|Pope St Pius X|
Once you have availed yourself of the studies of de Lassus on this important subject you will no longer be left with any doubt as to what has occurred in the past and continues to occur in Holy Church.
Once again we are grateful not only to Arnaud de Lassus but to Anthony Fraser over at APROPOS for permission to use his translation.
A CENTURY OF MODERNISM - PART 3
by Arnaud de Lassus
III Neo-Modernism in the Conciliar and post conciliar eras
By virtue of the absence of disciplinary measures arising from the encyclical Humani generis of 1950, the neo-Modernists were able to continue to develop their action in the bosom of the Church in the years 1950-58 (the end of Pius XII’s pontificate). They knew how to take advantage of the excitement arising from The Second Vatican Council. So much, that in 1967, in his book Le Paysan de la Garonne, Jacques Maritain was able to compare the Modernism at the time of St Pius X as a mild hay fever if one was to compare it with the Modernism then triumphant (cf. the quotation from Maritain below).
The neo-Modernism of the conciliar and post-conciliar eras is an immense subject and we will only touch on some aspects here: those which allow us to see better the continuity of the Modernist phenomenon since the beginning of the 20th century. One may find a more complete analysis in the AFS brochure Le modernisme hier et aujourd’hui especially on the subject of the Modernist philosophical society of today.
• Reasons for the success of neo-Modernism
Here is how Fr Calmel explains them in his preface to the Catéchisme sur le modernisme du Père Lemius [Fr Lemius’ Catechism on Modernism] (p.102 of No 12 of Sel de la Terre).
‘How do we explain how the virus has penetrated so far into the organism. One may enumerate three principal reasons:
Firstly the imposture of Vatican II, the only one of all the Councils which refused to be doctrinal;
Secondly, the progressive occupation of the most elevated positions by Modernist prelates;
Thirdly, the debility of the theological life amongst all the Christian people, and beginning at its head.
A council which betrayed, prelates who betrayed, a Christian people incapable of resisting the treason, because they were spiritually debilitated. Here, at least in part, is what has passed between the two Modernisms; that of St Pius X who was a saint; that of Paul VI who rather evokes Honorius I.’
• The neo-Modernist mindset
We find in it, as in the Modernism of St Pius X’s time, the love of novelties in all domains where they have no raison d’être.
One of the key words of Vatican II was Aggiornamento (update):
‘The insistence which is made in the texts of the Council to this claim of Aggiornamento for adaptation to the world has created in the Catholic world a climate of constant tension towards the new, an agitation (which perdures today )towards some indeterminate thing, which one always firmly desires. This agitation (or “mobilism” as Amerio calls it (43) is not Catholic; it is typical, to the contrary, of the spirit of the world; at any rate it surely does not come from the Holy Spirit: “The word novus occurs two hundred and twelve times in Vatican II; much more frequently than in any other Council…Paul VI repeatedly proclaimed the newness of the conciliar thought: ‘The important words of the council are newness and updating…the word newness has been given to us as an order, as a program.’ (L’Osservatore Romano, 3rd July 1974)” (44). And when the “new”, as one sees it, reveals itself for what it is, indeed: a cheap and even banal adaptation of the Church’s doctrine and thought towards profane doctrines, the anxiety did not come to a stop, but to the contrary it grew, because the novelty of such an adaptation (treacherous) is such that it not content with something definite; it is condemned to surpass continually its objectives, in discussing and in criticising everything and wishing all to dissolve in a something new yet to be realised, ad infinitum.’ (45)
This irrepressible desire for novelty, for modernity as been translated into facts. Thus, we have had a new Mass, a new liturgical calendar, a new catechism, new doctrines on many points, a new exegesis, a new canon law…
We can find in Romano Amerio’s book Iota Unum, much more developed explanations on the Modernist mindset, especially in chapters V (The Post-Conciliar period), XVI (Dialogue) and XVII (Mobilism). (46)
• Neo-Modernist philosophical errors linked with those of Modernism
We will deal here with the loss of the sense of truth and with immanentism (everything coming from within, from conscience).
