|
|
|
|
|
|
Papers |
| Church and Religion |
JEAN GUITTON AND THE MODERNISM We transcribe (*) below the
report from Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia [ Reply and “Report” from “Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia”:
-----
Brescia,
December 3, 2002
We wish to apologize for the
delay in replying your
We
Distinguished regards,
ATTACHMENT (Version in English – ipsis literis – of the attachment sent by Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia) When speaking of modernism, it is good to make a substantial distinction between the philosophical and theological-biblical theory, which we will discourse about, and the concept of modernity seen as a social-cultural fact, which is often misinterpreted as the first theory. 1. Philosophical and theological-biblical theory A convenient reconstruction of the “modernism” should be carried out in several periods, not excluding the crisis brought about by aristotelism in the 12th century, up to Loisy’s and Buonaiuti’s theories. The term “modernism” was coined by St. Pius X’s very document “Pascendi”, whose title is “De modernistarum Doctrinis”. The thesis there condemned were Loisy’s, expressed both in the “petit livre rouge”, namely, “The gospel and the Church”, of 1902, and in the second “petit livre rouge”. Already on January 17th , 1903, the archbishop of Paris, cardinal Richard, had reproached Loisy’s work. The “modernist” theories that worried the Mastership were precisely those related to the field of biblical interpretation. Indeed, Loisy makes his the thesis of Harnach about the historical-critic method in the approach of the Scripture, and even of the “Depositum Fidei” with all that it achieves. Unlike is P.G. Lagrange’s work, who, contemporary to Loisy, also approaches the Scripture with scientific method, but he considers the Bible as anthrop-divine synergy. He will found in Paris the “Revue Biblique”, to which Loisy will oppose, with the publication of “L’Enseignement biblique”, which will not last too long. Pope Leo XIII (November 16, 1893) promulgates the document “Provvidentissimus Deus”, where P. Lagrange sees the approbation of his exegete method, which joins faith and critic, where divine inspiration and knowledge of the sacred author do not exclude one another: “God teaches in ineffable way only what the sacred author teaches, this is the traditional principle of exegesis. Next we have the principle of good sense; the sacred author teaches only what he wants to teach. We have the principle of literary critic: the author expresses himself within the genre he chose. There is nothing left for us to do but to confront him with a last principle of logic not less elementary: the term does not contain neither the truth nor the error, for one and the other arise when one makes a judgment, that is, a categorical assertion or denial. And there is no categorical judgment but when the author wants to pronounce it” [1] With this criterion, P. Lagrange, considering on one hand the principle of divine inspiration, and on the other, the principle of the instrumentality of the author, was convict of being able to avoid the injurious conflict between faith and science. Pope Leo XIII, precisely by this method of approaching the Scripture, will institute the Pontifical Biblical Commission, including P. Lagrange as well (1902). P. Lagrange, by his turn, will be placed under suspicion in 1912 by St. Pius X, with a letter from the Consistorial Congregation because of his position about the mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, by him expressed and kept in the IV Scientific Congress of Catholics at Fribourg, on August, 1897. 2. «Modernism» in the II Vatican Council Sure the II Vatican Council has taken care, like it could not make it, of the serious and great problems of humanity that impoverish and threaten the straight conscience which allows people to recognize good from evil, and to act consequently, according to the dictates of faith and of the dignity of man, image and likeness of God, by identity and vocation. This is the attention that we find in the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes of exquisitely evangelic style and that is often accused of modernism. But, as we have introduced the modernism stigmatized by the Pascendi, the II Vatican Council in the dogmatic constitution Dei Verbum sits on a totally different position, so much to offer to the Word of God the primacy of the Church. There is evident ignorance and bad intention in those who see connivance between the doctrine of the Vatican II relative to Revelation and the thesis on which the modernism is based, that is the historical-critic theory. We hurry therefore to present our theological reflection on the renewed concept of Revelation, introduced by the Dei Verbum, which goes clearly in the opposite direction of the modernist conception. The renewed concept of Revelation In order to comprehend the renewed concept of Revelation of the Vatican II, it is necessary to briefly confront the perspectives of Vatican I and Vatican II, from the historical and theological point of view. Under the historical-cultural profile, it is known that the perspective and context of the two Councils are radically different. The historical-cultural context in which the formulation of the doctrine of Revelation in the Vatican I gushes is determined by a deep fracture between Christian and modern thought. The problematic on Revelation and on the relationship between faith and reason is strongly conditioned by traditionalist and rationalist tendencies, against which the doctrine of Council is placed. The final intention is the sentence of the errors of the time and the climate is determined by the fact that the Church felt besieged by its adversaries. This controversial situation also influenced the official theology in the following years, which made an effort to defend the truth of faith from the errors, accumulating, however, at the same time, a large cultural delay, because of the hardening and crystallization of theological formulas. The historical-cultural context of the Vatican II is certainly different: the Church does not intend to proclaim specific dogmas nor to pronounce against heretic positions, but proposes to begin a dialogue with the modern world. The Church, getting out to the uncovered, wants to rethink the patrimony of faith, globally considered, and to introduce it in an accessible way to contemporary civilization as to intervene effectively the existential condition of the man of today. The Vatican II is born in a period of theological Reflection and of a calmer and, above all, more creative ecclesial rethinking and proposes not much to defend, but to expose the doctrine of the Church, showing its organicity, existential importance and up-to-date pastoral. As for the doctrinal profile, one can summarize the conciliate thinking concerning the concept of Revelation in the following items: a) The way that the notion tagged along in the conscience of the Church is usually measured and concisely expressed by saying that there has been a passage from an intellectualistic conception to a personalistic historic-salvific conception of Revelation. The intellectualistic conception understands Revelation as the communication of truths from God to the human intellect, supported by freedom and lightened up by grace. The historical-salvific conception sees Revelation as a self-manifestation of God Himself in history and in man’s history, through the mission of Jesus and of the Spirit. [2] There is no opposition, evidently, between these two conceptions, since the second does not exclude, but integrates the first. The self-revelation of God, indeed, also implies in a communication of truths at the intellectual level, recognizable from the poetic point of view. Nevertheless, there is also diversity between these two perspectives. The second overcomes the first, for the terms of the event of Revelation are not anymore the truths on one side and the human intellect on the other, but are, on one side, God freely present in Jesus’ history and in the history of the Spirit given by Jesus, and on the other side, the man who is called to live his history freely as Spirit’s history, which “makes memory” of the history and the eschatological event of Christ. b) A second and fundamental theological note on the renewed concept of Revelation is the centrality granted to the mystery of Christ. Jesus Christ is the fullness and the fulfilling of God’s Revelation. Consequently, an indubitably personalistical perspective of Revelation is asserted. [3] c) Besides, the christcentrism of Revelation allows to better comprehend the unity and distinction between creation and Revelation. The unity is given by the fact that creation finds its truth in the Incarnated Verb. Christ is therefore the full sense of creation. The distinction is described by means of an overcoming or a qualitative surplus of the innovation of the event Christ regarding the horizon of the universal history [4]. The consequence of this formulation is that a theological reflection over the sense of history must start from the event-Christ, that becomes the hermeneutic principle of the universal history. d) Finally, the sacramental dimension of Revelation is asserted [5]. God’s Revelation happens by means of facts and words (Facta et Verba). This, described as an initiative from God, which aims at His very person, came through some interventions of God Himself oriented to an only end, which is the gift of salvation. This order events and interventions is called “economy” (historic-salvific economy). The sacramental dimension gushes at this point, since the full meaning of the gestures ensues merely through words, that is, from Locutio Dei, which, by its turn, is in Christ Jesus a concrete historical happening. e) After discoursing over the Revelation as an action of God, the object of Revelation is stressed. This is God’s Word, through which we are lightened about God’s truth and about man’s salvation. And, since God’s Word was made flesh, this truth is not exhausted in the intellectual order, but demands that in Christ the communion of life with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit be fulfilled. The object of Revelation is, therefore, a true interpersonal communion between the man and the Most Holy Trinity. Concluding this brief presentation of the theological characters of the theme Revelation, one easily comprehends that the conciliate perspective shows an unavoidable interest by antropology and by the history in which the human existence is accomplished. Consequently, the new concept of Revelation unblocks the indifference of the theology for the various sights of culture and communicates an interest that is as much passionate, almost anxious, as what has been inert the previous indifference by way of the manualistic and neo-scholatic theology. It is about a revolution of the theological method, but not, for sure, towards the criteria of modernism.
