No Place for Christ the King In The "New Theology"
by Thomas A. Droleskey
Almost everything one needs to know about the Modernist mind of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI can be found in the books he has written, including his recently-published Jesus of Nazareth. Joseph Ratzinger's Modernism is flavored with the "insights" of the "new theology" that was condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950. Anyone who tries to justify any one of the hideous "new theologians" (Henri de Lubac, Maurice Blondel, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Karl Rahner, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Yves Congar, Joseph Ratzinger, Johann Baptist Metz, Edward Schillebeeckx, among whose writings one will find disagreements now and again in various areas) is claiming that he knows more than Pope Pius XII, who disposed of the "new theology" in the same manner that Pope Saint Pius X had used Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907,to dispose of the Modernism that is at the root of the "new theology."
There has been excellent work critiquing the "new theology" by many across the ecclesiastical divide, including some anti-sedevacantists, among them being Mr. James Larson, whose discussion of Hans Urs von Balthasar in By Arts Entirely New begins with these two devastating quotes from the works of Joseph Ratzinger and Henri de Lubac (whose work was analyzed by Mr. Larson in
"I want to emphasize again that I decidedly agree with Küng when he makes a clear distinction between Roman theology (taught in the schools of Rome) and the Catholic Faith. To free itself from the constraining fetters of Roman Scholastic Theology represents a duty upon which, in my humble opinion, the possibility of the survival of Catholicism seems to depend."
(Fr. Joseph Ratzinger,
from Zum Problem Unfehlbarkeit - "The Problem of Infallibility", 1971,
a series of essays edited by Karl Rahner.
"The God of ‘classical ontology’ is dead, you say? It may be so; but it does not worry me overmuch." ( Fr. Henri de Lubac, The Discovery )
Indeed, trying to read Catholicism into any one of the "new theologians" is an exercise in trying to find the "hidden characters" in the old Highlights children's magazine. These "new theologians" and their heresies and errors have been condemned by a true Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Pius XII. Their heresies and errors have found their way into the "encyclical letters" and allocutions of Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, who had elevated Yves Congar to the conciliar College of Cardinals and had done the same with the Hegelian Von Balthasar, who was called to his Particular Judgment before he could received his conciliar"red hat," and, of course, of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Anyone who minimizes even a single positive reference to these theological reprobates indicates that they are either not serious about defending the integrity of the Catholic Faith or that they are more concerned with excusing the insidious lifelong work of Joseph Ratzinger in order to justify their own irrational, illogical and emotionally-laded beliefs that a man who has fallen from the Faith by means of his embrace of anathematized propositions can in any way, shape or form "contribute" to the eternal good of souls.
Writing in Humani Generis, August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII was most clear about the nature of the "new theology:"
Disagreement and error among men on moral and religious matters have always been a cause of profound sorrow to all good men, but above all to the true and loyal sons of the Church, especially today, when we see the principles of Christian culture being attacked on all sides.
It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
It is for this reason that divine revelation must be considered morally necessary so that those religious and moral truths which are not of their nature beyond the reach of reason in the present condition of the human race, may be known by all men readily with a firm certainty and with freedom from all error.
Furthermore the human intelligence sometimes experiences difficulties in forming a judgment about the credibility of the Catholic faith, notwithstanding the many wonderful external signs God has given, which are sufficient to prove with certitude by the natural light of reason alone the divine origin of the Christian religion. For man can, whether from prejudice or passion or bad faith, refuse and resist not only the evidence of the external proofs that are available, but also the impulses of actual grace.
If anyone examines the state of affairs outside the Christian fold, he will easily discover the principal trends that not a few learned men are following. Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution. Communists gladly subscribed to this opinion so that, when the souls of men have been deprived of every idea of a personal God, they may the more efficaciously defend and propagate their dialectical materialism.
Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences.
There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man's life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.