The loss of the sense of truth
We will give by way of example a text of Abbé Delzant, of the Jean Bart centre (47) entitled Croire dans un monde scientifique (Believing in a scientific world) and published in 1975.
Abbé Delzant distinguishes three worlds, world A (which we have moved from), world B ( or the intermediary world) and world C (the world to which we tend) and he presents them as follows in quoting the expressions unique to each of them:
‘World A: “Christendom”, “submission to authority of the Church”, “It is necessary to teach doctrine, dogma, to transmit the truths of the faith, to put into practice the moral laws”, “the age of metaphysics”. The key words in this type of explanation are “substance”, “soul”, “raison d’etre”, “good”, it is the age of “the imaginary”, which “is no longer suitable”.
World B: “encounter, dialogue, witness, presence, incarnation, engagement, progress, mandate, mission…” “Discern the signs of the time”, “put at a distance the instruments or objects of faith”.
World C: “diaspora” “more discussion ! a hypothesis, an analysis, a work, a production…”, “Change of ‘system’”. To dare “other things”, the age “connections and relations”. “order of mutual recognition”, “the order of alliance”.’
Here are two other more concise explanations of this evolution of a system of thought to another which produces neo-Modernism:
‘For the philosophical categories of being and of substance are substituted, so as to think of the world, those of exchange, of relation, of communication.’ (48)
‘The modern man tends to value research much more than discovery, the question rather than the reply (…)
He has a keen conscience that the truth is not something to be received as fact, that it is to be conquered progressively. Man does not receive the truth, he builds it.’ (49)
One finds here the same conception of truth among the neo-Modernists at the time of Pius XII (cf. p.156 below): truth will be in conformity with the exigencies of action and human life which is always evolving.
Let’s remind ourselves of the definition which one may give to this philosophical and theological error: (50)
If conscience is the source of religion, freedom of conscience in the liberal sense (the claimed right to think and to believe what one wishes, even in religion and morality) is the rule - the freedom of conscience dear to Protestants, since it follows from one of the principal foundations of their religion, interior illumination. (51)
Here are some expressions of this error in some recent texts:
‘The social doctrine of the Church is set in reference to the natural law and to the rights of people, as an expression of the collective conscience of humanity.’ (The Diocesan Bulletin of Metz, 1st May1968).
‘The norm for the regulation of births according to the encyclical Humanae vitae of 1968 represents a position which cannot be substituted for the responsibility of the conscience of the faithful.’
(Declaration of Cologne, by 163 Professors of theology, 25th January 1989; a declaration entitled Contre la mise sous tutelle, pour une catholicité ouverte – Against being put under supervision – for an open Catholicity)
‘The Church’s word is neither an ideology, nor a doctrine; neither is it a third way. The Church, respectful of human autonomy, only claims solely to help man today to make his own response. In this sense, the Church has no response to the problems of society. It is no longer, as it appeared in the past, mistress of truth in that which concerns ethical questions or social relationships for example.’
(Pastoral Guide for Catholic Teaching 1989).
One finds in these texts the tendency to make conscience into the supreme rule in religion and morals, (52)a typical Protestant tendency. (cf. Pascendi §8 &23)
Neo-Modernist theological errors akin to those of Modernism
We will limit our consideration here to the confusion of the natural with the supernatural.
This error, already present in Modernism (see below p.148) constitutes the foundation for what we call the New Theology. (53)
Fr de Lubac (54) (1896-1991) has contributed to substantiate it in using the Modernist method which consists in maintaining two incompatible concepts one with the other. Here is how this was presented by Cardinal Joseph Siri in his book Gethsemane:
‘He (Fr de Lubac) unfolds and interlaces syllogisms and speculations with an astonishing sagacity, thus endeavouring to bring together in balance the two concepts: on the one hand the supernatural implied in nature from the creation, and on the other hand the gratuitousness of the supernatural, of grace.’ (55)
The thesis of the supernatural implied in nature can only benefit from such ambiguity.
One sees the consequences of such a thesis.
If nature can identify itself with the supernatural, can we not conclude that all the world is in a state of grace, that the whole world is saved, that no one is in hell? We will therefore see the disappearance of the prediction of the last times. (56) Salvation being universal, all religions may be considered as means of attaining it.
De Lubac was made Cardinal in 1991. One can judge his influence by these words of Cardinal Ratzinger, at a speech given at the French Embassy at the Vatican on 11th May 1998:
‘In 1948, we learned of the book Surnaturel by Father Henri de Lubac: this book, with its new anthropology, with its profound sensitivity for modern man and his profound message of the Christian faith was an event for us. It opened up to us a new vision of the world and presented a new synthesis between modernity and tradition. A little later, I discovered other French theologians such as Congar, Daniélou, Chenu: my thinking was formed in contact with these masters and in whom I found an exemplary synthesis between spirituality and science, between intuition and methodological rigor (…).’ (Osservatore Romano French Edition, 19th May 1998) (57)
• Neo-Modernist methods of arguing
Few in-depth studies exist on this subject. The best – to our knowledge – seems to be Romano Amerio’s account in his book Iota Unum. It has been summarised in the article Concile ou conciliabule (Council or confabulation) in the June 2000 issue of Courrier de Rome.
Here is some evidence of methods of arguing presented by Romano Amerio:
‘The “circiterism” is something which occurs frequently in the arguments of the innovators. It consists in referring to an indistinct and confused term as if it were something well established and defined, and then extracting or excluding from it the element one needs to extract or exclude. The term spirit of the council or indeed the council is just such an expression. I remember instances in pastoral practice, of priestly innovators violating quite definite rules which had been in no way altered since the council, and replying to the faithful, who were amazed at their arbitrary proceedings, by referring them to “the council”.’ (58)
o Part taken for the whole
‘To this they add another technique, characteristic of those who disseminate error: that of hiding one truth behind another so as to be able to behave as if the hidden truth were not only hidden but non-existent. (59)
An example: the definition of the Church as “the people of God on a journey” (a greatly privileged definition – let’s remember – in the conciliar texts) a formula which is not false in itself, but an incomplete formula, used in a manner to make us forget that the Church invisible is part of the Church and that it is even the most important part. Ah well! This definition has led in fact to the elimination of the cult of the Saints. With this method, one can use a part of the truth as if it acts as the whole truth (pars pro toto) and force it until it comes to represent a new doctrine which is wholly unacceptable.’ (60)
o An obvious contradiction
This is a method of arguing based on the use of the conjunction “but”, which signifies opposition:
‘For example to attack the principle of religious life they write: “The foundations of the religious life are not in question, but the style of its realisation”.61 Again to get round the dogma of the virginity of Our Lady in partu (while giving birth) they say that doubts are possible “Not concerning the belief itself, the dogmatic credentials of which are not contested by anyone, but as to its exact object, which does not necessarily include the miracle of giving birth without rupture of the body.” (62) And to attack the enclosure of nuns they write, “Enclosure must be maintained but it must be adapted according to the circumstances of place and time” (63)
And thus while appearing to maintain one’s position on the virginity of Our Lady on the religious life and on the enclosure of nuns, one is asserting that what is more important than a principle, are the ways of adapting it to times and places. But what sort of principle is inferior rather than superior to its realisations. Is it not obvious that there are styles which destroy rather than express, the fundamentals they are meant to embody?’ (64)
o Another example
‘So too at the Synod of Bishops in 1980, French Language Group B wrote: “The group adheres without reserve to Humanae vitae, but the dichotomy between the rigidity of law and pastoral flexibility must be overcome”. Thus adherence to the encyclical becomes purely verbal, because bending the law to conform with human weakness is more important than the encyclical’s teaching.’ (65)
• The systematic recourse to ambiguity
What R. Amerio calls the “obvious contradiction” only constitutes one of the forms of ambiguity of which the Modernists are fond. One could say that ambiguity to them was connatural. Ambiguity introduced voluntarily in a text has as its aim to permit several interpretations. Thus, one may go from an orthodox sense to a heterodox sense (contrary to traditional doctrine).
It is a fact that one finds ambiguity throughout the life of the Church today: ambiguity in the new liturgy, in the new catechism, in numerous pontifical texts, in conciliar texts…
Let’s confine ourselves to this last field of ambiguity. Here is how it was presented by Jean Madiran and Fr Calmel:
‘The conciliar texts have been completed (in the case of the Nota praevia 66) or even drawn up in a manner which is sufficiently traditional to be able to be voted on almost unanimously, and nevertheless in a manner sufficiently cunning to allow, as the sequel was to demonstrate, subsequent developments which at the time the council Fathers would have refused.
We have known for a long time that (the conciliar texts) are compromise texts. We also know that a Modernist fraction wished to impose a heretical doctrine.
Prevented from succeeding, it succeeded all the same in adopting informal texts; these texts present the double advantage for Modernism of not being able to be accused of clearly heretical propositions but nevertheless are able to be used in a sense opposed to the faith. We will wait later to combat them direct? We gave this a thought for a moment. The difficulty is that they do not give us chance to argue; they are too spineless. When you try to challenge a formula which appears worrying to you, there – in the same page - you will find another entirely irreproachable. When you seek to back up your preaching or your teaching on a solid text, impossible to get around, likely to transmit to your audience the traditional content of the faith and morality, you will soon note that the text you have chosen on the subject for example on the liturgy, or regarding the duties of societies regarding the true religion, that this text is insidiously weakened by a second text which, in reality, extenuates the first so that it has the air of complementing it. Decrees succeed the constitutions, and messages in the declarations without giving the spirit, save in the rare exception, a sufficient hold.’
Fr Calmel’s judgement on the systematic use of ambiguity (through a mixture of truth and falsehood) is remarkably like that of St Pius X in §18 quoted below, p. 149. Which goes to show that the Modernist continuity is found not only in doctrines but also in methods of arguing and – as we are going to see – in behaviour.
Neo-Modernist behaviour and methods
On the whole, the behaviour of the neo-Modernists of the conciliar and post-conciliar era is the same as that of Modernists at the time of St Pius X, with this difference however that their action has less need to be hidden since the resistance to oppose them in the Church has become very weak.
o The wish to remain in the Church
We who remain in the Church, we have very good motives to do so …It’s a matter not only of interpreting the reality of the Church, but to change it. (Hans Kung, 1967) (67)
Amongst the Modernist leaders there are not only those who remain in the Church, but those who have occupied important posts, let’s take the case of Fr de Lubac who was an expert at the Second Vatican Council and a member of the International Theological Commission before being named a cardinal.
• The hope for a council to exploit
Well before Vatican II, the neo-Modernists had wished for the opening of a council, because they had foreseen the part that they would be able to play.
In 1923 Pius XI had consulted Cardinal Billot on the opportunity of convoking a council; the Cardinal’s reply was wholly unfavourable:
‘Finally here is the principal reason which makes me absolutely opposed. The resumption of the Council is desired by the worst enemies of the Church, that is to say the Modernists who, as some indications suggest, are preparing to profit from the general state of the Church to carry out a revolution, the new 89 (68), the object of their dreams and hopes.’
• The manipulation of the Second Vatican Council
Cardinal Billot’s forecasts would be realised 40 years later. The neo-Modernist’s expectations were fulfilled in the Second Vatican Council; they knew how to manipulate it as can be seen from the quotations from Jean Madiran and Fr Calmel given below, p. 170.
Fr Ralph Wiltgen’s book The Rhine flows into the Tiber is most informative about their activities at the Council.
• Opposition between moderate neo-Modernists and radical neo-Modernists
After the Second Vatican Council an opposition more apparent than real was systematised between moderate neo-Modernists and radical neo-Modernists, tendencies illustrated by the revues Concilium and Communio. (69) The latter seek to apply the Council in order, to pursue Modernist objectives in a gradual and pragmatic manner. The former seek to arrive rapidly at the ultimate consequences of the Council.
We say that it is an opposition more apparent than real; it has deceived and continues to deceive many of the faithful who take as a truly doctrinal reaction, a false reaction mixing the truth and falsehood and – an incontestable sign of its fallacious character – always showing itself loyal to the Council texts.
