Not Traditionalist, Simply Catholic: An Interview with Fr. Bernhard Gerstle (FSSP)

The Society of St. Pius X should be known to many. But the Fraternity of St. Peter? In this interview, Father Bernhard Gerstle, German District Superior, speaks about the objectives of the Fraternity.

Over at OnePeterFive, Maike Hickson provides a few choice quotations from a recent interview with Fr. Bernhard Gerstle of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP). For those who would like to learn the context of the various statements quoted in Hickson's report, I provide a full translation of the original article below, without comment. - RC

***

Fr. Bernhard Gerstle, FSSP

Q.: Fr. Gerstle, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP) arose by breaking away from the Society of St. Pius X. You were directly involved. What exactly happened? 

A.: I entered the Society seminary in Zaitzkofen in the Fall of 1985, and hoped that there would be a reconciliation with Rome as soon as possible, as there were favorable indications at that time. A shift occurred in 1986 as a result of the interreligious summit at Assisi, which Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre rejected. Efforts were made on the part of Rome, especially by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, to prevent the unauthorized episcopal consecrations of 1988 and come to a mutual understanding. This was almost achieved via a written agreement, which was signed but then rejected by Lefebvre shortly thereafter. I think the whole thing came about due to a lack of trust toward Rome.

Q.: And you, as well as other members of the Society, didn't want to go along with the coming break?

A.: The decision was clear to me from the beginning: in case of a break with Rome, I would stand on the side of the pope. Many of my confrères desired reconciliation with Rome, but didn't risk taking the leap. Thus, it was only a few priests and seminarians who then left the Society. The foundation and ecclesial recognition of the Fraternity of St. Peter - which came about largely as a result of the efforts of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Ratzinger - was unforeseeable at that time.

Q.: In what ways does the FSSP distinguish itself from the Society of St. Pius X?

A.: First, one has to recognize that there are different currents within the Society. One must distinguish between the moderates and the hardliners. There exists a larger number of moderate priests, especially within the German-speaking region, who want to avoid a permanent break with Rome and are interested in an agreement. Then there are the hardliners who largely reject the Second Vatican Council - for example, freedom of religion or ecumenism - and of these, there are some who even doubt the validity of the new liturgy. The Fraternity of St. Peter, on the other hand, agreed to undertake an impartial study of the documents of the Council and has come to believe that there is no break with earlier magisterial teaching. Nonetheless, some documents are formulated in such a way as to give rise to misunderstandings. Since then, however, Rome has issued relevant clarifications, which the Society of St. Pius X should recognize.

Q.: Are there any additional differences?

A.: It is for us a matter of course that the 1983 Code of Canon Law is normative. It appears to me that, for the Society of St. Pius X, there remains here a need for additional clarification. Also, phrases such as "Institutional Church" (Amtskirche) or "Conciliar Church" (Konzilskirche) are to be avoided. We reject them not only because they suggest a kind of distance, but also because, for us, there is no "pre-" and "post-Conciliar" Church. There is only the one Church, which goes back to Christ. Additionally, our apostolate always operates with the consent of local bishops and priests, and we work to maintain good relations. Almost everywhere we are active, our priests have a good relationship to the local ordinaries. We do not want to polarize or divide; on the contrary, we attempt to convey an ecclesial attitude to the faithful in the communities we serve. This means that, while those grievances and abuses which undeniably take place in the Church must be addressed, this must be done in a differentiated and moderate manner.

Q.: Nonetheless, the FSSP, like the Society of St. Pius X, is described as "traditionalist." Do you like hearing that?

A.: I don't like hearing the term at all. We are not "traditionalists;" we're simply Catholics. And as Catholics, we treasure Tradition. But not in the sense that we completely block ourselves off from organic adaptations and changes.

Q.: What are the core objectives of the FSSP?

A.: First and foremost, the celebration of the liturgy in the Extraordinary Latin Form. To strive for the reverent celebration of Holy Mass combined with faithful preaching is an important service in the interest of the Church. Concern for salvation of souls, as Pope Francis is fond of stressing, must remain our central objective. We must once again communicate to people that eternal life is at stake, which is decided here on earth. Especially the message of Fatima, where the Mother of God appeared a century ago, should be brought to the fore in the minds of the people. Unfortunately, the Last Things have been pushed into the background by matters of secondary concern over the past few decades, such that many Christians no longer understand what life is about. This has led to a downplaying of sin and a large-scale collapse of the discipline of confession.

Q.: Do you reject the new liturgy?

A.: We recognize the new liturgy as valid and licit. But we do not close our eyes to the fact that the liturgical reform brought with it many developments which have taken on a life of their own and which lead away from the meaning of the Mass according to the Faith of the Church. The sacrificial character is frequently pushed into the background, or there is a lack of reverence shown toward the Blessed Sacrament. We are very thankful that Pope Benedict XVI pointed out these negative developments. For example, celebrating ad orientem and the reception of Holy Communion kneeling and on the tongue are barely practiced today. The question poses itself whether the changes made to the external form have facilitated a rather protestantized understanding of the Mass among priests and laity.

Q.: This wouldn't have happened if we had retained the "Old Mass," in your opinion?

A.: Presumably not to this extent. Surely, this isn't to be attributed solely to the changes in the liturgy. The training of priests today must also be reconsidered. But the liturgy is an important part of the whole - after all, it is the visible expression of the Faith. It is precisely the many signs of reverence and adoration prescribed by the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, as well as its prayers, which make explicit the sacrificial character of the Mass and express the great Mystery taking place on the altar.

Q.: The Council called for a more active participation of the faithful. How can this be realized in the old liturgy when the priest is more or less the sole actor and the Latin language represents an obstacle to conscious engagement?

A.: One must examine the conciliar document on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium, very closely. One observes significant discrepancies in comparison to what was later put into practice. For example, the text never mentions that the Latin language should be abandoned, merely that the local vernacular should be given due place. And this is something that we actually practice insofar as, for example, the readings in our Masses are recited in German. Nearly all the faithful who come to us have a German-Latin missal, and they manage quite well. I don't see language as an obstacle to conscious engagement in the Mass.

Q.: But what about the active participation of the faithful?

A.: In my opinion, the Council didn't intend for as many laypeople as possible to serve as liturgical actors within the sanctuary. Rather, that the faithful should be drawn more intensly into the unfolding of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. This does not mean activism, but rather that they participate through reaping greater spiritual fruits. In the past, many simply prayed the Rosary during the Mass. The Council wanted to put a stop to that and motivate the faithful to a more conscious participation in the Mass.

Q.: With his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, Benedict XVI granted a general allowance for the celebration of the old liturgy. Are things supposed to go back to how they were before the reform of the liturgy?

A.: I realize that we can't simply re-introduce the old liturgy in parishes everywhere and, as it were, impose it upon the people.  That just won't work. As I see it, Pope Benedict intended to set a standard for the Reform of the Reform. Both forms of the Rite should enrich each other mutually. I am convinced that certain elements of the old liturgy could improve the new, and also that elements of the new liturgy could enrich the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite: I'm thinking, for example, of the broader lectionary, or a period of quiet reflection after the reception of Holy Communion. Likewise, the calendar for the Extraordinary Form should be updated in the foreseeable future.

Q.: So, you're expecting a new liturgical reform?

A.: I don't think this is an issue at the moment. Pope Francis is not as concerned with the liturgy as was Pope Benedict. He has other priorities. Nonetheless, it should be noted that interest for the old liturgy, especially among younger clerics, is growing. An increasing number of priests celebrate the Mass in the Extraordinary Form at least occasionally. This, in turn, influences the manner in which the new Mass is celebrated, so that the Sacred becomes more apparent.

Q.: In the German Church, dwindling vocations are a big problem. Does the FSSP share this concern?

A.: Of course we are impacted by the problems of the age. After all, we don't live in isolation. Though, we did have a total of 16 priestly ordinations last year. Both of our seminaries - in Wigratzbad in Allgäu and in Denton in the US - are filled with over 100 seminarians. The average age of our priests is currently 37 years. All in all, we're doing quite well, but it's not as though we are drowning in vocations.

