At the crossroads
If one could still have the feeling, mind you the feeling!, that there was something like opposition to the so-called Vatican reforms - there has been no more talk for a long time now about rebuilding the church, of its restitution to an institution of salvation-, this feeling has quickly dissipated since Ratzinger/Benedict XVI has assumed the office. Almost all, who had previously criticized John Paul II and uncovered disgraces, have not only agreed that he is a legitimate holder of the Cathedra Petri but also a conservative Pope, although the same people and/or groups had raised similar reproaches against his theology as we had. One adapted. If something resembling a struggle for orthodoxy was noticeable now and then under John Paul II, this was due to the fact that it provided sufficient dynamite and scandals, for example, the kissing the Koran, which indicates the subjugation under Islam to a Muslim! - which not only infuriated conservative Christians but also found no sympathy with successful Vatican journalists such as Messori. These times of continuous scandals are a thing of the past under Ratzinger's aegis... and with them also the “sense” of opposition.
Since the Econians have also caved into him and taken it upon themselves to lead their Pope Benedict XVI back to orthodoxy, an agreement with him will be ready to be signed before Easter. This then, should allow for a reinstitution of the traditional Mass without any great difficulties. Ratzinger himself, called the liturgical reforms, during the course of Vatican II, a "horror". (In turn, the Econians will probably have to stop their grousing about Vatican II decisions.)
When viewed in light of the general submission, it very difficult to explain to someone why we hold on to our claim that Ratzinger is not the legitimate Pope. Even if someone still attentively listens to us how we justify this with Ratzinger's theological position, the accusation of Arianism does not make an impression on anyone. That is theological speculation which does not affect the legitimacy of this educated, cultivated, accommodating, understanding and generous Pope. How could it?
Now, he has just published his first encyclical of "Deus Caritas est", in which he recites so beautiful verses about love,: “God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. (1 John, 4, 16). In these words from the first letter of John, the center of Christian faith, the Christian picture of God and the resulting representation of man and his path are defined with unique clarity,” or when it also defines the nature of the church through God's love of mankind:
"25. At this point two essential realizations from our deliberations are made fast:
a) the nature of the church expresses itself in a triple duty: the proclamation of God's
Word (kerygma-martyria), celebration of the sacraments (leiturgia), exercising the ministry of charity (diakonia). These are tasks that are mutually stipulative and cannot be separated from one another. The ministry of charity for the church is not a type of welfare activity that cannot also be left to others, but rather belongs to its nature, an indispensable expression of its being.
b) The church is God's family on earth. In this family, there cannot be any needy.
a) At the same time however, Caritas-Agape exceeds the boundaries of the church: The parable of the good Samaritan remains the standard, demands the universality of charity from the individual to whom the needy person turns, or one encounters "by chance" (see: Luke 10,31), wherever they may be. Regardless of this universality which the ministry of charity demands, there is one specific mission for the Church - that one, that in the Church as a family itself, no child need suffer want. In this spirit the words from Galatians are valid: in this sense: As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith (Galatians 6, 10).” (www.vatican.va/offices/papal_docs_list_ge.html)
Who wants to speak of heresy in light of such verses? Is it not even so that Ratzinger rightly demands something here, namely the charity among Christians and also toward non-Christians? Where is it practiced in the circles of the traditionalists? I think only of the innumerable slanders to which one is constantly exposed to by "friends". And if it is pointed out, Ratzinger's idea of the
"polyphony" of the Christian churches and confessions into a 'church unit' would relativize the Depositum and contravene the Church's claim of absoluteness, that no salvation exists outside of it. It, in consequence would dissolve this church, the modern Catholic switches to the Christian virtue of the modesty, which Ratzinger also probably also meant, namely, that it is usurpation to see itself as single possessor of the truth. Or one speaks of the freedom of personally declared beliefs, the freedom of religion. Ratzinger would do well, if he promoted the dialogue between the Christians... and of course also with the Jews - one can examine his message to "Cardinal" Kasper relating to this on the 40th anniversary of the signing and adoption of "Nostra Aetate" on October 27th last year, in which he explicitly instructed Kasper, that the "dialogue between Christians and Jews" must be continued.
And will the general admission of the traditional Mass come then - the immediate opening of a closed museum to the general public, until then... who of the clerics, however, is still familiar with this liturgy? What demands can the traditionalists still have? None! Because they are either focused on the Church's struggle over the admission of the traditional Mass - while neglecting the remaining destruction of the Church - or they saw the devastation very clearly and described it, but did not work on rebuilding the Church, but only stuck narrowly to reading of the traditional Mass, which leads to the same result. (During my stay in Mexico in 2000, in order to expound on our statement of conformity with S.E. Mgr. Ngô-dinh-Thuc's declaration, which was about the program for the restitution of the Church as an institution of salvation, it was pointed out to me from the leader of the priest union, that Bishop Pivarunas would categorically reject a papal election. This was also reason why the Union Trento did not want to undertake unilateral action in this direction.
So, it turns out in view of the theologically experienced head of the council church,
- that the supposed Sedisvacantists, primarily the younger clerics no comprehensive program other than to read the traditional mass
- that they do not have any interest in rebuilding the Church,
- that they, as also their modernistic adversary - fully lack the will to missionize, this is the reason why such clerics vegetate... each with his own clientele and
- that they are theologically and philosophically unable to counter modernism, particularly the philosophically very competent form submitted by Ratzinger.
