01-09-2023, 03:40 PM
PIUS X AND MODERNISM
LOOKING BACK AT this 19th century, it must be stated that the Church as a whole paid little attention to these events. The world was too preoccupied with the achievements of science and technology. Even today, after two world wars, one still dreams of eternal evolution and an earthly paradise. What about the church? It was the house that was well founded with strong weir towers. In the 1st Vatican Council, the rock of Peter was so cemented and shielded on all sides that no storm could shake it – so it was said. Only one person saw more deeply, it was Pope Pius X, whom we now have to deal with in more detail in his struggle against modernism, if only because Pope Paul VI. in his inaugural encyclical “Ecclesiam suam” (65) says, Freiherr von Hertling in the “Hochland” (67) headed “Roman Reform Thoughts”, where he explains in the introduction: “Among the papers of Bishop Ketteler von Mainz that were left behind was, as his biographer, P. Pfülf SJ, reports, a hastily sketched one Draft reform plan. Ketteler wanted to submit it to the German bishops and then, with their help, encourage it to be carried out in Rome. “The reform should extend to the whole hierarchy, from the election of the Pope and Roman customs down to the country deans and pastors” (68). In the further course of the article the author shows how the justified criticism and reform must be constituted and what they have to take into account: “Nagging criticism, shaking of trust in the good will of the leading personalities, Disparaging judgment of existing institutions, overzealous exposure of real or supposed damage are therefore far more dangerous in the ecclesiastical field than in the state. Not, of course, for the discerning person. He knows how to distinguish between ideal and reality, between what should be by law and what people’s weaknesses make of it again and again. He does not despair of the truth of the Christian doctrine of salvation, because he has to learn that it is occasionally distorted by superstitious exercises, dishonored by unworthy priests, and abused in disdainful profit-making sense. He knows how strong ties we all hold on to what has passed down from our ancestors, knows how difficult it is to get rid of what has become historical, after custom and habit seem to have given him a right of existence which fundamental judgment must deny him. But not everyone has this insight. In large circles it is completely absent. Then there is the fact that the life of the modern world often moves in paths that are alien to the supernatural Christian faith, if not directly hostile. That is why the half-wits, the wavering, the little believers tend to be affected without resistance by a sharp accusation against church personalities or a ruthless criticism within the church of existing and tolerated institutions here or there. The last loose connection that still bound her inwardly to the Church is broken. With regard to the whole of Catholic piety, they think they should break the rod when they experience that some absurd invention of pious fools is exposed to the curse of ridicule. Why am I saying all this? Because I would like to establish the idea that as a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public who has the will and the power to really improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is able to do his exhibitions and to make his suggestions heard at the relevant authority. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69).
But unfortunately little or no attention was paid to these warning words. In the indexed novel “II Santo” by Antonio Fogazzaro (1842-1911) we find the following passages which look back on what we said about the secret societies: “We are,” says Don Paolo, “a number of Catholics in Italy and outside Italy, clergy and laity seeking church reform. We want to see this reform brought about without indignation, through the lawful authority. We want reforms of religious instruction, reforms of cult, reform of the discipline of the clergy, and even reforms of the highest regiment.
Therefore we have to create a public opinion that will cause the lawful authority to act accordingly, even if it is not for twenty, thirty or fifty years (!). Now we are who we think so are actually individual people living apart from one another. We don’t know anything about the other, with the exception of the few who publish articles or books. There is very likely a very large number of religious and well-educated people in the Catholic world who think like us. I have now believed that it would be very useful for the propaganda of our ideas to at least know us. Tonight we are meeting here, only a few, for an initial understanding … “(70).” He added, raising his voice and speaking more slowly, his eyes fixed on Abbe Marinier, that it was appropriate for the time being do not say anything about the meeting or the decisions that would be made, and he urged everyone to to consider oneself committed to silence by word of honor. Then he developed his thought and the purpose of this meeting again in a little more detail than had happened at dinner “(71).
“We probably agree that the Catholic Church is comparable to an old temple which, originally of noble simplicity, of great religious spirituality, was disfigured and overloaded with all kinds of flourishes and stucco work through the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Perhaps the malevolent among them will notice that only a dead language is spoken aloud in it, that living languages are hardly spoken softly, and the sun shines colored in through the windows. But I can’t believe we can all agree on the quality and quantity of the remedies. And I would therefore think it would be more correct that one, before going to the establishment of this Catholic Freemasonry progressed, agreed on the nature of the reforms. Yes, I want to go further. I believe that even if there was complete agreement of ideas among them, I would not advise them to bind themselves with a tangible bond.
My concerns are very delicate. They confidently believe that they can swim well underwater like cautious fish, and they do not think that the keen eye of the sublime fisherman or one of his deputies will do them very well discover and a well-aimed blow of the harpoon can catch them. Well, I would never advise the finest, tastiest, most sought-after fish to bond with each other. They understand what has to happen when one is caught and pulled to the surface. And you know very well that the great fisherman in Galilee put the fish in his pond, but the great fisherman in Rome bakes them “(72).
The aim was to establish a secret union of all like-minded people, a Catholic Freemasonry, where the word was uttered that sounds almost prophetic: “The reforms will be realized one day, the thoughts are stronger than the people and make their way” (73) have made their way exactly in fifty years. But the other has also happened: The great fisherman in Rome pulled the fish to the surface. It was Pius X. who in his encyclical “Pascendi” of September 8, 1907 pronounced the condemnation of modernism. It is deeply to be regretted that this circular was not reprinted, so that every reader can immediately see for himself how everything that is called new and progressive today was already expressed back then, i.e. is neither new nor progressive.
Let us now begin with a brief outline of the circular. The Pope regrets that the modernist errors “have appeared in the bosom of the Church, even within the clergy. These enemies of the church pose as “reformers of the church” and, with blasphemous impudence, depress the divine person of the Redeemer into a mere wretched person “. The modernists are “worse than all other enemies of the church” because they “lend a hand to the roots, to the faith and to the deepest fibers of the faith. They are extremely nimble and shrewd”. “They alternately play the role of the rationalist and the Catholic with such skill that they can easily pull any harmless person to their errors.” They no longer recognize authority and “don’t want to accept any more restrictions. The Catholic faith itself is at risk. To remain silent for longer would be a sin. We have to talk, we have to tear off their masks in front of the whole church. “
After this spirited introduction, the Pope takes up the errors in detail. Since, according to the modernists, God cannot be recognized from visible things, the so-called motiva credibilitatis are no longer used – even today they are hardly mentioned any more. As far as history is concerned, it should be explained as “as if God actually did not intervene”. Therefore, from the history of Christ, too, “everything that looks divine is to be deleted.” “There are Catholics, there are even some priests who profess this publicly, and with such madness they want to renew the Church. There is certainly no more thorough “clearing up of all supernatural order.” As far as dogmas in general are concerned, “they are only inadequate signs for its content, symbols”.