In all this confusion of opinion it is consolation to Us to see former adherents of rationalism today frequently desiring to return to the fountain of divinely communicated truth, and to acknowledge and profess the word of God as contained in Sacred Scripture as the foundation of religious teaching. But at the same time it is a matter of regret that not a few of these, the more firmly they accept the word of God, so much the more do they diminish the value of human reason, and the more they exalt the authority of God the Revealer, the more severely do they spurn the teaching office of the Church, which has been instituted by Christ, Our Lord, to preserve and interpret divine revelation. This attitude is not only plainly at variance with Holy Scripture, but is shown to be false by experience also. For often those who disagree with the true Church complain openly of their disagreement in matters of dogma and thus unwillingly bear witness to the necessity of a living Teaching Authority.
Now Catholic theologians and philosophers, whose grave duty it is to defend natural and supernatural truth and instill it in the hearts of men, cannot afford to ignore or neglect these more or less erroneous opinions. Rather they must come to understand these same theories well, both because diseases are not properly treated unless they are rightly diagnosed, and because sometimes even in these false theories a certain amount of truth is contained, and, finally because these theories provoke more subtle discussion and evaluation of philosophical and theological truths.
Pope Pius XII's description above applies very neatly to Joseph Ratzinger's Principles of Catholic Theology, where articles contained in the Deposit of Faith are analyzed frequently of what is said to be their historical context ("Western" and "Eastern" "traditions") rather than as immutable truths whose meaning can never change over the course of time and/or to suit the "needs" of the mythical entity known as "modern" man, to whom the Gospel message must be tailored in order to make it "relevant" to him. Although much space on this site has been devoted to demonstrating Joseph Ratzinger's absolute and unwavering commitment to a concept of the evolutionary, transitory nature of the meaning of dogmatic truth, a commitment that he has demonstrated as "Benedict XVI" and is dismissed or minimized only by fools or those who have become blinded by the trap posed by Summorum Pontificum, it is necessary to consider the simple fact that Ratzinger's views on the nature of dogmatic stand just as much condemned in Humani Generis as they are in Pascendi Dominci Gregis:
If philosophers and theologians strive only to derive such profit from the careful examination of these doctrines, there would be no reason for any intervention by the Teaching Authority of the Church. However, although We know that Catholic teachers generally avoid these errors, it is apparent, however, that some today, as in apostolic times, desirous of novelty, and fearing to be considered ignorant of recent scientific findings try to withdraw themselves from the sacred Teaching Authority and are accordingly in danger of gradually departing from revealed truth and of drawing others along with them into error.
Another danger is perceived which is all the more serious because it is more concealed beneath the mask of virtue. There are many who, deploring disagreement among men and intellectual confusion, through an imprudent zeal for souls, are urged by a great and ardent desire to do away with the barrier that divides good and honest men; these advocate an "eirenism" according to which, by setting aside the questions which divide men, they aim not only at joining forces to repel the attacks of atheism, but also at reconciling things opposed to one another in the field of dogma. And as in former times some questioned whether the traditional apologetics of the Church did not constitute an obstacle rather than a help to the winning of souls for Christ, so today some are presumptive enough to question seriously whether theology and theological methods, such as with the approval of ecclesiastical authority are found in our schools, should not only be perfected, but also completely reformed, in order to promote the more efficacious propagation of the kingdom of Christ everywhere throughout the world among men of every culture and religious opinion.
Now if these only aimed at adapting ecclesiastical teaching and methods to modern conditions and requirements, through the introduction of some new explanations, there would be scarcely any reason for alarm. But some through enthusiasm for an imprudent "eirenism" seem to consider as an obstacle to the restoration of fraternal union, things founded on the laws and principles given by Christ and likewise on institutions founded by Him, or which are the defense and support of the integrity of the faith, and the removal of which would bring about the union of all, but only to their destruction.
These new opinions, whether they originate from a reprehensible desire of novelty or from a laudable motive, are not always advanced in the same degree, with equal clarity nor in the same terms, nor always with unanimous agreement of their authors. Theories that today are put forward rather covertly by some, not without cautions and distinctions, tomorrow are openly and without moderation proclaimed by others more audacious, causing scandal to many, especially among the young clergy and to the detriment of ecclesiastical authority. Though they are usually more cautious in their published works, they express themselves more openly in their writings intended for private circulation and in conferences and lectures. Moreover, these opinions are disseminated not only among members of the clergy and in seminaries and religious institutions, but also among the laity, and especially among those who are engaged in teaching youth.
In theology some want to reduce to a minimum the meaning of dogmas; and to free dogma itself from terminology long established in the Church and from philosophical concepts held by Catholic teachers, to bring about a return in the explanation of Catholic doctrine to the way of speaking used in Holy Scripture and by the Fathers of the Church. They cherish the hope that when dogma is stripped of the elements which they hold to be extrinsic to divine revelation, it will compare advantageously with the dogmatic opinions of those who are separated from the unity of the Church and that in this way they will gradually arrive at a mutual assimilation of Catholic dogma with the tenets of the dissidents.
Moreover they assert that when Catholic doctrine has been reduced to this condition, a way will be found to satisfy modern needs, that will permit of dogma being expressed also by the concepts of modern philosophy, whether of immanentism or idealism or existentialism or any other system. Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
It is evident from what We have already said, that such tentatives not only lead to what they call dogmatic relativism, but that they actually contain it. The contempt of doctrine commonly taught and of the terms in which it is expressed strongly favor it. Everyone is aware that the terminology employed in the schools and even that used by the Teaching Authority of the Church itself is capable of being perfected and polished; and we know also that the Church itself has not always used the same terms in the same way. It is also manifest that the Church cannot be bound to every system of philosophy that has existed for a short space of time. Nevertheless, the things that have been composed through common effort by Catholic teachers over the course of the centuries to bring about some understanding of dogma are certainly not based on any such weak foundation. These things are based on principles and notions deduced from a true knowledge of created things. In the process of deducing, this knowledge, like a star, gave enlightenment to the human mind through the Church. Hence it is not astonishing that some of these notions have not only been used by the Oecumenical Councils, but even sanctioned by them, so that it is wrong to depart from them.
Hence to neglect, or to reject, or to devalue so many and such great resources which have been conceived, expressed and perfected so often by the age-old work of men endowed with no common talent and holiness, working under the vigilant supervision of the holy magisterium and with the light and leadership of the Holy Ghost in order to state the truths of the faith ever more accurately, to do this so that these things may be replaced by conjectural notions and by some formless and unstable tenets of a new philosophy, tenets which, like the flowers of the field, are in existence today and die tomorrow; this is supreme imprudence and something that would make dogma itself a reed shaken by the wind. The contempt for terms and notions habitually used by scholastic theologians leads of itself to the weakening of what they call speculative theology, a discipline which these men consider devoid of true certitude because it is based on theological reasoning.
It is necessary once again to point out how these just-quoted passages from Humani Generis with Joseph Ratzinger's defiant--and there is no other word to describe his approach to those papal teachings he does not "like"--embrace of the very approach condemned by the Pontiff who was reigning when he was in seminary and then ordained to the priesthood:
The text [of the Second Vatican Council] also presents the various forms of bonds that rise from the different degrees of magisterial teaching. It affirms -- perhaps for the first time with this clarity -- that there are decisions of the Magisterium that cannot be a last word on the matter as such, but are, in a substantial fixation of the problem, above all an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of provisional disposition. Its nucleus remains valid, but the particulars, which the circumstances of the times have influenced, may need further ramifications.
“In this regard, one may think of the declarations of Popes in the last century about religious liberty, as well as the anti-Modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, above all, the decisions of the Biblical Commission of the time. As a cry of alarm in the face of hasty and superficial adaptations, they will remain fully justified. A personage such as Johann Baptist Metz said, for example, that the Church's anti-Modernist decisions render the great service of preserving her from immersion in the liberal-bourgeois world. But in the details of the determinations they contain, they become obsolete after having fulfilled their pastoral mission at the proper moment.” (L'Osservatore Romano, July 2, 1990)
It is precisely in this combination of continuity and discontinuity at different levels that the very nature of true reform consists. In this process of innovation in continuity we must learn to understand more practically than before that the Church's decisions on contingent matters - for example, certain practical forms of liberalism or a free interpretation of the Bible - should necessarily be contingent themselves, precisely because they refer to a specific reality that is changeable in itself. It was necessary to learn to recognize that in these decisions it is only the principles that express the permanent aspect, since they remain as an undercurrent, motivating decisions from within.
On the other hand, not so permanent are the practical forms that depend on the historical situation and are therefore subject to change. (Benedict XVI, Christmas Address to Curia, December 22, 2005.)