[1]. M.J. Lagrange. L'inspiration et les exigences de la critique, in RB.5 (1896) p. 507. [2]. In the dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius from Vatican I, the aim of Revelation is the participation in the divine knowledge, and consequently the priority is given to wisdom: «Placuisse eius sapientiae et bonitati...revelare» (DS 3004). In the Dei Verbum, on the contrary, it is asserted: «Placuit Deo in sua bonitate et sapientia seipsum revelare» (DV 2). It is not about a contraposition, but diverse accentuations in the way of comprehending the process and the dynamics of Revelation. [3]. In the Constitution Dei Filius it is observed an almost tangential presence of the figure of Christ in relation to the theme Revelation. It is present, but is substantially seen in an “instrumental” work regarding the action of God which is that of manifesting the set of divine and supernatural truths. On the other hand, in the Dei Verbum the role of Incarnation acquires a decisive dimension in order to illuminate the sense of God’s revelation. [4]. «The deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all Revelation» (DV 2). And yet «God, who through the Word creates all things and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (Cfr. Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further (insuper) and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents.» (DV 3). [5]. Cfr. DV 2.
(*) NT. Translation from the original in Italian: http://www.montfort.org.br/ita/cadernos/vaticano2a.html
JEAN GUITTON AND THE MODERNISM (English version from the original in Italian – “Risposta al Parere del’Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia”) SELF-DEMOLITION OF THE CHURCH PROMOTED BY THE MODERNIST DOCTRINES IN THE VATICAN II Proposed problem: Jean Guitton confesses: the II Vatican Council has proclaimed what Saint Pius X condemned as Modernist heresy, in 1906: “When I read the documents relative to the Modernism, as it was defined by Saint Pius X, and when I compare them to the documents of the II Vatican Council, I cannot help being bewildered. For what was condemned as heresy in 1906 was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church. In other words, the modernists of 1906 were, somewhat, precursors to me. My masters were part of them. My parents taught me Modernism. How could Saint Pius X reject those that now seem to be my precursors?” (Jean Guitton, Portrait du Père Lagrange, Éditions Robert Laffont, Paris, 1992, pp. 55-56).
"O voi ch'avete l'intelletti sani,
[“O ye who have undistempered
intellects, Most Illustrious Sire
Dr. Renato Papetti,
I - Introduction First of all, allow me to thank you for your most kind attention regarding the question sent to you by my brother, Marcelo Fedeli, and I apologize for my orthography and grammar mistakes, since I have learnt my Italian at home. I also want to thank Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia for the concern to answer and to “adequately deepen the delicate matter” submitted, entrusting a theologian to elaborate a learned report about Jean Guitton’s statement on the modernist character of II Vatican Council. Anyway, my gratitude to your kindness and to the work of Istituto Paolo VI cannot help me saying, with a respectful and Christian sincerity, that your answer, that means, the theological report assumed by Istituto Paolo VI – that so much pleased me by its kind attention actually did not satisfy me intellectually. My brother has submitted to your judgment, and to others as well, the phrase of Jean Guitton that asserts – with all the letters – that “what was condemned as heresy in 1906, was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church”. Therefore, that the condemned doctrine of Modernism was retaken and defended by the II Vatican Council. Guitton, a very dear and reliable friend of Paul VI, and who was invited by this Pope to take part of the Council, had the authority to confess what is very well understood, but that many want to put “under the veil”: that the Modernist doctrine condemned by Pope Saint Pius X was proposed, sometimes in a very misty, concealed and ambiguous way, as Catholic doctrine in the documents of Vatican II. You answer, through the theological report that you sent to me: “There is evident ignorance and bad intention in those who see connivance between the doctrine of the Vatican II relative to Revelation and the thesis on which the modernism is based, that is the historical-critic theory.” (the underlining is mine). I’m sorry, but Guitton did not restrict his affirmation to “Revelation” only. He said, generically, that Vatican II “has proclaimed” the Modernist doctrine. But he didn’t mention the Revelation according Modernism and according to Vatican II. Istituto Paolo VI has restricted the matter on its own account. Otherwise, the theological report itself, that was sent to us, says that: “the pastoral constitution Gaudium et Spes of exquisitely evangelic style (…) is often accused of modernism” Who, besides Guitton, has accused Gaudium et Spes of being modernist? Were there, therefore, others that regarded the Modernism triumphant in the doctrines and documents of Vatican II? Is it attributed to Guitton the “evident ignorance and bad intention”? Or to whom else? This unclear accusation does not uphold the famous “dialogue”. If the author of this learned theological report judged that Guitton had “evident ignorance and bad intention”, he should say it clearly. And how could one say that Guitton ignored the Vatican II, in which he deeply took part of? And how could the confidence and friendship between him and Pope Paul VI be explained, if he had “bad intention”? And yet: Guitton’s phrase was published in the biography that he wrote about Father Lagrange, by request and order of Pope John Paul II. However, there is no proof that John Paul II denied, or even criticized, Guitton’s terrible statement about Vatican II, that is in this book... I beg you to forgive me, but there is something puzzling about the indirect attribution of “evident ignorance and bad intention” to Guitton. Case you have referred this judgment to him. And it is not right to write a report about the opinion expressed by Jean Guitton without mentioning him not even a single time, nor even without quoting, not even a single time, his terrible affirmation: “For what was condemned as heresy in 1906, was proclaimed as what is and should be from now on the doctrine and method of the Church.” If one did not know the phrase from Guitton, that has moved my brother’s query, by only reading the erudite theological report from Istituto Paolo VI di Brescia, one would not know what or who we talk about. The author of the theological report has - very skillfully - tried to answer the question about Guitton’s statement without naming him not even a single time, and without analyzing what he said about the Council, that is, that the Vatican II taught the Modernist thesis condemned by Saint Pius X in the Pascendi. Why such a silence about Guitton’s phrase? After these first considerations, let me analyze a little more deeply the theological report that Istituto Paolo VI has sent us. I will do it, following the same method of yours, in two parts: I - I will analyze its initial and general statements; II - I will criticize, if you allow such a boldness, the theological notes you pointed out in order to assure that Vatican II did not teach the thesis of the Modernism. It is true that I am not a theologian, but if you allow me to reason it out a little bit – as a layman, not as an expert – I will tell you why I was not satisfied with your report. II - Modernity and ModernismThe erudite report from Istituto Paolo VI begins with a distinction between the concept of Modernity and the theory of Modernism, (as “philosophical and theological-biblical theory”). And it evolves as if Modernity concept hadn’t being condemned as much as Modernism. However, the concept of Modernity was condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus, the doctrinaire document so hated by modernists. Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus the error of saying that: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (80th error condemned in the Syllabus, Denzinger, 1780). What does Modernity mean? Modernity is the “civilization” sprung from the principles of Humanism and of Reformation. Modernity produced the world which we live in, as if it was possible to say that today we actually live. Because agonizing is still living, but this is only a way of living…a terminal way of living. Modernity is contrary and enemy of the Catholic faith, and this has been stated and taught by Pius IX in the Syllabus. Nevertheless, “according to sociologist Joan Estruch y Gilbert, Director of the Sociology of Religion Investigation Center, from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, “by means of the II Vatican Council, the Catholic Church was incorporated to Modernity and made peace with it” (Acc. Paulo Daniel Farah, The Church considers the convocation of the III Vatican Council, article from Folha de São Paulo, December 25, 2002, p. A-9). In fact, it is possible to tell Modernity and Modernism apart, for they certainly are not the same thing. Modernism has affinities with Modernity, not only in the root of the words, but also, and even more, in the principles of uninterrupted “progress” and of evolution. The idea of uninterrupted progress is inherent to Modernity. And Modernism has accepted this principle, by defending the uninterrupted progress of the thought that caused the evolution of dogma doctrine, condemned by Saint Pius X in the Encyclical Pascendi. According to Tyrrel, who also has been condemned by Saint Pius X – and it was a pity that Saint Pius X forgot Tyrrel in the tiny little list of modernists mentioned in his report –, according to the modernist Tyrrel: “Modernist” as opposed to “Modern” means that one insists about Modernity as a principle. This means the recognition, from the part of religion, of the rights of modern thought, the necessity of summarizing, not between what is old and what is new, without distinction, but between that which, after passing through the sieve of criticism, was recognized as good, as on what is old, as well as on what is new.’ (G. Tyrrel, Mediaevalism, p.143, apud. J. Rivière, Le Modernisme dans l’Eglise, Librairie Letouzey et Ané, Paris, 1929, p. 6 – Bolded and underlined mine). And you see that the concern in respecting “The rights of the modern thought” was assumed by the Vatican II, which is an argument which is favorable to Guitton’s sentence about the Modernism on the Vatican II. The distinction that one makes between Modernity and Modernism was already made in those times of polemics about the Modernism, in the first decade of the 20th century. Monsignor Baudrillart, therewith Rector of the Catholic Institute from Paris, made a speech, in November 4, 1907, approaching this very point: Can one say that Modernism has nothing to do with Modernity? The future Cardinal Baudrillart declared, at the time: “Modernism comes from modern. Would there be, therefore, something between modern spirit and Christian spirit, between modern man and Christian man, something that would be radically incompatible, something that the Church, in order to be faithful to its mission, should necessarily condemn?” (Monsignor Baudrillart, Discourse for the Mass of the Holy Spirit, November 4, 1907, Apud. Pierre Collin L’Audace et Soupçon – La Crise du Modernism dans le Catolicisme Français, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris, 1997, p. 45). The theological report’s answer, dear Dr. Papetti, is that there is nothing in common between Modernism and Modernity. Cardinal Baudrillart answered yes, there is something in common, and the common point is incompatible with the Catholic Doctrine. Look at what said Monsignor Baudrillart: “In essence, the modern man is the ancient man, the man before Christianity, who does not intend to depend on anything but on nature and reason”. “Well then, at the same moment in which Renaissance claimed this sovereignty of the rights of nature and of reason, Protestantism, by its turn, established the principle of free exam of the Sacred Scriptures, and placed it, in matter of doctrine, over the dogma of Church’s authority ” (idem apud op. cit. p. 46). And commenting these words, Pierre Collin asserts: “The protestant spirit helped thus to the formation of the modern spirit, characterized by individualism, by religious subjectivism. All those tendencies, by the end of the 18th century found a particularly strong expression in Kant, who deserves to be called ‘the philosopher of the Protestantism and father of the modern spirit’. There is a complete opposition between the modern spirit, thus defined, and the Christian spirit” (Pierre Collin, op. cit. p. 46. Bolded mine). And Monsignor Baudrillart still says: “Protestant is the man who does not recognize another religious authority above or outside himself, who draws from his own conscience the religious truth on which he lives: the modern man is the one who understands that he depends only on himself, in other words, that he is a god to his mind. In both situations, you may see that one gets to the doctrine of autonomy and of personal glorification of man. This is the modern spirit, such as it is presented to us nowadays, and it is radically opposite to the Christian spirit” (Monsignor Baudrillart, cited speech, apud. Pierre Collin, op cit., p. 46. The bolded is mine). Therefore, Modernity has come from Humanism and from Protestantism, both which created the modern, anthropocentric world, contrary to the Christian theocentric cosmovision. In the Modern world, man figures himself as God. Revelation would be something that would rise from man’s inner part. Exactly as it was defined by Modernism, which is son of Protestantism and Kant. We will see, later, dear Dr, how Revelation is conceived by Vatican II, and according to the report from Istituto Paolo VI. I have quoted the Syllabus and the Pascendi... I’m afraid that the name of those papal documents may give you the creeps... and that it would lead you to put my letter away with the definitive comment: “He is an integrist...” I apologize for thinking and writing this fear of mine that you could reject my text as... “integrist”. But it is so common nowadays, due to Modernity and Modernism, to consider these documents surpassed... Nowadays, so many theologians have the creeps when they read the names of papal documents from other times... they want news… existential and personalistic news. They believe in the Evolution, and everything that comes from the past, that is, from before Vatican II is not supposed to be considered valid anymore. The past should be “aggiornatto”, that is, renewed. However, the Vatican II is not a little baby anymore: it has already turned 40 years old. Maybe, because that, there are super-modernists who want to update it in a future Vatican III (Libera nos Domine!). In Brazil, just yesterday, February 9, 2003, it has been noticed in a big newspaper, that 34 bishops and approximately 2000 priests led by Cardinal Paulo Evaristo Arns, asked the Pope the summoning of the Vatican III, which a benedictine abbot suggested to be taken place in … Africa (sic!). Why do passionate advocates of the Vatican II reject almost all Church’s old documents as being surpassed, as being of no value? As if truth would be mutable; as if truth would have the need of being “aggiornata” (i.e. updated). This is also a noticeable Modernist principle that the Vatican II assumed in order to please Modernity and its famous “men of good will”... Therefore, the distinction between Modernity and Modernism absolutely did not satisfy me. On the contrary... I ask you, if you allow me: what does this distinction have to do with Jean Guitton’s phrase anyway? It has nothing to do with it! The erudite report from your Institute was well written, but allow me to tell you that it does not answer with serious evidences to the problem that came up with Jean Guitton’s frightening sentence. Has the Vatican II defended and taught – yes or no – the heretic ideas of the Modernist condemned by Saint Pius X in the Pascendi? I qualified Guitton’s statement as frightening because his statement is a confession that causes fright and fear, which reveals what Modernists do not intend to be known. According to Guitton, anyone with sane intellect well realizes the doctrine that is hidden under the veil of the texts and strange terms… of the Vatican II. And this has not been anyhow answered by Istituto Paolo VI’s report.