The Pope closes this passage with the sharp words: “In the frenzy of their arrogant arrogance of knowledge, these blind guides even perverted the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have established a new system, and in a wild, rampant hunt for something new, they forget to seek the truth where their safe place is; The holy, apostolic traditions are despised and other doctrines are called to the rescue, which are vain and vain and uncertain and do not have the approval of the Church; and with this they believe in their delusion that they can support and hold the truth themselves. “
We would be surprised if the claim had not already been made at that time that “all religions are true.” The same applies to the question “whether Christ worked real miracles, really foresaw the future, whether he really rose and ascended to heaven “. Just as today, God was already transferred into man at that time: “God is immanent in man.” Like the dogmas before, the sacraments are “merely symbols or signs”. At this point the Pope adds a remark that could be written today: “As an example, to show the nature of their work, certain keywords are pointed out which, as one would say,“ pull ”because they are used for propaganda powerful and exciting ideas have great traction. “
The parallelism to our time is particularly evident in the modernist statements about the church: “In earlier times there was a mistake that authority was introduced into the church from outside, namely directly through God. That is why they could be considered autocratic. This view has now been overcome. Authority, like the church, thus arises from religious consciousness and must therefore submit to it. If it withdraws from him, it becomes tyranny. But we are now living in a time when the feeling of freedom (sensus libertatis) has reached its peak. In state life, democracy (popular regimes) has prevailed … That is why the ecclesiastical authority must also take on democratic forms (auctoritati Ecclesiae officium inest democraticis utendi formis) and all the more so because otherwise its doom is sealed. Because it would be madness to think of reactionary measures in view of the current development of the idea of freedom. Forced pushing back and constriction would lead to an explosion that sweeps away church and religion. “There are already elements here for today’s theology of the revolution. It would be surprising if the alleged triumphalism of the church had not been fought back then raised the demand that the church “should give up all external pomp that is too grandiose in the eyes, because the task of church authority only relates to the clergy”.
In summary, the Pope says: “The general principle applies here: In a religion that lives, everything is understandable, so it has to change. This is how they come to the development (evolutio), so to speak the quintessence of their entire teaching. Dogma, church, religious cult, the books that we venerate as sacred, and even faith itself, if we do not want to declare them all dead, must be subject to the laws of development. “This development arises” from the conflict of two Forces, one pushing for progress and one conservatively reticent. The conservative element is very strong in the Church; it lies in tradition. Its representative is religious authority, both by right, because it comes to authority, tradition to protect, as well as actually; because authority stands apart from the changing life and is hardly or not at all affected by everything that drives progress. In contrast to this, the force that urges progress and adapts to the deepest needs weaves and works in the consciousness of the laity, especially those who, as they say, are in the midst of the whirlpool of life : The modernists are of the opinion that “their place is and will remain within the Church in order to gradually change the general consciousness”, that is to say the subversive reorganization of today.
In the scripture section we read verbatim: “Hence, the modernists are quite familiar with the distinction between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith.”
One more word about the modernists’ reform concerns, which the Pope reproduces in a kind of catalog. He explains: “What has been said so far is enough to show the boundless, ardent desire for innovation of these people. The same applies to everything that the Catholics have. – The philosophy should be renewed, especially in the clerical seminaries; scholastic philosophy is to be referred to the other systems that have been overcome in the history of philosophy, and the only correct modern philosophy corresponding to our time is to be presented to young people (today existentialism). The dogmas and their development must be reconciled with science and history. – As for catechesis, catechetical writings should only deal with dogmas which are modernized and correspond to the comprehension of the people … The ecclesiastical office (regimen) is to be reformed in every respect, especially on the disciplinary and dogmatic side. It has to adapt internally and externally to their modern consciousness, which is wholly inclined towards democracy; therefore the lower clergy, as well as the lay world, must receive their share in the regime, and the overarching centralized authority must be decentralized. The Roman congregations for the various ecclesiastical affairs, especially those of the Holy Office and the Index, must also be changed. In morality one appropriates the principle of Americanism that the active virtues take precedence over the passive ones and that their practice must be encouraged before others. – The clergy are expected to show humility and poverty as they reigned in ancient times; In doing so, he should adhere to the modernist ideas in action and conviction. There are even those who, as docile students of the Protestants, also wanted the priest’s celibacy to be lifted. There is absolutely nothing left in the Church that does not have to be reformed according to its recipe. “The Pope then examines how modernism came about and says the following:” There are three main things that modernists think of theirs Beginning against knowing: the scholastic method in philosophy, the authority and tradition of the fathers and the ecclesiastical magisterium – these are the fiercest struggles. Scholastic philosophy and theology are therefore consistently mocked and despised. May this happen out of ignorance or out of fear or, more correctly, for both reasons, one thing is certain: the addiction to innovation is always connected with hatred of scholasticism; and there is no surer sign of incipient affection for modernist doctrines than when one begins to feel aversion to the scholastic method. “
And here is another point that seems very familiar to us when we think of the mass media: “Their own partisans shower the modernists with excessive, never-ending praise, and they welcome their books, which are bursting with innovations from beginning to end with loud applause; the more boldly someone overturns the old and rejects tradition and ecclesiastical teaching, the more learned he is; and when the ecclesiastical condemnation finally hits one, he is not only, to the horror of all good Catholics, loudly and publicly praised by the whole crowd, but is worshiped almost as a martyr of truth. – The young people let themselves be confused and moved by all the noise, these praise and diatribes;
But that is one of the tricks with which the modernists sell their goods. They leave no stone unturned to increase the number of their followers. At the clerical seminaries and universities they lurk for professorships in order to move them increasingly to the chairs of doom. When they preach in church, they present their doctrines, if perhaps only in hiding; they speak more freely in meetings. In short, in agitation, in word and writing, everywhere they develop a truly feverish activity. “
If one studies the whole encyclical in this way, one is struck by the – one might almost say – prophetic clairvoyance of this holy Pope, with which, in view of his time, he foresaw ours. Yes, it almost seems as if that encyclical was intended to hit modernism much more strongly than that at the beginning of the century, which had not penetrated the believing people so deeply and so comprehensively for a long time, and what Pius X as a final judgment said about modernism, is actually only being fulfilled today: “Protestantism was the first step; then comes modernism; the end is atheism. “We experience it today in the” God is dead theology “. Yes, Paul VI. is right when he perceives a resurgence of modernist errors today. Pope John XXIII had seen clearly when he said about modernism in 1907: “Woe to that day when these teachings prevail” (75).
