family not very large, but easily distinguishable in its components: to pasture, in the sense of herding and feeding, pastum (which, in Italian, becomes pasto, "a meal"), which can also be translated as "food"; Latin pastor (shepherd), the person who leads to pabulum, provides food and guards herds and flocks. Pastor becomes in turn the father of pastoricia ars (Italian: pastorizia), the art of tending animals; of Italian pastura (pasture, pasture-land); and of pastoral, already present in late Latin to describe the clothes, food, customs, language of a shepherd. Pasteurization (the process to preserve liquid substances, such as milk), however, is not derived from pastor, but from the French pastoriser, in turn derived from the inventor Louis Pasteur (1822-1895).

Pastoral soon became part of the ecclesiastical jargon to characterize three of the letters of Saint Paul, or the activity and teaching of evangelizers, or episcopal insignia such as ring, crosier, letters. More recent (but not modern) is the use of the word "pastoral" in reference to theology and with a non-dogmatic meaning; in fact, originally pastoral meant "anti-dogmatic." Apart from the ecclesiastical jargon, however, any educated person will easily relate pastoral to the nymphs of Arcadian poetry, to love poetry of Provençal origin, to Aminta (a pastoral drama) of Torquato Tasso, and to music of a simple and tender kind, whose specific characterization is the Sixth Symphony of Beethoven.

The Word Pastoral in Vatican II

After such a broad semantic spectrum, any allusion to the unknown and unseen Arabian Phoenix may appear unsustainable because of evident contradiction. Yet, the hypothetical "may" is neutralized by the absence from the conciliar documents of a sufficient reason adequate to justify it. I say "sufficient reason," because if I said that in the Council documents the word "pastoral" is not present, I would display crass and unforgivable ignorance of Vatican II. Not only is the word there, but it's there in abundance; indeed, it characterizes Vatican II in its specificity of ecumenical Concil against the other twenty that precede it. Vatican II does, in fact, speak of "pastoral action" in general and, in a more direct way, of "pastoral activities;" it identifies various "pastoral necessities" and advocates the institution of, and the mutual cooperation among, various "pastoral subsidies" in order to obviate such necessities; it duly lists among such subsidies the planning and organization of "courses, conferences, centers with their libraries specifically designed for pastoral studies, to be entrusted to eminently qualified persons." For the purpose of radiating "pastoral sensitivity" and any required knowledge within the widest possible radius, Vatican II makes it an obligation for the bishops to study on their own or at an inter-diocesan level the best system "to ensure that presbyters, particularly after several years since their ordination," pursue the required in-depth study of "pastoral methods." And, given that a strong contribution to the apostolic action of the Church can also come from the lay ranks, the Council invites the bishops to choose "priests endowed with the necessary qualities and sufficiently formed," who may in turn provide lay persons with an adequate formation and eventually entrust them with special "pastoral action tasks." And so that "the unity of intent among priests and Bishops may render their pastoral action ever more fruitful," the clergy is urged to hold periodical meetings that should be extended to other members of church organizations "in order to deal with pastoral issues."

Episcopal Conferences of individual nations are warmly encouraged to take to heart and foster the pastoral training of the clergy by means of "pastoral institutes in cooperation with purposely chosen parishes, periodical conferences, appropriate workshops." Not to be omitted, a call to "the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority" to establish an institute "for liturgical pastoral care" with "experts in liturgy, music, sacred art, and pastoral care." These data prove that the Arabian Phoenix is at home in Vatican II, but Vatican II does not say who or what she may be.

Those who "rule and nurture the people of God" are exhorted to incarnate the Good Shepherd who gives his life for his sheep (John 10:11) and to follow "the example of those priests who, even in our own time, did not hesitate to sacrifice their own lives for their flock." Briefly, while exhorting the clergy to become, day after day, the instrument of an increasingly effectual service to the people of God, Vatican II declares explicitly that its "pastoral goals" aim at "the internal renewal of the Church, the dissemination of the gospel throughout the whole world, and the establishment of a relationship based on dialogue with it." Such goals evidently respond to an underlying principle, a notion (rudimentary at least) of a barely sketched pastoral care; a relationship based on dialogue with the world by a Church renewed in her methods of evangelization and apostolate. At this point, though a bit vaguely, the Arabian Phoenix begins to give herself away.

Such insistence (and so much of it) is not surprising. To the contrary, it attests to docility and fidelity to the guidelines that Pope Roncalli, on the 11th of October, 1962, presented to the Council Fathers at the official opening of the great conciliar assembly: though doctrine ranked first among the Council's tasks, Pope John diversified its methodology as compared to the past. Previously, the Church had not eschewed firm and severe condemnation. Today she prefers to strictness the medicine of mercy. According to Pope Roncalli, then, the Church ought to show the good, benevolent, patient countenance of a Mother, most of all to a mankind fettered by so many hardships. She ought to foster human progress by expanding the scope of charity, to spread love, concord, and peace. In this way the contours of the Arabian Phoenix, though they remain hazy, merge with those of the good and patient Mother.

As if to confirm Roncalli's orientation, Paul VI in his homily of the 7th of December, 1965, for the Ninth Session of the Council, declared that the Church takes to heart, along with the kingdom of heaven, mankind and the world; indeed, the Church exists in function of mankind and the world, for the bond between Catholic religion and human life is an intrinsic one, to the point that Catholic religion can be called the very life of man and mankind thanks to her sublime doctrine, to her maternal care with which she accompanies man towards his last end, to the means she gives him to achieve such an end. An umpteenth declaration of pastoral intent that, since it remains within the boundaries of generic statements, does not yet unveil the countenance or the features of the Arabian Phoenix.

On the pastoral character of the Council, however, no doubts and no questions. Vatican II was not - only because it did not want to be - a dogmatic Council and, all things considered, not even a disciplinary one. It only wanted to be "pastoral." Yet, in spite of many interventions by in- and outsiders, the true significance of its declared "pastoral character" is still lost in the fog.

An Undefined Concept

A few lines back I indicated the multifaceted "pastoral role" of the Council. Pastoral as a qualifying adjective or in connection with a noun really occurs dozens and dozens of times. Yet, not one single occurrence gives, if not a definition, at least a hint of an explanation. I realize that, through a critical analysis of various declarations, one can get the general idea; this idea, however, could not be a direct expression of the Council's teachings.

Gaudium et spes is the most cogent example. It is even characterized as "pastoral constitution" being, all of it, an ideal and positive ferment in favour of man, of his freedom and dignity, of his presence in the family, in society, in cultural endeavours, and in the world, for the purpose of conferring upon private and public life breath and dimensions to measure of man. The association of the word "pastoral" with "constitution" in the heading is the most novel of all novelties in the whole Vatican II; and so was it perceived by the Council Fathers themselves, who, before giving their approval, discussed several other definitions. The only justification for associating those words is found in the note that follows the title of this unusual document called "pastoral" both because "on the basis of doctrinal principles, it aims at expounding the attitude of the Church towards the world and the people of today", and because attitude and doctrinal principles intersect and complement each other. The inference should be that such an attitude is always the application and the practical expression of doctrinal principles. To understand which ones, however, is still a problem: sociological, political, economical principles, perhaps, but not - or at least not directly - evangelic ones.