Once again, just consider how Joseph Ratzinger's Modernist views stand condemned by the authority of a Supreme Pontiff:
Some more audacious affirm that this can and must be done, because they hold that the mysteries of faith are never expressed by truly adequate concepts but only by approximate and ever changeable notions, in which the truth is to some extent expressed, but is necessarily distorted. Wherefore they do not consider it absurd, but altogether necessary, that theology should substitute new concepts in place of the old ones in keeping with the various philosophies which in the course of time it uses as its instruments, so that it should give human expression to divine truths in various ways which are even somewhat opposed, but still equivalent, as they say. They add that the history of dogmas consists in the reporting of the various forms in which revealed truth has been clothed, forms that have succeeded one another in accordance with the different teachings and opinions that have arisen over the course of the centuries.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI does not consider himself bound by past encyclical letters whose "particulars" have become "obsolete" over the course of time, showing himself to be defiant yet again of Pope Pius XII's Humani Generis:
What is expounded in the Encyclical Letters of the Roman Pontiffs concerning the nature and constitution of the Church, is deliberately and habitually neglected by some with the idea of giving force to a certain vague notion which they profess to have found in the ancient Fathers, especially the Greeks. The Popes, they assert, do not wish to pass judgment on what is a matter of dispute among theologians, so recourse must be had to the early sources, and the recent constitutions and decrees of the Teaching Church must be explained from the writings of the ancients.
Although these things seem well said, still they are not free from error. It is true that Popes generally leave theologians free in those matters which are disputed in various ways by men of very high authority in this field; but history teaches that many matters that formerly were open to discussion, no longer now admit of discussion.
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.
Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI defies this all the time as he makes advertence again and again to Hans Urs von Balthasar and to Henri de Lubac and the disciple of Teilhard de Chardin, Abbe Paul Couturier, the founder of "spiritual ecumenism." How can anyone who claims that he is a defender of the Catholic Faith not realize that Joseph Ratzinger has in no way abjured any of this? How can anyone who claims that he is a defender of the Catholic Faith not admit publicly that Joseph Ratzinger has arrogantly defied the authority of the Catholic Church throughout his priesthood, up to and including the present time, and that he has broken his solemn oath to God Himself by promising that he would uphold The Oath Against Modernism to his dying breath?
Look at what Joseph Ratzinger had to swear to before he was ordained to the sub-diaconate and the diaconate and the priesthood:
Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical' misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. . . .
Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way. [Pope Saint Pius X, The Oath Against Modernism, September 1, 1910.]
Joseph Ratzinger has broken this solemn oath he made to God. How can anyone rational, sane, intellectually honest human being claim that his man, who does not believe that the Catholic Church has a mission to seek with urgency the unconditional conversion of all men to the Catholic Faith--stating quite categorically that he rejects the "theology of the return:--and who rejects the immutable Catholic doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, is any kind of friend of God and of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross? And as worthwhile as every effort to end surgical abortion under cover of law is, such efforts are going to fail time and time again if they do seek to move men and their nations to accept the Social Reign of Christ the King. Political ecumenism has not stopped surgical abortion. Neither will the false ecumenism of conciliarism do so.
One of the many reasons that I began to take seriously in December of 2005 the claims made by sedevacantists was Joseph Ratzinger's and conciliarsm's rejection of the Catholic doctrine concerning the necessity of the confessionally Catholic state and of the "religious liberty" guaranteed by a "healthy secularity." There is no place in the "new theology" for the Social Reign of Christ the King, a doctrine that is of the essence of Catholic Social Teaching and from which no Catholic may dissent, as Pope Pius XI made clear in Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, December 23, 1922, and as Pope Pius XII reiterated in Ad Apostolorum Principis, June 29, 1958. To reject the immutable doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King is to reject the truth that the entirety of personal and social order is dependent upon Catholicism, that it and it alone is the sole means of personal salvation and the right ordering of public policy and popular culture. And anyone who rejects the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King, daring to exalt the hideous men who founded the modern anti-Incarnational, naturalistic, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian civil state, is a friend of the devil and of all of his minions in Hell, not of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Indeed, such a person is commanding enemy of the Catholic Faith.