They not only took little and insufficient care for a theological reappraisal and refutation of the council documents and the so-called reforms introduced with their Protestant tendencies. They also have no idea how a modern theology could originate at all. 1) One delighted too much in the possession of the eternal and absolute truths, philosophically embedded in Thomisism, a philosophy which could no longer stand up to systematic thinking and realization-theoretical demands - This is a consistent knowledge justification, which Fichte attempted to deliver in his various versions of "The Science of Sciences". It has become common knowledge, that these unshakeable pillars, the thomistic proof of God , the well known "quinque viae" had become unstable: any philosophy student in the 2nd term can expose them as tautologies. Clarification was necessary here. It can be easily proved that Ratzinger's opinion of Christ as God's son is colored by Arianism. But what did Ratzinger want? He wanted to explain the dogma of the two natures in Jesus Christ - the God and the human being ... with the Hegel categories of being - not being - development. God = being, Christ - human being = non-being; Son of God = development through fulfillment and acquisition of the fatherly will.
One does not start to polemicize against Hegel here! If someone wants something to do, one should study his ideas in order to assert oneself against them. Both directions, both the medieval scholasticism as well as modern fundamental theology, adapted a philosophical concept to the theological interpretation and did not systematically develop one on their own. At the bidding of the Pope, St. Albert and later St. Thomas integrated Aristotelian terminology into Christian theology in order in gain philosophical superiority of the advancing Islam in Europe, particularly in Spain which was occupied by the Moors. This was considered heretical by some at that time, for example St. Bonaventura.
The modernists, who were not offered a system of their own through scholasticism, did not genuinely develop any independent religious philosophy in order to reach a consistent philosophical system, but rather adapted Hegel's system...with the "success" as portrayed.
Today we are finally at a turning point. Ratzinger's model uncovered all nakedness of the ostensible Sedisvacantists. It has practically exposed them as mere traditionalists and sectarians even if some of them covered more in their speeches than mere conservatism. My "unkind contemplations" in last year's December issue were understood by few as "nest defilement". Many understood them as they were meant: clearly defined boundaries!
You, dear reader, do not believe this? You think that real effort has been invested, that has led to the formation of Christian communities? This may be the case, but only isolated examples. Try to take a friend who is interested in the old liturgy along to Mass. Where do you want to take him? Either one must be ashamed to present him a room in an inn as the “church” (with sounds emanating from other rooms) or he is lead into a church, where female friends must be requested to change their clothes or disguise themselves prior to entering, because without a kerchief she will not be admitted. An outsider cannot be blamed if he calls such conduct mummery and sectarianism. And clerics, who really attempt to provide ministration, try to make the “system” permeable and dispense with a formal dress code, are then slandered as "liberal".
What will happen if Ratzinger generally allows the traditional Mass again? It will be the end for all small catholicizing groups. The reason is that the faithful, who are still interested in the traditional liturgy, will attend it there where a priest openly celebrates it in a church. Yes, but however, this visit would be inadmissible, because it would occur within the framework of the "official Church", one might object. But, Reverend Father have you taught these faithful more, have you made it clear to them that such a verdict is also applicable to Mass, such as is read by the Econians. Did you offer a real alternative, a congregation built up with a consequent catechesis?
In order to avoid any misunderstandings: I speak of the clerics here, who have celebrated Mass in various (metropolitan) centers until now. I do not mean the army of the vagrants and "Mitrenständer" with invalid as well as doubtful consecrations here, who have no interest at all in coming to grips with the unbelievable spiritual crisis, who usually have not even noticed them, these uneducated characters, who conceal their drifting around with a gesture to the so-called "Thuc-Line" as religious and justified. This vagrant army multiplies daily. Everywhere, swindler Roux imitators appear - also known as Mgr. Tartuffe - who simply forged consecration papers, in order to pretend to be a Bishop, and had the beautiful title of "Prince Jean (Gerard Charles Laurent) Roux Laurenti Lascaris Vintimiglia Commene Negri Maggi, Grand Prince de Numidie Mauritaine et Cyrenal'que, Prince de Melitene, eveque Titulaire syro Orthodoxe d'Ascolon", lent to him by the fake "Saint Synode Orthodoxe des Indes" (sic!)http://www. geocities.com/Paris/8919/html/tartuffe/curricul.htm, had lent.
To sum things up: Real resistance is put up by a few clerics and a number of laymen living in diaspora, who also have the will to the rebuilding, do not bow down to the culture Pope and do not scatter any "incense for him either".
The matter is that these priests and faithful out themselves in order to join together in a mutual form of the spiritual survival. I therefore took it under consideration, provided that there is sufficient interest, to discuss further actions in a conference planned for the autumn of this year in this circle of conscientious Christians. In this spirit, dear readers, I kindly ask you for your comments.
Also the fate of this organ depends on the success of this attempt at a movement for the conservation of the Christian faith. Shall it and must it change? Should it only appear as a circular, newsletter or as a news exchange with a reduced scope? Even if a whole series of INSIGHT readers do not stand undivided behind us, but use this magazine with its contributions, to decipher the true, i.e. the spiritual-religious signs of the time and decay. INSIGHT sees itself primarily as an organ of resistance and rebuilding. In this sense, I also await your suggestions.
We hope and pray that God grants us his assistance despite all personal weaknesses and deficiencies in this need.
1) Instead of studying the theoretical foundations of modernism, which should include an in- depth study and reappraisal of Illuminatism, because it is the actual inspiration for the Vatican revolution from above - and not Judaism! Some authors went into the dregs for alleged background clarification and produced literary swill, which is intended to lure the curiosity of the readers, whose interpretations should rather be described as intellectual pornography, however, and whose literature should actually be confessed.