• The keeping-in-place of well organised resources
Even when there are many of their men installed in posts of command, the neo-Modernists always keep in place discreet resources which, most often, keep the reality of power in their sector.
Among the books dealing with this subject, less well known it is true to say, with precise information is the book by G Adler and G Vogeleisen Un siècle de catéchèse en France 1893-1980, written in 1981 and that of Jean-Claude Didelot Clérocratie dans l’Église de France. (70)
In a note by G Adler and G Vogeleisen, one can see outlined the Modernist resource acting in France in the domain of catechesis. (71)
‘A curious phenomenon punctuates the catechetical movement; it is the periodic polarisation of its agents or writings around certain words or expressions. This craze phenomenon presents many characteristics;
a. the appearance of these expressions is difficult, if nigh impossible, to figure out. Circulating first of all in restricted circles, they appear in the future on the scene on the occasion of a book launch, a congress, or an article or in their use by a person “unknown” in catechetical “circles”. They are picked up in diocese after diocese thanks above all to the Diocesan networks. This is the creative period where these expressions mobilise and stimulate action.
b. functioning in a symbolic way, these words carry a hope, a conviction. They are signs of recognition and assure a certain sharing between those “who think like us” and others.
c. when these terms are reused in a standard manner in the meeting of the leaders or in the official texts of the hierarchy, they arrive at the end of their career, becoming dead stars from which creative spurt has been exhausted.’
A revealing text: one sees the initiative of a restricted circle ‘They are picked up in diocese after diocese thanks above all to the Diocesan networks’ to be taken up finally in the official documents of the hierarchy. This is the method of philosophical societies. (72)
• Neo-Modernism in 2007
In restoring the Mass of all times, in depriving the new Mass of its de facto monopoly in the Latin Church, the Motu Proprio of 7th July 2007 presents incontestably as a weighty anti-Modernist measure. At an interval of 100 years, it echoes the decree Lamentabili of 3rd July 1907 and of the encyclical Pascendi of 8th September 1907.
Will the recovery in the liturgical domain be accompanied by a recovery in the doctrinal domain, and especially a return to the doctrine of Christ the King which today has been abandoned? Will the Motu Proprio be the start of a general anti-Modernist reaction? It is too soon to tell.
For the time being, fidelity to the Second Vatican Council appears to be one of the norms of the new pontificate (73). Now this council, made by Modernists, is of a Modernist spirit. It constitutes on many points, a rupture with the past; in so far as it breaks with the past, it cannot be interpreted in the sense of continuity. By the very fact of this fidelity to Vatican II, Modernist errors remain strongly present in the Church.
In doctrinal matters, nothing is settled; the basic problems remain. We have therefore, more than ever, to fight Modernist excesses.
The analysis which we have presented on the neo-Modernism of the conciliar and post-conciliar era has only given some aspects of this complex phenomenon. But these suffice to demonstrate the continuity of the phenomenon since the beginning of the 20th century.
A common essence exists, a spirit common to the Modernism of St Pius X’s time, the neo-Modernism of St Pius XII’s time and that of the conciliar and post-conciliar era; the first of these common characteristics being the loss of the sense of truth, such as we have indicated on pages 143, 155, and 159 below.
Here are three quotations with sum up the essentials:
‘Blind that they are, and leaders of the blind, inflated with a boastful science, they have reached that pitch of folly where they pervert the eternal concept of truth.’ (Pascendi §14)
‘The heart of Modernism is really this: that the religious soul draws the object and motive of its own faith from within itself, and not from outside.’ (74)
‘Modern Catholicism (for the Modernists) can be reconciled with true science only if it is transformed into a non-dogmatic Christianity; that is to say, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.’ (75)
Modernism has not essentially changed; it has perfected itself. What has changed is its attitude regarding the Roman authorities. Saint Pius X and Pius XII fought it. Through his teaching and his governance, Paul VI now fought it, now favoured such or such aspect of Modernism (let us compare for example his encyclical Mysterium fidei of 3rd September 1965 and the New Mass). One finds the same with Pope John Paul II. (76)
Modernism today must be fought more methodically than in the past: in its doctrines, in its fallacious arguments; in its networks to which it devotes a thousand active and competent persons. (77)
It is less easy to fight today than yesteryear due to the support it has from authority; we meet here the classical difficulty: in opposing an abuse of power, one must avoid calling into question the principle of authority. (78)
Be that as it may, to fight is necessary - and all the more urgent as most of the faithful see no necessity for same. There is a blindness there which risks being prolonged if we remain passive.
Some Secret Societies at work in the Church
Secret societies, Masonic or not, exist in the bosom of the Church today. To affirm this fact one is often seen as a crank, believing in the “mythology” of “secret societies”, an adept of “conspiracy theory”.
But this reality has deep historical roots. Already in 1775, Pope Pius VI wrote in his encyclical Instructabili (25th December 1775):
‘Freemasons will attempt even to pervade the sanctuary.’
In the 20th century the Rampolla (79), Tondi (80) and Bugnini (81) affairs show the presence, at high level, of ecclesiastics linked to secret societies or semi-secret societies.
[One has only to consider the infiltration of the Church by Communist informers such as the Polish Dominican, Konrad Hejmo, who infiltrated the Vatican at the highest level, to accustom oneself to the fact that external bodies, societies or states seek to infiltrate the Church for their own ends. If such be the case, why are people so hesitant about believing in Masonic infiltration of the Church – particularly where the adepts of that organisation have boasted of their intention to do just that? Added by Editor, Apropos]
The studies on Modernism published on the occasion of the centenary of the encyclical Pascendi of St Pius X (8th September 1907) encourage us to return to this important subject. In his Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum of Ist September 1910, ‘establishing laws to repel the peril of Modernism’ saint Pius X actually wrote :
‘(The Modernists) have not ceased (…) to look for new adepts and to group them into a secret association.’
‘A secret association’, ‘clandestinum foedus’- as the Latin says. Jean Madiran comments thus on these two words in his book L’intégrisme, histoire d’une histoire:
‘This is about a secret society
Now historians have never made mention of this secret society.
The stories of the Modernist crisis, the assessments of Modernism, the judgements passed are radically invalidated through systematic ignorance and concealment of such an important element of appraisal.
Until his death, Saint Pius X had fought with great energy this secret society installed at the interior of the Church. He had fought it without the power to defeat it or suppress it; he himself had said: “a secret society which succeeds in surviving when one fights it, will it not prosper when no one fights it?” After the death of St Pius X, we were occupied with other things, comprising doctrinal, social and juridical Modernism (…) but we were not occupied with this secret society installed in the bosom of the Church. The normal consequence of such abstention is that the secret society reinforces its installation, advances its progress, develops its power; its occult power has become greater; it has become much stronger in pushing its adepts forward, in liquidating its opponents, and in stopping people from talking about it: to impose a public silence about itself is the common objective of all secret societies. Did it take place? It is still a plausible hypothesis; a hypothesis which one cannot dismiss a priori; a hypothesis which merits more reflection.’ (82)
And today, in 2007, the facts seem to have been borne out according to Jean Madiran’s hypothesis of 1964.
What conclusion can we draw from this? That one must weigh heavily ‘such an important element of appraisal’. This presupposes that the characteristics of secret societies are sufficiently known (ideology, organisation, methods of work, weak points) at a general level. This presupposes using the facts thus acquired to understand better the crisis in the Church. It is not necessary to see secret societies everywhere, but to take account of the fact that we are dealing with adversaries – ecclesiastical or lay – who advance most often hidden.
Such is the lesson valuable as much today, as that given us by St Pius X in speaking of ‘clandestinum foedus’.
Arnaud de Lassus.
43 R. Amerio, Iota Unum, p.359-366.
44 Romano Amerio, Iota Unum, p. 112
45 Courrier de Rome No. 224 (June 2000), p.5, article Réflexions sur l’invalidité possible de Vatican II. Our emphasis.
46 Published by Sarto House and distributed by The Angelus Press, 2918 Tracy Ave, Kansas City MO 6419 USA.
47 Pastoral, liturgical and sacramental centre for the dioceses of the Paris region.
48 O Dubuisson and E Germain, Catéchèse de l’Eucharistie; changement ou permanence? Catéchèse No 76 (July 1979). These authors played an important role in the elaboration of the New Catechism. On this subject see the AFS brochure, La catéchèse française d’après ses documents.
49 Régine du Charlat, a card, Révélation et vérité du dossier La Foi mot à mot, Adult Service of the National Centre for Religious Education (1973)
50 Cardinal Mercier’s Pastoral Letter for Easter 1908; quoted by Romano Amerio,
51 The other principal foundations of Protestantism are: sola scriptura Scripture is the sole source of Revelation and exclusive authority in matters of faith, and sola fide, justification by faith alone. See pp.6-14 of the supplement to Apropos No. 10. The Rudiments of Protestantism by Arnaud de Lassus.
52 Here are some reminders on the role of conscience in morality: ‘the (moral) conscience is an act of practical intelligence which judges the honesty or malice of an act which one must make at the time.’ (Berthier).
Human acts have a double rule: the conscience, a proximate and interior rule and the moral law, a distant rule, exterior and supreme; ‘The individual conscience is not the supreme moral criterion; it must conform to the moral law.’ (John Paul II, 18th August 1983).
53 See the book La nouvelle théologie, published by Courrier de Rome, BP 156, 78001 Versailles cedex.
54 [Henri Rambaud in The Strange Faith of Teilhard de Chardin, advises us ‘Fr de Lubac has guaranteed Teilhard’s “absolute loyalty to Catholicism”. According to the former, Teilhard’s wording might well offend orthodoxy here and there …but he never had any intention of offending against orthodoxy. “Fr Teilhard has always been careful to remain, in his inner self and in his writings, theologically and traditionally in agreement with the Faith of the Church”.’ Rambaud remarks that de Lubac has misled countless people regarding Teilhard and suggests that were such people to read Teilhard rather than de Lubac’s assessment, ‘They would discover a Catholic very different from the one described by Fr de Lubac, and they would probably find the severity of Rome more understandable.’ Note added by Editor, Apropos.]
55 Cardinal Joseph Siri, Gethsemane – Reflections on the Contemporary Theological Movement, p. 61. One will find a very good critique of Fr de Lubac’s thesis in this book. See also in AFS No. 187 (October 2006), the dossier, A propos du cardinal de Lubac: la gratuité de l’ordre surnaturel’.
56 On the last times, see the article Trois études du Père Emmanuel in No. 139 (October 1998) of AFS, and the brochure ‘Du nombre des élus’ by Dom Bernard Maréchaux OSB (Couvent de la Haye-aux-Bonshommes, 4920 Avrille).
57 See the article in No 138 (August 1998) of AFS, Renouveau charismatique et nouvelle théologie.
58 Iota Unum p. 104.
59 Iota unum p. 104.
60 Courrier de Rome, June 2000, p.1-2.
61 [ A quotation from the Report of the Union des supérieurs de France, 3 vols, cited in Itinéraires No. 155, 1971, p.43 – note by Romano Amerio in the text]
62 [ See J.H. Nicolas, La virginité de Marie, Fribourg, Switzerland 1957, p.18 who argues against the unorthodox thesis of A. Mitterer, Dogma und Biologie, Vienna 1952. – footnote by R. Amerio in the text.]
63 [Supérieurs de France op.cit. footnote by R. Amerio in the text.]
64 Iota Unum, p.106.
65 Ibid. p. 106.
66 A nota praevia is a preliminary note of explanation added to the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, to clarify the sense of certain words and expressions which one finds there.
67 Compare this with what Teilhard de Chardin said – see below, p. 17.
68 [An allusion to the French Revolution of 1789. Archbishop Lefebvre in his book, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, writes: ‘It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church” and among other unguarded declarations he added, “One cannot understand the French or the Russian revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end….It is the same in church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it.”’ p.105. – Editor Apropos.]