III - Has Pascendi invented the name ‘Modernism’? According to the document that Istituto Paolo VI sent to us, the term Modernism was coined by the document of Saint Pius X, the Pascendi. And this is also not true. To begin with, one must reject the statement that the term Modernist was invented by the Pascendi, since it opposes the very text of this papal document, which says ipsis litteris: “It is one of the cleverest devices of the Modernists (as they are commonly and rightly called...” (Saint Pius X, Pascendi, n.4, cfr. Denzinger, 2071). The term Modernist was used in first place by Luther, so informs Rivière. (cfr. J. Rivière, op. cit., p. 14, note 1). Rivière himself verifies that Rousseau has also used the term Modernist as synonym for materialist (cfr. Rivière, op. cit., p. 15). And yet Rivière says that, according to the Littré dictionary, Modernist “is one who considers modern times superior to the antiquity” (J. Rivière, op. cit., p. 16). What a beautiful and clear definition, and how well it exposes to the light the mentality of certain Vatican II theologians and of those who follow it as if it were the “Super Council”! The Catholic Encyclopedia says about this problem: “The Catholic publicist Périn (1815-1905), professor at the University of Louvain, 1844-1889. This writer, while apologizing for the coinage, describes "the humanitarian tendencies of contemporary society" as modernism. The term itself he defines as "the ambition to eliminate God from all social life". With this absolute modernism he associates a more temperate form, which he declares to be nothing less than "liberalism of every degree and shade" ("Le Modernisme dans l'Eglise d'après les lettres inédites de Lamennais", Paris, 1881). (A. Vermeersch, Modernisme, De Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm). And continues the Encyclopedia: “During the early years of the present century, especially about 1905 and 1906, the tendency to innovation which troubled the Italian dioceses, and especially the ranks of the young clergy, was taxed with modernism. Thus at Christmas, 1905, the bishops of the ecclesiastical provinces of Turin and Vercelli, in a circular letter of that date, uttered grave warnings against what they called "Modernismo nel clero" (Modernism among the clergy).” “Several pastoral letters of the year 1906 made use of the same term; among others we may mention the Lenten charge of Cardinal Nava, Archbishop of Catania, to his clergy, a letter of Cardinal Bacilieri, Bishop of Verona, dated 22 July, 1906 and a letter of Mgr Rossi, Archbishop of Acerenza and Matera. "Modernismo e Modernisti", a work by Abbate Cavallanti that was published towards the end of 1906, gives long extracts from these letters. The name "modernism" was not to the liking of the reformers. The propriety of the new term was discussed even amongst good Catholics. When the Decree "Lamentabili" appeared, Mgr Baudrillart expressed his pleasure at not finding the word "modernism" mentioned in it (Revue pratique d'apologetique, IV, p. 578). He considered the term "too vague". Besides it seemed to insinuate, "that the Church condemns everything modern". The Encyclical "Pascendi" (8 Sept., 1907) put an end to the discussion. It bore the official title, "De Modernistarum doctrinis". The introduction declared that the name commonly given to the upholders of the new errors was not inapt. Since then the modernists themselves have acquiesced in the use of the name, though they have not admitted its propriety”(Loisy, "Simples réflexions sur le decret 'Lamentabili' et sur l'encyclique 'Pascendi', of September 8th, 1907", p. 14; "Il programma dei modernisti": note at the beginning). (A. Vermeersch, Modernisme, De Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10415a.htm). Therefore, the term Modernist was not created by Saint Pius X’s document. And, even if it were, how well found this term would be! The modernists of yesterday and today defend the thesis of modern origin – Hegel expressed it clearly – which asserts that “the actuality, the present time must always be better; therefore, the modern world is absolutely better than the Middle Ages” (cfr. Sthal apud Domenico Lossurdo, Hegel, Marx e a Tradição Liberal, Ed. Unesp, São Paulo, Brazil, 1998, p. 62). It is the acceptance of the idea of continuous progress that forces modernist theologians to defend the continuous “aggiornamento” of the Church. Loisy said that: “The Gospel was not an absolute and abstract doctrine, by its own virtue directly applicable to all times and to all men. It was, instead, a faith engaged by all parts in the time and the environment where it was born. A work of adaptation was made and will be perpetually necessary in order to this faith to preserve itself in the world” (Alfred Loisy, L’Évangile et L’Église, p. 124, apud J. Rivière, Le Modernisme dans l’Église, ed. cit., p. 62). Perpetual adaptation means the same thing as aggiornamento. And aggiornamento means, so to speak, Modernism. I am sorry, but it is not me who state it: I simply repeat it. I accept the idea expressed in a modernist book, favorable to the Vatican II: “The word aggiornamento, which was chosen [by John XXIII] as a consignee for the actualization of the Church cannot prevent us from feeling a certain tickling if we think about how little it differs from the meaning of the taboo word Modernism” (Father T. M. Schoof, La Nueva Teologia Católica, Ediciones Caros Lohlé, Buenos Aires, 1971, p. 279. The bold part is mine). And the aggiornamento that was disgracefully presented by Pope John XXIII in the beginning of the Council was the evil root of all modernisms which Guitton recognized in the Vatican II. I ask you not to rip your clothes by the enunciation of this fact. Do not forget that the Vatican II orders that all must be tolerated, and that one must always dialogue. So, let us dialogue then. And let us move forward.
IV - Who was condemned for Modernism?In the report from Istituto Paolo VI it is said that: “The thesis there condemned were Loisy’s, expressed both in the “petit livre rouge”, namely, “The gospel and the Church”, of 1902, and in the second “petit livre rouge”. I partially agree with you… It is very true that the Pascendi and the Decree Lamentabili condemned specially Loisy’s thesis. But they did not condemn only his thesis. The “Principle of Immanence”, appreciated by Blondel, one of the mentors of Modernism, was also condemned by the Pascendi, which openly talks about this gnostic-smelling principle. This is so real that Blondel realized that the Pascendi texts aimed him and became very disturbed. What a great effort was made to avoid Blondel’s condemnation! Maurice Blondel was involved with the modernist movement, and because of that, he stated the following after reading the Pascendi: “I suffer. Happy are those who died in the Lord”. “I read the encyclical – [Pascendi] – and I remain astonished. Is it possible? What kind of interior and exterior attitude should I take? Above all, how can I prevent many souls from succumbing and doubting Church’s goodness?” (Maurice Blondel, letter to Mourret, in September 17, 1907, apud René Virgoulay, Blondel et le Modernisme, Cerf, Paris, 1980, p. 230) And to Father Wehrlé, Blondel wrote a letter to on the very same day of September 17, 1907 where he states: “I perish under the encyclical [Pascendi]” (Apud Virgoulay, op. cit., p. 231). On September 20, Blondel wrote to the modernist Laberthonnière, who, later on, will also be condemned by Saint Pius X: “What was condemned was just the eference thesis, the religion that rises from the deepest of the conscience. By doing this, they wanted to aim at us. Subsequently they really believed that they have stroke us (…)” (M. Blondel, apud Virgoulay, op. cit. p. 232). By his turn, Virgoulay comments: “Blondel recognizes that he was “aimed at”. He recognizes that they believed to have stroke him (as well as Laberthonnière), but what he does not recognize is having been in fact stroke” (Virgoulay, op. cit. p. 232). And Wehrlé, replying to Blondel, wrote him: “You were aimed at with such a precision that repeals any sort of doubt. There have been some precautions in order not to condemn you [nominally], but you are condemned without remission” (Wehrlé to Blondel, letter of September 18, 1907). Therefore, there is no doubt that modernist philosopher, who is mentioned in the Pascendi, is Maurice Blondel, although he has not personally been quoted in this encyclical. In the theological report from Istituto Paolo VI, Most Illustrious Dr. Papetti, it is said that just Loisy’s and Buonaiuti’s doctrines were condemned as modernists. And that is a simplification that distorts the historical truth. Yet, others were condemned by Saint Pius X as modernists, like Father Laberthonnière, Father Georges Tyrrel, Father Turmel, Edouard Le Roy, Father Romolo Murri, Senator Antonio Fogazzarro for his tedious romance “The Saint”, just to name a few of the famous modernists who were condemned. (And so many others who were so close from being caught and who very cunningly escaped from condemnation…).
V - A little digress: the case Lagrange In the document from Istituto Paolo VI, afterwards, it is made the defense of Father Lagrange, in order to detach him to Loisy. Also this detachment oversimplifies reality. Father Lagrange was friend of all these condemned modernists, as well as of those to whom escaping from condemnation as modernist heretics was a close thing. Guitton wrote a biography of Father Lagrange by John Paul II’s request. By the way, it was in this very book about Father Lagrange that Guitton stated that the doctrines condemned as being modernist by Saint Pius X were approved, taught and proclaimed -- by the II Vatican Council. On top of that, the Pope John Paul II, who had ordered this biography to Guitton, did not criticize this frightening statement about the Modernism in the Vatican II. Let us see, now, Father Lagrange. Father Lagrange is considered by many people as one of the leaders of the Modernist movement, although he was a lot more skillful and insinuating than Loisy. Pierre Collin, speaking about the beginning of the Modernism, says: “However, the history of the Modernism does not begin in 1902 when Loisy’s book [L’Évangile et L’Église] comes out. One of the goals of our study is to insist on the philosophical causes of the modernist crisis. Now, since its publication in 1893, Maurice Blondel’s thesis about L’Action has already caused passionate controversies. The same has happened with the new biblical exegesis practiced in France by Father Loisy and Father Lagrange” (Pierre Collin, op. cit., p. 12. the bolded is mine). This author distinguishes Father Lagrange from Loisy, yet he says: “Lagrange is not Loisy, Blondel is not Hébert, but both ones and the others adopt the same ordinary methods from critic and philosophy” (P. Collin, op. cit., p. 70). “Monsignor Batiffol [Archbishop of Toulouse] made a certain ‘ideological map’ according to which Monsignor Duchêsne would have caused a division amongst his disciples: a leftist group, that tried to reinterpret Catholicism on the basis of a radical exegesis and of a not less radical philosophy of religion; and another moderate group, rightist, that tried to reconciliate the results of critic and theology, always respecting their own methods” [Exactly as the Vatican II intended to do, according to Cardinal Ratzinger’s reasoning. (Acc Cardinal J. Ratzinger, Problemi Del Fondamento ed Orientamento dell’Esegesi Contemporanea, http://www.ratzinger.it/miscellanea/interbiblconflitto.htm (P. Collin, op. cit., pp. 134-135. The bold is mine)] “Loisy belonged to the first group [the leftist]; Lagrange and Batiffol himself, to the second” (P. Collin, op. cit., pp. 134-135). This division into two groups, a more radical one, and another more moderate and consequently more dangerous, because the last can always infiltrate heretical thesis where the radical groups are repealed, such division has always been used by heretic movements. What would be then the difference between Loisy and Lagrange? Loisy considered all the histories narrated in the Gospel as myths. Father Lagrange did not accept this conception. For him, the histories told in the Gospel were not myths. They were historical legends: “Lagrange refuses the term myth, and thus, he refuses the alternative History or Myth. He prefers to talk about ‘Primitive Legendary History’”(acc. P. Collin, op. cit., p. 146). What a moderation! … The very report sent by Istituto Paolo VI, illustrious Dr. Papetti, recalls that Father Lagrange, even though Leo XIII had given him support, was suspect of modernism by Saint Pius X. “Father Lagrange, by his turn, will be placed under suspicion in 1912 by St. Pius X, with a letter from the Consistorial Congregation because of his position about the mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, by him expressed and kept in the IV Scientific Congress of Catholics at Fribourg, on August, 1897.” (Document from Istituto Paolo VI). Since 1897, because of the conference which Father Lagrange made in the International Scientific Congress, in Fribourg, about the historical value of the Pentateuch, a dossier had been opened in the Saint Office, regarding Father Lagrange (P.Collin, op. cit., p.145). Later on, Cardinal Merry del Val will forbid the publishing of Lagrange’s book about the Genesis (P. Collin, op. cit., p. 145). The Saint Office had already decided that Moses was the real author of the Pentateuch (Acc. Denzinger, 1997, ss.) and yet in 1909 the statement about the legendary character of Pentateuch was condemned (Acc. Denzinger, 2122). In 1912, Father Lagrange, due to a Rome's decision, had to depart from Jerusalem. (Acc. P. Collin, op. cit., p. 495).
VI - Preliminary problems concerning Vatican II Finally, the erudite theological report that you sent us, Most Illustrious Dr. Papetti, aims at showing that the Vatican II – unlike what Jean Guitton stated without John Paul II’s correction – would not have been Modernist. It is written in Istituto Paolo VI's document: “Sure the II Vatican Council has taken care, like it could not make it, of the serious and great problems of humanity that impoverish and threaten the straight conscience which allows people to recognize good from evil, and to act consequently, according to the dictates of faith and of the dignity of man, image and likeness of God, by identity and vocation.” (The underlines are of my responsibility). Therefore, you assure us that “the II Vatican Council has taken care, like it could not make it, of the serious and great problems of humanity”. But do you – really – believe that: “the II Vatican Council has taken care, like it could not make it, of the serious and great problems of humanity”? Why, then, did not the Vatican II condemn the communism and the Marxism that caused – and still causes – so much harm to mankind? The II Vatican Council consciously did not even want to name the biggest problem of mankind in the 20th century: Communism. The Vatican II has not condemned the biggest error of History. This most serious omission will be forever a burden over the Pastoral Vatican II and over the shoulders of its responsibles. Why has not the Vatican II said a single word against the most serious threat to the Church in all History? Because it had been signed an agreement between the Vatican and the USSR, in Metz, in which the Pope John XXIII pledged not to condemn the Communism nor the USSR, in the Vatican II, as long as the Soviet Union allowed the coming of representatives of the Schismatic Russian Church to watch the Council. It was the famous Metz Pact, signed by Cardinal Tisserand in the name of the Vatican, and by Nikodin, a so-called Bolshevik Secret Service Colonel, in the name of the USSR. How can one say that: “the II Vatican Council has taken care, like it could not make it, of the serious and great problems of humanity”? This is also not true. And how can one still say that the Vatican II tried to “recognize good from evil” in the modern world, if the Vatican II documents do not point out any error in our times and in Nostra Aetate? How can one tell good from evil, if the Vatican II sees the world with Gadium et Spes? How could the Vatican II ever be able to distinguish the good from evil, if the Vatican II, following John XXIII’s orientation, has refused to listen to the “prophets of calamities”, which include the prophecies in Fatima? No. The Vatican II did not help the conscience to distinguish between good and evil, because the Council refused to condemn the evil. It refused to condemn whoever it be. There were no anathemas in Vatican II. Pope John XXIII did not want them. Paul VI did not do them. The Vatican II was just “pastoral”, as Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI have decided. The Vatican II decided to speak with mercy, without condemning anything or anyone. As if mercy did not imply in condemning the errors and those who practice them. In Istituto Paolo VI's sentence, which we are analyzing, there is another point that we would like to focus. What does it mean to say that man is “image and likeness of God, by identity and vocation”? That which is an image is not identical. What sort of identity is there between God and man? None. The creature cannot be identical to the Creator. To admit identity between God and man is Gnosis or Pantheism. Admitting it implies in admitting a Modernist thesis: Blondel's esoteric Panchristism, or Teilhard de Chardin’s explicit pantheism. And also this identity between man and God, admitted in Istituto Paolo VI’s document, is neither truthful nor acceptable. As you can see, dear Doctor Papetti, that I talk to you with truthfulness, because without trustworthiness every dialogue is simply… “ecumenical”, that is, relativist. Which is also unacceptable, since it would mean to base oneself on the equivocal. And this issue lead us to the famous “dignity of the man”, which is exhaustively spoken in a slippery way by philo-modernists or modernist Christian democrats.