Well, consider the writing of the late Louis-Edouard-François-Desiré Cardinal Pie, Bishop of Poitiers, France, from 1849 to 1880, who wrote on the Social Kingship of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Catholic Action Resource Center, which exists to promote the Social Reign of Christ the King, has published Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, translated by Mr. Daniel Leonardi (please click on the link for ordering information for this book and that of Monsignor Henri Delassus's Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy), based upon Father Theotime de St. Just's The King of Christ, According to Cardinal Pie of Poitiers.
A few excerpts from this most important book, which demonstrate that the work being done on this site has been done in the past (indeed, Cardinal Pie's writing served as the inspiration for the work of Father Denis Fahey in his own defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King) will illustrate the simple fact that to oppose the Social Reign of Christ the King, either by indifference or by an active embrace of naturalistic philosophies and systems that reject the confessionally Catholic state as part of the Deposit of Faith that binds the consciences of all men in all circumstances at all times, is to support the devil. There is no middle ground all.
Starting with "friends, allies and collaborators" and Cardinal Pie's, Mr. Leonardi quotes a few prelates in France who were inspired by Cardinal Pie's work, citing in the first place a Monsignor Baunard on the Social Reign of Christ the King:
"If France were to revert to paganism, it would not be of her own accord, but rather she would be placed under a crushing depression beneath the weight of the State without God, of the school without God, of the press without God ...It would not be the decline of faith through a natural degeneration, but the violent uprooting of souls and, above all, of the souls of children. The enemy's goal consists in destroying the seeds of the "faith" (Un Siecle de l'Englise de France, p. 500, cited in Fr. de Just's book, p. 59).
"The duty of every legislator is to turn his glance towards Jesus Christ towards this Great Model Who descended toward us through love, and to take this as the soul and form of his work. To this divine ideal is opposed another ideal according to which people would be governed by themselves, which is to fall into a ridiculous Manicheanism. Are there, then, two gods, the one who teaches dogma, the other who teaches law? The first, ruling over the intellect ... the other the absolute master of human wills ... the first believes in the beauty of the soul, but is incapable of overflowing upon exterior things, upon the institutions of civil order ... the other, the true Father of civilization and of the greatness of peoples. The division is absurd; for, it is only one God Who must reign in the churches and in the city, in the privacy of the soul and in the broad daylight of public life" (G. Breton, Un eveque d'autrefois, Msgr. Bereaud, eveque de Tulle, p. 386-7, de St. Just., p. 123.)
"Recent events have not been the result of that state of things which actually existed in his [Card. Pie's] time; it is but the development of principles, the consequences and outcome of which he had foreseen with a rare insight; the result of institutions, of opinions, of doctrines which he had not ceased to combat throughout the whole course of his career" (Eulogy to Card. Pie by Card. Billot; de St. Just, p. 15.)
"He [Charlemagne] had so great a love for [the Holy Roman Catholic Church] that the principal article of his final testament was to recommend to his successors the defense the Church of St. Peter as the precious heritage of his household, which he had received from his father and from his grandfather and which he wished to leave his children . . . He said to one of his descendants that 'when the Church imposes a punishment to be borne, he should endure the yoke rather than breaking communion with Her'" (Msgr. Bossuet, Sermon sur l'Unite de l'Eglise, T. 9., p. 613; de St. Just, p. 173.)
"Christ does not reign, if His Church is not Mistress, if the people cease in rendering to Jesus Christ, to His Doctrine, to His law, a national homage" (Bossuet, Homily to Psalm 2; de St. Just, p. 140.)
"It is possible ... to be rid of the current ways for the regulation of States and of societies; possible,in fine, to attack at its source the principles of the Revolution.
"[The integrally Catholic President of Ecuador] Garcia Moreno was in fact in the midst of unparalleled difficulties: the enemy outside, and inside a disorganized army; a magistrate without traditions and without principles; a clergy in revolt, no longer recognizing the laws of the hierarchy; religious orders having no other rule than license; all parties being brought further down by liberal Catholicism; and finally for the advantage of the elements of disorder, the Freemasons were everywhere. Such a project would have been impossible had Garcia Moreno not refused to give in and, to his eternal glory, he succeeded.
"From the human and common aspect of history, Garcia Moreno must incontestably have his place among the greatest names. His invincible courage in danger, his energy in the face of obstacles, the sagacity of his insights for organization and for comforting, his prodigious talents, unheard of success, indomitable force of character, his glory, finally,in combat, having no equal nor being surpassed by the most valiant warrior and the most astonishing kind of heroes. yet that was not his true claim to the world's admiration . . . the inspiration of his noble nature. He would be Catholic and would love the Church, the infallible guardian of truth. Hence, he knew through the word of the Divine Master that truth alone would save the world, societies no less than individuals. This is why he wanted to make Catholic truth the invariable and absolute rule of his conduct in private life as well as in personal life. This is the true characteristic trait of Garcia Moreno.
"Therefore, this life of his demonstrates very completely that the Christian State is not a Utopia, that we still have the power to demand a government where Christ is King and the Church is acknowledged as Queen. The death of Garcia Moreno did not destroy this conclusion; rather it afforded the heads of governments a great lesson, in their understanding that authority is not solely a right of honors, but a duty imposed by God to be known, embraced and accomplished despite the contradictions and threats one must suffer in life. A society is happy when God gives to it men who are of this character" (Dom Charles Couturier, abbe de Solesme. Lettre au P. Berthe, p 18 et 19; de St. Just, pp. 174-175.)
"The social reign of the Heart of Jesus is God in His place in the reason, in the conscience, in the heart and in the public life of man; the social reign of Satan, is God excluded from religion, from the conscience, from the heart and from the public life of man; it is humanity laicized and adoring itself.
"There is no middle ground; one must choose. The liberals, the liberals who say to themselves that they are and believe themselves to be Catholic, do not want to choose; they repudiate the social reign of the Heart of Jesus, they accept the social reign of Satan. Despite their verbal protestations, their work is founded on Freemasonry; they are of the party of Satan against the Heart of Jesus" (Canon Gaudeau, La Maison actuelle de Sainte Marguerite Marie, p. 25, de St. Just, pg. 201.) [Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, Catholic Action Resource Center, Orlando, Florida, October, 2007, pp. 5-8.]
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, all of conciliarism's great protestations against abortion, which are fine as far as they go, came to nought time and time again because they are not founded in right principles, in a firm desire to seek the unconditional conversion of those outside of the Catholic Church to her maternal bosom nor in a firm desire to at least plant the seeds for the restoration of the confessionally Catholic civil state. No one can adduce any evidence whatsoever to even suggest remotely that the restoration of the confessionally Catholic civil state is one of the goals of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, whose "new theology" has no place for the Social Reign of Christ the King. Get lost in the trees if one wants to do so. Those who have not lost their minds must realize that efforts to oppose the evils of the day, including that of the taking of innocent preborn life, both by chemical and surgical means, must be founded in right principles and must seek to restore the Catholic City. The forces of evil associated with the modern civil state with which conciliarism has made its "reconciliation" are not going to be retarded by mere interdenominational efforts that do not seek to go to root causes and indeed reaffirm people in their adherence to false religions (or no religions at all).
Cardinal Pie himself wrote in this exact regard:
"So much as Christ does not reign over societies, that much does His influence over individuals remain superficial and precarious. If it is true that the work of the apostolate is, by definition, to bring about the conversion of individuals, and that it is not nations which will go to heaven, but souls, one by one, it must not, meanwhile, be forgotten that the individual lives profoundly joined in a social organization that has influence over him. If you attempt to convert individuals without wishing to Christianize their social institutions, your work remains frail. What you have built in the morning, others will reverse in the evening. Is it not this tact of God's enemies instructive to us? In seeking everyday to tear away the heart of the individual, they employ more effort in the pursuit of destroying social institutions. One single defeat for God in this area, is the disturbance of the faith, if not the ruin, in a great number of souls." (Selected Writings of Cardinal Pie, back side of the title page.)