But Fogazzaro was also right: it took around 50 years for the thoughts expressed in the small circle at that time to prevail and lead to the crisis in the church that left it far behind at the time of the Reformation.
The response to the encyclical is reflected in a pastoral letter from the German bishops gathered in Cologne on December 10, 1907, in which it says, among other things: “We will have to add to these and similar symptoms and approaches of modernism that sometimes emerge in us to criticize and reform that unfortunately increasing addiction, without profession, without correct judgment and sufficient knowledge, which is the disease of our time and does not stop at any authority, transforming the most venerable institutions according to the “modern consciousness” into the organization and administration of the church would like to introduce incompatible parliamentarism and democracy and is not afraid to appear in public papers and magazines, even in anti-church ,to the greatest joy of the opponents, to sell their judgmentless and irreverent statements about church superiors and institutions “(76).
Doesn’t this exactly apply to our time? The syllabus “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907 is closely related to the encyclical “Pascendi”. 65 modernist propositions or doctrines are rejected here. We will only pick out a few of them where the closeness to the present is particularly striking.
Sentence 1 reads: “The interpretation of the holy books given by the Church is not to be despised, but is subject to more precise assessment and correction by the exegetes.”
Sentence 30: “In all texts of the Gospel the name” Son of God “is only synonymous with the name” Messiah “, but in no way does it mean that Christ is really and essentially the Son of God.”
Sentence 36: “The resurrection of Christ is not actually a fact of historical order, but a fact neither proven nor provable, purely supernatural order, which the Christian consciousness has gradually derived from others.”
Sentence 37: “Initially, the belief in the resurrection of Christ was not so much about the fact of the resurrection as about the immortal life of Christ with God.”
Sentence 49: “As the Christian Lord’s Supper gradually took the form of a liturgical act, those who usually presided over the Lord’s Supper acquired the priestly character.”
Sentence 53: “The organic constitution of the church is not unchangeable, but Christian society, like human society, is subject to constant development.”
Sentence 58: “Truth is not more unchangeable than man himself, since it unfolds with him, in him and through him.”
That may be enough. If you look at all of this – actually all 65 sentences should be quoted – a holy anger grips us because we dare to present everything as new and modern and progressive in accordance with the spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council, while it is only warmed up, linguistically new formulated and modernized 50-year-old modernism. It remains incomprehensible that, of all times, the anti-modernist oath, which was prescribed on September 1, 1910, was lifted in our day. And all of this, although the old Lutheran theologian Dr. Dr. Cornelius Freiherr von Heyl said: “Nevertheless, it is unmistakable how extensively Catholicism is protected from enthusiasm and subjectivism by teaching. Individual Catholic authors today talk about the anti-modernist decision of Pius IX. and Pius X. as if this is an embarrassing point! On the other hand, I take the opportunity to say how good it would be if the most essential anti-modernist formulations were mutatis mutandis everywhere in the non-Roman churches as well. Incidentally, it may be that I am more Catholic here than contemporary Catholicism, even if I was pleased with the statements made by the Curia against Teilhard de Chardin … In so far as Catholicism is (and remains) anti-modernist by virtue of the inherent penetrative power of the papal structure, and in this respect if he (on the formal side) saves the concept of obedience in the Church of the present, he would have to give the Old Lutherans, the Old Reformed,(77).
“CRYPTOGAMOUS” HERESY
SO BECAUSE, according to the Pope’s words, “the enemy of the human race” had broken into the innermost realm of the Church, into the “blood of the Church, into its deepest interior”. The holy Pope saw the great danger and put down the enemy. But what Luke said at the end of the story of temptations was repeated: “When the devil had ended all temptations, he left him (Christ) until his time” (4:13).
Until his time. And that started today. This does not mean that in the half century between Pius X and Paul VI. would not have pushed modernist ideas from the underground to the surface here and there. One should only refer to the book by the unnamed Catholic theologians and laypeople, published in 1937: “Catholicism, His Stirb und Werde” (78), which in places breathes a modernist spirit and called for the reply of the Paderborn theologians: “Reform Catholicism” (79 ), to which those theologians and laypeople responded with the script: “The Catholicism of the future, construction and critical defense” (80). In this book Pius X is strongly attacked, with reference to the intrigues of the integralists towards the end of the Pius government X. pointed out which you can read more about in the papal story by Schmidlin (81). Currents aimed at criticizing forms of piety and at a certain softening of the Christian view of life were even more alarming. Two valuable books must be mentioned here, the “Sentire cum Ecclesia” by August Doerner (82) and “Irrwege und Abweg” im Pietysleben der Gegenwart “by Max Kassiepe (83). The deviations that were made in the veneration of Mary had a disastrous effect. Via Fatima, the order of the day was the dogmatization of bodily reception The opportunity of Mary’s in Heaven was doubted, and the consecration of Germany to the Immaculate Heart of Mary met with critical voices. The Marian Pope Pius XII sensed the smoldering and coming calamity. He tried to stop it especially in the encyclical “Humani generis” from the year 1950,where, almost in anticipation of the coming crisis, he spoke of the importance of the ecclesiastical magisterium and said the following with regard to the papal circulars: “It should by no means be assumed that what is presented in the encyclicals does not require consent, because the popes do not exercise the highest power of all their teaching office. Indeed, these encyclicals are expressions of the ordinary magisterium, of which the word of Christ also applies: “He who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16). Most of the time, what the encyclicals present and inculcate belongs to the Catholic teaching material, as it has already done. When the popes, after careful examination, give a judgment on a previously controversial issue in their writings, then it is clear to all
But with that we are already close to the council. The anthology “Heresies of Time – A Book for Differentiating Spirits”, edited by Anton Böhm (85), is almost like a résumé of the subcutaneous tendencies, a book that has been completely forgotten, although it has been completely forgotten today could still be a guide through the turmoil of our time. None other than Karl Rahner coined the term of the cryptogamous heresies, which, as he believes, exist today to a much greater extent than before. Rahner says literally: Our whole “The space of existence is undoubtedly also shaped by attitudes, doctrines, tendencies that must be qualified as heretical, as contradicting the teaching of the Gospel” (86). These cryptogamous heresies are difficult to determine; For example, “respect for the corporeal and its idolatry are difficult to distinguish in their objectivation.” One can even say: ‘Everyone today is infected by the bacteria and viruses of cryptogamous heresy, even if he does not necessarily qualify as sick from them must be “:” this cryptogamous heresy “is perfectly compatible with” explicit orthodoxy “. Of course, this heresy tries, as it were, to penetrate from the hidden to the surface, so that it could become tangible and ascertainable. But this is opposed by the fact that “today people are afraid of defining concepts in religious questions”. One can now ask what the tactic of this heresy consists of “in order to remain latent”. Rahner replies: Heresy has the worst effect in the form of “indifference”. If we allow all of these examples to work on us, then our eyes will see an exact picture of our present situation. The Magisterium can proclaim the truth, it can conceptually formulate such heretical tendencies, as happened for the first time in the modernism encyclical Pius X. It but can do little against the silent heresy itself. ” In order to reject it to some extent, it would have to be overcome “out of the inner nature of the matter” and not “through the mere administrative route”. Here is the reason
Karl Rahner continues to claim that the fight against cryptogamous heresy is therefore above all given up to the conscience of the individual. In this context he makes a statement that is downright prophetic when we consider the development of the Church today. He says: “All or most of the postulates of today or tomorrow will have something absolutely correct or justifiable or historically inevitable about them, even in so far as they mean a distancing from the lifestyle of earlier generations, including Christian generations.” He believes that “The cryptogamous heresy, especially where it wants to remain latent, like a heresy the wrong dosage, the exaggeration, the one-sidedness “and how it” depends today on the emphasis, the dosage and weight distribution and how difficult it is for the ecclesiastical teaching office to face this task “(87). So much for this excellent introduction.
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
AND NOW we have reached the 2nd Vatican Council. We have already seen how much they wanted a council in secret societies. In the high spirits of the early days, this was ignored at all (88) and the opponents paid far too little attention to the assessments of what happened in the Council. And yet such things are often judged more sharply and accurately from the outside than by the actors themselves. An issue of the magazine “Ost -problem” (89) is immensely informative here, where an article taken from the Moscow magazine “Kommunist” (90) deals with “Religious” Renewal “and the Catholic Church”. The subheadings of this article alone are noteworthy, for example, “The Current Crisis of Religion”, “Modernism (! ) in the politics of the church and in theology “,” The social function of “renewal” “. The tenor of the extensive article is to present the change in the church as “the opportunistic tactics of the churchmen and all their tricks ”Sees crisis and that one lists almost exhaustively all its symptoms. So there is talk of the “crisis of religious ideology”, of the “modernization of the ecclesiastical position both in the literal theological, religious questions, as well as in the current problems of world politics”. “In the area within the church, which is actually religious, a modernization of the ideological arsenal, of the cult and of the organization itself is taking place. Here is the process of a peculiar Reformation in full swing, we are looking for new ways to maintain the influence of religion in our age of increasing godlessness, anti-clericalism and free-thinking and to shed new light on reason, science and religion “…” The dialectic of the process of religious renewal taking place before our eyes consists in the fact that this renewal is a sign of the weakness of religion, but at the same time is a means of increasing their influence. Therefore, the exposure of the latest methods of defense of reactionary religious theology requires the energetic efforts of all adherents of the materialist worldview, advocates of scientific ideology. “
It is precisely this last sentence that should be read and reconsidered repeatedly by those who, with their aggiornamento, want to bring about an inner change in those atheistic ideologies. The activity of John XXIII. and the Second Vatican Council are judged as ways of revaluing values - a word that makes us think (91).
That was in 1964. The Italian Communist Party expressed itself even more clearly at its 11th Party Congress. In the introduction to a special issue of the “Propaganda” “dedicato al dialogo con Cattolici” one clearly speaks of the “crisis” of the Church: “The extraordinary awakening of the Council, which is rightly compared with the General Estates of 1789, has shown the whole world that the foundations of the old politico-religious Bastille have been shaken. This created a new situation that would have to be met with appropriate means. There was a hitherto unforeseen opportunity to come closer to our final victory with a suitable maneuver. ” This introduction then outlines the various sections of this ‘Speciale’ and says e.g. B. in the section ‘Documentation’ that here, Humanism. Paul VI receives Comrade Gromyko in the Vatican and talks to him about the problems of peace. Marxism-Leninism adapts to the new state of affairs, and it is flexible or violent, depending on the situation … The section “Arguments” … contains numerous references to the decisions made by the Council. “In this way the council itself gives us the best means free of charge to reach the Catholic public.” And the end of this introduction reads: “Mai la situazione ci e stata cosi favorevole, the situation has never been like this for us Cheap.”
It will have to be admitted that these texts speak a clear language. It would be advisable that all those who disregard the warning and admonishing statements of the Pope, carefully consider these omissions just quoted.
At the same time illuminating and frightening is the fact that the Council has been compared with the storming of the Bastille of 1789, i.e. with the French Revolution, and we have already shown that this is not so absurd. In any case, the fundamental ideas of the revolution – freedom, equality and fraternity – have been brought into the consciousness so strongly that one can hardly imagine a reduction to the important and justified level. It is still too early to give a final judgment on the council. But the fateful thing is that such great events touch different levels, even take place on different levels. Certainly the texts are quite orthodox, in places formulated almost classically, and our task will be for a long time to come Wasn’t the cryptogamous attack on the “old political-religious bastille” of the papacy lurking in collegiality? Didn’t the struggle for the “nota explica-tiva praevia”, which was added to the church constitution (93), prove that? The opponent also gives an explanation that is clear and informative. The “Voices of the Time” (94) had an article under the heading “Have the Freemasons changed”? The author refers to the European Freemasons newspaper (95), which discussed the problem of the papacy in its September 1964 issue and said of the Council of Constance (1414 to 1418): “The reformers couldn’t get away with the hierarchical constitution of the church with the omnipotent Pope at the top has remained to this day. ” After this excursion into the history of the Council, the author returns to Vatican II: “To break the personal primacy of the Pope would be the prerequisite for the Unio sancta and for the unification of the Church. – We believe with a fair degree of certainty that we can say that the Pope’s infallibility and his primacy over the Council will not be broken in 1964 either. In the area of the church constitution, the Middle Ages will continue to protrude into our time – we think: not for the benefit of the church and the modern problems that have to be overcome. And as long as the personal supremacy of an individual in the church constitution is not removed, we believe that any reform in other areas will also fail. The constitutional power of the Pope and his appointed cardinals is the institutional obstacle to any better understanding and reform. On the other hand, if the privilege and infallibility of the Pope are removed, the Church can no longer exercise the power of suggestion over the masses of the believing population as it has before. The Church and the Council are therefore in an indissoluble dilemma here. We do not believe that the Council in Rome this year will be able to deal with these things, however much the symptoms will be mended. ”
LOOKING BACK AT this 19th century, it must be stated that the Church as a whole paid little attention to these events. The world was too preoccupied with the achievements of science and technology. Even today, after two world wars, one still dreams of eternal evolution and an earthly paradise. What about the church? It was the house that was well founded with strong weir towers. In the 1st Vatican Council, the rock of Peter was so cemented and shielded on all sides that no storm could shake it – so it was said. Only one person saw more deeply, it was Pope Pius X, whom we now have to deal with in more detail in his struggle against modernism, if only because Pope Paul VI. in his inaugural encyclical “Ecclesiam suam” (65) says, Freiherr von Hertling in the “Hochland” (67) headed “Roman Reform Thoughts”, where he explains in the introduction: “Among the papers of Bishop Ketteler von Mainz that were left behind was, as his biographer, P. Pfülf SJ, reports, a hastily sketched one Draft reform plan. Ketteler wanted to submit it to the German bishops and then, with their help, encourage it to be carried out in Rome. “The reform should extend to the whole hierarchy, from the election of the Pope and Roman customs down to the country deans and pastors” (68). In the further course of the article the author shows how the justified criticism and reform must be constituted and what they have to take into account: “Nagging criticism, shaking of trust in the good will of the leading personalities, Disparaging judgment of existing institutions, overzealous exposure of real or supposed damage are therefore far more dangerous in the ecclesiastical field than in the state. Not, of course, for the discerning person. He knows how to distinguish between ideal and reality, between what should be by law and what people’s weaknesses make of it again and again. He does not despair of the truth of the Christian doctrine of salvation, because he has to learn that it is occasionally distorted by superstitious exercises, dishonored by unworthy priests, and abused in disdainful profit-making sense. He knows how strong ties we all hold on to what has passed down from our ancestors, knows how difficult it is to get rid of what has become historical, after custom and habit seem to have given him a right of existence which fundamental judgment must deny him. But not everyone has this insight. In large circles it is completely absent. Then there is the fact that the life of the modern world often moves in paths that are alien to the supernatural Christian faith, if not directly hostile. That is why the half-wits, the wavering, the little believers tend to be affected without resistance by a sharp accusation against church personalities or a ruthless criticism within the church of existing and tolerated institutions here or there. The last loose connection that still bound her inwardly to the Church is broken. With regard to the whole of Catholic piety, they think they should break the rod when they experience that some absurd invention of pious fools is exposed to the curse of ridicule. Why am I saying all this? Because I would like to establish the idea that as a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public who has the will and the power to really improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is able to do his exhibitions and to make his suggestions heard at the relevant authority. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best of disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69). that a critic or reformer of his church should only appear before the public if he has the will and the power to actually improve what he sees as in need of improvement, or at least is in a position to listen to his exhibitions and his suggestions at a decisive point To provide. Otherwise, with the best disposition, he will only offend the weak and bring joy to the enemy ”(69).
But unfortunately little or no attention was paid to these warning words. In the indexed novel “II Santo” by Antonio Fogazzaro (1842-1911) we find the following passages which look back on what we said about the secret societies: “We are,” says Don Paolo, “a number of Catholics in Italy and outside Italy, clergy and laity seeking church reform. We want to see this reform brought about without indignation, through the lawful authority. We want reforms of religious instruction, reforms of cult, reform of the discipline of the clergy, and even reforms of the highest regiment.
Therefore we have to create a public opinion that will cause the lawful authority to act accordingly, even if it is not for twenty, thirty or fifty years (!). Now we are who we think so are actually individual people living apart from one another. We don’t know anything about the other, with the exception of the few who publish articles or books. There is very likely a very large number of religious and well-educated people in the Catholic world who think like us. I have now believed that it would be very useful for the propaganda of our ideas to at least know us. Tonight we are meeting here, only a few, for an initial understanding … “(70).” He added, raising his voice and speaking more slowly, his eyes fixed on Abbe Marinier, that it was appropriate for the time being do not say anything about the meeting or the decisions that would be made, and he urged everyone to to consider oneself committed to silence by word of honor. Then he developed his thought and the purpose of this meeting again in a little more detail than had happened at dinner “(71).
“We probably agree that the Catholic Church is comparable to an old temple which, originally of noble simplicity, of great religious spirituality, was disfigured and overloaded with all kinds of flourishes and stucco work through the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Perhaps the malevolent among them will notice that only a dead language is spoken aloud in it, that living languages are hardly spoken softly, and the sun shines colored in through the windows. But I can’t believe we can all agree on the quality and quantity of the remedies. And I would therefore think it would be more correct that one, before going to the establishment of this Catholic Freemasonry progressed, agreed on the nature of the reforms. Yes, I want to go further. I believe that even if there was complete agreement of ideas among them, I would not advise them to bind themselves with a tangible bond.
My concerns are very delicate. They confidently believe that they can swim well underwater like cautious fish, and they do not think that the keen eye of the sublime fisherman or one of his deputies will do them very well discover and a well-aimed blow of the harpoon can catch them. Well, I would never advise the finest, tastiest, most sought-after fish to bond with each other. They understand what has to happen when one is caught and pulled to the surface. And you know very well that the great fisherman in Galilee put the fish in his pond, but the great fisherman in Rome bakes them “(72).
The aim was to establish a secret union of all like-minded people, a Catholic Freemasonry, where the word was uttered that sounds almost prophetic: “The reforms will be realized one day, the thoughts are stronger than the people and make their way” (73) have made their way exactly in fifty years. But the other has also happened: The great fisherman in Rome pulled the fish to the surface. It was Pius X. who in his encyclical “Pascendi” of September 8, 1907 pronounced the condemnation of modernism. It is deeply to be regretted that this circular was not reprinted, so that every reader can immediately see for himself how everything that is called new and progressive today was already expressed back then, i.e. is neither new nor progressive.
Let us now begin with a brief outline of the circular. The Pope regrets that the modernist errors “have appeared in the bosom of the Church, even within the clergy. These enemies of the church pose as “reformers of the church” and, with blasphemous impudence, depress the divine person of the Redeemer into a mere wretched person “. The modernists are “worse than all other enemies of the church” because they “lend a hand to the roots, to the faith and to the deepest fibers of the faith. They are extremely nimble and shrewd”. “They alternately play the role of the rationalist and the Catholic with such skill that they can easily pull any harmless person to their errors.” They no longer recognize authority and “don’t want to accept any more restrictions. The Catholic faith itself is at risk. To remain silent for longer would be a sin. We have to talk, we have to tear off their masks in front of the whole church. “
After this spirited introduction, the Pope takes up the errors in detail. Since, according to the modernists, God cannot be recognized from visible things, the so-called motiva credibilitatis are no longer used – even today they are hardly mentioned any more. As far as history is concerned, it should be explained as “as if God actually did not intervene”. Therefore, from the history of Christ, too, “everything that looks divine is to be deleted.” “There are Catholics, there are even some priests who profess this publicly, and with such madness they want to renew the Church. There is certainly no more thorough “clearing up of all supernatural order.” As far as dogmas in general are concerned, “they are only inadequate signs for its content, symbols”.
The Pope closes this passage with the sharp words: “In the frenzy of their arrogant arrogance of knowledge, these blind guides even perverted the eternally true concepts of truth and religion; they have established a new system, and in a wild, rampant hunt for something new, they forget to seek the truth where their safe place is; The holy, apostolic traditions are despised and other doctrines are called to the rescue, which are vain and vain and uncertain and do not have the approval of the Church; and with this they believe in their delusion that they can support and hold the truth themselves. “
We would be surprised if the claim had not already been made at that time that “all religions are true.” The same applies to the question “whether Christ worked real miracles, really foresaw the future, whether he really rose and ascended to heaven “. Just as today, God was already transferred into man at that time: “God is immanent in man.” Like the dogmas before, the sacraments are “merely symbols or signs”. At this point the Pope adds a remark that could be written today: “As an example, to show the nature of their work, certain keywords are pointed out which, as one would say,“ pull ”because they are used for propaganda powerful and exciting ideas have great traction. “
The parallelism to our time is particularly evident in the modernist statements about the church: “In earlier times there was a mistake that authority was introduced into the church from outside, namely directly through God. That is why they could be considered autocratic. This view has now been overcome. Authority, like the church, thus arises from religious consciousness and must therefore submit to it. If it withdraws from him, it becomes tyranny. But we are now living in a time when the feeling of freedom (sensus libertatis) has reached its peak. In state life, democracy (popular regimes) has prevailed … That is why the ecclesiastical authority must also take on democratic forms (auctoritati Ecclesiae officium inest democraticis utendi formis) and all the more so because otherwise its doom is sealed. Because it would be madness to think of reactionary measures in view of the current development of the idea of freedom. Forced pushing back and constriction would lead to an explosion that sweeps away church and religion. “There are already elements here for today’s theology of the revolution. It would be surprising if the alleged triumphalism of the church had not been fought back then raised the demand that the church “should give up all external pomp that is too grandiose in the eyes, because the task of church authority only relates to the clergy”.
In summary, the Pope says: “The general principle applies here: In a religion that lives, everything is understandable, so it has to change. This is how they come to the development (evolutio), so to speak the quintessence of their entire teaching. Dogma, church, religious cult, the books that we venerate as sacred, and even faith itself, if we do not want to declare them all dead, must be subject to the laws of development. “This development arises” from the conflict of two Forces, one pushing for progress and one conservatively reticent. The conservative element is very strong in the Church; it lies in tradition. Its representative is religious authority, both by right, because it comes to authority, tradition to protect, as well as actually; because authority stands apart from the changing life and is hardly or not at all affected by everything that drives progress. In contrast to this, the force that urges progress and adapts to the deepest needs weaves and works in the consciousness of the laity, especially those who, as they say, are in the midst of the whirlpool of life : The modernists are of the opinion that “their place is and will remain within the Church in order to gradually change the general consciousness”, that is to say the subversive reorganization of today.
In the scripture section we read verbatim: “Hence, the modernists are quite familiar with the distinction between the Christ of history and the Christ of faith.”
One more word about the modernists’ reform concerns, which the Pope reproduces in a kind of catalog. He explains: “What has been said so far is enough to show the boundless, ardent desire for innovation of these people. The same applies to everything that the Catholics have. – The philosophy should be renewed, especially in the clerical seminaries; scholastic philosophy is to be referred to the other systems that have been overcome in the history of philosophy, and the only correct modern philosophy corresponding to our time is to be presented to young people (today existentialism). The dogmas and their development must be reconciled with science and history. – As for catechesis, catechetical writings should only deal with dogmas which are modernized and correspond to the comprehension of the people … The ecclesiastical office (regimen) is to be reformed in every respect, especially on the disciplinary and dogmatic side. It has to adapt internally and externally to their modern consciousness, which is wholly inclined towards democracy; therefore the lower clergy, as well as the lay world, must receive their share in the regime, and the overarching centralized authority must be decentralized. The Roman congregations for the various ecclesiastical affairs, especially those of the Holy Office and the Index, must also be changed. In morality one appropriates the principle of Americanism that the active virtues take precedence over the passive ones and that their practice must be encouraged before others. – The clergy are expected to show humility and poverty as they reigned in ancient times; In doing so, he should adhere to the modernist ideas in action and conviction. There are even those who, as docile students of the Protestants, also wanted the priest’s celibacy to be lifted. There is absolutely nothing left in the Church that does not have to be reformed according to its recipe. “The Pope then examines how modernism came about and says the following:” There are three main things that modernists think of theirs Beginning against knowing: the scholastic method in philosophy, the authority and tradition of the fathers and the ecclesiastical magisterium – these are the fiercest struggles. Scholastic philosophy and theology are therefore consistently mocked and despised. May this happen out of ignorance or out of fear or, more correctly, for both reasons, one thing is certain: the addiction to innovation is always connected with hatred of scholasticism; and there is no surer sign of incipient affection for modernist doctrines than when one begins to feel aversion to the scholastic method. “
And here is another point that seems very familiar to us when we think of the mass media: “Their own partisans shower the modernists with excessive, never-ending praise, and they welcome their books, which are bursting with innovations from beginning to end with loud applause; the more boldly someone overturns the old and rejects tradition and ecclesiastical teaching, the more learned he is; and when the ecclesiastical condemnation finally hits one, he is not only, to the horror of all good Catholics, loudly and publicly praised by the whole crowd, but is worshiped almost as a martyr of truth. – The young people let themselves be confused and moved by all the noise, these praise and diatribes;
But that is one of the tricks with which the modernists sell their goods. They leave no stone unturned to increase the number of their followers. At the clerical seminaries and universities they lurk for professorships in order to move them increasingly to the chairs of doom. When they preach in church, they present their doctrines, if perhaps only in hiding; they speak more freely in meetings. In short, in agitation, in word and writing, everywhere they develop a truly feverish activity. “
If one studies the whole encyclical in this way, one is struck by the – one might almost say – prophetic clairvoyance of this holy Pope, with which, in view of his time, he foresaw ours. Yes, it almost seems as if that encyclical was intended to hit modernism much more strongly than that at the beginning of the century, which had not penetrated the believing people so deeply and so comprehensively for a long time, and what Pius X as a final judgment said about modernism, is actually only being fulfilled today: “Protestantism was the first step; then comes modernism; the end is atheism. “We experience it today in the” God is dead theology “. Yes, Paul VI. is right when he perceives a resurgence of modernist errors today. Pope John XXIII had seen clearly when he said about modernism in 1907: “Woe to that day when these teachings prevail” (75).
But Fogazzaro was also right: it took around 50 years for the thoughts expressed in the small circle at that time to prevail and lead to the crisis in the church that left it far behind at the time of the Reformation.
The response to the encyclical is reflected in a pastoral letter from the German bishops gathered in Cologne on December 10, 1907, in which it says, among other things: “We will have to add to these and similar symptoms and approaches of modernism that sometimes emerge in us to criticize and reform that unfortunately increasing addiction, without profession, without correct judgment and sufficient knowledge, which is the disease of our time and does not stop at any authority, transforming the most venerable institutions according to the “modern consciousness” into the organization and administration of the church would like to introduce incompatible parliamentarism and democracy and is not afraid to appear in public papers and magazines, even in anti-church ,to the greatest joy of the opponents, to sell their judgmentless and irreverent statements about church superiors and institutions “(76).
Doesn’t this exactly apply to our time? The syllabus “Lamentabili” of July 3, 1907 is closely related to the encyclical “Pascendi”. 65 modernist propositions or doctrines are rejected here. We will only pick out a few of them where the closeness to the present is particularly striking.
Sentence 1 reads: “The interpretation of the holy books given by the Church is not to be despised, but is subject to more precise assessment and correction by the exegetes.”
Sentence 30: “In all texts of the Gospel the name” Son of God “is only synonymous with the name” Messiah “, but in no way does it mean that Christ is really and essentially the Son of God.”
Sentence 36: “The resurrection of Christ is not actually a fact of historical order, but a fact neither proven nor provable, purely supernatural order, which the Christian consciousness has gradually derived from others.”
Sentence 37: “Initially, the belief in the resurrection of Christ was not so much about the fact of the resurrection as about the immortal life of Christ with God.”
Sentence 49: “As the Christian Lord’s Supper gradually took the form of a liturgical act, those who usually presided over the Lord’s Supper acquired the priestly character.”
Sentence 53: “The organic constitution of the church is not unchangeable, but Christian society, like human society, is subject to constant development.”
Sentence 58: “Truth is not more unchangeable than man himself, since it unfolds with him, in him and through him.”
That may be enough. If you look at all of this – actually all 65 sentences should be quoted – a holy anger grips us because we dare to present everything as new and modern and progressive in accordance with the spirit of the 2nd Vatican Council, while it is only warmed up, linguistically new formulated and modernized 50-year-old modernism. It remains incomprehensible that, of all times, the anti-modernist oath, which was prescribed on September 1, 1910, was lifted in our day. And all of this, although the old Lutheran theologian Dr. Dr. Cornelius Freiherr von Heyl said: “Nevertheless, it is unmistakable how extensively Catholicism is protected from enthusiasm and subjectivism by teaching. Individual Catholic authors today talk about the anti-modernist decision of Pius IX. and Pius X. as if this is an embarrassing point! On the other hand, I take the opportunity to say how good it would be if the most essential anti-modernist formulations were mutatis mutandis everywhere in the non-Roman churches as well. Incidentally, it may be that I am more Catholic here than contemporary Catholicism, even if I was pleased with the statements made by the Curia against Teilhard de Chardin … In so far as Catholicism is (and remains) anti-modernist by virtue of the inherent penetrative power of the papal structure, and in this respect if he (on the formal side) saves the concept of obedience in the Church of the present, he would have to give the Old Lutherans, the Old Reformed,(77).
“CRYPTOGAMOUS” HERESY
SO BECAUSE, according to the Pope’s words, “the enemy of the human race” had broken into the innermost realm of the Church, into the “blood of the Church, into its deepest interior”. The holy Pope saw the great danger and put down the enemy. But what Luke said at the end of the story of temptations was repeated: “When the devil had ended all temptations, he left him (Christ) until his time” (4:13).
Until his time. And that started today. This does not mean that in the half century between Pius X and Paul VI. would not have pushed modernist ideas from the underground to the surface here and there. One should only refer to the book by the unnamed Catholic theologians and laypeople, published in 1937: “Catholicism, His Stirb und Werde” (78), which in places breathes a modernist spirit and called for the reply of the Paderborn theologians: “Reform Catholicism” (79 ), to which those theologians and laypeople responded with the script: “The Catholicism of the future, construction and critical defense” (80). In this book Pius X is strongly attacked, with reference to the intrigues of the integralists towards the end of the Pius government X. pointed out which you can read more about in the papal story by Schmidlin (81). Currents aimed at criticizing forms of piety and at a certain softening of the Christian view of life were even more alarming. Two valuable books must be mentioned here, the “Sentire cum Ecclesia” by August Doerner (82) and “Irrwege und Abweg” im Pietysleben der Gegenwart “by Max Kassiepe (83). The deviations that were made in the veneration of Mary had a disastrous effect. Via Fatima, the order of the day was the dogmatization of bodily reception The opportunity of Mary’s in Heaven was doubted, and the consecration of Germany to the Immaculate Heart of Mary met with critical voices. The Marian Pope Pius XII sensed the smoldering and coming calamity. He tried to stop it especially in the encyclical “Humani generis” from the year 1950,where, almost in anticipation of the coming crisis, he spoke of the importance of the ecclesiastical magisterium and said the following with regard to the papal circulars: “It should by no means be assumed that what is presented in the encyclicals does not require consent, because the popes do not exercise the highest power of all their teaching office. Indeed, these encyclicals are expressions of the ordinary magisterium, of which the word of Christ also applies: “He who hears you hears me” (Lk 10:16). Most of the time, what the encyclicals present and inculcate belongs to the Catholic teaching material, as it has already done. When the popes, after careful examination, give a judgment on a previously controversial issue in their writings, then it is clear to all
But with that we are already close to the council. The anthology “Heresies of Time – A Book for Differentiating Spirits”, edited by Anton Böhm (85), is almost like a résumé of the subcutaneous tendencies, a book that has been completely forgotten, although it has been completely forgotten today could still be a guide through the turmoil of our time. None other than Karl Rahner coined the term of the cryptogamous heresies, which, as he believes, exist today to a much greater extent than before. Rahner says literally: Our whole “The space of existence is undoubtedly also shaped by attitudes, doctrines, tendencies that must be qualified as heretical, as contradicting the teaching of the Gospel” (86). These cryptogamous heresies are difficult to determine; For example, “respect for the corporeal and its idolatry are difficult to distinguish in their objectivation.” One can even say: ‘Everyone today is infected by the bacteria and viruses of cryptogamous heresy, even if he does not necessarily qualify as sick from them must be “:” this cryptogamous heresy “is perfectly compatible with” explicit orthodoxy “. Of course, this heresy tries, as it were, to penetrate from the hidden to the surface, so that it could become tangible and ascertainable. But this is opposed by the fact that “today people are afraid of defining concepts in religious questions”. One can now ask what the tactic of this heresy consists of “in order to remain latent”. Rahner replies: Heresy has the worst effect in the form of “indifference”. If we allow all of these examples to work on us, then our eyes will see an exact picture of our present situation. The Magisterium can proclaim the truth, it can conceptually formulate such heretical tendencies, as happened for the first time in the modernism encyclical Pius X. It but can do little against the silent heresy itself. ” In order to reject it to some extent, it would have to be overcome “out of the inner nature of the matter” and not “through the mere administrative route”. Here is the reason
Karl Rahner continues to claim that the fight against cryptogamous heresy is therefore above all given up to the conscience of the individual. In this context he makes a statement that is downright prophetic when we consider the development of the Church today. He says: “All or most of the postulates of today or tomorrow will have something absolutely correct or justifiable or historically inevitable about them, even in so far as they mean a distancing from the lifestyle of earlier generations, including Christian generations.” He believes that “The cryptogamous heresy, especially where it wants to remain latent, like a heresy the wrong dosage, the exaggeration, the one-sidedness “and how it” depends today on the emphasis, the dosage and weight distribution and how difficult it is for the ecclesiastical teaching office to face this task “(87). So much for this excellent introduction.
SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL
AND NOW we have reached the 2nd Vatican Council. We have already seen how much they wanted a council in secret societies. In the high spirits of the early days, this was ignored at all (88) and the opponents paid far too little attention to the assessments of what happened in the Council. And yet such things are often judged more sharply and accurately from the outside than by the actors themselves. An issue of the magazine “Ost -problem” (89) is immensely informative here, where an article taken from the Moscow magazine “Kommunist” (90) deals with “Religious” Renewal “and the Catholic Church”. The subheadings of this article alone are noteworthy, for example, “The Current Crisis of Religion”, “Modernism (! ) in the politics of the church and in theology “,” The social function of “renewal” “. The tenor of the extensive article is to present the change in the church as “the opportunistic tactics of the churchmen and all their tricks ”Sees crisis and that one lists almost exhaustively all its symptoms. So there is talk of the “crisis of religious ideology”, of the “modernization of the ecclesiastical position both in the literal theological, religious questions, as well as in the current problems of world politics”. “In the area within the church, which is actually religious, a modernization of the ideological arsenal, of the cult and of the organization itself is taking place. Here is the process of a peculiar Reformation in full swing, we are looking for new ways to maintain the influence of religion in our age of increasing godlessness, anti-clericalism and free-thinking and to shed new light on reason, science and religion “…” The dialectic of the process of religious renewal taking place before our eyes consists in the fact that this renewal is a sign of the weakness of religion, but at the same time is a means of increasing their influence. Therefore, the exposure of the latest methods of defense of reactionary religious theology requires the energetic efforts of all adherents of the materialist worldview, advocates of scientific ideology. “
It is precisely this last sentence that should be read and reconsidered repeatedly by those who, with their aggiornamento, want to bring about an inner change in those atheistic ideologies. The activity of John XXIII. and the Second Vatican Council are judged as ways of revaluing values - a word that makes us think (91).
That was in 1964. The Italian Communist Party expressed itself even more clearly at its 11th Party Congress. In the introduction to a special issue of the “Propaganda” “dedicato al dialogo con Cattolici” one clearly speaks of the “crisis” of the Church: “The extraordinary awakening of the Council, which is rightly compared with the General Estates of 1789, has shown the whole world that the foundations of the old politico-religious Bastille have been shaken. This created a new situation that would have to be met with appropriate means. There was a hitherto unforeseen opportunity to come closer to our final victory with a suitable maneuver. ” This introduction then outlines the various sections of this ‘Speciale’ and says e.g. B. in the section ‘Documentation’ that here, Humanism. Paul VI receives Comrade Gromyko in the Vatican and talks to him about the problems of peace. Marxism-Leninism adapts to the new state of affairs, and it is flexible or violent, depending on the situation … The section “Arguments” … contains numerous references to the decisions made by the Council. “In this way the council itself gives us the best means free of charge to reach the Catholic public.” And the end of this introduction reads: “Mai la situazione ci e stata cosi favorevole, the situation has never been like this for us Cheap.”
It will have to be admitted that these texts speak a clear language. It would be advisable that all those who disregard the warning and admonishing statements of the Pope, carefully consider these omissions just quoted.
At the same time illuminating and frightening is the fact that the Council has been compared with the storming of the Bastille of 1789, i.e. with the French Revolution, and we have already shown that this is not so absurd. In any case, the fundamental ideas of the revolution – freedom, equality and fraternity – have been brought into the consciousness so strongly that one can hardly imagine a reduction to the important and justified level. It is still too early to give a final judgment on the council. But the fateful thing is that such great events touch different levels, even take place on different levels. Certainly the texts are quite orthodox, in places formulated almost classically, and our task will be for a long time to come Wasn’t the cryptogamous attack on the “old political-religious bastille” of the papacy lurking in collegiality? Didn’t the struggle for the “nota explica-tiva praevia”, which was added to the church constitution (93), prove that? The opponent also gives an explanation that is clear and informative. The “Voices of the Time” (94) had an article under the heading “Have the Freemasons changed”? The author refers to the European Freemasons newspaper (95), which discussed the problem of the papacy in its September 1964 issue and said of the Council of Constance (1414 to 1418): “The reformers couldn’t get away with the hierarchical constitution of the church with the omnipotent Pope at the top has remained to this day. ” After this excursion into the history of the Council, the author returns to Vatican II: “To break the personal primacy of the Pope would be the prerequisite for the Unio sancta and for the unification of the Church. – We believe with a fair degree of certainty that we can say that the Pope’s infallibility and his primacy over the Council will not be broken in 1964 either. In the area of the church constitution, the Middle Ages will continue to protrude into our time – we think: not for the benefit of the church and the modern problems that have to be overcome. And as long as the personal supremacy of an individual in the church constitution is not removed, we believe that any reform in other areas will also fail. The constitutional power of the Pope and his appointed cardinals is the institutional obstacle to any better understanding and reform. On the other hand, if the privilege and infallibility of the Pope are removed, the Church can no longer exercise the power of suggestion over the masses of the believing population as it has before. The Church and the Council are therefore in an indissoluble dilemma here. We do not believe that the Council in Rome this year will be able to deal with these things, however much the symptoms will be mended. ”
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre