50. Jahrgang Nr. 6 / Juni 2020
Datenschutzerklärung | Zum Archiv | Suche

1. Les erreurs de Vatican II
2. Jésus-Christ est-il le Fils de Dieu?
3. Comment le Christ peut être reconnu comme le Fils de Dieu
4. Commentaires sur l´idée de l´expiation
5. La question demeure: Jésus-Christ est-il le Fils de Dieu?
6. Heureux les coeurs purs, car ils verront Dieu (Mt. 5, 8)
7. Remarques sur le traité: „Heureux les coeurs purs, car ils verront Dieu“ (Mt. 5,8)
8. Mais nous tous qui reflètons la gloire du Seigneur
9. Annexe: „Avoir Dieu en nous“
10. L´importance de l´art dans le domaine religieux
11. Informations de la rédaction
The Errors of Vatican II and their defeat through Recognizing Christ as Son of God
The Errors of Vatican II and their defeat through Recognizing Christ as Son of God

Eberhard Heller
translation: Elisabeth Meurer
Fr. Krier proofread it

The purpose of the following discourse is to critically analyse the decisions of Vatican II and their translation into action in order to get through to the comprehensive principle of these reforms. Should the results show not to be corresponding to what the Church has taught until now – that is, what we have always stated until now – then I will try to present possibilities how to basically face this present crisis. So an offer for therapy is to follow a diagnosis – if necessary.

I received the incentive for this examination by an essay by the deceased Prof. Leo Scheffczyk, a witness who is surely unsuspicious, who did not see himself as our follower but judged quite a lot of phenomena in a similar way as we do. So he is right when seeing in the gnosticism of the IInd century parallels to developments now present today. In the UNA VOCE KORRESPONDENZ of Nov./Dec. 1982, p. 381, he wrote: “In history there is a classical example of the overcoming of a life-threatining crisis whose kinship in style and spirit with present day religious need is eye-catching. The gnosticism which started in the second century was about to melt the Christian doctrine of salvation with the world’s wisdom of that time in order to supposedly put it on the same level. Then and now faith was propagated to be translated into a supposed higher reason. The synchretic glossing over of revelation with elements of the philosophy of that time was dominating (...). The Church countered this suggestion of progress with three simple principles: it countered the fascination of the intellectually stimulating gnostic literature with establishing the canon of Biblical Scriptures; it countered the arbitrary reference to subjective revelations and special teachings with emphasizing the objective principle of tradition; it countered the spiritualistic zealotism with the monarchic episcopate. However, by doing so it might have survived, but it also fell into the depths of the ancient world concepts.”

So – besides analysis of the crisis – one has to show principles by which the present day crisis cannot only be fought but – as stated above – also be defeated.

We will also show that the question of the task and the nature of the Church play the decisive part. We had already brought the question of the main error of Vatican II up for discussion exactly ten years ago (cf. EINSICHT of Sept. 2003, no. 7). The different authors – Ohnheiser, Kabath, Lang, De Moustier and myself – have more or less agreed on discovering that the relativation, that is, the falsification of the concept of the Church is the error on which all other errors are based. The problem of overcoming the crisis was not picked out as a central theme at that time.

But in order to find better access to our problem and to get to a balanced judgment of which we say it is theologically founded, I need to go a bit further ahead. The decisions as they were then composed and put into action, can only be understood, if one also describes the situation when they were made.

Since Luther there are – not only in the German-speaking countries but worldwide – religious communities which established themselves and thus were and still are in competition with the Catholic Church (today even more religions have sprung up which also present themselves as ways to salvation).

The shock of the doctrinal system which at that time had been caused by Luthers revolution did not only concern singular dogmatic positions but the whole doctrine of the Church. If one goes through a controversial Catechism, he will find that, besides the sentence “Christ is the Son of God” all other questions of faith are answered differently. The mere question of the foundation on which the Church is based shows that the two positions are incompatible. According to Catholic doctrine the Church is based on the pillars of Tradition and Scripture, according to Luther there is only Scripture as a base (sola scriptura). If one further shows that Scripture is the product of Tradition – the Holy Scripture was written by the evangelists and apostles after the Ascension of Christ with the help of the Holy Spirit (there is no record of this doctrine by Christ himself) – then it will very soon show that Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura is untenable.

The Church had to react to Luthers provocation and it did so at the Council of Trent. The Tridentine Council countered these concentrated Lutheran errors with precise dogmatic layouts which amazingly outdid the previous Thomistic apparatus of terms by far. The canons formulated in Trent concerned above all doctrines for areas dealing with the sacraments. A decision from the Fathers about the essence of the Church was not found at that time because of the diverging opinions. “By the fact that its decrees as norms of rights and faith formed the life of the Church through three centuries, the Council of Trent had introduced a Tridentine era of the Church”. (Hubert Jedin: „Kleine Konzilsgeschichte – mit einem Bericht über das Zweite Vatikanische Konzil“, Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau 1969, p. 127.)

On the other hand: If one looks at the development of the Church in relationship to the “world” – besides the definition of a view point,  that is, the way it sees itself with regard to Protestantism (already long before the beginning of Vatican II), one must realize that on the one hand the world had already been more and more secularized even before the French Revolution, but on the other hand the Church had given up more and more ground on which it was setting up the tone by the beginning of the 19th century. So it had lost its leading position in the field of art by the end of the Rococo period. Just imagine the Baroque era without the sacral buildings, without the marvellous ceiling frescos in the Churches, without the overwhelming stucco works. The answer in the new styles, for example the romantic, impressionist and expressionist, there was the recourse to previous eras. One should just think of the neo-romanesque as well as the neo-gothic Churches in the field of architecture. In the field of Art the academic Nazarene style won over.

In the field of philosophy the development which began with Descartes and which was led further through Kant, Reinhold and Fichte and which had been characterized by the question of how knowledge is possible as knowledge and how it can be justified, where the issue was justifying knowledge – and not the being – had been missed completely. It was only in the Praemonstratenser abbey in Polling (upper Bavaria) where they had occupied themselves with the writings of Kant. There was too much confidence in Thomism – which is controverted – as a safe philosophical base. The latter has - just in religious-philosophical matters - not even brought up a clear notion of God. For the so-called „Quinque viae“, the so-called proofs of God by Thomas are – on a philosophical point of view – mere tautologies, which just prove nothing. (Notabene: This alienation of members of the Church, especially of the theologians from the general scientific development of sciences has caused an inferiority complex among several people. Not without reason! One of the reasons why the theological positions of the modernists were adopted so willingly but also uncritically was to be found in their adaptation of modern philosophical (Hegelian) theorys).

There were enough occasions to think about the relationship of the Church towards a secularized, i.e. towards a world getting further and further away from God. The Church had to draw up a new way concerning the way it saw itself and its tasks in the world, because it had no longer the spiritual sovereignty over politics which in the meantime insisted on its autonomy. It could not simply ignore its historical context. How was Christ’s order to Peter: “Feed my sheep” (John 21, 17) to be executed under the changed historical circumstances?

“However, fighting for a new, deeper way of the Church to see itself, while directed from inside, was but one aspect of an even more extensive new orientation towards the outside, that is, in the relationship towards the world. When the Council of Trent assembled, there was still a Christianity and an Occidental Christian culture; the First Vatican Council was already facing a culture which was no longer marked by Christianity but still European, against which Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus, had sharply divided.” (Hubert Jedin ibid., p. 129) The ten drafts concerning the constitution and the mission of the Church, which were to be also considered at the First Vatican Council, could not be voted upon as the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870. They had spent far too much time discussing the infallibility of the Pope. Then, as the French withdrew their troops from the Papal States which they were helping to protect, the Italians were able to conquer the Papal States with barely a fight, annexing them on September 20th.

“It (the First Vatican Council) had abstained from adapting the ways of preaching and service, spiritual social work and organization of the Church to conditions completely changed by industrialization; and, only in one respect had it filled a gap in the decisions of Trent: the definition of Papal primacy and the official infallibility of the Pope with regard to the papal office. But even these definitions were only one segment of the originally planned Constitution on the Church which Trent had to postpone, because the opinions of the theologians and canonists about the nature and constitution of the Church diverged too much.” (Hubert Jedin ibid., p. 127) In order to fill this vacuum Pius XII published the encyclical „Mystici Corporis Christi“ on June 29th, 1943, where the pope stated that the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are identical. The encyclical represents the most important document of the Church in the development of the teaching about itself, i. e. the ecclesiology since 1800. (Cf. also EINSICHT no. 2 of February 2004)

If one thinks about the concept of “Church” and its place, a further aspect was added in the Third Reich and after the Second World War, namely: How to form the relationship towards other confessions, other religions? In the Third Reich there were fields in the fight against National Socialism where the Catholic Church and the Lutheran confessions operated together. Therefore there were efforts after the war to test the possibility of a reunification with the motto of finding the “Union in truth” – and not the “Union without truth”. One of its representatives was the important Lutheran theologian Hermann Otto Erich Sasse (1895-1976), who in 1948 as a protest against the foundation of the EKD (Evangelical Church in Germany), especially against the joining of the Bavarian established Protestant Church, converted to the Protestant-Lutheran (Old Lutheran) Church, and accepted the leadership of the Lutheran Church of Australia in 1949 and emigrated.

On this historical background one must not be amazed that the subject of ecclesiology became of central important once again at Vatican II. Pope Pius XI certainly had thought of continuing the interrupted Vatican I, but he writes in his first encyclical “Ubi arcano dei consilio” of December 23rd, 1922, no. 51: “We scarcely dare to include, in so many words, in the program of Our Pontificate the reassembling of the Ecumenical Council which Pius IX, the Pontiff of Our youth, had called but had failed to see through except to the completion of a part, albeit most important, of its work. We as the leader of the chosen people must wait and pray for an unmistakable sign from the God of mercy and of love of His holy will in this regard.” (cf. Judges vi, 17)

“The Second Vatican Council was convened by John XXIII in person. The former professor of Church history probably was familiar with the importance of the general Councils and, by his long stay in Sofia and Constantinople, he probably knew the synodal life of the eastern Churches. However, it was not a long-cherished and thoughtful plan when he announced to the cardinals the convening of a Roman diocesan synod and an “Oecumenical Council” after the station service in St. Pauls on January 25th, 1959; he followed a sudden inspiration from above, as he repeatedly insisted.” (Hubert Jedin ibid., p. 131)

During the first meeting of  the commission for the preparation of  the Council (the Commissio antepreparatoria) formed on May 17th, 1959, he declared (on June 30th, 1959)  "The Council is convoked, first of all because the Catholic Church [...] proposes to attain new vigor for its divine mission. Perennially faithful to the sacred principles on which it stands and to the immutable doctrine entrusted by the Divine Founder, the Church [...] always following the footprints of ancient tradition, intends [...] to strengthen life and cohesion in the face of the many daily contingencies and situations, and it will establish efficient norms of conduct and activity.” The slogan of “Aggiorna-mento” was created. Ten commissions were convened to execute all that, to which the “Office of the Christians’ Union” under Cardinal Bea was added.

When Vatican II was finally opened on October 11th, 1962, in the presence of more than 2500 fathers of  the Council, John XXIII had already worked in advance pointing the way ahead for the program of the Council by appointing the presidents directing the ten general congregations. In the first period of the convention, it was in the hands of the Cardinals Tisserant, Lienart, Spellman, Frings, Ruffini and Alfrink. With the beginning of the second period this post was taken over by four presenters, the cardinals Agagianian, Döpfner, Lercaro and Suenens. When John XXIII died on June 3rd, 1963, the Council was continued by Paul VI who had been appointed his successor on June 21st, 1963. He was known to firmly approve of his predecessor’s line of “Aggiornamento”, along with Cardinal Lercaro.

I do not intend to make a historical presentation of how the Council went off, this would go too far for our intention. There is extensive literature about this. But I would like to point out some issues which became pointers to the way of its end.

Paul VI who had appointed three cardinals of  the progressive wing for the direction of  the general congregations “in his opening speech on September 29th, 1963, gave the Council four tasks, more precisely than his predecessor had ever done: an explanation of ministry of  the nature of the Church, thus pushing forward the scheme De ecclesia, its interior renewal, the support of  the union of  Christians and – again new in this form – the dialogue of the Church with the world of today. For the first and now main task to resume the way the Church saw itself in a constitution of ministry, a decisive guideline was given by the sentence: “Regardless of the dogmatic explanations of  the First Vatican Council about the Roman pope, the doctrine about the episcopacy, about its tasks and its necessary connection with Peter will have to be examined. From this will result guidelines for us as well of which we will reap the doctrinal and practical benefits in executing our apostolic mission.” (Hubert Jedin ibid., p. 148)

Important for the direction now given were the explanations of Card. Lercaro, one of  the progressivists who in a meeting on October 1st, 1963, pointed out that the term of  the Church which Pius XII had founded in Corpus Christi mysticum would not cover the reality of  the visible Church, “because according to him all baptized people belong to the Mystical Body of Christ in a certain way without necessarily being members of  the visi-ble Catholic Church (cf. Jedin ibid., p. 149). By this the (heretical) result of “Unitatis redintegratio” was basically anticipated.

The Council ended with the well-known results which have been analysed in detail by us (since the publication of the first copy of our magazine in April 1971 with the publishing of  the bull “Quo primum” by Pope St. Pius V).

Even 50 years after the opening of Vatican II its meaning for the development of the Church is vehemently disputed. Concerning the judgment of the Second Vatican Council, views are very divergent. Some praise it as a new pentecost, others see it as a singular disaster. On the one hand, some people jubilate that it is the “opening of the Church towards the world, on the other hand, others judge it to be a terrible betrayal against the Church just for this reason – this is how the picture of  the character of this meeting of bishops oscillates in the history of the last decades.” (Wolfgang Schüler: „Pfarrer Hans Milch – eine große Stimme des katholischen Glaubens – mit einer Kritik am Zweiten Vatikanischen Konzil“, vol. 1,  Actio Spes Unica 2005, p. 469)

It cannot be overlooked that we belong to that group which by conviction refuses the decrees of Vatican II. Their translation into action introduced an era of a systematically executed revolution from the top with the aim of a religious enforcement into con-formity. It is the realization of  the Freemasonic ideal according to which all religions are equally valid, which is the realization of Lessing’s idea of Christianity, Judaism and Islam being equal in his “The Parable of the Three Rings” (cf. “Nathan the Wise”) become reality. After the end of the Council we pricked up our ears by the so-called reforms, specially those in the liturgy, until we found by our theological examinations that these are blatant deviations from the previous faith.

The reformers would object that the Council only wants to make pastoral and not doctrinal decisions. However, against that claim is the fact that all decisions and decrees are treated by the reformers like dogmas, a deviation from which would the membership in the Church would be endangered. In this context I merely refer to the new negotiations between Econe and the Vatican which have failed because Econe was not conceded even a modified interpretation of Vatican II.

The following examples may serve as an opener of the description and the judgment of a situation which started after the Council. During the debate about the relicensing of the old Mass (in the version of John XXIII), which was approved by Ratzinger/Benedict XVI), Zollitsch as president of  the German episcopal conference, which was opposed to Ratzingers plan, stated that the two Masses stood for two different Churches. Thus he unintentionally intimates that there must have been a rupture – and no continuum – in the way the Church sees itself.

On the other hand, I would like to hint at a semantic alteration which has happened to the term of marriage during the past 50 years. We live in a small Upper-Bavarian village where Catholic traditions are still cultivated. One goes to Church on Sundays, mostly in the regional costume, one says the Rosary if someone has died. However, when difficulties in the marriage arise, then it is no problem if the partners look for new partners and live with them, although they promised at the altar to be faithful “until death separates them” – as if everything were o.k. like that. The idea of the marriage as an undissolvable sacrament has been replaced by the (Lutheran) idea, that marriage is a human thing.

To tell the truth one must acknowledge that no decree of the Council denied that marriage is a sacrament. But once the wall is pulled down, no stone will remain on the other. Who does not always talk about admitting the remarried divorced to the sacraments? How can it be that the functionaries of the Reformed Church who were enthrusted with the conveying of doctrinal contents could allow that a marriage resulting in two children was annulled without so much as by-your-leave?

It is not the problem that questions are asked, but how these are answered ... according to which criteria and if they can remain in the context with the previous dogmatic decrees or if they are deviations, that is, falsifications like in the case of Luther. This is to be examined here.

Even if it is clear what the answer will finally be, namely a refusal – we will not pretend something for 45 years in order to then reject it or pretend the opposite – the access to our critical position is still to be as understandable and comprehensible for everyone as possible. If one asks for the reason for this crisis, the following reasons are frequently given: that the decisions of the Council have been misunderstood or that it is the fault of ecumenism, religious liberty, the changed understanding of the Church, the new liturgy.

Indeed the radical change in meaning of the term Church is the process where all other critical points can be fixed. The doctrine of subsistit-in as it is fixed in “Lumen gentium”, art. 8, according to which the Catholic Church is no longer the Church of Jesus Christ but only participates in it has opened the way for all other errors about the Church itself and its task concerning its relationship to the world, to other religions, to morality, to liturgy (cf. as well Schüler, ibid., vol. 1, p. 509 ff.)

I had already described the Church giving up its claim to absolute rightness 10 years ago:
 “The relativation of the claim to absolute right of  the Church was already preformed in the modernism condemned in the encyclical „Pascendi dominici gregis“ by St. Pius X. Giving up the claim to absolute right of  the Church is manifestated as a decisive moment in the documents of Vatican II. From them the view comes through that the Church is not the only true institution of salvation. So it says for example: The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men (“Nostra Aetate”, art. 3). Further: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.” (Lumen gentium, chapter 16). This leading idea may not have always been expressly formulated but it runs like a thread through the whole post-Conciliar development. (…) This relativating the religion continued with progressive syncretism and came to its first peak in the meeting in Assisi of October 27th, 1986 (which was followed by the further so-called interreligious meetings until the meeting in Aachen in September this year [2003]), where under the leadership of these reformers all the religious leaders (Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.) are invited with emphasis on their faith to collaborate in the process of peace and the development of the “culture of love” (John Paul II) and in the destiny of mankind. Just think about what enormous importance is in the meantime given to Buddhism and its representative, the Dalai Lama, who may not be missing at any of these interreligious meetings any more! (Notabene: what this “culture of love” looks like in concreto can be seen by the incredibly strained relationship between the Islamic world and the pretendedly Christian West.) John Paul II rewards the murders of Christians by Islamic fanatics by kissing the Koran where the killing of Christians is recommended – a gesture which every Muslim can only understand as a submission under the claim of supremacy and right of the Koran. One can hardly imagine a bigger scandal! In the meantime even the opening Surah of the Koran has been adopted into the official modernist Schott missal: On the Thursday of the 12th week of  the “Jahreskreis” (annual circle) it says there: “In the name of Allah, the gracious, the merciful. Praise to Allah, the lord of  the worlds, the gracious, the merciful, the lord on the Day of Judgment.“ (quoted from UVK, 33rd year, Volume 3, May/June 2003, p. 186) (...) The conception of giving up the claim to absolute right is also more than clearly expressed in the following confession of a French reformer. Father Claude Geffre, O.P., professor at the Institut catholique de Paris, dean of  the theological faculty of Saulchoir, director of  the Ecole biblique of Jerusalem, writes in “Le Monde” of January 25th, 2000: “At the 2nd Vatican Council the Catholic Church discovered and accepted that it does not have the monopoly on truth, that it must open its ears for the world, that it does not only let itself be taught by other religious traditions but also by a new reading of the fundamental rights of the human concience. All religions have to open themselves to this universal consent. All are called by the consciousness of the rights and the liberty of man. Those (religions) which oppose these legitimate claims are condemned to reform themselves or to vanish. To reform themselves means in this context to admit that the opening towards the requirements of the modern human conscience is not in opposition to the fidelity to the contents of its revelation”. (EINSICHT no. 7 of September 2003)

The heresies contained in the Conciliar documents “Lumen gentium” (Constitution on the Church), “Gaudium et spes” (Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World), “Nostra aetate” (Relationship towards the non-Christian Religions), the decree about ecumenism “Unitatis redintegratio”, the declaration about religious liberty “Dignitatis humanae” and the constitution about the liturgy “Sacrosanctum Concilium” have been shown again and again in EINSICHT. However, I want to make visible the tendency in those errors by quoting some of them.

In the new rite for consecrating a bishop they pretend to use sacramental and theological elements of the eastern Church in order to obtain an ecumenical extension. In the so-called N.O.M. the tendency to accord the Mass to the Protestant meal is decisive. So there is an assimilation to Protestant positions which can also be found in the new rite for the ordination of priests where they pass from the priest who celebrates the sacrifice on to a (mere) pastor, a shepherd who leads his parishioners. And even in the common declaration about justification which was signed on October 31st, 1999, (the Day of Reformation) by Card. Cassidy and the president of LWB, Krause, in the Protestant-Lutheran St.-Annes Church in Augsburg, one can find a compositum mixtum of Catholic and Lutheran doctrines.

A very dangerous element of giving up the Catholic, i. e. the true position, can be found in the already quoted new doctrine about the Church which is (est) no longer the Church of Christ but only takes part in it (subsistit in) – even if one means “substantially”. By this “subsistit in” the identity of the Church as the foundation of Christ is given up together with its founder. So Ratzinger speaks of “polyphony” when he wants to sum up the diverging doctrinal opinions of the different Christian confessions in one collection.

If you take the tendencies together, you will get the result that the reformed Church has removed from its very theological fixation which was granted by the Mission of the Church (until Vatican II) and moved towards conceptions which had been directly condemned as heresies by the Magisterium. (The statements of the so-called Card. Lehmann who called Luther a “Doctor of the Church” and the benevolent statements about this very reformer are also quite suitable here.) However, by doing so, not only false positions are adopted but by adopting them the claim of truth connected to the doctrine of the Church is given up. The truth, i. e. the absolute claim the Church has made to its doctrine since its foundation, is given up.

Ratzinger would not deny directly that Christ is the Son of God, but indirectly by defining Christ as the one who perfectly adapts to the will of the Father, i.e. he is becoming god by adapting the divine will, to whom others could also follow by perfectly executing Gods will. That is, other sons of God could also arise besides Christ. But in this way the doctrine of the Trinity is destroyed.

Part of the difficulty of blowing off the cover of these deviations from true doctrine is because the same terms are maintained while at the same time attributing other concepts to them. That is why the deceased Carlos Disandro from Alta Gracia in Argentina has spoken of a “semantic fraud”. I will talk again about the changed understanding of marriage. For the pre-Conciliar Church it was an indissoluble sacrament which opened the way to taking part in divine life; for the present generation formed by the reform it is a “human thing” founded on sympathy where you can divorce.

If there is an insight which goes like a thread through my professional life as a co-editor and collaborator of publication of the Karl-Leonhard-Korrespondenz of the Austrian Academy of Science and which has condensed more and more during my investigations, it is the following: Since the end of  the 18th century there had been and has been a movement which goes strictly against the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and against His foundation, the Church. Since the appearance of the Illuminati which had been founded as a secret Society by Adam Weishaupt and first infiltrated the Freemasonic Lodges, there has started a spiritual fight against throne and altar. Witnesses of this subversion were among others: Ernst August Anton von Goechhausen who edited the “Enthüllung des Systems der Weltbürger-Republik” (The Unveiling of the System of a Global Citizens Republic) in 1786 where he made known the purposes of the illuminati (reprint in January 1993 as a special edition of EINSICHT), the French Abbé Augustin Barruel whose “Remembrances of the History of Jacobinism” were published in a German translation starting from 1800 in four volumes in Münster and Leipzig and the two volumes of “The Triumph of Philosophy in the 18th Century”, published anonymously, by Johann August von Stark, (Germantown, by Eduard Albert Rosenblatt 1803) who as Protestant theologian had a chair in Königsberg. All three authors had done accurate work of enlightenment about the true aims of this secret order which had been built up according to the Jesuit model.

In the meantime, more than 200 years have passed and the goals they set themselves have been reached. Since Vatican II even the hierarchy of  the Catholic Church which has broken with its faith follows the goals of rejecting divine Revelation, thus masking a direct, open apostasy by not rejecting the institution of  the Church and its founder but negating its absolute character. In the end it makes no difference if I say: I have broken with my faith, or: The positions of the Church have only relative, i.e. subjective meaning. If I say: Everything is of equal value (gleich gültig), then everything is indifferent (gleichgültig).

This development came suddenly and has surprised the faithful in the whole world and hit them unexpectedly. For the Church was seen as a guarantor of the truth which had still had a strong pillar in Pius XII. How could one suppose that already his successor John XXIII and the successor of the latter, Paul VI, directed the subversive machinations from the See of Rome, after the plan to heave Rampolla on the See of Rome had failed in the conclave of 1903, whose revolutionary ambitions were later discovered?

But by the fact that the revolution was now pushed ahead from above, many have been carried away by this whirlwind. For the papal authority was seen as incontestable by a Catholic Christian. Many had simply been taken in by a papolatry. (The methods and way of action of Paul VI and his comrades-in-arms have been documented in detail in our magazine, especially by His Excellency Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc. We have become witnesses of these procedures which they have sold as reforms and which have taken place publicly so that everyone could see. There have been open negotiations about everything without anyone protesting seriously and strongly. The difference to former crises is the fact that the apostasy is universal and was led from above, i.e. by the hierarchy which had broken with its faith, while abusing the authority which goes together with this office.

How can the Churchs crisis be overcome? Here are some outlining remarks to this subject:

We have shown the main error and other heresies in order to be able to show, on the basis of this diagnosis, ways of how to fight this deep crisis in the Church’s history, and the means which will contribute to the recovery of the life of faith. This thorough diagnosis must therefore be followed by a therapy which not only addresses the symptoms but also eradicates the cause of the illness.

What would a new beginning be like, what would be the most important steps? Please look at the following remarks only as an attempt to deal with the restoration of the Church. We had already shown some criteria for a restoration of the Church in a declaration (published in no. 3 of EINSICHT of August 2000), which I would like to present again:

“But as Christ has established his Church as an institution of salvation – and not as a mere community of  faith or creed – in order to reliably grant the unaltered passing on of His teaching and His means of grace (the sacraments), the restoration of the Church as an institution is expressly required by the will of its divine Founder.
A restoration of the Church as a visible institution of salvation would, under the given circumstances, include:
– safeguarding of the means of grace (sacraments)
– maintaining and passing on the doctrine of the Church (mission, catechesis)
– safeguarding of apostolic succession
– re-establishment of the community of the faithful on a regional, nationwide level and of the Church as a whole
– restoration of the hierarchy
– re-establishment of the Papal See (as a real principle of unity)”
However here arises a dilemma. On the one hand the Churchs jurisdiction that is necessary for the fulfillment of these tasks is presently lacking, since the established hierarchy has apostatized. On the other hand, the fulfillment of these tasks is a necessary requirement for the restoration of Church authority. The restoration of the Church authority is required by Christs will of salvation. In my opinion the dilemma can only be solved if all the previous activities are subject to the reservation that they are definitely justified later by the restored hierarchy. So the celebration of Masses and the administration of the sacraments can at the moment only be justified if they are made under the aspect of the total restoration of  the Church as an institution of salvation and submission to the later judgment of the restored, legitimate authority.
Administration and reception of the sacraments (including celebration of and assistance at holy Mass) would thus be unallowed if this were done without reference to this only possible justification regardless of sacramental validity.
From these reflections one can at the same time define, under such conditions, what belongs to the true Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. The four criteria presented by Pius XII in his encyclical „Mystici corporis“:
(1) the reception of baptism
(2) declaration of belief in the true faith
{3} subordination under the legitimate church authority and
{4} being free of most severe ecclesiastical punishments (DS 3802) qualifying point (3) as follows: Due to the present lack of legitimate Church authority, the effort made for the re-establishment of Church authority has to suffice for now (i.e., until it is completely re-established) as a substitute criterion.”

These points represent the procedure of the restoration of the Church by individual steps. But I will also talk about general conditions of reaching this goal. This is a first attempt, and I ask the readers to take these explanations as an occasion of making their own suggestions which I would like to publish in the next issue.

1. Because of the relativization of the essence of  the Church as the only true way to salvation, which Christ has shown, the absolute truth about the message of Christ has been lost, of Christ who established His Church as an institution of salvation, where all human problems can be solved, we need to create a true concept
a) Of God, and
b) Especially of the Son of God who became man. This requires a philosophical prerequisite through a philosophy of religion.
2. The unmasking of the semantic deceit, by which other concepts were introduced in existing terms, which have distorted the meaning.
3. As the message of the gospel and the doctrine have been falsified in general, missionary work will have to be done again among the faithful by catechesis.
4. By its apostasy the modern hierarchy is no longer satisfactory capable. That is why a new hierarchy must be established.
5. Representation of the religious contents and ideas in the different areas of art

What should be new is the attempt to develop the condition of knowledge of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. I must be able to explain why I am justified in Christ – and not in the prophet Mohammed – the God who reveals himself. Until now this act of recognition has been described as follows:

“The main question which has to be answered presently is this: How does man come to the  possession of the true doctrine of Christ? Or, again, in order to express it more comprehensively and correctly: How does man come to a clear knowledge of the institution of salvation offered in Christ Jesus? The Protestant will say: by searching the holy Bible which is infallible; the Catholic, on the otherhand, will say: only through the Church in which man comes to the understanding of the Sacred Scripture itself. Explaining his view more in detail the Catholic continues: Undisputably Sacred Scripture contains divine statements and therefore pure truth; whether those are all the truths which are necessary for us to know with regard to religion and the Church or as quite useful to know is not considered here right now. What is considered is that Sacred Scripture is Gods infallible word. But to what extent it deserves the rating of being without error, when as yet we are not without error? We are only without error if we have received without error the word which in itself is without error. At this reception, human action as such is necessary, which can be mistaken. Now, that there might not be serious error or perhaps a total distortion, it is taught: The divine Spirit Who is enthrusted with the direction and life of the Church comes in a peculiar Christian action [grace] in uniting with the human spirit  with a deep secure feeling [conviction] that leads towards all truth as it is the truth.” (Adam Möhler: Die Kirche als Lehrerin und Erzieherin“ – http://www.johann-adam-möhler.de/Lehramt/lehramt.html)

Thus the recognition is transferred to a “deep secure feeling”, which is, however, no justification to trust this feeling, especially now in a time where everyone insists on their “feelings”. Therefore I will give some key points for recognizing Christ as Son of God, which I just stated as requirements: I need to prove that there is jusifiable reason to recognize the religion imparted to me by tradition as true – for the other religions also live by tradition! – i.e. to show for the Christian religion that I can say that Christ is the Son of God, that I can say so rightfully that He is He who appeared, Who has taken flesh as the Incarnate Absolute.

Postulate: In the tradition there must be a moment, an original point which shows me the way to acceed to the absolute person, who must then show to be this person, reveal himself. The problem of searching for God is for every person: Believing is grace which I would not experience without the help of God. So God has to show Himself to me, open the door to Himself as a Person, with whom I enter into relationship if He opens Himself to me (cf. Gospel of John).

In this moment in the tradition of the Christian religion the following should show itself:
a) The insight in the absolutely holy will of Christ who steps up to us in the Gospel = love/atoning love. In the historical person of Christ personal reality and divine revelation unite together: the absolute in the concrete personal appearance;
b) The tradition of this holy will throughout the concrete history by interpersonal conveying of the love proceeding from Christ – the parents representing God in the education of their children. The saints take the Will of Christ especially earnestly and try to comprehend part of His life with unique passion. The role of the saints: They are like relay stations which reamplify the signals which have become weak and send them further on.

If this were achieved, the following would be possible:
1. The foundation for forming a true belief would result,
2. The base for the claim of absolute right of the Church would be established,
3. The offering of salvation by other religions would be rejected by conviction, for: “Thou shalt not have other gods besides me” (decalogue)
4. Dialogue, in its present form, would end,
5. Conversion through returning to the truth of Divine Revelation that is grounded in the the Catholic Church and which conveys the undiluted faith.

(EINSICHT of Sept. 2013, no. 3, p. 73-84)
(c) 2004-2018 brainsquad.de