VII - The Religion of Man in the Modernism and in the Vatican II And yet, you Doctor say on the report you have sent us that Vatican II decided "to act consequently, according to the dictates of faith and of the dignity of man". It was absolutely necessary that the Council acted according the dictates of faith. It would be absurd if it did not do so! But that the Council wanted to act according to the dictates of the "dignity of man", this is a principle of Modernity, which is in the heart of the Modernist heresy. The famous dignity of the man, which is so slippery mentioned, consists, as the Holy Church teaches by means of Leo XIII, on the fact that man was created as image and likeness of God, and that he was called to be adoptive son of God through Baptism. Not on any other humanistic or modernist reason regarding the dignity of man, or yet, and even less, on a pseudo identity with God. Image, I repeat, is not identity. But, to Modernity and to the Modernism, dignity of man means that man is God. The Humanism, which is one of the foundations of this anti-Christian Modernity, the Idealism and the historical Materialism have placed man in God’s place. Also the Modernism has endeavored to put Man in God’s place. You certainly remember what Loisy said: "In Christ, Humanity elevates itself to Divinity. One could say, if one wants, that humanity adores itself in Jesus, but it must be believed that, by doing this, humanity does not forget its own condition neither that of God" (A. Loisy, L’Évangile et l’Église, p. 253). By reasoning about the perspectives of the Modernism founded by Loisy, Émile Poulat wrote: "In fact, [in Loisy’s work] wherever someone turns his look, he would never find a place in which he could detain himself or arrive. Before him, the unlimited future of Catholicism would suppose its transformation, a transformation in respect to which the religion of humanity allows itself to be guessed as a possible prolongation"(Émile Poulat, Histoire, Dogme et Critique dans la Crise Moderniste, Albin, Paris, 1996, p. 98. The highlight is mine). Well then, Cardinal Montini, when he was still Archbishop of Milan, Montini, Guitton’s friend, wrote a document about The Work and the Christianity, in which he says, with all letters, that tomorrow’s religion will be, perhaps, the religion of man. "Will not modern man get, one day, as his scientific studies advance and find out the realities hidden behind the dumb face of matter, to pay attention to the wonderful voice of the Spirit that palpitates in it? [Sic!] Will not it be tomorrow’s religion? Has Einstein himself foreseen the spontaneity of a religion of nowadays?..." (Paul VI, March 27, 1960 Speech, apud Documentation Catholique, n. 133, June 19, 1960. The boldface is mine). And also Maurice Blondel, philosopher very much esteemed by Modernists of today and of yesterday, had said that what man wants, no matter how, is to become God. Pierre Collin, unsuspected integrist author, wrote: "According to Blondel, the objective of the will transcends the rights, art, moral, but also metaphysics and religion. In a single word, the first and the last principle of spiritual dynamism is the idea of God, while "we cannot get to know God if we do not wish to become God somehow" (p.338). Definitively, we want to "be God", but man, by acting, sees himself confronted with an alternative that imposes a choice: to be god without God and against God, or to be God by God and with God" (Pierre Colin, L’Audace et le Souçon, Desclée de Brower, Paris, 1997, pp. 193-194). This phrase could surely make a good sense. But… there is in Blondel’s ideas a certain complacence with the temptation of being God, the temptation that is in the heart of Humanism. And Blondel, who used to write to the public in "trobar clus", in particular letters, spoke sometimes less mysteriously in "trobar leu", although not so clear yet: "But all of us must repeatedly persuade ourselves that the assimilated effusion of the divine goodness can only operate and triumph in us through a heavy duty and a crucifying dilatation. It is always the Verbun caro factum est and the caro verbum facta mystery. One is just possible through the other. There is no doubt that the world is deified: we can, and must do everywhere a peregrination to the Holy Places. We breathe the air that He breathed, and there is something of Him that moves in us: everything, however, just makes sense and has efficacy because of the supernatural vocation, from the offered and consented grace, without which all this divine inserted in the creature would be of no use. (Caro nihil proficit), as is private and debit "in the emptiness" and in condemnation (…)" (Maurice Blondel, Letter to Father Valensin, December 5, 1919, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin – Correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac. Moraes Editora, Lisboa, 1988, pp21-22. The boldface is mine). “There is no doubt the world is deified”? Is the "divine inserted in the creature"? The "men of good will" would also interpret optimistically Blondel’s assertion, who leaves on them too thin a veil ...
"Aguzza qui, Dottor, ben li occhi al
vero,
[Here, Doctor, fix thine
eyes well on the truth, And, if one takes a closer look at this veil with a little bit more attention, one finds Blondel himself confessing… "This subject [Panchristism] is one of "the oldest and most esoteric (Sic!!!) subjects of my personal thought and of that which I call my Panchristism".(Letter from Maurice Blondel to Father Auguste Valensin, December 5, 1919, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin, correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editora, Lisbon – São Paulo, 1968, p, 22. The astonished highlight is mine). Therefore it is true! There is something esoteric in Blondel’s misty writings! He said so! Something that he recommended not to be revealed to "Gente grossolana” [People of rough understanding, that is to say, not initiated]. "It is my opinion that we should not offer to its reviewers, and not even to its readers, the unusual and ambiguous expression of panchristism. This word with no preparation and not being explained, we run the risk of, because of its analogy with the word pantheism, suggesting physic or metaphysically etc…" (First note from Maurice Blondel to Father Auguste Valensin, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chirdin, correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editora, Lisboa – São Paulo, 1968, p. 57). Blondel not only confesses that he had an esoteric doctrine, but he demands it not be told to the "gente grossolana ": Valensin and Blondel readers! In the same book which gives us this precious piece of information, we read a little afterwards: "No one will ever hinder mankind’s effort of integrating Christ in a Cosmology: otherwise Jesus would not be the Verb"(Acc. Letter from Maurice Blondel to J. Wehrlé, May 9, 1904, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin – Correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editores, Lisboa – São Paulo, 1968, p. 59). Teilhard wrote, from Jersey, to his cousin Margareth Teilhard, on April 8, 1919: "He [Auguste Valensin] told me that, about the universe consistence in Christo, Blondel has so audacious perspectives that he does not dare to follow him so far – however, he told me that Rousselot does not hesitate to do so. I ignored this aspect of Blondel’s thoughts and I will ask someone to explain it to me." (Teilhard de Chardin, Gênesis de um Pensamento, p. 347 in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin – Correspodência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editores, Lisboa – São Paulo, 1968, pp. 59-60). What were Blondel’s real thoughts, that he did not dare to write, and that he taught esoterically, and because of that, he forbade it to be published? Maybe he could have said that he had found "in all logical, metaphysical, moral and religious ways" of his thought "that ontogenic and phylogenic Panchristism which we talked many times in common" (Letter from Blondel to Father Auguste Valensin, December 19, 1919, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin – Correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editores, Lisboa - São Paulo, 1968, p. 38). And now the veil has almost disappeared, has not it, eminent Doctor Papetti? Blondel puts in man’s will, that means, in human nature, a desire for the supernatural that will be retaken by Father de Lubac. And modernist Father Auguste Valensin, who was an admirer and disciple of Blondel, graduated Father de Lubac who, in his turn, was one of the major theologians in Vatican II … What Blondel put under a misty and esoteric veil, Teilhard said clearly: "As the spirit appears in the Man using, someway, the instincts’ drafts, thus also the Supernatural forms itself continuously by means of creation of our nature" (First note of Father Teilhard de Chardin to Father Auguste Valensin, in Blondel e Teilhard de Chardin -Correspondência comentada por Henri de Lubac, Moraes Editores, Lisboa - São Paulo, 1968, p. 34). Teilhard de Chardin admitted that the panchristism of Blondel had influenced him: "With Blondel I had a relationship (through Auguste Valensin) for around one year (right after the First World War, in 1920). Certain points of his thought have acted so much over me: the value of the Action (that became, in my thought, an Energetic almost experimental of the biological potencies of the evolution), and the notion of "panchristism" (to which I had arrived independently from him, but without daring, by that time, to name it so well)"(Teilhard de Chardin, Letter in February 15, 1955, in Claude Cuénot, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Plon, Paris, 1958, pp. 55-56). Cuénot admits that Teilhard de Chardin’s knowledge was inherited from Blondel’s thoughts, transporting the "cristicism" to the action plan (acc. Claude Cuénot, Aventura e Visão de Teilhard de Chardin, Livraria Moraes Editora, Lisboa, 1966, p.133). In an article sent to the Assistant Father of the General Supervisor of the Company of Jesus, Father Teilhard de Chardin wrote, in 1948: "There is an urgent necessity to the Christian faith on that One who is Up-There of incorporating the human Neo-Faith in an Over-There born (already born, and forever...) from the objective apparition of an Ultra-Human before us (releasing of a neo-Humanism that leads automatically to a neo-Cristianism)". (Claude Cuénot , op, cit. pp. 327-328). In a letter to Leontine Zante, in 1936, Teilhard wrote: "What increasingly dominates my interest is the effort to establish within myself and to diffuse around me a new religion (let’s call it an improved Christianity if you like) whose personal God is no longer the great neolithic landowner of times gone by, but the Soul of the world..." (Apud Father G.H. Duggan, S. M., The Collapse of the Church in the West - 1960-2000 Bolded mine). And that Teilhard de Chardin was a gnostic, even the neo-modernists recognized: "... in spite of some critics that are more related to the form than to the content, De Lubac totally agrees with Teilhard. Against him [Teilhard], are not valid [to De Lubac] the accusations of renewing the old Gnosis, accusations formulated by Ëtienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Teilhard is a ‘mystic’ who follows the track of Origen and finds himself entirely in Blondel. All paths lead to Blondel. He is the point of origin and arrival. In fact, the ‘cosmic christology’ [of Teilhard] is already found in Blondel, as well as the eclipse, in Incarnation, regarding the subject of Redemption" (Massimo Borghesi, O Itinerário de Henri de Lubac – A História como Mística, in 30 Giorni, ano VII, n. 1, January, 1993). Even the gnostic Urs von Balthasar recognizes that Teilhard de Chardin was gnostic! And Father de Lubac, despite all, tries hard to justify him! Therefore, there is no doubt that this New Religion of Teilhard de Chardin’s is the old Gnosis. And the II Vatican Council admitted this new humanistic faith, praised by Teilhard de Chardin, when Paul VI proclaimed that the Church has the cult of Man. Vatican II accepted the anthropocentrism of Modernity and of Modernism –which deifies man. Vatican II, as well, just like the philosophy of Modernity, put Man in God’s place, so that, at the end of the Council, Paul VI declared: "In this Council [Vatican II] the Church almost made itself slave of mankind". And yet: "Humanists of the 20th century: recognize that We also have the cult of the Man". I know perfectly well that you, eminent Dr. Papetti, know the speech of Paul VI at the end of the Council. But, if you know it – and you cannot be unfamiliar to it – you must admit that the religion of Man, wished as a goal by the Modernists – in the beginning of the 20th century – it has become praised, and in a certain way, accepted in the Vatican II. Therefore, Jean Guitton demonstrated neither ignorance, nor bad intentions by saying that the Vatican II proclaimed the thesis that Saint Pius X had condemned in the Modernism. In this closing Speech of Vatican II, Paul VI declared: "The Church of the Council [Vatican II] (...) was also much attached with man as he really is today, with living man, with man totally taken up with himself, with man who not only makes himself the centre of his own interests, but who dares to claim that he is the principle and final cause of all reality... Secular, profane, humanism finally revealed itself in all its terrible stature and, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against the religion -- for there is such a one -- of man who makes himself God.” “And what happened? A clash, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the spirituality of the Council. It [the Council] was filled only with an endless sympathy. The discovery of human needs – and these are so much greater now that the son of the earth has made himself greater-absorbed the attention of the Synod. Recognize at least this our merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: we also, We, more than anyone else, have the CULT OF MAN" (Paul VI, Closing Speech of the II Vatican Council, 7 de December 7, 1965). That was a concord declaration, as never heard before, between the Church – the Civitas Dei by excellence – and the Modern World, with its Humanism, foundation of the City of Man. And this impossible conciliation could only give birth to the submission, the servitude of the Church to man. "Another point we must stress is this: all this rich teaching [of the Vatican II] is channeled in one direction, the service of mankind”. (Paul VI, quoted Speech). “It might be said that all this and everything else we might say about the human values of the council [Vatican II] have diverted the attention of the Church in council to the trend of modern culture, centered on humanity. We would say not diverted but rather directed...” “The modern mind, accustomed to assess everything in terms of usefulness, will readily admit that the council's value is great if only because everything has been referred to human usefulness. Hence no one should ever say that a religion like the Catholic religion is without use, seeing that when it has its greatest self-awareness and effectiveness, as it has in council, it declares itself entirely on the side of man and in his service...." (idem). "In this Council [Vatican II] the Church almost made itself slave of the humanity" (Paul VI, Closing Speech of the II Vatican Council). In the Sacred Scripture it was proclaimed: "Thus saith the Lord: Cursed be the man that trusteth in man"(Jer. XVII, 5). But, disgracefully, Paul VI wrote: "We have faith in the man". (Paul VI, interview in Sidney, December 2nd, 1970). Finally, after a text that ressembles Rousseau’s, the hymn of glory to the man, made by Paul VI in 1971, by occasion of the first spatial voyage: "Honor to man! Honor to thinking! Honor to Science! Honor to the synthesis of the scientific and organizational activity of man, man that unlike the all other animals, knows how to give himself achieving tools to his mind and to his hand!" "Honor to man King of the Earth, and also, from now on, Prince of the sky! Honor to the living being that we are, which mirrors God on itself, and, by dominating things, obeys the biblical ordinance: grow up and dominate"! (Paul VI, Speech in Angelus hour, February 7th, 1971). It seems like a paraphrase of Gloria in eccelsis Deo! It seems an exaltation of man, as an idol! How different was Saint Pius X’s position regarding man: "It is necessary that, with all means and works, we make disappear radically the huge and detestable evilness proper of our times, that substitutes God by the man" (Saint Pius X, Supremi Apostolatus, 14). What can we understand, thus, about the dignity of the man? By dignity of man, should we understand it according to what Leo XIII said about it, that is to say, that man was called to the eminent dignity of adopted son of God or should we understand that man is "identical to God", that man is God, as preached by certain modernists?