Here, my friends, is a Nineteenth Century analysis of the world that is identical with the one I have been providing you on this site. You believe in the ability of naturalistic politics to "change the world," getting all enthused about libertarians who do not believe in the Social Reign of Christ the King and who believe that state governments may permit baby-killing under cover of law according to the "will" of the people in a particular state? This is what you believe? This is where you place your "only hope for America." Guess again. If you do not seek to Christianize social institutions, you see, "what you have built in the morning, others will reverse the evening," a perfect description of the futility of any enterprise founded on false premises, whether it be the modern civil state or the counterfeit church of conciliarism that is founded on the false premises of Modernism and its progeny, the "new theology."
Yes, get someone "good" elected one year and see that individual's policies, if they were ever truly "good" at all, reversed two or four or six or eight years later. This is not how the Divine Redeemer, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, wants us to view the world. He does not want us constantly spinning our wheels in futile exercises that are based upon false, naturalistic, anti-Incarnational and semi-Pelagian principles. He does not want us making any concessions to--or in invoking positively in any way a "new theology" that has been condemned in no uncertain terms by one of His true Sovereign Pontiffs. He wants us to defend His Sacred Rights as King of men and their nations without any delay and without any compromise.
Once again, let us turn to Cardinal Pie for inspiration in this regard:
"In fine, Fr. de St. Just concludes, "without fear of reprobating himself, the priest must insist upon teaching the social rights of Jesus Christ. To preach, without relaxing, the reign of God 'praedicare regunum Dei (proclaim the Kingdom of God), this is the first duty of the priest, even as it is the greatest need of the present epoch.'
"Msgr. Pie indicates to his priests the reasons for incessantly speaking out. It is necessary to preach the rights of Jesus Christ over society, because political naturalism which is opposed to it is always very much alive, extending day to day its ravages. The priest must never weary of preaching this doctrine, because naturalism will inevitably triumph if he does not oppose it incessantly.
" 'Do not reproach us,' Cardinal pie insists, 'for returning more often than not to this question of the rights of Jesus Christ over society; the responsibility of spiritual medicine, like that of the body, lasts as long as it takes to uproot [error]. Our many Saints and our many seers have traced for us the duty in this regard. The errors of the Donatists had a range incomparably less than these lamentable effects tests us. We are seeing, however, in reading the sermons of the holy Bishop of Hippo [St. Augustine], that we should not pass up an occasion to take them p again, almost daily, against these controversies. The sectarian spirit [analogous to the divisiveness of the Donatists] is eminently opinionated and stubborn; without regard to the more convincing answers, to the more decisive refutations, it imperturbably repeats the same common place banalities, reproduced invariably and without restraint. If the defenders of the truth, out of squeamishness, scruple against repeating, if the yare not renewing the blows, already a hundred times, against the lie, it [political naturalism] will remain master of the terrain' " (Fr. de St. Just, pp. 93-99, quoted in Selecting Writings of Cardinal Pie of Poitiers, p. 30.)
Any baptized Catholic who rejects the Social Reign of Christ the King is part of the problem in the world today, not part of the solution. As there is no place for Christ the King in the "new theology" of Joseph Ratzinger and his conciliarist friends, who will be forever spinning their wheels as they seek to oppose various social evils without insisting upon a return of Christendom, something that they do not believe as a matter of firmly held principle is at all necessary or even an immutable part of the Deposit Faith, I believe that it is plain to see that such men are part of the problem we face today, not any part of the solution whatsoever. You are either openly for Christ the King or you are for the devil. It is that simple.
We must, as always, rely upon Our Lady to help us in these perilous times to be defenders of the Social Reign of her Divine Son, Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to be ever steadfast in our refusal to cooperate in any way with the lies of the of Americanism and all other forms of political naturalism, which will be the subject of the next article to be posted on this site, most likely at some point tomorrow, Thursday, January 31, 2008, the Feast of Saint John Bosco, as attention is brought to bear on Monsignor Delassus's great work, Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy.
Isn't time to pray a Rosary now? Shouldn't we find time each day to pray as many Rosaries as the duties required by our states-in-life permit? Shouldn't we plant a few seeds as the consecrated slaves of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary for the restoration of Christendom, starting with the Enthronement of our homes to those Twin Hearts of matchless love?
The final victory belongs to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. May we be as assiduous as Francisco Marto was in the praying of his Rosaries every day. The soul we save might just be our own. The country we help to Catholicize might just be our own.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.
Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.
Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.
Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.
Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.
Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.
Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.
Saint Martina, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints