Traditionally Hypocritical

Christ or Chaos ^ | April 29, 2004 | Dr. Thomas Drolesky

[Land of the Irish]

The hypocrisy of Roman curial cardinals and of the American hierarchy knows no limits. With Pope John Paul II, a son of the Second Vatican Council, having delegated practically all governing power to the cardinals around him as he continues to wax enthusiastically about the "springtime of the Church ushered in by the events of a council that meant to open the Church up to the "world," his appointees and theological clones in Vatican dicasteries continue to stand the authentic patrimony of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church on its head. Examples abound of the statements emanating from Rome that contradict the living Tradition of the Church, to say nothing of contradicting themselves and bewildering the faithful who even bother to pay attention to them.

To wit, a April 25, 2004, report on ZENIT, which is run by the Vatican lapdogs known as the Legionaries of Christ (an outfit that would say that a pope who permitted women priests must be obeyed without question), sought to engage in historical revisionism concerning the conversion of Rabbi Israel Zolli to the Catholic Faith as a result of the influence of Pope Pius XII. A recently republished book on Zolli's conversion explains that the former Grand Rabbi of Rome took the baptismal name Eugene to honor Pope Pius XII, whose baptismal name was Eugenio Pacelli. Alas, a Vatican that is composed of cardinals who have said that Jews are saved by the Mosaic Covenant, which was superceded by the New and Eternal Covenant instituted by Our Lord at the Last Supper and ratified as He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross (and symbolized by the tearing of the veil in the Temple in Jerusalem in two upon the death of Our Lord on the Cross), cannot stand to see such publicity given to a book about a Jewish rabbi's honest-to-goodness conversion to the true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Thus, the April 25, 2004, report on ZENIT sought to make complex that which was not complex at all: Eugenio Zolli's complete conversion to Catholicism.

Consider the following passage from the ZENIT report, which featured an interview with Alberto Latorre, identified as a scholar who oversaw the Italian edition of the Zolli autobiography:

Q: What do you think of Zolli's conversion? You seem to imply that much took place before the meeting with [Pius XII].

Latorre: I answer, quoting Zolli, that it was not a question of a conversion, but of an adherence. The baptism of fire, namely, Zolli's profound adherence to the Gospel message, probably took place during his adolescent years.

Zolli, as he himself says, nourished from the years of his formation a profound love of Jesus -- an attraction attested subsequently by a historical-religious study published in 1938: "The Nazarene: Studies of New Testament Exegesis in the Light of Aramaic and Rabbinical Thought."

The baptism of water, received on February 13, 1945, was an act of formal adherence carried out when he was already clear about manifesting openly, "in primis" to himself, his religious faith.

I must emphasize that Zolli never abandoned Judaism; rather, following in the steps of St. Paul, he entered Christianity as a Jew. A Jew as was Jesus of Nazareth.

Q: Could the rabbi's meeting with the Pontiff have influenced the decisions that were brewing in Zolli's heart? In what way?

Latorre: I think it is impossible to establish objectively if the meeting with Pacelli influenced Zolli's decisions and in what way. How is it possible, in fact, to enter a man's heart and understand profoundly its movements and uncertainties? It is already very difficult to enter one's own -- can you imagine understanding another's?

Yet, on the basis of my studies of Zolli, I think that the meeting with the Pontiff did not influence him at all.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, the repeated rapprochement between Zolli and Pius XII, and vice versa, was not for the benefit of either one. The personal and historical situations of both ended, inevitably, by coming together, but I think that the analysis and historical judgment of the two personalities must be carried out autonomously. …

Let's get this straight. A novel thing called "baptism of fire" is what actually converted Israel Zolli. The "baptism of water" was merely "an act of formal adherence." Huh? There is no such thing as baptism of fire. There is no such thing as an act of formal adherence. The Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental act by which the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity is flooded into a soul by means of sanctifying grace as Original Sin is flooded out of that soul. To speak in such terms is to deny, almost heretically, the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism. The alleged scholar interviewed by ZENIT is pretty much saying that in Zolli's case the "baptism of water" is a symbolic act that merely ratifies an earlier baptism of fire. Further, Zolli never abandoned Judaism, according to scholar Latorre, and it is a matter of sheer debate as to whether Pope Pius XII had any influence over Zolli's conversion at all.

Obviously, this is bad revisionist history writ large. Apologists for the Novus Ordo Vaticano cannot stand to see a conversion story, especially one dealing with a conversion from Judaism, stand on its own merits. Christopher Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods, Jr., document in The Great Facade that an Eastern Orthodox bishop was dissuaded by Vatican officials from converting to Catholicism. The bishop had to go outside of the Vatican to become a Catholic, angering Vatican officials in the process because he persisted in his quest to be received into the true Church. The efforts to reaffirm Jews in a now dead religion that has the power to save no one is heretical and a grave dereliction of duty that imperils the souls of those who insist that seeking to proselytize the people from whom Our Lord took His Sacred Humanity is wrong and therefore unnecessary. There is no other word than "shameful" to describe such a denial of received teaching. An article archived on this site, "No Other Name by Which Men Can be Saved," provides numerous Scriptural citations to prove that a refusal to work to convert Jews is contradicted by the words of Our Lord and the Apostles themselves.

Also demonstrative of the shameful hypocrisy and cowardice on the part of Vatican officials and the American hierarchy that have been part and parcel of the "tradition" of the past thirty to forty years is Francis Cardinal Arinze's statement, made upon the release of Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum (a document I have critiqued for the May 15 issue of The Remnant), that priests could refuse Holy Communion to pro-abortion politicians who presented themselves for It during Holy Mass. Cautious politician that he is, however, Arinze undermined his own statement by leaving the ultimate decision up to the hierarchy. In the case of the American hierarchy, obviously, the decision will be in most instances to treat pro-abortion politicians of both major political parties in this country as Catholics in good standing who will be administered Holy Communion without any question or reservation whatsoever. Only two bishops, the Most Reverend Raymond Burke of St. Louis and the Most Reverend Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln, Nebraska, have said that they would refuse Holy Communion to a certain Catholic, Senator John F. Kerry, who is running for the highest office in the United States of America. Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, the Archbishop of Washington, and the Most Reverend Wilton Gregory, the Bishop of Belleville, Illinois, and the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have both said that the bishops should use "persuasion" rather than discipline in such cases as Kerry's. McCarrick has gone so far as to say that Catholics are not "single issue" voters.

There are at least three things at work here.

First, Cardinal Arinze makes a bold statement that pro-abortion politicians should be refused communion while undermining his statement by declaring that it is the bishops who must make the ultimate decision. More rotten fruit of Vatican cowardice masquerading under the novelty known as collegiality.

Second, Cardinal McCarrick and Bishop Gregory treat pro-abortion officials with the utmost of respect and leniency while treating traditional Catholics as steerage compartment passengers unworthy of even a small cubby hole on the Barque of Peter. It was in McCarrick's Archdiocese of Washington that a planned offering of the Traditional Latin Mass by the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter at the National Shrine of the Basilica of the Immaculate Conception was canceled rather unceremoniously. Both McCarrick and Gregory would bend over backward and do all manner of actual physical contortions if they found out that the Society of Pope Saint Pius X operated within their midst without "ecclesiastical sanction." Catholics would be warned sternly that they run the risk of excommunication if they even breathed the air near such chapels. Ah, but one who supports the slaughter of little babies has not excommunicated himself by supporting in law and with taxpayer dollars one of the four sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance. Traditional Catholics, especially those who exercise their rights under Quo Primum to assist at the Immemorial Mass of Tradition wherever it is offered by a validly ordained priest, are bad and disobedient as they attempt to worship God in the Mass that best expresses and protects the fullness of the Catholic Faith. Dissenting Catholics are to be treated with respect and dignity, if not a forbearance of spirit that conveys to the faithful that abortion is merely one issue among many that should not separate a baptized Catholic from others at the time of the distribution of Holy Communion.

Third, the willingness of the American bishops of today to do the bidding of careerist politicians of both major political parties while scandal is given to the faithful continues a long tradition dating back to the Nineteenth Century. Richard Cardinal Cushing, who was the subject of a recent article of mine on the Seattle Catholic website, went so far as to enable the widow of an assassinated president who had announced plans to marry a divorced Greek Orthodox multi-billionaire. As Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy noted in her own memoirs about her daughter-in-law's plans to marry Aristotle Onassis in 1968, Cushing made a public statement of complete support. "This woman [Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy] is entitled to whatever happiness she can get." Never mind the indelible seal of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Never mind the Sixth Commandment. Never mind the salvation of souls and the proper formation of her children as Catholics who must accept the entirety of the Deposit of Faith without one whit of dissent. No, what mattered to Richard Cardinal Cushing, the longtime Archbishop of Boston, was a sentimental concept of "happiness" divorced from any sense of conforming one's life to the Commandments revealed by God and taught definitively by Holy Mother Church. Thus, the readiness of McCarrick and Gregory to dismiss the importance of the slaughter of the unborn and to refuse to sanction a pro-abortion politician just continues a pattern of obsequiousness to career politicians that is an absolute and complete betrayal of the authentic patrimony of the Catholic Church.

Dr. John C. Rao noted in a brilliant article that is now posted on the Seattle Catholic website that it is frequently more effective to speak of the beauty of the Faith than to point out specific problems, noting how many bishops of the Sixteenth Century responded to exhortations about the horror of sin and the need for personal conversion rather than to polemical litanies of the problems that existed in the Church. There is certainly much merit to that observation if one is dealing with bishops who actually believe in the Catholic Faith. Our problem, I believe, is that we are dealing with men who have clearly rejected the patrimony of the true Church, men in the hierarchy from the Holy Father on down who believe that the traditional, unambiguous language of the Church is counterproductive and harmful in our "civilization of love," men who do not believe that it is of the Church's very mission to convert everyone alive to become her members, men who promote sin under the aegis of "sex instruction" and "diversity" and other slogans, men who look the other way and who refuse to discipline brother bishops and priests who engage in and who persist in unrepentant sinful activity, whether natural or unnatural, men who do not accept and who do not want to listen to those who insist that all of the problems of the world are caused by Original Sin and our own actual sins and that is it is only the teaching and the sacraments the God-Man entrusted to the Catholic Church that can save souls and thus restore and maintain as much order as is possible in a fallen world. Much of the Church's hierarchy is engaged in material heresy. Some, such as the Bishop of San Jose, California, the Most Reverend Patrick McGrath, who noted at the time of the release of The Passion of the Christ that the Gospels are not historical accounts of the events they narrate, dabble in formal heresy on occasion. Such men are not prone to listen to arguments about the beauty of a Faith that they have quite actively disfigured and continue to disparage.

The answer, as always, is to pray and to make sacrifice for the conversion of our bishops and priests. Nothing much will change until Russia is actually consecrated to Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart, which will result in the cessation of the spread of the errors of Russia that plague both the Church and the world. Our Lady will, however, use the fruit of the merits of the prayers and actions we give to her as her consecrated slaves in ways that will be made manifest only in eternity. And we must be content to wait until then, please God we die in a state of sanctifying grace, to see how she has used what we have thus given her so freely and with such complete confidence in her intercessory power as the Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix of all graces, and Advocate. We must be concerned about the state of things within the Church and the world. We must never lose the supernatural virtue of Hope, understanding that our Immaculate Queen wants us to trust in her so that we will cooperate more fully with the graces won for us by the shedding of her Divine Son's Most Precious Blood so that all things will be restored in Him through the Triumph of her Immaculate Heart. It will be the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart that will end the "traditional hypocrisy" of the regime of novelty within the Church of the past four decades.

With the month of Mary, May, fast approach, may we rely more tenderly on Our Blessed Mother to assist us to grow in sanctity so that we be at least a small part of the solution to what plagues Holy Mother Church by our attentiveness to Eucharistic piety, prayerful recitation of Our Lady's Most Holy Rosary, frequent confession, and our offering of everything we have and do to the Blessed Trinity through the Immaculate Heart.

O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee.

[ultima ratio]

Okay, you've charged me with telling falsehoods. But nothing I charge is untrue. I said JPII did nothing to protect the deposit of faith--which is the first duty of any pope. Is not belief in the Resurrection and the Real Presence part of the deposit of faith? Am I claiming these are disciplinary matters? Not at all. These are among the rock-bottom essential truths of the Catholic faith. But it is a fact that two-thirds of all Catholics no longer believe in these dogmas, that belief in these truths have been steadily eroding due to the wretched state of catechesis and the abysmal state of the Novus Ordo liturgy.

I ask you--has the Pontiff repremanded bishops who teach heretical doctrines and fail to improve catechesis? Has he bothered to read the statistics on the the ignorance of the young regarding the faith? The rest of us have--and have been waiting for some action. Yet nothing ever happens. He did mention in passing through one of his congregations, for instance, that not kneeling to receive Communion might further undermine belief in the Mystery of the Real Presence--but then he allowed the American bishops to do their Protestant thing anyhow. Apparently the matter was deemed not important enough to risk crossing swords with the bishops. But how is this protecting the faith or Sacred Tradition? Catechesis continues in a shambles. Why? Is it less important than praying with Buddhists? Likewise the liturgy. Likewise respect for Sacred Tradition generally. Countless hours are lavished preparing for the new stuff--Youth rallies, for example, or ecumenical dialoguing which go on endlessly and pointlessly--but the Pope does not assure that the young are learning the fundamentals of the Catholic faith! The faithful who care about such things--and they are the remnant few--often must travel long miles on Sundays to find churches or chapels that preach authentic Catholic doctrine. It's a constant effort to find orthodoxy. Thus it is that parents must struggle against impossible odds to pass-on intact the Catholic faith to their children.

In short, I haven't lied--I've just pointed out the truth--which to you is too threatening to consider. You make the bizarre claim that by criticizing the pope, I am showing a lack of faith in the promises of Christ. This is ridiculous. Peter was to be the rock--but not the faith itself, nor the Church itself. In fact, as if to show how this would actually work out--Peter ended up betraying Christ three times after that very prophesy. He had to repent before he could effectively guide his Church. JPII also needs to repent--but there are no signs of his doing this whatsoever. Instead he shows every sign of not understanding the reasons for the present crisis--which is at bottom a failure of faith. His Church, on the contrary, is sick and getting sicker. Much of it is dying--and he hasn't a clue what the problem really is.

[ultima ratio]

The CPA brags about its rejection of the Pope. It brags about its support for the state's abortion policies. To liken these to the SSPX shows how perverted your thinking is. In fact, Rome praises the CPA, but heaps scorn on the faithfully Catholic SSPX. This is the sickness of Rome these days--and of people like yourself who can no longer distinguish the true faith from a mockery.

[ultima ratio]

Sorry, but I'm not a schismatic. And the problem is at the top, not with me. Not a word I say is untrue.

[St.Chuck]

You place authority before even the Faith--and condemn those who do the reverse--which is ass-backwards.

The Authority is the Holy Spirit...what is this "Faith" you speak of that has supremcy over God?

[St.Chuck]

Tom Drolesky has always been forthright....

Mr. Drolesky is a divider. He foments disunion with the church. His rants should be avoided like the plague as should be the rags that publish them, especially Catholic Family News and The Remnant. Both sow disunity and are therefore quite unChristian.

[Dajjal]

Dr. Drolesky bumpus ad summum

[Smocker]

Good article, as usual from Drolesky.
thanks.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

There is no such thing as baptism of fire. There is no such thing as an act of formal adherence. The Sacrament of Baptism is a sacramental act by which the very inner life of the Blessed Trinity is flooded into a soul by means of sanctifying grace as Original Sin is flooded out of that soul. To speak in such terms is to deny, almost heretically, the significance of the Sacrament of Baptism.

The major actual heresy here is Drolesky's open denial of "Baptismus flaminis sive Spiritus Sancti" - "Baptism in the flame of the Holy Spirit", commonly known as "Baptism of Desire". Many theological manuals list this doctrine as "Sententiae fidei proxima", the denial of which is "proximate to error", resulting in a "mortal sin indirectly against faith". Others, such as those written by St. Alphonsus de Liguori (to which I would give more weight), list it as "De Fide Catholica", the denial of which is formal heresy, resulting in a "mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited."

St. Thomas mentions this doctrine many times in the Summa (was he a heretic too Mr. Drolesky?). "Videtur quod inconvenienter describantur tria Baptismata, scilicet aquae, sanguinis et flaminis, scilicet spiritus sancti." (Pt. III, Q. 66, Art. 11) And: "Nam passio Christi operatur quidem in Baptismo aquae per quandam figuralem repraesentationem; in Baptismo autem flaminis vel poenitentiae per quandam affectionem; sed in Baptismo sanguinis per imitationem operis." (Pt. III, Q. 66, Art. 12) And: "Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut supra dictum est, effectus sacramenti potest ab aliquo percipi, si sacramentum habeatur in voto, quamvis non habeatur in re. Et ideo, sicut aliqui baptizantur Baptismo flaminis, propter desiderium Baptismi, antequam baptizentur Baptismo aquae; ita etiam aliqui manducant spiritualiter hoc sacramentum antequam sacramentaliter sumant. Sed hoc contingit dupliciter. Uno modo, propter desiderium sumendi ipsum sacramentum, et hoc modo dicuntur baptizari et manducare spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter, illi qui desiderant sumere haec sacramenta iam instituta. Alio modo, propter figuram, sicut dicit apostolus, I Cor. X, quod antiqui patres baptizati sunt in nube et in mari, et quod spiritualem escam manducaverunt et spiritualem potum biberunt. Nec tamen frustra adhibetur sacramentalis manducatio, quia plenius inducit sacramenti effectum ipsa sacramenti susceptio quam solum desiderium, sicut supra circa Baptismum dictum est." (Pt. III, Q. 80, Art. 1)

I trust all you "traditionalists" can actually read Latin.

Beams and splinters in the eye, Mr. Drolesky. Remove the beam in your own first before crusading against others.

Can we assume that the raucous backslapping of Drolesky by the SSPX crowd here means they agree with his heresy???

[JesseHousman]

How much patience do nuevo (Novus Ordo) Catholics think God has?

Consider:

As opposed to the past atmosphere of Reverent Worship with members of the congregation directing their attention to God and not each other, today's Novus Ordo "mass" has a social entertainment atmosphere.

Appearing more like a public meeting in what passes as a mass today, we find constant standing, sitting, and amplified noise. Today's emphasis is on "instruction," with socializing before & after service and, of course, handshaking during.

The Tridentine Mass had profound Reverence for the Real Presence with sixteen genuflections. The hands of the priest alone touched the consecrated host and communion was administered only on the tongue. Today, if one is alert, we see indifference and irreverence towards the Real Presence with only three genuflections required. Laymen & women distribute communion in the hand - a practice protestants introduced to deny Christ's Real Presence.

In the Novus Ordo there is a systematic Omission of Catholic Doctrine where new prayers systematically omit references to hell, judgement, punishment for sin, merits of the Saints, the one true Church, the souls of the departed and miracles.

In the pre-Vatican II era, the bulk of Sunday prayers and their arrangement goes back to the fourth and fifth centuries. Today old Sunday prayers have been omitted or stripped of doctrines, and rearranged. With only 17% of the old prayers remaining, large chunks of ancient Canon are now "optional." The words of consecration, Christ's own words "For you and for many", are changed. Three substitute "Canons" were invented and introduced in the 1960s, and still more were invented later.

In the true mass, everything was regulated by precise laws to protect the purity of worship and doctrine. Today's Novus Ordo offers constant change with options, options and more options. Individual priests and parish liturgy committees get to pick, drop or invent texts to push what they think people should believe.

The priest faced the tabernacle, cross and altar (symbolically toward God)and performed all the actions and recited all the prayers of the Mass. In today's parish churches the priest is the "President" and actor who faces people instead of symbolically "toward God." While the priest sits off to side, his functions given away to lay men and women.

These sycophants for satan believe that the church must further adapt itself to this new politically correct era. They forget that Christ's Church on earth was never to change, but they slog and forrage ahead making changes in liturgy and doctrine nevertheless! They also forget that Jesus Christ doesn't wear Nikes and has been patiently waiting for some of us to join him!

[Desdemona]

Teaching and educating is one thing. No one can make the people listen. The problem here, IMO, isn't necessarily the pope. THe people - including the hierarchy - don't want to listen. It's part of the human condition.

The other big problem, that the author touches on but needs to be explored more fully naming names, is the loss of faith in the hierarchy. If they believed it, they'd teach it. That is also at the base of the demise of Eucharistic Adoration. It's not the pope who has decided that individual parishes won't have it. It's the pastors who aren't corrected by their bishops. Some bishops, like Rigali, stress the importance and make it required in each parish.

I also thing that this author is reading too much into "delegation". After watching the pope on his trip here a few years back, he was NOT happy with his handlers. There are a number of people in the hierarchy who seem to be like some office workers I know - into everything but their own business. Again, the human condition rears its head.

I doubt seriously that the problem here is the pope, or even a majority of the hierarchy. A few well placed individuals are making the whole thing look bad. I'm not going to condemn them or anyone else, but I will say that Satan must be sitting back and truly enjoy watching the divisions created when anger overtakes reason and the compassion we are supposed to feel. Rather than formulating reasoned arguments, we have clawing cat-fights about who is more reverent and holy.

Nothing is going to stop people from making stupid statements or trial things going awry. The author is correct on one point - all we can do is our own duty (or duties) and pray.

[Grey Ghost II]

Great article. One must truly wonder whether the Seat is vacant.

[littlepaddle]

THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PROBLEMS:
THE NEW PHILOSOPHY OF MAURICE BLONDEL
Let is now take a look at the "holy fathers" of this new theology. The first step they take in their liberation from traditional Catholic theology and dogma is by abandoning scholastic philosophy. It is thus hardly surprising to hear Urs von Balthasar stating, "Hell exists, but is empty!" Balthasar bases himself upon the philosopher Maurice Blondel - who occupies a small place in the history of philosophy, but a very important place in the history of this modernist new theology of the Church


Maurice Blondel



A GHOST - LIKE PHILOSOPHY
Throughout his life (1861-1949), the Frenchman, Maurice Blondel, was a center of controversy, especially as one couldn't pin him down to his errors - since, like all modernists, he would wriggle and slither out of such attempt. This attitude was stigmatized by an adversary of Blondel's, Fr. Tonquedec O.P., in the Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique:

"Despite efforts to base my arguments with Blondel on documentary evidence, I soon realized that the public did not have access to his works. The texts I quoted were from books that were no longer available on the library shelves; nor the brochures that contained his most important articles. Furthermore, his doctrines, in being the continual object of controversy, were continually re-explained, modified, etc. The result being that his doctrine cannot be nailed down or grasped, since it changes with time and differing circumstances. Very few persons, even amongst those who study religious philosophy, are capable of grasping the meaning of the statements and writings of Blondel and his friends."

Who were Blondel's friends? The answer is Fr. Lubac and his gang: Bouillard, Fessard, von Balthasar, Auguste Valensin, etc. In other words, the founding fathers of the new theology, condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis. This new theology was, in the words of Fr. Henrici SJ., elevated to the position of the "official theology of Vatican II."



BLONDEL'S PSEUDO - APOLOGETICS DESTROYS CATHOLIC DOGMA
Blondel's followers, Lubac and his gang had their reasons for wanting to leave Blondel's philosophy enveloped in a vague fog. This would give birth to a new, vague, "Christian" philosophy. Blondel presented his philosophy as an apologetical method of winning over modern man. He says that classical proofs fail to penetrate the minds of modern men, which are penetrated by Kantian positivism. If you want to save souls, then you must go to where they are and if they have fallen into subjectivism, then it if through subjectivism that they must be sought.

This subjectivist philosophy typical of Protestantism and Modernism, so ruinous to Catholic dogma, was already condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical Pascendi. For Blondel, Catholic Truth rests more on the level of subjectivity than objectivity. Truth is more related to the will and experience, rather than intelligence. Hence truth is what we want and feel it to be. Faith does not pass from the mind to the heart, but from the heart to the mind! This leads us into the field of scepticism and agnosticism, which is the foundation of modernism. With this elevation of the will and feelings, man believes what he wants to believe, relying on his feelings and impressions, devoid of all objectivity. This explains the current exaltation and preoccupation with personal religious experiences such as the charismatics, pietists, pseudo-mystics, etc. The majority of the Church is tainted with this subjectivism.

Blondel does not bother with rational arguments to prove the existence of God and credibility of the Christian religion. He prefers to give the unbeliever an "effective experience " of Catholicism, to make the unbeliever who has no faith "to act as though he had the faith." In other words, to "experience" God - which is exactly what Pope St. Pius X condemned as modernism, in Pascendi.

Blondel also falls into Immanentism (the essence of modernism) when he insists that "there is nothing that goes into man that does not come from man and that does not correspond in some way with his need for personal growth and expansion." This is the very basis for modernism, wherein the human mind is the central reality around which everything else revolves. For in modernism, the religious soul's beliefs and reasons for belief come from its own experiences and feelings - it will not accept objective arguments that are beyond its own realm of experience. If this attitude is followed to its logical conclusions, then such a soul will inevitably deny all external Divine Revelation and the divinity of Jesus Christ Himself.



THE NEW CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY
In effect, what Blondel has done, is to go and seek-out "modern-man" in his place of habitat - the sickbed of subjectivity and skepticism. Yet, rather than helping him leave this sickbed of grave errors, he lets him wallow in those self-same errors. Blondel's new "Christian philosophy” and its offspring, the "new theology of the Church" of his followers, will replace the perennial philosophy of the Church - an objective philosophy, based on reality, carefully formed and perfected throughout the course of many centuries, by the greatest philosophical minds the world has ever seen, a philosophy that reached its summit in what we now call Thomistic Philosophy.

Pope Pius XII warned us of these new theologians in his encyclical Humani Generis, and stressed the importance of Thomistic philosophy as an aid against deviation in Catholic dogma. In his book The Intelligence In Danger of Death, Marcel de Corte, one of the most lucid thinkers of his time, echoes this same view on the importance of Thomistic philosophy:

"It is linked to Greek philosophy, which is, itself, a philosophy based upon common sense, reality and a human intelligence faithful to its purpose (i.e. to know objective truth). Whenever philosophy wanders from this, it suffers the consequences! Vatican II threw out this realist philosophy which the Church had always guarded...this 2,000 year-old solidarity between supernatural reality of the Faith and the natural reality of man's mind...a philosophy which was the axis and pivot of the Church, who is the custodian of Faith, Intelligence and Morals. All this has been swept away by the tempest of all tempests - the subjectivity of man."



ALARM BELLS!
Blondel had his critics and supporters. Amongst the former were the Catholic theologians Garrigou-Lagrange, Labourdette and De Tonquedec. One of Blondel's public defenders was Fr. Auguste Valensin SJ., who would present "doctored" quotes of Blondel when speaking in his defense. Thus opportunely eliminating anything that might serve to incriminate Blondel, before a public that was largely unaware of the true content of his doctrine. His writings were not freely available, and so people had to accept these "misquoted quotes" as being true.

For example, Valensin takes Blondel's quote of "there is nothing that goes into man that does not come from him and that does not correspond in some way for personal growth and expansion" and twists it into "there is nothing that goes into man that does not correspond to his personal growth and expansion." The opportune removal of "…that does not come from him…" is a move clearly designed to protect Blondel from the accusation of lmmanentism and Modernism.

However, good and sound theologians, such as Garrigou-Lagrange, Labourdette and De Tonquedec, spotted Blondel's errors and raised the alarm. They refuted this "new Christian philosophy" and pointed out its ruinous consequences for Catholic dogma and its incurable opposition to the Magisterium of the Church. Today, "those who think they've won" try to reduce all this to a mere personal feud between several theologians and deny it as being of any importance for the Church. Yet this is far from being the case. The enlightening refutations of Blondel's philosophy, by the above-mentioned theologians, prove the contrary and the present crisis in the Church shows how right those "clairvoyant" theologians were!



THE CRUX OF THE MATTER
In 1946, the celebrated Dominican theologian, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange publicly refuted Blondel's errors and privately wrote to him asking him to "retract his (false) definition of truth before dying - if he didn't want to spend too long in Purgatory." Publicly, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange had said: "It is not without a serious responsibility that he (Blondel) has called the Church's traditional definition of truth, which has been accepted for centuries, a figment of the imagination. Furthermore, by substituting this true notion of truth with an erroneous notion of truth, will inevitably bring error to anything that is built upon that false notion."

One of these erroneous fruits that grew out the capital error of Blondel is what the present-day Church calls "the Living Tradition." This erroneous notion of Tradition ignores the Church's logical and indispensable link that must exist between what the Church teaches now and what the Church has always believed and taught. This is because, based on Blondel's false notion of truth, progress in dogma and understanding of truth is in a continual state of evolution or development.

Consequently, due to this continual development, there can be no fixed, definite, unchangeable truths.

Already in 1924, Fr. De Tonquedec had pointed out a remarkable resemblance between Blondel's ideas and the ideas condemned by Pope St. Pius X in the encyclical Pascendi. Tonquedec says that Blondel managed to wriggle out of a personal anathema by his characteristic vague expressions, hesitations and contradictions. A seemingly heretical statement would be contradicted a page or so further on.

Was Blondel in good faith? Fr. Tonquedec thought not, with good reason. For Blondel would often deform the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas and twist it round to mean the opposite. Added to this we have his categorical denials of ever having been opposed to orthodox Catholic thought. The typical modernist plea of "You don't understand me!" with repeated attempts at explaining himself to his critics or those who refuted his erroneous doctrine. In fact, his whole life was one long attempt at giving his ideas an orthodox sense or meaning. This continual wriggling and self-justification under the microscope has produced a host of differing opinions of Blondel. Some believed that he was sincere in his explanations, yet the wiser and better-informed critics were not fooled at all!

The ecclesiastical journal L'ami du Clerge (March 4,1937,p.137) wrote that the later works of Blondel were nothing else but a reflection of his earlier erroneous ideas - going on to say that "he has not changed an iota of his doctrine."

Fr. Tonquedec was of the same opinion, who also said of Blondel's later works: "Unfortunately, I find it impossible to accept Blondel's present interpretation of his works…which defends the orthodoxy of his writings.... Nobody who has read his entire works can accept that.... This philosophy is very new, very bold, very exclusive and on the whole erroneous." (Dictionnaire Apologetique)

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange comes to the same conclusion in his article "Where is the New Theology going to?" With regard to Blondel's new notion of truth, Fr. Lagrange asks: "Have Blondel's latest works corrected this false notion of truth? We have to say that they have not!"





THE CONFESSIONS OF "THOSE WHO THINK THEY'VE WON"

These tenacious critics of Blondel were not wrong! Today, the "new theologians" confirm their fears. We quote from the Central Archives of Maurice Blondel: “After his two works entitled ‘Action' (1893) and Letter' (1896), Blondel was often accused of being a 'modernist' by persons who misunderstood everything. In the face of these detractors, Blondel too often gave a too weak and minimal interpretation of his works."

On December 20, 1931, in a letter to De Lubac, Blondel asked him if he thought that some of his (Blondel's) theses "went over the top." In his letter of April 3, 1932, De Lubac replies to the contrary. He chides Blondel for being too timid in the face of the criticism and restraint that came from other theologians. De Lubac asserts that all this impedes the free development of a spontaneous Catholic mind. He goes on to say: "I admire the painstaking care by which you criticize yourself and I am saddened by the thought that this might delay future important works, that we await with such impatience." (Henri De Lubac, Memoire autour de mesoeuvres, p.21).Bewitched by the magic flute of his "friend," Blondel takes courage and by return of post (April 5, 1932) he confesses that: "It's now over 40 years since I started tackling these problems, at which time I was not sufficiently armed. At that time, Thomistic philosophy was reigning intransigently. Had I said then what you want me to say now, then I would certainly have been too reckless and would have jeopardized the cause we defend - for I would have incurred many inevitable censures. It was necessary to take my time, in order to let my thought mature and in order to tame the minds that rebelled against it. The delays that sadden you are, in view of this double aspect, excusable... It is necessary to embrace traditional ways and views, so that they may be used as a point of departure or a springboard for a 'renewal'... Therefore, I am not totally to blame for the prevarication and timidity that you so deplore in this child of a 'new generation' and master of a theology that I have not yet managed to possess!"

Thus we see Blondel, using the usual modernist ploy, of deliberately hiding his true thoughts so as to officially remain with the bosom of the Church and to attempt a "renewal" from within. In this correspondence between Blondel and De Lubac, we see exposed all the secret maneuvers of modernism - which seek to avoid exposure and censure. It was to his own misfortune that Blondel ran into De Lubac and his gang. For the latter saw in Blondel's new "Christian Philosophy" the foundations for their "New Catholic Theology." And in Rome, they could count on the sympathy of the Vice-Secretary of State, a certain Msgr. Montini - the future Pope Paul VI. We'll speak of that later!

Translated from Courrier de Rome April 1993



COMMENTARY
A fascinating series of articles is appearing in the periodical si si no no. Fascinating, because they take us down into the engine-room of the apostasy devastating the Church.

Engine-room of apostasy? Just as in the great ocean-going liners, at the beginning of this century, there could be thousands of people on board and action going all over the ship, but the real action, driving the ship over the ocean, went on in the engine-rooms deep below the decks of the ship, populated by relatively few man. So in the ship of the Catholic Church, millions of Catholics, in all parts of the ship are now being shaken to pieces by something which started with a handful of men a long way below the decks, out of public view.

The si si no no articles present six architects of the slippery heresy neo-modernism…The first of the six is a French philosopher, living from 1861 to 1949, whose name will be known to very few readers - yet without whom, there would have been no Vatican II - Maurice Blondel.

How can philosophy be so important, when everybody with any good sense knows it is all nonsense? Answer, philosophy is the mechanics of the human mind, grasping natural reality…Now over the last several hundred years, modern man has been more and more turning his back on reality - because it is governed by God, because it comes from God. Modern man prefers the fantasy of which he himself is creator and master. That is why modern philosophy expresses, not a grasp of reality, but a hundred different ways of refusing reality. This is why philosophy has justly got itself a bad name.


Blondel starts from the desire “to win over modern man” who is unimpressed by a philosophy of submission to reality. Blondel’s next step is to argue that Faith comes from “experience” inside, which is modernism - the Faith is what I feel. St. Paul says the Faith comes from outside [of ourselves], “from hearing.” Hence the third step, the supernatural is a need or demand of human nature, because “nothing can enter a man, which does not come out of him and correspond in some way to a need he has of expansion.” His naturalism subverts everything supernatural and the whole order of grace transcending nature is pulled down within nature!

Finally, si si no no quotes Blondel changing the very notion of truth…Instead of the classical definition of “the matching of mind and reality,” Blondel’s definition is “the real matching of mind and life.”…Truth evolves…with nothing ever determined or fixed.

Blondel knew exactly what he was doing. He was deliberately deceiving the Church authorities as to his real thinking, in order to be able to continue working from within the Church to reform it. Some “reformer”! Some “reform”! Surely Blondel himself sincerely believed in his work of rediscovering “authentic Christianity”? Yes, and the whole modern world lines up to congratulate him on his planting of the mines to blow sky-high the antiquated Church. But did his conscience congratulate him, or did it rebuke him? Fr De Lubac the priest, assured Blondel the layman, that his thinking was spontaneously Catholic enough to need no timid cover-up. Ah, the responsibility of a priest!

Bishop Richard Williamson







GLOSSARY
PIETISM

A movement within the ranks of Protestantism originating in the reaction against the fruitless Protestant orthodoxy of the seventeenth century. It aimed at the revival of devotion and practical Christianity, including private assemblies in people’s houses for pious reading and mutual edification, with an emphasis on the universal priesthood of the people. A basic idea of pietism is the importance of interior religious experience in the form of feelings and emotions.

IMMANENCE

The quality of any action, which begins and ends within itself. It denies anything transcendent in the supernatural which according to this theory, is only a conception springing from an irresistible need of the soul, or “the ceaseless palpitation of the soul panting for the infinite, product of our interior evolution”; it is of immanent origin for “it is in the heart of mankind that the Divine resides. (Bouisson)”

[Pyro7480]

Thank you very much for this excerpt. As much as I tend to agree with the traditionalist position, Drolesky went overboard here.

[StAthanasiustheGreat]

The manner in which the Vatican has left Pius XII out to dry, to the attacks of liberal Catholics, secularists, and anti-Catholics, is particularly distressing for me. I find in his story, a man of incredible courage and action, who when the rest of Europe did nothing, did a great deal. If actions in this life merited sainthood (which they don't), Pius XII, would be St. Pius XII. Just my few cents.

[Grey Ghost II]

Pius XII sided with the Communists, failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, schmoozed with notorius freemasons such as Bugnini and Roosevelt and silenced Fr. Coughlin. From all of the outward signs, he is not worthy of sainthood.

[royalcello]

I've always suspected that traditionalists who idolize Pius XII must be overlooking something, since if he was so great how could everything fall apart 5-10 years later? Your post would tend to confirm this, although I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "sided with the Communists." One thing I'll say for him: he did lift the foolish condemnation of the French monarchist group Action Française which Pius XI had imposed.

Who in your opinion was the last truly admirable Pope? St. Pius X?

[royalcello]

I generally side with the trads; however, recently Drolesky alienated me by smearing the great Catholic monarchist writer Charles Coulombe (also a trad) as an "occultist," going so far as to enlist the aid of Holocaust denier Michael Hoffman II. Therefore, from now on I'll take anything Drolesky writes with a grain a salt, even though I agree with him on the flaws of the American founding.

[Maximilian]

Your post is so very uncharitable in so many ways that it seems imprudent even to reply, since someone with so much ill will has no intention of engaging in sincere discourse. But I will respond at least to your calumnious accusations of heresy.

You accuse the traditionalists on the list of agreeing with a supposed heresy which you concoct against Drolesky. Your accusation of heresy against him is based solely on your claim that "baptism of fire" is another term for "baptism of desire." First, it is clear that you have no basis for any accusation of heresy, since Drolesky makes no mention whatever of baptism of desire. This is a complete red herring. And then to try to take your invalid smear of one man and use it to smear another group is twice as culpable.

The worst that you could accuse Drolesky of is ignorance that the term "baptism of fire" could be used to refer to "baptism of desire." But is that in fact the case? Or is it just a case of your incorrect translation of the Latin? Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia translation of the same section of the Summa that you posted. Please note that they translate "flaminis" as "spirit," not "flame." Nor is there any implication that there is any such thing as "baptism of fire." A computer search of Articles 11 and 12 from which you quoted turns up zero uses of the word "fire."

Article 11:

Objection 1. It seems that the three kinds of Baptism are not fittingly described as Baptism of Water, of Blood, and of the Spirit, i.e. of the Holy Ghost. Because the Apostle says (Eph. 4:5): "One Faith, one Baptism." Now there is but one Faith. Therefore there should not be three Baptisms.

I answer that, As stated above (62, 5), Baptism of Water has its efficacy from Christ's Passion, to which a man is conformed by Baptism, and also from the Holy Ghost, as first cause. Now although the effect depends on the first cause, the cause far surpasses the effect, nor does it depend on it. Consequently, a man may, without Baptism of Water, receive the sacramental effect from Christ's Passion, in so far as he is conformed to Christ by suffering for Him. Hence it is written (Apoc. 7:14): "These are they who are come out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes and have made them white in the blood of the Lamb." In like manner a man receives the effect of Baptism by the power of the Holy Ghost, not only without Baptism of Water, but also without Baptism of Blood: forasmuch as his heart is moved by the Holy Ghost to believe in and love God and to repent of his sins: wherefore this is also called Baptism of Repentance. Of this it is written (Is. 4:4): "If the Lord shall wash away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall wash away the blood of Jerusalem out of the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning." Thus, therefore, each of these other Baptisms is called Baptism, forasmuch as it takes the place of Baptism. Wherefore Augustine says (De Unico Baptismo Parvulorum iv): "The Blessed Cyprian argues with considerable reason from the thief to whom, though not baptized, it was said: 'Today shalt thou be with Me in Paradise' that suffering can take the place of Baptism. Having weighed this in my mind again and again, I perceive that not only can suffering for the name of Christ supply for what was lacking in Baptism, but even faith and conversion of heart, if perchance on account of the stress of the times the celebration of the mystery of Baptism is not practicable."

Article 12:

I answer that, As stated above (11), the shedding of blood for Christ's sake, and the inward operation of the Holy Ghost, are called baptisms, in so far as they produce the effect of the Baptism of Water. Now the Baptism of Water derives its efficacy from Christ's Passion and from the Holy Ghost, as already stated (11). These two causes act in each of these three Baptisms; most excellently, however, in the Baptism of Blood. For Christ's Passion acts in the Baptism of Water by way of a figurative representation; in the Baptism of the Spirit or of Repentance, by way of desire. but in the Baptism of Blood, by way of imitating the (Divine) act. In like manner, too, the power of the Holy Ghost acts in the Baptism of Water through a certain hidden power. in the Baptism of Repentance by moving the heart; but in the Baptism of Blood by the highest degree of fervor of dilection and love, according to John 15:13: "Greater love than this no man hath that a man lay down his life for his friends."

So we can see that it is simply an overly literal mistranslation on your part which led you into the rash imputation of heresy. Anyone who likes can click on the links I have provided and search for the words "fire" and "flame" to see for themselves that they don't appear anywhere in Articles 11 or 12. And lest you think that is only because the editors of the Catholic Encyclopedia have made a mistake or have used a non-literal translation, here is the copyright on the bottom of the page:

The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2003 by Kevin Knight

So unlike Hermann, the fathers of the English Dominican Province believe in a "baptism of spirit," not a "baptism of fire," by means of "literally translating" the words of St. Thomas Aquinas.

[Maximilian]

Pius XII sided with the Communists

This is a big accusation. What evidence do you have for it?

failed to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

True. But this would be a faulty judgement at worst. No pope is required to follow the dictates of private revelations.

schmoozed with notorius freemasons such as Bugnini and Roosevelt

What is "schmoozed with" supposed to mean? I have never heard of a personal meeting between Pius and Roosevelt, nor even much correspondence. Bugnini is a different matter entirely, how can you put him in the same sentence with Roosevelt? Employing Bugnini was certainly a mistake. But Pius' encyclical "Mediator Dei" indicates that he did not in any way support Bugnini's agenda. Nor was Bugnini's work in the 1950's in any way comparable to his later work on the New Mass.

silenced Fr. Coughlin

Wasn't this the US bishops? What evidence do you have that Pope Pius XII, or even the Vatican at all, were involved. Here is one history of Fr. Coughlin:

1942, the FBI had found a way to get Coughlin off the radio waves withoout violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. A federal grand jury indictment was made against Father Coughlin and his organizations for violation of the Espionage Act. At this time Coughlin's primary means of funding was through mail solicitation, however he and his organizations were stripped of their second-class mailing privileges and the Bishop ordered Coughlin to cease broadcasting. Coughlin quietly returned to his parish where he served as a pastor until 1966.

And here is another:

Detroit Bishop Michael Gallagher refused to discipline Fr. Coughlin, saying: "Until a lawful superior rules otherwise, I stand steadfastly behind this priest." Archbishop Edward Mooney, newly arrived as Detroit's first archbishop in 1937, was that superior. Fr. Coughlin was maneuvered out of the limelight and eventually silenced. Fr. Coughlin continued to serve as pastor of the Shrine of the LIttle Flower until his retirement in 1966. He died in 1979 at the age of 88.