The reference to man and the world recalls the intrinsic limitations of both entities, their being created, and their living in time; their dynamic qualities, their unceasing evolution threatened, as if by Damocles's sword, by an always possible regression. All this highlights their variable and contingent condition but also the problems inherent in the practical application of those doctrinal principles that are for the most part absolute and irreformable. The note, too, acknowledges such perplexities and points them out, but does not solve them. It even complicates matters when it establishes that "the Constitution shall be interpreted according to the general norms of theological hermeneutics, taking into consideration the changing circumstances and their intrinsic links with the matters in question." Truly, should "pastoral care" consist of this merry-go-round of yes-and-no, any definition of it would be impossible. It is stated that the unquestionability of doctrine is to be applied to contingent situations; but should it make doctrine contingent, or should it render the contingent unquestionable and absolute, such an application would turn both elements upside down:"yes" arm-in-arm with "no." I understand why, from the Council halls on, Gaudium et spes was the most debated and the most hindered text. Its submission to committees and subcommittees was of little avail, and likewise its passage through as many as four successive formulations: the difficulty,bordering on hybris, lies in the simultaneous assertion of "yes" and "no."

Perhaps this unresolved perplexity is at the root of the problematicalness that still, after roughly half a century of post-Conciliar age, accompanies every discourse on the Council's "pastoral" role. In practice such perplexity is employed to legitimize just about everything and its opposite. Both conciliar hermeneutics, often analyzed by the Holy Father - the one, which considers Vatican II a new way of being Church, and the other that, to the contrary, links the Council to the living Tradition of the Church, are legitimized by this unsolved difficulty. In both hermeneutics, in fact:

• At the doctrinal level, Vatican II acquires all the values and the appearance of a dogmatic council: the former interpretation turns it into a super-Council, the latter into a doctrinal summary of all previous councils.
• At the pastoral level, Vatican II appears as a container, mixed because of the very fact of its "pastoral" nature, a sort of free hitter who, for "pastoral" reasons, is allowed to say simultaneously "yes" and "no."

At this point, it becomes imperative to provide an objective and unprejudiced assessment of the overall quality of Vatican II, a council that was hastily and naively limited to the "pastoral" sector.

The Four Levels of Vatican II

Those familiar not only with Gaudium et spes, but with all sixteen conciliar documents, are well aware that the variety of its topics and their respective methodologies situate Vatican II on four qualitatively distinct levels:

1. The generic level of ecumenical council as ecumenical council.
2. The specific level of its "pastoral" role.
3. The level of appeal to other councils.
4. The level of innovations.

At the first and generic level, Vatican II meets all the requirements to be an authentic Council of the Catholic Church, the twenty-first in a series. It follows that its magisterium is a conciliar one, that is to say: solemn and supreme, a fact that does not, in and of itself, testify to its dogmaticalness and infallibility; to the contrary, it does not even include these characteristics, because they were removed from the start from the Council's horizon.

At the second and specific level the pastoral role justifies the Council's extraordinarily broad interests that often exceed the boundaries of Faith and theology, e.g. the mass media, technology, the value attached to efficiency in contemporary society, politics, peace, war, socioeconomic life. This level also belongs to the conciliar teaching and is therefore solemn and supreme, but cannot claim - because of the matters dealt with and the non-dogmatic fashion in which they are treated - a validity in and of itself infallible and irreformable.

The appeal to some teachings of previous councils constitutes the third level. On occasion this appeal is direct and explicit (Lumen gentium §1: praecedentium Conciliorum argumento instans [urging on with the argument of previous councils]; Lumen gentium §18: Concilii Vaticani I vestigia premens [pressing on the tracks of the First Vatican Council]; Dei verbum §1: Conciliorum Tridentini et Vaticani I inhaerens vestigiis [treading in the footsteps of the Tridentine Council and Vatican I]), at times it is indirect and implicit and re-states already defined truths, such as the nature of the Church, her hierarchical structure, the apostolic succession, the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, the incarnation of the Word, redemption, the infallibility of the Church and her magisterium, eternal life for the good and eternal damnation for the wicked. In this respect, Vatican II is endowed with unquestionable dogmatic validity, yet this fact does not make it a dogmatic council, because its dogmaticalness is a reflection of the dogmatic character of the conciliar texts cited above.

Innovations constitute the fourth level. If one looks at the spirit that guided the Council, one could say that the whole Council was fourth-level, moved as it was by a radically innovative spirit, even when and where it attempted to strike root in Tradition. Some innovations, however, are specific: collegiality of bishops, the absorption of Tradition in Holy Writ, the limitation of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, the strange relations with the Jewish and Islamic world, the strain on the so-called religious freedom. It is all too plain that, if there is a level where the dogmatic character cannot be perceived at all, it is precisely that of conciliar novelties.

Conclusion

Adherence to Vatican II is, for the reasons stated above, qualitatively articulated. Inasmuch as all four described levels express conciliar teaching, all four require of individual believers and Catholic-Christian communities the duty of an adherence that shall not necessarily be always "of Faith." Such adhesion only goes to the truths of the third level, and only inasmuch as they derive from other assuredly dogmatic Councils. A religious and respectful reception is due to the other three levels, as long as some of their assertions do not collide with the perpetual reality of Tradition by reason of an obvious break of some of their formal variants with the eodem sensu eademque sententia [with the same sentiments and the same consensus]. In such a case, dissent, especially if calm and reasoned, determines neither heresy nor error.

As regards the second, pastoral level, one must truly think that the Council Fathers were not aware of the mortgage paid by themselves to Enlightenment by opening up the Council to a pastoral role that from the very beginning, according to the Enlightenment mentality from which it sprang, had given a trip to God in order to replace Him with man and even, at times, to identify God with man. Indeed, eighteenth-century pastoral care bypassed the motivations, sources, contents, and methods of dogmatic theology and opened wide the gates of the theological fortress to the primacy of anything natural, rational, temporal, sociological.

By saying this, I do not mean at all that the pastoral model of Vatican II is the same as the pastoral model of the eighteenth century. But anyone who, in order to deny their identity, denied any relationship between the two, would be naive or disinformed. In Vatican II, the pastoral model remained rooted in Enlightenment, albeit with different expressions and motivations. It was Paul VI who rescued it from the quicksands of the Enlightenment when, at the opening of the second post-conciliar period, he transferred that model to a Romantic sphere in order to make it "a bridge to the contemporary world" that would convey to it "its inner vitality ... as a life-giving event and an instrument of salvation for the world itself." Thus the Arabian Phoenix became a bridge, a coefficient of life, an instrument of salvation; yet without losing its relationship with Enlightenment as its source through the Neo-Modernistic inspiration of its proponents. Not by chance secularization, which subsequently celebrated its triumph in the present post-conciliar stage, moved from a "pastoral theology" thus understood. And if an uncertain notion of its pastoral nature derives from ignorance of its precedents, the absurdity of the dogmaticalness of a self-styled merely "pastoral" council must needs derive from its original relationship with them.

Thus, the Arabian Phoenix unveils her true features. All things considered, it would have been better had she kept them secret still.

***

(Text Source: Centre for Mediaeval Studies Leonard Boyle)

Video Presentation

[Note: Ensure subtitles are enabled by clicking on the (CC) icon.]

Heinrich Fries on the Pneumatological Church

When, after having returned to her senses, the Catholic Church begins the work of digesting and cataloging the events of what will be known as the Modernist Crisis so as to immunize herself against future outbreaks of this most pernicious of diseases, it will do well to remember the important role played by one particular actor: Heinrich Fries. 

Who?

Cardinal Kasper and Heinrich Fries

Heinrich Fries (1911-1998) was professor of Fundamental and Ecumenical Theology at the University of Munich, collaborated with both Karl Rahner and the young Joseph Ratzinger, and served as something of a mentor to his one-time student, Walter Kasper. An evaluation of the work of Heinrich Fries allows us to understand the Modernist's plans for Catholic ecclesiology - not to mention anything and everything Pope Francis says on the subject. Observe:

To believe in and understand the Church as work of the Spirit means to be mindful of its life and vitality, to protect it from narrowness and inflexibility, and from fear and faintheartedness as well as from dissolution and lack of orientation. It means, in addition, that its own renewal in the Church's constant task, a task that is accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit as the soul of the community of believers. To believe in and understand the Church as work of the Spirit means to make a place in it for the new, the unexpected, the future, according to the injunction, "Do not quench the Spirit" (1 Thess. 5:19); it means, further, to acknowledge that the Spirit of God blows when and where and how it wills, that it cannot be preordained, or chained, or manipulated and regimented. Among the signs of the activity of the Spirit of the Church are the prophets in the Church, the charismatics, often too the uncomfortable critics who understand criticism as faithful engagement, the ones who push towards new turning points and leave their mark on history. (Heinrich Fries, Fundamental Theology, p. 502)

One could be forgiven for assuming that the above is a quote from Pope Francis. Indeed, the harmony between the thoughts of Pope Francis and the words of Heinrich Fries is so great that, under a different set of circumstances, the former could be accused of having plagiarized the latter. As it stands, we have to wonder whether Fries' Fundamental Theology has a place of honor in Pope Francis' personal library.

The Writing on the Wall

His Eminence Cardinal Rodrigues M.

Being up-to-date on all things Catholic as they characteristically are, the good people over at Rorate Caeli recently published an excerpt from a presentation by Cardinal Oscar Rodrigues Maradiaga delivered in January 20, 2015 at Santa Clara University for the Markulla Center for Applied Ethics entitled The Church of Mercy with Pope Francis. Having read the full text of the essay from which the presentation was drawn - several times, in fact - it seems hard to overstate the importance of the message it contains. Never before, in my recollection, has a cardinal - particularly such an influential one (Rodriguez Maradiaga is co-ordinator of the "C9" Council of Cardinals, established by Pope Francis to facilitate a reform of the Curia) - spoken so plainly as to the direction Pope Francis wants to take the Catholic Church.

The portion quoted by Rorate Caeli is undoubtedly important, as it removes all doubt that Pope Francis wants to change the Church in a fundamental, essential and permanent way. But the real meat of Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga's essay - the part which explains what kind of change the Pope wants - is found a few paragraphs later, where he presents his analysis of the universal calamity which has followed in the wake of Vatican II and what he - and, more importantly, what Pope Francis - sees as the remedy: a fundamental change in the faith and spirituality of the Church. I quote:

Spirituality is not a science nor one more praxis in the Church. It is the "nourishment" of the pastoral, the theology and the community, whatever their "model" is. When this was forgotten by the process of ecclesial renovation, this caused "schizophrenia" in some Christians, which is one of the causes of many failures. In a short time, they progressed in all of the levels of the renovation. They changed many pastoral, theological, and disciplinary categories. The image and the mission of the Church changed. Likewise, its concept that related faith with history and society changed; therefore the social and political options became more important. In this context, there was no mystical renovation and it remained "traditional," consistent with another vision of the faith and of the mission, and inconsistent with the new ecclesial experiences. In this context, a spirituality does not motivate, it becomes irrelevant. It ends up being perceived as a useless appendix and ends up being abandoned, since a mystic that does not nourish the human experience stops having meaning; a spirituality that is foreign to the ecclesial model that is being lived leads to the crisis of the Christian "schizophrenia." Many abandonments of the ecclesial life, and even of the faith, are rooted there. The only answer is not in abandoning all mystic or reversing the renovation of the institutions or options (due to fear of a collapse of the Christian values), but in deeply renovating the faith and spirituality starting from love to reach mercy. That is what the Pope wants.

Make sure you understand what Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga is saying here. If necessary, re-read the paragraph. If you feel only slightly nauseated, you might have missed the point. Re-read it. If, on the other hand, you find yourself looking around for the horse that just kicked you in the guts, you're good to go.

To his credit, Cardinal Rodriguez Maradiaga clearly understands that the 'Spirit of Vatican II' and its fruits are at odds with traditional Catholic mysticism, faith and spirituality. To continue to deny it at this stage, therefore, is an exercise in futility. In fact, he argues that this discrepancy is to blame for the abysmal plummet in church attendance and religious vocations. This, too, cannot be denied. Finally, he identifies the three options for overcoming this discrepancy:

1. abandon mysticism and spirituality altogether;
2. reverse the pastoral directives of the 'Spirit of Vatican II'; or
3. fundamentally alter Catholic faith and spirituality so as to better jibe with the 'Spirit of Vatican II'.

If there was ever any doubt as to which option the Pope has selected, let it be henceforth abandoned. If you consider yourself a traditional Catholic, your faith and spirituality have just been declared "inconsistent with the new ecclesial experience," in a word, "irrelevant," and you, being ultimately responsible for the failure of Vatican II, persona non grata.

The days of being able to give the benefit of the doubt are over. The only ones who can't see the writing on the wall are the ones who are afraid to look.

Change We Can Believe In?

In an exceptional moment of clarity, Pope John Paul II once observed:

We see spread abroad ideas contrary to the truth which God has revealed and which the Church has always taught.  Real heresies have appeared in dogma and moral theology, stirring doubt, confusion, rebellion.  Even the liturgy has been harmed. Christians have been plunged into an intellectual and moral illuminism, a sociological Christianity, without clear dogma or objective morality.

If his words were accurate when they were first delivered, on February 6, 1981, they are doubly accurate today. Faithful Catholics around the world are still reeling from the effects of the 2014 Synod - an event during which Princes of the Church were openly discussing and debating topics which, a few short decades ago, were so far beneath the dignity of any self-respecting Catholic as to be taboo. 

No more.

How did we get here? How, in the brief span of a hundred years, did we go from the profoundly Catholic extra Ecclesia nulla salus (outside of the Church there is no salvation) to the profoundly Protestant Ecclesia semper reformanda est (the Church is always to be reformed)? Join me, if you will, on a brief historical excursus in pursuit of insight into this most pressing of questions, i.e. that regarding the instrumentalization of the Holy Spirit to sanction sweeping and persistent change in the Catholic Church.

In the late 19th century, a new strain of evangelical Protestantism - later referred to as the "Holiness Movement" - was emerging in the western world, one which placed great emphasis on a reputedly profound personal experience it referred to as "sanctification" or the "second work of grace," believed to be an outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon individuals akin to what the Holy Apostles experienced at Pentecost two millennia ago. It was from this Movement that the modern religious phenomenon known as "Pentecostalism," which promised its adherents a fuller revelation and a more direct manifestation of the Holy Spirit, was born. As Stanley Frodsham (1882-1969), a leading figure of early Pentecostalism, put it:

The Pentecostal Baptism of the Holy Spirit brings a deeper and clearer revelation of our Lord and Savior.

Almost as if to condemn these very words, His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, in his 1897 encyclical on the Holy Spirit, wrote:

This being so, no further and fuller manifestation and revelation of the Divine Spirit may be imagined or expected; for that which now takes place in the Church is the most perfect possible, and will last until that day when the Church herself, having passed through her militant career, shall be taken up into the joy of the Saints triumphing in Heaven. (Divinum illud munus, §6)

The explosive potential of this new conception of the Holy Spirit was as obvious to Pope Leo XIII as it was to the Protestants who originally proposed the idea, for it meant that anyone could claim the title of Apostle and all the authority that title deserves - namely, the power to decide the true meaning of Christ's words, to discern the authentic application of His commandments, and to define the structure and governance of His Church. In essence, it was a means whereby one could "reset" the Church and all she teaches, taking her, as it were, back to Apostolic times, effectively wiping out her history. And it could all be done with the seeming sanction of Our Blessed Lord, who Himself had promised to send us the Holy Spirit, who would "teach us all truth" (John 16:13). For anyone who wanted to subvert well-established Church teaching - and they were legion at the turn of the last century - the doctrine of Pentecostalism was a most fortuitous blessing. 