69 St Pius X had already made the distinction between ‘more moderate modernists’ and ‘modernists – he wrote - that we may call integral’ in observing that the second were more coherent than the first ‘with the rest of their doctrine’. Cf. Courrier de Rome No.203 (July-August 1998, p.6)
70 Regarding this book see the article by François Desjars, A propos de “Clérocratie dans L’Eglise de France” in No.99 (February 1992) of AFS and that of Ennemond Beth Evangélisation et structures – En lisant le communiqué du conseil permanent de l’épiscopat français in no. 100 of AFS. J.C. Didelot is interested essentially in the structures of a particular clerical bureaucracy and doesn’t deal with the ideology behind the action.
71 In 1984, there were in France 150,000 catechists, 70,000 leaders, (figures published by the Episcopal Commission for Religious Teaching following an enquiry cf. “Thabor”, p.262). The numbers today must be of the same magnitude.
72 On these philosophical societies and their methods of working see the study by Augustin Cochin and the last 40 pages of Francois Furet’s book Penser la révolution française. On the application of these methods in the Church please see the brochure by Jean Madiran, Structures et techniques des sociétés de pensée dans le catholicisme (Supplement to Itinéraires No. 79).
73 Cf. this text of Benedict XVI: However, the great legacy of the Council which opened up a new road endures; it is still a magna carta of the Church's journey, very essential and fundamental. (Meeting with the clergy of the dioceses of Belluno-Feltre and Treviso, 24th July 2007).
74 Pastoral Letter for Easter 1908; quoted by Romano Amerio, Iota unum, p.39.
75 Decree Lamentabili of 3rd July 1907 – the last proposition condemned in the decree.
76 It suffices here to cite, some measures coming to the support of Modernism, the praise and favours which have been given to some of its greatest leaders:
- the letter of the Secretary of State on the occasion of the centenary of the birth of Teilhard de Chardin (Osservatore Romano 10th June 1981);
- The elevation to dignity of Cardinal, Fathers De Lubac and Urs von Balthazar;
- The eulogy to Fr de Lubac by Cardinal Ratzinger (text below).
77 On the doctrinal level, we come back to the books already mentioned Iota Unum and La nouvelle théologie (published by Courrier de Rome) and to the brochures which feature under the heading “Crisis in the Church” in the AFS catalogue. In matters of exegesis we return to Mgr Spadafora’s study published in No. 156-165 of Courrier de Rome.
78 See the brochure The Social Doctrine of the Church in the current doctrinal crisis – the fourth part in particular entitled How to deal with current deficiencies in authority.
79 Cf. AFS no. 191 June 2007 p. 136-138 and the last edition of the AFS brochure, Elementary Knowledge of Freemasonry (2007) [Cardinal Rampolla was early favourite to succeed Pope Leo XIII but was the subject of a veto by the Austrian-Hungarian emperor voiced by Cardinal Puzyna of Krakow. No reason was given but several writers assert it was because of the Cardinal’s membership of a Masonic order.]
80 See Pour qu’il règne by Jean Ousset, p.260 [Professor Tondi, Professor at the Gregorian University, Rome, admitted in two revolutionary publications, L’Unita and El Paese that he had adhered to Communism for many years. - Editor Apropos]
81 Cf. The dossier, Quelques aspects de la pénétration maçonnique dans l’Eglise, in No. 161 of AFS p. 33. [Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, the architect of the New Mass, was demoted, from Secretary of The Sacred Congregation for Divine Worship, to Apostolic Pro Nuncio in Iran following evidence being presented to Pope Paul VI that Bugnini was a Freemason. As Michael Davies reports in Pope Paul’s New Mass: ‘A Roman priest of the very highest reputation came into possession of evidence which he considered proved Msgr. Bugnini to be a Freemason. He had this information placed into the hands of Paul VI with the warning that if action were not taken at once he would be bound in conscience to make the matter public. Msgr Bugnini was then dismissed and his entire congregation dissolved.’ p. 505.]
82 L’intégrisme, histoire d’une histoire, 1964, Chapter XXIV, “La société secrète des modernistes. p. 248