VIII - Renewed or New Concept of Revelation? In the beginning of Istituto Paolo VI’s theological report, dear Dr. Papetti, it is put as a fundamental thesis that the Vatican II established a “renewed concept of revelation”. The term renewed is underscored. In the report, one reads: “In order to comprehend the renewed concept of Revelation of the Vatican II, it is necessary to briefly confront the perspectives of Vatican I and Vatican II, from the historical and theological point of view.” (The boldface and underscore are of my responsibility). Therefore, it is admitted that Vatican II has a renewed concept of revelation. Renewed does not mean new. Instead, it means that something, that already existed, was redone, without being fundamentally changed. Well, at the end of your report, it is written that the concept of revelation from Vatican II is “new”. And new stands for diverse from old. This is the conclusion of your Report: “Consequently, the new concept of Revelation unblocks the indifference of the theology for the various sights of culture and communicates an interest that is as much passionate, almost anxious, as what has been inert the previous indifference by way of the manualistic and neo-scholastic theology” (Bold and underscore are mine). So, is the concept of revelation from Vatican II different from the one which was accepted previously by the Church? What has changed? If the revelation concept is new, why was it said, then, that it was just a renewal? It seems to me that, at this point, there is a contradiction on your theological report. Am I wrong? Father Shoof himself also admits that Vatican II abandoned the old scholastic concept of revelation to adopt a new concept of revelation based on the New Theology doctrines. “The water drops over the rock managed to do something. However, also in this case, the changing derived from the ecclesiastic teaching, by finally sustaining the orientation of the reformist theologians, and by renouncing, during the II Vatican Council, to its exclusive contract with Scholastic”(Father T. M. Schoof, La Nueva Teologia Catolica, Ediciones Carlos Lohlé, Buenos Aires, 1971, p. 185). Afterwards, a parallel is made between the circumstances of the I Vatican Council, in 1870, and the II Vatican Council in 1962-1965. It is stated that “Under the historical-cultural profile, (…) The historical-cultural context in which the formulation of the doctrine of Revelation in the Vatican I gushes is determined by a deep fracture between Christian and modern thought”. Hence, Vatican I has put in first plane the relation between faith and reason, intending to condemn the newborn errors, be them Rationalism or traditionalist Fideism. Secondly, the diversity would arise from the fact that, in 1870, “Church felt besieged by its adversaries”. From where it follows the concern of defending the faith crystallized in theological forms, in the dogma. In Vatican II, the Church wanted to get out to the uncovered, not to condemn errors, but to introduce faith “in an accessible way to contemporary civilization as to intervene effectively the existential condition of the man of today”. “The Vatican II is born in a period of theological Reflection and of a calmer and, above all, more creative ecclesial rethinking and proposes not much to defend, but to expose the doctrine of the Church, showing its organicity, existential importance and up-to-date pastoral.” Thus, there would be two main points of diversity between Vatican I and Vatican II:
Starting by the historical context, allow me to refuse this presentation. It is not true that it was only in 1870 that the Holy Church was besieged by its adversaries. In the time of Vatican II the situation was far worse. At the time of Vatican I, the Church was suffering the attack of secret forces, mainly in France and Germany. There was the Piemont War against the Pontifical States. There was the Franc-Prussian war. But in the 20th century, the war against the Church had become universal, and deeper than never. Communism was making war against the Church everywhere. Europe was under threat of a bolshevist invasion, or of an atomic war. All the world was submitted to the Marxist danger by means of war, guerrilla or by the revolutionary propaganda. The menace and the war were so serious that several Cardinals and Patriarchs were sent to communist prisons. To the point of forcing John XXIII to surrender before the USSR, ordering the signature of the Pact of Metz. And it was exactly during the Council that came up the missile crisis in Cuba. Therefore, the historical-cultural circumstances were worse in the times of Vatican II. Also under the doctrinaire point of view it was never seen before a danger of errors as serious as in the time of Vatican II. Not only Marxism, but Freudianism, Existentialism, Liberalism, Relativism and Subjectivism, Phenomenology, Structuralism, insinuated themselves everywhere, infiltrating even in the seminars. Worse than all these philosophies was the expansion of modernist errors spread by the so called New Theology, that was already censored – but not crushed – by Pius XII in the encyclical Humani Generis. And one must not forget the liturgical errors sprout in the 20th century by Father Lambert Bauduin, by Father Louis Bouyer, and by the heresies of Father Maurice Zundel, Paul VI’s friend and protegee. How can Istituto Paolo VI state, thus, that the historical cultural context of Vatican II was not of siege against the Church? This statement is absurd and against historical reality. It is curious that modernist and progressist theologians and exegetes, who intend to be very rigorous about the historical reconstruction of the Gospel times, are so little rigorists, and even so little objectives, when exposing the most recent and even the present day historical reality. It is also curious that Istituto Paolo VI's theological report analyzes only the new revelation concept according to the Vatican II, when Jean Guitton’s statement was far more generic. But this is something already. Let us see now the first point which is the one that deals with the concept of revelation according to Vatican I, and the “renewed” concept – or better, new, as it is admitted by your report’s conclusion – according to Vatican II. In order to make it a clearer exposition, I will examine the several positions about the revelation:
As much as possible, I will give the quotations, employing the same words of Istituto Paolo VI's theological report, in order to clarify the problem’s view – as it was answered and not as it was put – that is: has Vatican II accepted, yes or no, the modernist doctrine of revelation?
IX - Revelation According to the Catholic Doctrine According to the erudite report from Istituto Paolo VI, my dear Doctor Papetti, the concept of Revelation by Vatican I, when compared to the new concept of Revelation by Vatican II, could be summarized in these notes: Revelation would be intellectualistic. The content would be made of truths disclosed by God Himself to the human intellect. From that follows the importance that was given to the dogma and to the condemnations of heresies. According to the theological report which you sent us: “In the Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius of Vatican I, the purpose of the Revelation is the participation in the divine conscience and, as a consequence, the priority is given to wisdom”. On the other hand, revelation according to the Vatican II would be more historical-salvifical than revelation of truths. Please allow me to provide a draft of the concept of revelation according to the doctrine of Vatican I and to the way it has ever been. I believe that, regarding this point, we do not disagree: 1) Revelation is the set of truths taught by transcendent God by means of certain elected men inspired by the Holy Ghost; truths that were taught to them in a supernatural way; truths that were revealed mainly by Christ and through the Holy Ghost that inspired the Evangelists and the Apostles, truths consigned to the Church, that must teach them to all men, as necessary to their salvation. 2) The revelation is an extrinsic fact to man, and is freely given by means of intellectual illumination. Were it not extrinsic, how would one explain that Balaan’s mule spoke? 3) The revelation was consigned to the Church as a deposit of truths (Depositum fidei). 4) There are two sources of revelation: The Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, given to the Church to teach the truth revealed by God, to the salvation of the souls. Due to this, it is said in the infallible Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent: “I admit and embrace very firmly the tradition of the Church and Apostles and the remaining observances and constitutions of the same Church. I also admit the Holy Scripture according to that sense which our holy mother the Church has held, and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretations of the Scriptures. Neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers”(Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent, Dezinger, 995). Because of this Council Vatican I infallibly defined: “This supernatural revelation, according to the Faith of the universal Church declared by the Saint Council of Trent, “(...) are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us”(Council of Trent, Cap. II, on Revelation, Denzinger, 1787). 5) The knowledge of these truths that are revealed and transmitted by the Sacred Scripture and by the Apostolic Tradition, were given to the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church that teaches them in a dogmatic way, with divine authority, infallibly, and these truths must be held with faith by men. And these truths must be considered non-temporal and universal, immutable in their sense and doctrine. 6) The truths revealed by God and taught by the Church are infallible and immutable. One can enhance his knowledge on them by deduction, by means of Theology, but always keeping the same sentence and the same meaning. Therefore, these revealed truths must not be adapted and cannot be adapted by a relativistic and variable way, according the times and places. 7) The Church must keep the Faith Deposit and teach it faithfully. The teaching is done positively by means of the dogmas; and the defense of Depositum Fidei is done negatively, through condemnations of errors and excommunications. The Church transmits the revealed truth but never changes its sense. |