Thus, despite the unambiguous rejection by Pope Leo XIII, the idea of a "new outpouring of divine grace," even a "new Pentecost," had gained considerable traction in certain Catholic circles by the early 20th century. It became a veritable buzzword in Rome and beyond when Pope John XXIII, in preparation for the Second Vatican Council, made the following prayer to Almighty God:

Renew Your wonders in this, our day, as by a new Pentecost. Grant to Your Church that, being of one mind and steadfast in prayer with Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and following the lead of Blessed Peter, it may advance the reign of our Divine Savior, the reign of truth and justice, the reign of love and peace. Amen.

The rest, as they say, is history. A mere half-century after that historic prayer, the notion of a "new Pentecost" has become so ingrained in post-Conciliar thinking that, for many, it is part and parcel of Catholicism, and the future of the Church is unthinkable without it. In the words of the former President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity - and the current President of the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization - Cardinal Stanislaw Rylko:

One thing, however, is certain: the face of the Church of the third millennium depends on our capacity to listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Church of our time. [...] It depends, therefore, on our capacity to be amazed by the charismatic gifts that the Holy Spirit is lavishing on the Church today with extraordinary generosity.

It is not a coincidence, gentle reader, that the most "progressive" among the clergy are those who are the most vigorous in their support for Catholic Pentacostalism - or, Charismatic Catholicism, as it is called these days. Some are quite vocal in their support. Others are a bit more subtle. 

As for the subtle type, we might take Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Germany for example. When explaining what he means when he says, "I believe in the Apostolic Church," he revealed the following:

"Apostolic" means that we believe those who first undertook the journey, those who traveled the path from the Easter experience: the Apostles. And we believe that the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. This is, of course, a pretty bold claim. Why is this claim made? To make clear that we are connected to the origins, that we do not make the Church anew, that we do not start at zero, pick up a sheet of paper and say, "Now we shall invent the Church of our dreams." Rather, we enter the long journey of the People of God at the Gospel, at the point of origin. The Apostles represent this loyalty to the origins.

Note well that, for the Cardinal, to believe that the Church is "apostolic" means to believe that we are connected "to the origins," conveniently skipping over the last 2,000 years of apostolic lineage. I imagine we are supposed to feel something like relief when Cardinal Marx explains that he does not want to start tabula rasa, as though this is sufficient proof of his fidelity to the Church. On the contrary, gentle reader, this represents a programmatic change. Gone are the days of genuine apostlic succession, of carefully guarding the hard-won fruits of so many generations of labor in the vineyard; this is to be a church in which we are forever starting, not from the absolute, but from the apostolic zero, pushing 'reset' with every generation, connecting with the "point of origin" so as to better meet the "challenges of the age" under the "sign of the times." There is no cause for relief here; on the contrary, we should be positively outraged, not only at his intentional overlooking of two millennia of authentic doctrinal development, but more properly so at his thinly veiled suggestion that, upon his being raised to the episcopate, he has received his mandate directly from the hand of Christ, and not from the hands of his many saintly predecessors in the Faith. But in doing so, I suspect we would very likely demonstrate that we are not sufficiently inspired by the Holy Spirit. As Cardinal Marx recently commented on the orthodox blow-back he and Cardinal Kasper experienced at the 2014 Synod

When, in a process of reform, one places people and positions in the categories of "victor" and "vanquished," such a one prevents us from being infected and surprised by the Holy Spirit. 

Where have we heard of this "Holy Spirit, God of Surprises" before? Ah, yes. And that brings us to the more obvious type of supporter.

In his opening address to the Synod Fathers, Pope Francis remarked:

God's dream always clashes with the hypocrisy of some of his servants. We can thwart God's dream if we fail to let ourselves be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Spirit gives us that wisdom which surpasses knowledge, and enables us to work generously with authentic freedom and humble creativity.

Are you taking notes, gentle reader? If so, please do underline that the Holy Spirit enables us to be "generous," "free" and "creative." He does not help in the defense of orthodoxy, He does not lead to a genuine appreciation and guarding of Tradition, and He most certainly does not inspire anyone to admonish sinners and correct errors. That only creates division - and we all know where that comes from.

In what has to be one of the most revealing of his homilies to date, Pope Francis recently laid out in surprising clarity his vision of the Church: she is a barren woman, and unless she opens herself to the "Holy Spirit, God of Surprises," she will remain barren:

The Church is a mother and becomes a mother only when she opens herself to the newness of God, to the power of the Spirit. [...] The Church is barren when she believes she can do it all, that she can take over the consciences of the people, going the way of the Pharisees, of the Sadducees, on the path of hypocrisy. [...] She must allow herself to be startled by the Holy Spirit.

The entire homily is very much worth reading and pondering. If you're pressed for time, however, add the following to your list of notes: Holy Spirit = expect startling newness, you barren, gossipy hag.

The logical conclusion of this line of thinking was succinctly summarized by Fr. Peter Knott, S.J., in his book The Keys to the Council (2012):

If one conceives of the Catholic Church exclusively as a reality instituted by Christ two thousand years ago, substantive change will generally be viewed as a departure from the will of Christ. However, if one conceives of the Church as not only instituted by Christ in the past but also perpetually constituted by the Holy Spirit in each present moment, then change and reform might be viewed, not as a departure from the will of Christ, but as a fidelity to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Authentic reform and renewal will always be a response to the promptings of the Spirit in ever-changing historical and cultural contexts. [...] For example, calls for Church reform frequently seek more structures that would allow Church leaders to consult the faithful on a variety of matters from pastoral policy to Church doctrine. Now, many object that such a proposal for reform mistakenly presumes that the Church is a democracy. Indeed, were this call for reform motivated by nothing more than an effort to transform the Church into a liberal democracy, it could well be illegitimate. But, in fact, this reform proposal is oriented toward greater fidelity to the Church's identity as a temple of the Holy Spirit. In pursuing such reform, the Church would become a community of discernment, a community in which its leaders would be dedicated to seeking out the voice of the Spirit.

As Fr. Knott makes clear, this new pneumatology would allow any prelates intent on changing Church teaching to subvert virtually any practice - and, by extension, nearly any doctrine - at will, provided he can make it appear to be at the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The average Catholic, being relatively ignorant of magisterial teaching on the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, is reluctant to offer resistance in the face of novelties being proposed in His Name. And if such a novelty has the blessing of a reigning pope: who is he to judge? Little does he know that the dogmatic constitution which promulgated papal infallibility explicitly states that the Pope does not have the power to declare a new doctrine, even - and specifically - if it should appear to come at the behest of the Holy Spirit:

For the Holy Spirit was promised to the Successors of Peter not so that they might, by His revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by His assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the Apostles. (Constitutio Dogmatica Prima de Ecclesia Christi (Pastor Aeternus), Cap. IV, §6)

The prescience of Blessed Pope Pius IX is downright spooky at times. But, really, why should anyone pay any attention to such an ancient document? 1870? My goodness, that thing is over a hundred years old! It can't possibly be part of the "new Pentecost."

Brace yourself, gentle reader, for an unrelenting stream of homilies and speeches leading up to the 2015 Synod on how we all need to 'become attentive to the promptings of the Holy Spirit,' how He is 'calling us' to 'new and unexpected destinations' well beyond the 'confines' of 'doctrinal security,' punctuated by the occasional snide remark - offered in all humility, mind you - on those 'sour-faced whited sepulchers' who would keep the Church 'in the past' by remaining obstinately 'fixed on,' nay, 'obsessed with' the commandments of Christ. Brace yourself, and mediate on the words of Our Blessed Lord:

If you love me, keep My commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever: the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, nor knoweth Him. But you shall know Him, because He shall abide with you, and shall be in you. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth Me no more. But you see Me, because I live, and you shall live. In that day you shall know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you. He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them: he it is that loveth Me. And he that loveth Me shall be loved of My Father, and I will love Him, and will manifest Myself to Him. (John 14:15-21)