Q.: What about the number of faithful?

A.: In the German-language region, we have 23 branches or houses through which other apostolates are conducted. The number of faithful varies considerably. In the larger communities, between 100 and 180 faithful attend Sunday Mass. The trend, however, is upward. Moreover, all age groups are represented, though in our communities, the average age of the faithful is considerably younger than in other parishes.

Q.: Why is that? Do young people feel attracted to the old liturgy?

A.: In a certain sense, the old liturgy is the new liturgy for young people. They read about it on the internet and become interested.  They come to our Masses out of curiosity, and are often fascinated by the atmosphere of the sacred. Of course, this has to be followed up with good catechesis and pastoral services. When that happens, then people come to see that we can offer them the spiritual food that they need.

Q.: Rumor has it that an agreement between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X is on the horizon. How is the relationship between the Fraternity and the Society today, and what does the future hold?

A.: Recently, there have been multiple indications that an agreement with Rome is coming. It cannot be overlooked that there has been a certain opening on the part of the official leadership of the Society over the last few years. Some of their priests are also strengthening their contact with us. The moderate wing is apparently ready for an agreement, which is being energetically pursued by Rome and the current pope. Still, the hardline wing remains. The Society has to accept the possibility of significant losses, perhaps even an internal split. I think that the current Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, will have to decide between unity with Rome and unity within the Society. The realists among the leadership will hopefully recognize that there is no alternative to reconciliation with Rome.

(Original [German]: katholisch.de)

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.

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.

Welcome to the War

If you've been paying attention to coverage of the Catholic Church lately, you might have noticed a spike in the appearance of terminology borrowed from the bellicose arts, with words like "conflict," "battle" and even "war" being used to describe the goings-on in and around the Vatican these days. While such talk is pretty standard fare for faithful Catholic publications, it has recently spread beyond the narrow borders of Catholic blogdom and entered the mainstream of polite society: Tess Livingstone of The Australian, Tim Stanley of The Telegraph, Ross Douthat of The New York Times and now Damian Thompson of The Spectator have all come to the same conclusion: we are on the brink of civil war.

Just more media spin? A bit of hyperbole to increase revenue? Some would like you to think so. Cardinal Donald Wuerl recently appeared on World Over Live with Raymond Arroyo in part to assure viewers that there exists "no division on the core teachings of the faith" among the bishops. We are, I suppose, to ignore voices such as that of Polish Archbishop Henryk Hoser, who recently stated that "some bishops [...] do not even accept the official teachings of the Church." And if we don't ignore them - if we reject the "Sunshine, Lollipops and Rainbows" narrative - and instead view events within the framework of a "politically partisan narrative," then we deserve to be silenced, as Ross Douthat found out after his commentary provoked the ire of a gaggle of progressive Catholic intellectuals and university professors.

That is, if it weren't for the fact that such talk of war is not limited to the authors of newspaper editorials. Just yesterday, Cardinal Maradiaga informed reporters that Pope Francis is "prepared to battle" his own Curia in order to push through his desired reforms. And in this morning's homily, the Pope himself trained his sights yet again upon the "Doctors of the Law" and fired off a characteristically veiled yet effective warning shot:

God has included us all in salvation! All! This is the beginning. We with our weaknesses, with our sins, with our envy, jealousies, we all have this attitude of excluding which - as I said - can end in wars.

While I congratulate Douthat, Thompson and the rest for refusing to go along with the official narrative and calling it like it is, I have to ask: Where the hell have you guys been for the last 50 years?

For the record: civil war is already upon us. Anyone paying attention knows that the walls have been scaled, the gates have been breached, and the enemy has set up camp in our own court. All that's left is the castle keep, surrounded on all sides by men brandishing torches. And now you think we are on the brink of civil war? Tell that to the three generations of Catholics who have been fighting tooth and nail to preserve every scrap of Sacred Tradition they can get their hands on from the corruption of the grand Aggiornamento. Tell that to those who were reduced to tears as sanctuaries were being desecrated, statues removed, altars broken, and communion rails torn out. Tell that to the scores of good men who were turned away from the priesthood because they objected to the rampant homosexualism of the seminaries. Tell that to the faithful who were cast out of the Church for having the gall to demand that she remain loyal to Christ's teachings 30 years ago.

The only thing new about the 2015 Synod was the brazenness with which the heretics and apostates pushed their revolutionary agenda. They're not even trying to prop up a 'Hermeneutic of Continuity' anymore. It's a rupture, a break - in other words, a schism - from Catholic Tradition. They know it, we know it, and it's time you guys start reporting on it.

Welcome to the war. It's about time you showed up.

(For my Spanish readers: Ahora en Español)

Archbishop Coleridge: A New Language Free of Jots and Tittles

Archbishop Mark Coleridge

In yesterday's press briefing, Archbishop Mark Coleridge attempted to pass off as Catholic pastoral theology what can only be described as situational ethics in action:

In the case of the divorced and remarried, we're always dealing with sin. There's no news in saying that, so that's just taken for granted. The Church has traditionally spoken of the second union as adulterous, and I understand why, and I understand the teaching and what lies behind it, including the biblical background. But at the same same time, not every case is the same, and that's where a pastoral approach needs to take account of the difference from situation to situation. For instance, just to say that every second marriage or second union - whatever you want to call it - is adulterous is perhaps too sweeping. For instance, a second marriage that is enduring and stable and loving, and where there are children who are cared for is not the same as a couple skulking off to a hotel room for a wicked weekend. So, the rubrik "audultery" in one sense is important, but in another sense it doesn't say enough. And I think what a pastoral approach requires is that we actually enter into what the Synod is calling a "genuine pastoral dialogue of discernment" with these couples. And the start of that is for people like me to actually listen to their story, and not just swamp them with doctrine or Church teaching. That's crucial, obviously, as the overall framework of any kind of dialoge of discernment.

Just in case anyone stands in need of a refresher, let's review the words of Our Lord:

Whosoever [Latin: Quicumque] shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her. (Mark 10:11)

Could the flat contradiction between the words of Our Lord and those spoken by this successor to the Holy Apostles be any clearer? Quicumque doesn't leave any pharisaical loophole for permitting some objectively adulterous relationships, even if they appear to be enduring, stable, loving, and fruitful. Our Lord was very specific and very clear: whosoever, i.e. irrespective of all other considerations. Adultery is an objective sin of a particularly grave sort, as it violates both the Commandment of God and a Holy Sacrament of His Church. No amount of "pastoral attentiveness" can plaster over that incontrovertible fact.

When asked what the Archbishop hoped would result from the Synod, he said:

My hope is that we will move towards, without actually accomplishing it this Synod, a genuinely new pastoral approach. Now, at the heart of this, I think there has to be a whole new language. And here, I think of what's been said about Vatican II: that it was primarily a language event. That it was, therefore, something that was far from cosmetic. And I have in mind what the Bible says, that words create worlds. In other words, a new language that can open new doors that we might not even see at the moment, and can create new possibilities.

This matter of a "new language" is one which deserves more careful attention - particularly in light of the above comments from Archbishop Coleridge. We have been led to believe that the substance of Church teaching is not under attack at the Synod, and will not be changed; that all that is being sought after is simply a new mode of expression. But that is not at all what the Archbishop is describing here. His comment that "words create worlds" is a clear allusion, not only to the first chapter of Genesis, where God literally speaks the substance of the universe into existence, but also to the Word of God, through whom all was created. He is speaking of changing language in order to bring about a substantial change. He even tells us that the change being sought after is "far from cosmetic". He is talking - quite plainly, in fact - of preaching a new Word.

Accordingly, the faithful Catholics of Twitter gave the Archbishop the internet equivalent of a sound thrashing. I confess that I, too, joined in the fray with a few cutting remarks of my own. And I don't regret it one bit.

Today, Archbishop Coleridge took to the diocesan blog in defense of his comments:

The big surprise for me has been the ferocious reaction in some quarters to what I regard as my quite moderate remarks. Twitter has been frothing with invective, which shows what's out there - by which I mean the fear, even the panic this Synod seems to have provoked in some. That sort of thing doesn't look like the Holy Spirit to me - red-eyed joylessness cannot be of God. The impression is that, if you touch the slightest jot or tittle not so much of what the Church teaches but of what her pastoral practice has been or how her truth has been expressed, then the whole edifice built up over 2000 years will come tumbling down. If I believed that, I’d be panicking too and hurling lemon-lipped diatribes this way and that. But I don’t believe it and therefore find myself trusting in the path that’s opening before us, with the abuse rolling like water off a duck's back. Voices of fear, even panic, have also been heard in the Synod Hall and the small groups, but what's clearer to me now is that those voices within have strong links to similar voices without. It's also clear that those voices, clinging desperately to some imagined or ideologised past, cannot point the way into the future. History will have its way, however much we try to cling to illusions of timelessness.

Jot or tittle. Where have I heard that before?

On Feminism, Homofascism, and the Errors of Russia: A Video Crash-Course

This post will be short on text, but rich in ideas. I present to you three videos, each one longer and of wider scope than the one preceeding it. It's a kind of intellectual journey into the heart of darkness, but one which will leave you with a much better understanding of what's actually going on in the Church and the world today.

The first is quite short - ca. 4 minutes - and offers a profile of the Minnesota chapter of the subversive "Catholic" group Call to Action. While there is plenty of interesting information to be found online regarding this group - including this blurb on its history - the video offers viewers some insight into how the people involved in the group translate their particular ideology into action. While watching the video, be sure to note how the views espoused by the members of Call to Action are shared by numerous bishops and cardinals currently attending the Synod on the Family, as can be gathered from the statements being issued almost daily from the Holy See Press Office. (A shout out to my #RosicaBlockParty compatriots.)

The second video is somewhat longer - ca. 20 minutes - and provides a brief yet very informative history of the concept of Political Correctness as a tool of social change, how it was introduced into the American educational system, and what it intends to bring about (H/T to Ann Barnhardt for the link). As should become apparent while watching the presentation, Call to Action and similar groups claiming to represent the "oppressed" within the Catholic Church were born from the ideology of the people discussed here.

The third video is considerably longer - ca. 100 minutes - but well worth your time, especially if you watch it to the very end. I discussed this video in some detail back in June of this year, but I consider its content to be so vital in understanding the course of western social politics in the post-Cold War era that I do not hesitate to remind readers of its existence. It contains the testimony of one Yuri Bezmenov, a.k.a. Tomas D. Schuman, an ex-KGB agent who defected to the West in the 1970's, on the topic of socio-political subversion. Mr. Bezmenov's presentation puts the ideology of the Frankfurter School of Marxism, discussed in the previous video, into its larger strategic context, which has as its goal nothing other than the subjugation of the human spirit and the acquisition of totalitarian power.

This, gentle reader, is what Our Lady of Fatima referred to as "the errors of Russia," and they are running rampant in the halls of the Vatican today.

Please share this material with your family, friends and loved ones - particularly with young people attending high school, university or college. It could well save them a life-time of intellectual slavery and an eternity of spiritual suffering.

I leave you with a brief but insightful excerpt from an article written by the recently deceased Solange Hertz (RIP), a true daughter of Holy Mother Church:

How do you get a cat to eat hot pepper? This question, a classic in Marxist training manuals, opens an exercise in revolutionary technique. The answer, to which the student is led by logic and common experience, explains how Communism has been able to take over a third of the world without serious opposition. 

How does one get a cat to eat pepper, a condiment as unpalatable to him as Marxist doctrine is to healthy human nature? The first answer to present itself, says the primer, is obvious: Force open the cat’s jaws and cram the pepper in.

Wrong, the student is told, because the cat’s willing cooperation is lacking. The second answer - to conceal the pepper in a tasty fish - is equally inadequate, because as soon as the cat detects the pepper he simply regurgitates it. 

The correct answer: Sprinkle the pepper all over the cat’s mat. When he lies on it, the pepper will cling to his fur and sting, so that he will soon be licking himself to get it off. This method assures perfect assimilation because (1) the cat is actually ingesting, (2) entirely on his own initiative, (3) and a completely conditioned initiative at that, (4) pepper, which he hates.

On the Raison d'Être of Modernism

[Note: This post was born out of a recent discussion on the always thoughtful and engaging OnePeterFive with fellow Catholic Murray. As my response grew too long to post in the discussion thread, I decided to place it here rather than clog up the board over there. -RC]

St. Pius X's Pascendi Dominici Gregis diagnoses Modernism as resting upon a two-sided foundation: Agnosticism and Vitalism. The first teaches that "human reason is confined entirely within the field of phenomena, that is to say, to things that are perceptible to the senses, and in the manner in which they are perceptible" and that, as a consequence, "it has no right and no power to transgress these limits;" the second teaches that "faith, which is the basis and the foundation of all religion, consists in a sentiment which originates from a need of the divine."

Everything in St. Pius' treatment of Modernism follows necessarily from this two-sided foundation, as he very ably demonstrates. The only deficiency I would ascribe to the great Saint's work - a lack which has not been supplied in the intervening century, as far as I can tell - is that of failing to make a sufficient inquiry into the motivation behind the adoption of that foundation on the part of the Modernists.

I contend that the adoption of that foundation was ultimately driven by the desire to insulate religious faith from the attacks of post-Enlightenment science. Before I am lambasted for sympathizing with the Modernists, let me explain:

Even a cursory examination of Kant, for example, reveals that the driving force in his huge body of work is the desire to make the core claims of religion and ethics as he understood them impervious to the attacks of the new science. His deep forays into epistemology and metaphysics, while they do represent attacks on Scholasticism, were actually the by-products of his searching for a more resilient foundation for religion, and to correctly understand the three Critiques one has to read them in reverse order. His true goal was to produce a rational proof for the existence of God and an objective foundation for morality which would be impervious to the attacks which had been launched against the classical-scholastic proofs since the days of Descartes. He pursued this goal relentlessly, and was willing to sacrifice anything in order to accomplish it - including that most fundamental and natural of all presuppositions, Epistemological Realism, i.e. the belief in the ability of man to know the world as it really is. Once he had loosed himself from this foundation, he was able to go about the work of setting up a new foundation which would lead inescapably to the end he desired.

I mention this because the failure of Catholic intellectuals to successfully combat German Idealism stemmed in large part from their failure to identify the motivation at work. Kant, for his part, was cast in the role of 'enemy of traditional metaphysics' - which he was, but by circumstance, not by design. As I said, his opposition to Scholasticism was not the product of animosity towards God or even the Schoolmen, but rather of the desire to circumvent what he saw as its weaknesses in defending a reasonable faith in God and the objective moral order. Attacking Kant as an infidel metaphysicist, which was the common reaction in Catholic circles, missed the point Kant was making: advances in science - both those made in his own day as well as those which he could see just over the horizon - possessed enough explosive force to threaten the very foundations of traditional Natural Theology and Morality, and if drastic measures were not taken, the whole edifice could come crashing down. The tragic irony here is, of course, that he himself became instrumental in the tearing down of the very edifice he sought to reinforce.

I see old-school Modernists - I do not refer to the present generation of apostates usually subsumed under that name, who are true revolutionaries - in much the same way, i.e. as men seeking to insulate their badly shaken faith by resorting to means which ultimately destroy more than they preserve. What is the Agnosticism of which St. Pius speaks if not the attempt to place the object of religious knowledge, e.g. God and His Revelation, beyond the destructive reach of science? Regarding this Agnosticism, he writes: "From this it is inferred that God can never be the direct object of science, and that, as regards history, He must not be considered as an historical subject." Indeed; but removing God from the field of scientific inquiry was not by design, but rather by apparent necessity: the Modernists let themselves become convinced that faith in God cannot be confirmed by science, and that the impartial study of history will conclude any investigation by finding no place for Him. As Laplace remarked to Napoleon, God had become "an unnecessary hypothesis." If, in order to accomplish this feat, the Modernist must deny man's ability to know objective reality, so be it. This leaves the field of subjective experience, upon which ground science has precious little authority, and the doctrine of Vital Immanence as the positive foundation for religion and morality is born.

I take no exception to St. Pius X's reaction to the Modernist threat of his day: the house was on fire and a heavy hand was needed to smother the flames. But he was unsuccessful in putting out the embers, which flared up again no later than with the reign of Pius XII, because nothing substantial had been done to transcend the now open antagonism between modern science and Sacred Scripture. As I discussed in a previous article (On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissue of Pope Paul VI), the Popes from Pius IX to Benedict XV had undertaken dramatic measures to shore up the defences of traditional biblical exegesis against the attacks of modern science - all of which, however, was undone with the fateful publication of Divino Afflante Spiritu in 1943, which opened the crack through which the smoke of Satan, in the form of the previously condemned historical-critical method, entered the sanctuary and fanned the embers of Modernism into the raging inferno otherwise known as Vatican II. While new priests were swearing the famously defunct Oath Against Modernism, they were at the very same time eating away at the substance of the faith in God's Revelation - namely, the claim to objective reality - like "ecclesiastical termites," to borrow an arrow from Christopher Ferrara's quiver. Once the historical-critical method caught aflame, the Church Militant found itself theologically gutted.

And we have yet to transcend - I use the term judiciously - the conflict which has been raging for the better part of 500 years. The reason the defenders of scriptural authority have languished as they have is because they have failed to appreciate not merely the effect the Enlightenment has had on the thinking of modern man (for example, that he has been rendered effectively blind to what physicist and philosopher Wolfgang Smith refers to as "vertical causation", so crucial to a correct understanding of both theology and nature), but also the motivation behind those who have succumbed to its allure: the desire to defend their own faith - warped though it is - in God, Man and the Natural World. Any attempt to engage with Neo-Modernists of a more 'classical' bent - and they are everywhere today - must start from this position.

On the Interpretation of Sacred Scripture, or The Fissure of Pope Paul VI

[Note: The following article, which treats the crisis of biblical exegesis in the century preceding Vatican II, is something I originally posted over a year ago on Louie Verrecchio's blog - on April 11, 2014 to be precise, just a few months before I decided to start The Radical Catholic. I hesitated to re-publish it here, mainly because I wanted to undertake a more comprehensive treatment of the subject at some point. I still do. In fact, I've since collected enough raw material for a medium-sized book. But the circumstances of my off-line life have changed recently, and I don't know when I'll be able to get back to working on that project. In the meantime, I present to you, gentle reader, the original unedited article for your consideration. - RC]

***

It is often claimed that the changes made to the Sacred Liturgy in the wake of Vatican II have had a devastating effect on the life of the Church. That these two things - the liturgical changes and the devastation - were historically concomitant is clear enough. But are the two things connected as a cause to its effect? Or are they both rather effects of some other cause?

For those who have spent any time researching the matter, it is clear that trouble was brewing long before the opening of Vatican II. Many point to Pope St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis as a key document in the Church’s war against Modernism, and rightly so. But that work is often treated in a way which removes it from its historical context.

Even a superficial examination of the reign of Pope St. Pius X reveals a man fighting a veritable hydra of heresy. It is clear that the matter weighed heavily on him, and he devoted a tremendous amount of energy to combating it. But the focal point of his energy is often overlooked: biblical exegesis.

Pascendi has to be read in light of the documents with which it appeared. Of central importance here is the 1907 syllabus of errors, Lamentabili Sane Exitu, nearly all of which treat errors pertaining to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture. Of equal importance are the documents Praestantia Scripturae (1907), which bound all Catholics to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission, and Vinea Electa (1909), which established the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Taken together, these documents reveal that Pope St. Pius X clearly recognized biblical exegesis as the crack through which Modernism was attempting to enter the sanctuary of the Church.

Pope St. Pius X was not the first to recognize that biblical exegesis was to be the Modernist’s chosen point of entry in their campaign to "reform" the Church from within. Under Blessed Pope Pius IX, the First Vatican Council promulgated Dei Filius, which forcefully restated the Church’s position on Sacred Scripture. This, however, seems only to have emboldened the Modernists. As a counter-measure, Pope Leo XIII delivered his encyclical Providentissimus Deus in 1893, which deals extensively with the study and interpretation of Sacred Scripture.

Providentissimus, while laudable in its treatment of the potential errors in regards to biblical exegesis, appeared to leave just enough wiggle-room for Modernists to continue spreading their errors. In 1902, Leo XIII delivered Vigilantiae Studiique, which officially instituted the Pontifical Commission for Biblical Studies. This Commission, it was hoped, would close the crack and thwart any future advances of the Modernists in the field of biblical exegesis. As it set about its work, however, one thing became perfectly clear: the extent of the errors promulgated by "Catholic" exegetes had been grossly underestimated. The very foundation of the faith was under full assault, and the Church was doing little to nothing to combat it. This recognition is what prompted Pope St. Pius X to issue Lamentabili Sane Exitu in 1907 and found the Pontifical Biblical Institute in 1909. For the time being, the Church closed ranks behind its leader. It would also prove to be the last time.

The period of superficial calm ended with the death of St. Pius X in 1914, and the Modernists returned to their work with renewed vigor under Pope Benedict XV. Taking advantage of the occasionally vague language of Leo XIII’s Providentissimus, the Modernists pushed ahead with their advocacy of the methods of historical criticism. This prompted Benedict XV to deliver the encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus in 1920, which set about to give an official clarification of the intent behind Leo XIII’s encyclical. Benedict roundly condemned once again the errors of modernist biblical exegesis, but the warnings fell on deaf ears. The modernists held so many key positions in institutions of higher learning that dissent from Rome on this point had become commonplace.

The ultimate turning point in the battle is marked by Pope Pius XII’s 1943 encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu. This document essentially removed every defensive measure the previous Popes had put in place to safeguard Sacred Scripture from the attacks of modernist criticism. It was, by and large, drafted by Cardinal Bea, who served as Rector of the Pontifical Biblical Institute from 1930 to 1949 and was later to become instrumental in the drafting of several key documents of Vatican II, including Nostra Aetate and - most significantly - Dei Verbum, the Council’s "Dogmatic Constitution on Sacred Scripture". It is questionable whether Pius XII had much to do with the Divino at all prior to putting his signature on it. Of course, the person of Cardinal Bea needs little in the way of further introduction. He was Pope John XXIII’s closest adviser, and was appointed as the first President of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Bea was, indeed, one of the major players in the tragedy of Vatican II.

If there is one central fact which could be used to illumine all of the events leading up to and transpiring after Vatican II, it is this: the members of the Church, clerics and laity alike, have, by and large, lost all sense of supernatural faith in Sacred Scripture. Even among the most staunch supporters of Tradition and the time-honored form of the Divine Liturgy, there are exceedingly few who would maintain anything resembling a traditional interpretation of Genesis 1-11. Countless are those who run to St. Augustine or - incomparably worse - Origen, hoping to find something there which will allow them to read a big bang, billions of years, evolution, and any other modern scientific theory into Sacred Scripture. Little do they realize that, in doing so, they have already capitulated to modernism inasmuch as they grant the underlying thesis that modern science and Sacred Scripture are telling the same story. They are not.

When we give up the plain historical sense of Genesis - the same sense taught by Our Blessed Lord - we open up the very real threat of giving up the plain historical sense of the Gospel. Without a historical Adam, without a historical Eden, without a historical Fall, there is no New Adam, no New Jerusalem, no Eternal Salvation. There’s just a Jewish carpenter’s son preaching social justice in the countryside of Judea 2,000 years ago.

Already now, theologians are working feverishly to remove the biblical foundation of traditional soteriology and eschatology. For example, Benedict XVI made no secret of his desire to rehabilitate the work of the heretic evolutionist Teilhard de Chardin. For anyone familiar with the work of the latter and capable of thinking the system through to its logical consequence, the prospect is horrifying. For the uninformed, let it suffice to say that this is most emphatically not the faith of the Apostles.

So, my question is this: How can the call to traditional liturgy be made without an equally forceful call to traditional exegesis?

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).